Scheuer On Radio Factor **Audio**

[Fields]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ZG8ohlZvE

Digg h ttp://www.digg.com/world_news/How_to_REALLY_win_the_War_on_Terror_an_expert_opin ion

[goldstandard]

Thanks.

[rexsolomon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ZG8ohlZvE

Easy to find now.

You got to the Youtube link first. Thanks Fields! I edited the other thread on the Scheuer audio to link to your post. With apologies.

[Fields]

You got to the Youtube link first. Thanks Fields! I edited the other thread on the Scheuer audio to link you your post. With apologies.

No apologies necessary we are all in this together. We just need everyone to hear interviews like this.

[FreeTraveler]

This was a great listen. Nice to hear somebody support the good doctor.

[Fields]

This was a great listen. Nice to hear somebody support the good doctor.

Not only that I bet in a Paul Administration Scheuer would be in his cabinet.

[tommyzDad]

Unbelievable: padded shackles, ergonomic chair, and beard-safe tape. Can you imagine these jellyfish running the fight during WW2?

[Give me liberty]

Ron paul knows his stuff :)


To bad the voters don't see that.

I guess they will learn the hard way.

[Geronimo]

h ttp://www.digg.com/world_news/How_to_REALLY_win_the_War_on_Terror_an_expert_opin ion

[lastnymleft]

We should all support this guy by buying his book, reading it, and then passing it on to others (preferably a neo-con) with the instruction to keep passing the book on.

This is an interview that can win a lot of support for Dr Paul - We must spread it FAR and WIDE!

[candidatecommentary]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ZG8ohlZvE
Michael keeps the public off-balance with numerous vectors during this this interview,
his role appears to be to create confusion about Iraq.

For example, Mike tells us Ron's understanding of Iraq trumps all the other candidates, that he understands the threat Americans live under and how to alleviate that threat. But then Michael goes on to say that he wants to take out Bin Laden more than the next guy, and that he'd be willing to stay in Iraq if the current administration was willing to win by inserting 500,000 troops there. WTF? Ron rightly wants to bring our troops home now. What is Michael talking about here?

Then Michael goes into the vector that we are in Iraq due to America's lack of energy self sufficiency....that our primary interest in Iraq is Oil. What crap, we have always controlled middle eastern oil. We're there to destroy their society and build one that we control from the top down.

Finally, he sends us down the road that our NSC is incompetent by telling us the story that NSC members supposedly spent an entire meeting focused on how best to bind Bin Laden once he was captured. The ultimate fallacy was his statement that we built an ergonomic chair and specially padded shackles for his capture....that we've become weak and "sissy-fied." So, here, Mike is trying to say that we are not pursuing them aggressively enough because our politicians are weak and stupid. This entire line of messaging is a blatantly false and intended to be another misdirection. Are we supposed to be over there or aren't we, Mike? If we go after them more aggressively, then how does that fit with your meme that they attacked us because we over there? Is the USA a nation of torture, or not? Finally, how does these themes align themselves with Ron's view that we should leave now?

His messages are inconsistent, which I believe is intentional...meant to confuse a public searching for logical answers to the USA's actions. Unfortunately, the more one listens to "experts," the more confused one gets. And Michael is helping confuse.

[Geronimo]

Michael keeps the public off-balance with numerous vectors during this this interview,
his role appears to be to create confusion about Iraq.

His messages are inconsistent, which I believe is intentional...meant to confuse a public searching for logical answers to the USA's actions. Unfortunately, the more one listens to "experts," the more confused one gets. And Michael is helping confuse.

I kind of get the same feeling.

[Fields]

Michael keeps the public off-balance with numerous vectors during this this interview,
his role appears to be to create confusion about Iraq.

For example, Mike tells us Ron's understanding of Iraq trumps all the other candidates, that he understands the threat Americans live under and how to alleviate that threat. But then Michael goes on to say that he wants to take out Bin Laden more than the next guy, and that he'd be willing to stay in Iraq if the current administration was willing to win by inserting 500,000 troops there. WTF? Ron rightly wants to bring our troops home now. What is Michael talking about here?

Then Michael goes into the vector that we are in Iraq due to America's lack of energy self sufficiency....that our primary interest in Iraq is Oil. What crap, we have always controlled middle eastern oil. We're there to destroy their society and build one that we control from the top down.

Finally, he sends us down the road that our NSC is incompetent by telling us the story that NSC members supposedly spent an entire meeting focused on how best to bind Bin Laden once he was captured. The ultimate fallacy was his statement that we built an ergonomic chair and specially padded shackles for his capture....that we've become weak and "sissy-fied." So, here, Mike is trying to say that we are not pursuing them aggressively enough because our politicians are weak and stupid. This entire line of messaging is a blatantly false and intended to be another misdirection. Are we supposed to be over there or aren't we, Mike? If we go after them more aggressively, then how does that fit with your meme that they attacked us because we over there? Is the USA a nation of torture, or not? Finally, how does these themes align themselves with Ron's view that we should leave now?

His messages are inconsistent, which I believe is intentional...meant to confuse a public searching for logical answers to the USA's actions. Unfortunately, the more one listens to "experts," the more confused one gets. And Michael is helping confuse.

You're missing his point. He's saying if we really want Iraq to be solved now you do what should have been done from the beginning and send in 500,000 troops and end it. If not then get the hell out of there.

Second your point of oil was proven by yourself. We do want to take down their society and control it. Why? For O-I-L.

The ergonomic chair remark was hyperbole. The actual truth of that part in the interview is in his book. It's about the tape and hurting Osamas beard.

Listen to the interview again.

[SeanEdwards]

Michael keeps the public off-balance with numerous vectors during this this interview,
his role appears to be to create confusion about Iraq.

For example, Mike tells us Ron's understanding of Iraq trumps all the other candidates, that he understands the threat Americans live under and how to alleviate that threat. But then Michael goes on to say that he wants to take out Bin Laden more than the next guy, and that he'd be willing to stay in Iraq if the current administration was willing to win by inserting 500,000 troops there. WTF? Ron rightly wants to bring our troops home now. What is Michael talking about here?



Scheuer is talking about dealing with the reality of armed conflict with a strategy designed to win quickly and end hostilities. A reality-based strategy, as opposed to the faith-based war planning that characterized the Iraq war.

This is really quite old strategic thinking, that goes at least as far back as Sun Tzu. It was more recently embodied by the Powell doctrine of the first US-Iraq war, where overwhelming force was brought to bear to quickly and decisively crush the opposition's will to resist. Paradoxicallly, the overwhelming application of force often leads to less overall destruction and death, than the half-assed strategy of trying to apply minimal force. This is also a doctrine recognized by Machiavelli. The prince, in Machiavelli's terms, should make punishment brief and overwhelming. And after dispensing the brief overwhelming shock, the prince should offer good things to the people over an extended period of time.



Then Michael goes into the vector that we are in Iraq due to America's lack of energy self sufficiency....that our primary interest in Iraq is Oil. What crap, we have always controlled middle eastern oil. We're there to destroy their society and build one that we control from the top down.


Which is ultimately a means to the end of controlling their oil resources.




Finally, he sends us down the road that our NSC is incompetent by telling us the story that NSC members supposedly spent an entire meeting focused on how best to bind Bin Laden once he was captured. The ultimate fallacy was his statement that we built an ergonomic chair and specially padded shackles for his capture....that we've become weak and "sissy-fied." So, here, Mike is trying to say that we are not pursuing them aggressively enough because our politicians are weak and stupid. This entire line of messaging is a blatantly false and intended to be another misdirection. Are we supposed to be over there or aren't we, Mike? If we go after them more aggressively, then how does that fit with your meme that they attacked us because we over there? Is the USA a nation of torture, or not? Finally, how does these themes align themselves with Ron's view that we should leave now?


I think he was commenting on the politically correct armchair quarterbacking of people who are safely in the rear. It's the same philosophy that tries to cloak our aggressive military actions in euphimisms of liberation and spreading democracy.

When the US went to war with Japan in WW2, there was none of this bogus posturing to conceal the reality of what we were doing. We went over there to kill lots and lots of japs. There was a fundamental honesty about what we did then, that is blatantly lacking in modern conflicts. We should not be entering into a shooting war, unless we really are prepared to commit mass murder, which is what war is. Our modern leaders refuse to deal with that reality, and instead try to sell us on the idea of war where nobody gets hurt. Where only the bad guys are surgically targeted by smart missiles.

This entire doctrine is flawed from the root. War is terror. You win wars by terrorizing the enemy. You don't win wars by communicating to the "enemy" that you care about their well-being. You win by callously slaughtering them indiscriminately. That's why war is a terrible thing that should always be avoided if at all possible. It is a dehumanizing hell. Our current leaders want to lead us into this hell, while pretending it is really compassionate and caring, with padded hand-cuffs and ergonomic chairs.



His messages are inconsistent, which I believe is intentional...meant to confuse a public searching for logical answers to the USA's actions. Unfortunately, the more one listens to "experts," the more confused one gets. And Michael is helping confuse.

I don't think his message is inconsistent, I just think his message is something you find objectionable. Scheuer is dealing with the reality of deadly armed conflict without the feel-good cloak of modern liberality and respect for humanity nonsense. He is very Machiavellian in a way. It's an eminently logical position, but not obviously moral or ethical. The thing that may not be obvious on the surface, is that cruelty can be a kindness. When a surgeon amputates a gangrenous limb, it is a brutal assault on the flesh that maims, but it also saves a life. The compassionate doctor who turns away from the horror of sawing off a limb may in the end be doing more harm to the patient.

[Fields]

Good job Sean. I didn't feel like putting as much effort into that as you did. He only has 3 posts and is obviously either curious about RP or just stirring us up for fun.

[Fields]

Digg if you haven't yet.

[lastnymleft]

Good job Sean. I didn't feel like putting as much effort into that as you did. He only has 3 posts and is obviously either curious about RP or just stirring us up for fun.

I'd say give him the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that he has come from one of the other camps, where they are more supportive of war. Can you remember how hard it was for you to wake up? I felt physically ill for a week! We must be gentle with them. It's worth it, for once they wake up, they will never go back to sleep.

[Fields]

I'd say give him the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that he has come from one of the other camps, where they are more supportive of war. Can you remember how hard it was for you to wake up? I felt physically ill for a week! We must be gentle with them. It's worth it, for once they wake up, they will never go back to sleep.

I agree 100%. Didn't mean for it to come off like how it did.

[rexsolomon]

Come on people.
If you worked for Intelligence, would you lay all your cards on the table?
Get real - of course NOT!

______________

A terrorist insurgency is fought with spies - not the military.

Bring the troops home.

[Danny Molina]

It's funny how when there's a guest who says something like this Bill is always out of town.

[RSLudlum]

only 230 views???? What's the problem my fellow revolutionaries? This is a man debunking the Neo-Con foreign policy on Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor aka Neo-Con central.

Get this tube in the top videos!!

And keep this bumped!!

[RSLudlum]

Come on people.
If you worked for Intelligence, would you lay all your cards on the table?
Get real - of course NOT!

______________

A terrorist insurgency is fought with spies - not the military.

Bring the troops home.

Yes i understand your comment and can be quite a cynic myself but i do hold a sliver of hope that people in high position will strive to be patriotic. We do not hold a patent on patriotism.

[Fields]

bump.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Michael keeps the public off-balance with numerous vectors during this this interview,
his role appears to be to create confusion about Iraq.

For example, Mike tells us Ron's understanding of Iraq trumps all the other candidates, that he understands the threat Americans live under and how to alleviate that threat. But then Michael goes on to say that he wants to take out Bin Laden more than the next guy, and that he'd be willing to stay in Iraq if the current administration was willing to win by inserting 500,000 troops there. WTF? Ron rightly wants to bring our troops home now. What is Michael talking about here?

Then Michael goes into the vector that we are in Iraq due to America's lack of energy self sufficiency....that our primary interest in Iraq is Oil. What crap, we have always controlled middle eastern oil. We're there to destroy their society and build one that we control from the top down.

Finally, he sends us down the road that our NSC is incompetent by telling us the story that NSC members supposedly spent an entire meeting focused on how best to bind Bin Laden once he was captured. The ultimate fallacy was his statement that we built an ergonomic chair and specially padded shackles for his capture....that we've become weak and "sissy-fied." So, here, Mike is trying to say that we are not pursuing them aggressively enough because our politicians are weak and stupid. This entire line of messaging is a blatantly false and intended to be another misdirection. Are we supposed to be over there or aren't we, Mike? If we go after them more aggressively, then how does that fit with your meme that they attacked us because we over there? Is the USA a nation of torture, or not? Finally, how does these themes align themselves with Ron's view that we should leave now?

His messages are inconsistent, which I believe is intentional...meant to confuse a public searching for logical answers to the USA's actions. Unfortunately, the more one listens to "experts," the more confused one gets. And Michael is helping confuse.

candidatecommentary's comment here is spot on. Although I'm not sure why Clinton's former-rendition deviser Sheuer says the things he does. Maybe as one poster implied, he's not yet all the way down the path of following the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusions. Or maybe as another poster implied, he's still playing poker like a government spook.

Reactions such as poster SeanEdwards' response are clearly flawed:


Scheuer is talking about dealing with the reality of armed conflict with a strategy designed to win quickly and end hostilities. A reality-based strategy, as opposed to the faith-based war planning that characterized the Iraq war.

The reality of armed conflict is if you wipe out innocent people as a means to any end--good or bad--you are going to pay for it with blowback regardless of how much Machievellian shocking and aweful terror you utilize and regardless of how much princely good you offer the survivors.


This is really quite old strategic thinking, that goes at least as far back as Sun Tzu. It was more recently embodied by the Powell doctrine of the first US-Iraq war, where overwhelming force was brought to bear to quickly and decisively crush the opposition's will to resist. Paradoxicallly, the overwhelming application of force often leads to less overall destruction and death, than the half-assed strategy of trying to apply minimal force. This is also a doctrine recognized by Machiavelli. The prince, in Machiavelli's terms, should make punishment brief and overwhelming. And after dispensing the brief overwhelming shock, the prince should offer good things to the people over an extended period of time.

Case in point: the fire-bombings of Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The murderous criminality that was in the hearts of the people of the U.S. who elected the politicians who executed this terror campaign didn't just disappear after the surviving Germans and Japanese accepted Standard Oil of New York's "offer of good things" (to use SeanEdwards' phrase). Thus, 60 years later we see payback is all around and increasing exponentially--and I'm not just talking about the compound interest on the trillions of dollars of debt taken on to ride the tiger of military Keyensianism.


When the US went to war with Japan in WW2, there was none of this bogus posturing to conceal the reality of what we were doing. We went over there to kill lots and lots of japs. There was a fundamental honesty about what we did then, that is blatantly lacking in modern conflicts. We should not be entering into a shooting war, unless we really are prepared to commit mass murder, which is what war is. Our modern leaders refuse to deal with that reality, and instead try to sell us on the idea of war where nobody gets hurt. Where only the bad guys are surgically targeted by smart missiles.

Whether the U.S. kills 100s of thousands of Japanese "honestly" in a few seconds or millions of Viet Namese and Iraqis "dishonestly" over a period of years it matters not. The blowback costs have been paid, continue to be paid, and the accrued interest for the war crimes since 1945 WILL be paid. The only people who can forgive this debt are the victims and their surviving families.


The thing that may not be obvious on the surface, is that cruelty can be a kindness. When a surgeon amputates a gangrenous limb, it is a brutal assault on the flesh that maims, but it also saves a life.
When the murderous U.S. empire collapses completely, only then will its citizens learn that they were not compassionate surgeons ministering to the sick, but in fact were vile evil thieving doctors of death.


He's saying if we really want Iraq to be solved now you do what should have been done from the beginning and send in 500,000 troops and end it. If not then get the hell out of there.

Do you mean solved the way they solved Viet Nam? In that case 500,000 imperial legionaires killed 2 or 3 times the million that 250,000 imperial legionaires (counting the mercenaries) have killed in Iraq. The legionaires certainly did "get the hell out of there", but they'll be back as they learned nothing.

You gotta wonder why Sheuer and others who believe in this "just get the job done" myth don't openly call for nukings like in Japan. They've already firebombed cities like Falluja several times, so they've equaled some of the war crimes of WWII ("the good war"). They've sown d.u. radiation into the soil, so they've equaled the nukings of WWII in that sense. But its curious that they call for a surge to 500,000 legionaires instead of nuclear terrorism--which one would expect them to call for if one follows the reasoning of their Machiavellian/Sun Tzuian logic.

I guess its only a few talk radio hosts such as Michael Savage who have reached this level of Machiavellian/Sun Tzuian insight. Incidentally, I love it when I encounter that certain "turn 'em into a glass parking ot" specimen of Boobus Americanus. I always remind them, that they might want to evacuate their 250,000 legionaires from the area first!

[affa]

Good job Sean. I didn't feel like putting as much effort into that as you did. He only has 3 posts and is obviously either curious about RP or just stirring us up for fun.

His first post was about the anti-terrorist and also felt like a misrepresentation of the content of the video (for example, he was claiming the Anti-terrorist was advocating violence) in a way intended to make the casual reader not trust the person (the anti-terrorist, or, in this case, Scheuer). I rebutted his post in the other thread. The second I saw his post here I recognized his name and was not surprised at all that he was spreading the meme that Scheuer was some sort of devious provocateur.

His second post seemed ok. Kind of soon to tell, but candidatecommentary is definitely worth keeping an eye on.

[affa]

Whether the U.S. kills 100s of thousands of Japanese "honestly" in a few seconds or millions of Viet Namese and Iraqis "dishonestly" over a period of years it matters not. The blowback costs have been paid, continue to be paid, and the accrued interest for the war crimes since 1945 WILL be paid. The only people who can forgive this debt are the victims and their surviving families.

QFT.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, though disagree with the post you were agreeing with. Heh.

[SeanEdwards]

When the murderous U.S. empire collapses completely, only then will its citizens learn that they were not compassionate surgeons ministering to the sick, but in fact were vile evil thieving doctors of death.


This is a complex issue, and smarter people than I have struggled with it, probably for all of human history.

It all boils down to, "what is the right thing to do?"

The answer to that question varies depending on the circumstances, the goals of the person answering the question, any number of factors.

Curtis LeMay said himself that if the allies had lost WW2, that he and others would likely be convicted as war criminals. He knew that, considered in isolation, incinerating hundreds of thousands of human beings was wrong. But nothing can be considered in isolation like that. Every choice has consequences, and refusing to make a choice has consequences.

The America military could have spared all those Japanese cities, but they believed the price of that mercy would be more American families getting to bury their children. So what's the right choice? Spare the "enemy" at the price of your "friends" blood?

I don't think there's ever any easy pat answers to these questions, as you seem to imply. Very little in life is so easily divided into right and wrong camps.

There is an interesting thought experiment about morality that highlights this quandry. You are at a train switching location, where you can redirect an oncoming train onto a different track. there is an out of control train coming down the track. If it stays on it's current course, it will run over 5 people working on the rails, killing them all. However, if you flip the switch, you can divert the train onto a siding where only one person is working who will be killed.

Do you flip the switch and condem a person to death? Or do you do nothing, and let the train kill five people?

Most people when posed this question respond that they would throw the switch.

Then the researchers modified the question. Instead of a switch, you are standing on a bridge over the track. There is a fat guy standing there with you, a guy fat enough to stop the train before it hits the five workers, but only if you push him off the bridge to land in front of the train. Do you push the guy off the bridge, in order to save the five workers?

Most people given this scenario respond that they would not push the fat guy in front of the train. But why? Is there fundamentally any difference in these scenarios? In both cases, you're choosing between one life or five. Choosing to act, or to not act.



You gotta wonder why Sheuer and others who believe in this "just get the job done" myth don't openly call for nukings like in Japan.


I suspect it's because nuclear weapons are considered a special catagory of weapons, and that their use would be an escalation that would open the floodgates for more nuclear attacks. I've seen video where Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector) makes the point that if the US uses a nuke in the middle east, that the only way that genie goes back in the bottle is after some muslims take out an American city in the same way. That seems like a plausible argument to me.



They've already firebombed cities like Falluja several times, so they've equaled some of the war crimes of WWII ("the good war"). They've sown d.u. radiation into the soil, so they've equaled the nukings of WWII in that sense.


Perhaps in your opinion, but that is not a universally accepted opinion.



But its curious that they call for a surge to 500,000 legionaires instead of nuclear terrorism--which one would expect them to call for if one follows the reasoning of their Machiavellian/Sun Tzuian logic.


No, I think they're arguing that if you care enough to start a war, and embark on the project of mass indiscriminate murder, then you should care enough to get the job done and over with as quickly as possible, and with minimal loss of "friendly" lives. I think they're arguing that you should not start a shooting war unless you really mean to start a shooting war, along with all that it implies.



I guess its only a few talk radio hosts such as Michael Savage who have reached this level of Machiavellian/Sun Tzuian insight.


Savage is a buffoon who does not belong in the same sentence with great classical thinkers like Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.



Incidentally, I love it when I encounter that certain "turn 'em into a glass parking ot" specimen of Boobus Americanus. I always remind them, that they might want to evacuate their 250,000 legionaires from the area first!

:rolleyes:

That's a pretty stupid comment. Easily as stupid as anything I've heard come out of Michael (aka Savage) Wiener's mouth. What are you saying, that we can't manage to not nuke our own military? Or that these "boobus americanus" don't know that there are U.S. troops in the area?

You know what I love? Fools trying to apply their morality and rules to war, which is fundamentally, an amoral breakdown of the rules of civilization in the first place.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

This is a complex issue, and smarter people than I have struggled with it, probably for all of human history....

Curtis LeMay said himself that if the allies had lost WW2, that he and others would likely be convicted as war criminals.

Thanks for your reply Sean.

If Curtis "Bomb 'em back to the stone age" LeMay can figure out that he is a war criminal, then how complex can it be? This is a simple issue of honesty. LeMay just made what Michael Kinsley calls a political gaffe: when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. (Incidentally, I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Wallace/LeMay in 1968 in my 5th grade class--so I've got blood on my hands too. I post on these issues as part of my repentence for my past criminal behavior.)


The America military could have spared all those Japanese cities, but they believed the price of that mercy would be more American families getting to bury their children.

This is a false choice based on the premise that the U.S of American government had any business taking over the government of and occupying the country of Japan, let alone refusing to go home once they achieved the objective of restoring and expanding their empire and setting up puppet governments across the entire Pacific, the Phillipines, and into southeast Asia.

The notion that such a "job" can be "gotten done" and then the imperial job-doers can be brought back home and returned to normalcy is nonsensical--as though expanding a world empire across the Pacific ocean can be compared to George Washington going back to his farm after he kicked out the British. No, its more like when George Washington and Alexander Hamilton returned back to their new imperial capitol in Philadelphia only after they expanded the U.S. Treasury's occupying army into the Appalachian mountains against the Whiskey Patriots.


There is an interesting thought experiment about morality...

This is as relevant as those questions they ask the Pres. candidates at the debates:

Brit Hume--looking as usual seriously like he's about to throw up: "Mr. Paul, The Riddler (Frank Gorshen) has just sent another clue to Commissioner Gordon threatening that he will blow up Gotham City unless you torture 10 kittens...What do you do, sir??"


I think they're arguing that if you care enough to start a war, and embark on the project of mass indiscriminate murder, then you should care enough to get the job done and over with as quickly as possible,and with minimal loss of "friendly" lives.

Maybe candidatecommentary has undercut this false premise better than I that these government mega-projects known as "wars" are something that were ever intended to be "jobs" that can be "started" and ever gotten "done" let alone quickly. Candidatecommentary wrote:


What crap, we have always controlled middle eastern oil. We're there to destroy their society and build one that we control from the top down.

The only possible object of this 18 year long project of besiegement, bombing, and occupation of Iraq was to knock down the most advanced and liberal middle eastern society and keep it in a state of free-fire zone anarchy.

Ron Paul was the only candidate that I ever heard point out that the U.S. has built 14 mega-bases in Iraq to last 100 years. When McCain told RP that he ate dinner with the soldiers in (what is now 90% ethnically cleansed) Baghdad and the soldiers told McCain to tell Ron Paul to let them finish the job and succeed, I wish Ron Paul would have demanded that McCain define "success" and then proven to him that the ONLY possible object of the mission in Iraq or any other front in the U.S.'s crumbling empire is permanent occupation and subjugation. That is the only possible reason that the U.S. Congress appropriated 100s of billions of dollars for Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrup Grumman to build those 14 permanently "enduring" mega-bases.


That's a pretty stupid comment. Easily as stupid as anything I've heard come out of Michael (aka Savage) Wiener's mouth. Pointing out to people crazed and evil enough to want to nuke other people half way around the world and telling them to calm down and not to shoot themselves in the foot (not that I give a rat's ass about their "feet") is stupid?


What are you saying, that we can't manage to not nuke our own military? Or that these "boobus americanus" don't know that there are U.S. troops in the area? Have you ever heard of Gulf War syndrome? Agent Orange? Have you ever seen these Doctor Strangegloves in their fits of rage?


You know what I love? Fools trying to apply their morality and rules to war, which is fundamentally, an amoral breakdown of the rules of civilization in the first place.

Is Ron Paul a fool when he talks about Just War theory? Were the anti-federalists foolish moralists for managing to prohibit standing armies in all of the 1776 state constitutions and limit the raising of temporary non-standing federal armies to only what were supposed to be rare 2 year appropriations in the federal constitution (article 1, section 8) and declared that ONLY a people's militia--not a government army--is a safe defense of a free state?

[lastnymleft]

Curtis LeMay said himself that if the allies had lost WW2, that he and others would likely be convicted as war criminals. He knew that, considered in isolation, incinerating hundreds of thousands of human beings was wrong. But nothing can be considered in isolation like that. Every choice has consequences, and refusing to make a choice has consequences.

You seem to be somewhat morally flexible regarding the lives of citizens of OTHER nations. But how do you rate FDR for deliberately sacrificing >2,400 AMERICAN soldiers at Peal Harbor, to claim the status of victim, in order to get the US into a war the country didn't want?

(And for anybody that isn't already aware of that little piece of treason: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html )

[chinaCat]

On the TV factor Bill had Tony snow on the other day and at the end of the interview announced that Tony will be the new permant fill-in when they need one. I wonder why...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FkTrHXrftek

Its at the end of the video.

[apc3161]

You guys don't have to break up digg links.


Stop the "h ttp" crap.

[Geronimo]

I don't care what anyone says. I break digg links.