← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 8069 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2003-07-12
2003-07-12 12:11 | User Profile
[url=http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum.html]http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum.html[/url]
JULY 11, 2003 FRI Updated 4:00am CST PRISON PLANET.com Analysis
............................................................... PRISON PLANET.com Copyright é 2002-2003 Alex Jones All rights reserved.
All We Are Here Is Sitting Ducks
Tom Chittum July 11 2003
"All we are here is ... sitting ducks." That's what Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard told the Washington Post as reported in its July 1, 2003, edition in a story entitled, "Mistrust Mixes With Misery In Heat of Baghdad Police Tom Chittum welcomes your comments at t.chittum@worldnet.att.net. Disclaimer: This column appears as would a syndicatecd column in a newspaper. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Alex Jones. E Mail This Page
...............................................................
Post - Frustrated Reservists See a Mission Impossible." Well Quack! Quack! Quack! It seems we have another unhappy Daffy who's got some problem with getting his brains blown out. Sgt. Pollard had better put a cork in his big fat bill if he knows what's good for him. Our Beloved Emperor Bonehead the II has spoken - "Bring 'em on!" Well, I guess the ragheads heard him because they've been bushwhacking and shooting up our sitting-duck patrols around the clock ever since.
I will now summarize why we will lose in Iraq. The American military is a bad military because it can not take casualties. When the number of Americans killed per day in Iraq reaches a certain level, our military will collapse to the point that they will not be able to defend themselves and they will be butchered when their firebases are overrun. But total collapse is Act Two of this Langleywood Production. Right now we're still enjoying Act One, where the casualty rate is far lower and not yet high enough to drive our Glorious Imperial Legions back into their firebases. Just for fun, I'll guess our Glorious Imperial Legions will retreat into their firebases when the killed-per-day rate reaches 2. At that point, our firebases will be under siege and we'll either have to take it on the lam hanging onto the helicopter skids, or we'll have to nuke them to keep up the war fever.
I want to emphasize that there is nothing that our generals or political leaders can do that will fix this problem of our imperial military's inability to take casualties. Nothing, case closed. Hiring mercenaries won't work. The Axis of Looting (Britain, Israel and the USA) is scraping up a battalion here and a battalion there from Poland to Potsylvania, but these rent-a-goons will sell their gats to the ragheads to buy hash and hole up in their firebases and party like sensible fellows. Drafting Bubba, Jose and Leroy won't work either. All you'll get is more exploded 2nd Lieutenants. Recruiting Iraqis to take their places won't work. Finding Iraqis that meet our American standards is not the problem. Bremer and his pals will scrape up suitable recruits from the gutters outside child brothels and opium dens and such, but these fine fellows will either go over the hill when we issue them a gat, or they will slit the throats of their Green Beret advisors the minute Saddam puts a 1 Dinar bounty on them.
I've been listening to the establishment "military experts" parading across the tube. They are almost all retired officers feeding at the numerous, Washington-area establishment swill troughs. Whenever the subject of casualties comes up, they tippy toe around it. Typically, they say something to the effect that casualties will "effect morale adversely," or that casualties will "be politically sensitive with the voters." I have not heard a single one say what some of them must know full well, that we can not fight another Vietnam because the wheels will come off the machine when the casualties reach Vietnam levels. I don't think they anticipate Vietnam casualty levels, and I think they think our Glorious Imperial Legions can handle a sort of mini-Vietnam in terms of casualties.
I say the neocons and their Zionist military advisors that got us into this Roach Motel called Iraq are freaking idiots, and I say that our Glorious Imperial Legions will fold when the killed-in-action rate reaches 2 per day and stays there for ... say ... 2 years. The chicken stealing, camel shooting, oil siphoning, bully boy American military is only good for beating up 98-pound weaklings like Grenada and Panama. They are excellent at killing, but they are lousy at fighting. They are good at bombing from 30,000 feet, because that's just killing and does not involve any fighting because the aborigines can't shoot back. They are lousy at fighting, by which I mean any situation in which the aborigines can shoot back, because the American Army is nothing more than a bunch of thieving, looting barbarians, and they know it, and they aren't much inclined to risk their lives, especially when they aren't even getting their fair share of the loot. Mind you, I'm not saying they are cowards. They'll react pretty much the way the guys did in Vietnam. They'll fight like cornered rats, because that is exactly what they are. From the reports I've been getting, when they are 'bushed on one of the made-to-lose sitting-duck patrols, they hose down everything in the immediate vicinity with .50 caliber machineguns and cannon fire, and then they hose any and all survivors close up with their gats. That was good shooting, soldiers! Don't believe me? Check this out:
Rahad Klader, 30, who saw the incident from his window, recounts that after the tank had fired and the bus exploded, the Americans came up to the vehicle and emptied their machine-guns into whoever had survived.
The two main factors shaping the fighting in Iraq are the inability of our Glorious Imperial Legions to take casualties, and the fact that they are fighting a massive popular uprising by the Iraqi People who are willing to take casualties. Nothing can change the first factor, and short of nuking the Iraqis, nothing can change the second.
And just for fun, here are some "sitting duck" quotes.
We have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction, and our troops are now sitting ducks for any Arab with a gun or bomb who hates us, of which there are many.
Fortune Magazine said, ``Iraq, we win. What then? A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat ..... a prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation ..... could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists ..... All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.''
And here's what an Indian politician said when he heard that our Glorious Empire came begging for mercenaries to fight our wars.
"They're asking us now to become sitting ducks for Iraqi snipers in a war that was not of our making and in a war which does not serve any particular Indian interest,"
And here's what an American in Iraq said:
"You know, we're big, fat sitting ducks right here."
Here's an editorial from somewhere:
America has been on a go-it-alone binge that must end. While Bremer gets high marks, he needs massive infusions of support and the right mix of personnel. If he doesn't get it, we'll see increased frustration among Iraqis -- and reservists who are sitting ducks.
And another G.I. in Iraq said this:
"We're sitting ducks ... And there's nothing here worth dying for anymore."
And the Associated Press even quoted our own stooge as saying this:
The United States has been putting more troops into areas where the killings are taking place, but Chalabi said soldiers in their armored vehicles "are sitting ducks for terrorists."
And the neo-carpetbaggers have wised up to the situation, too:
"It's not nearly as safe as they said it was," said Brian Krause, vice president and senior blowout specialist for Houston-based Boots and Coots. "We're kind of sitting ducks out there."
Mark my words, entire units will mutiny. The national guard and reserve units will be the first to tell the brass to stuff it and just go on strike. Some of those national guard and reserve geezers are pushing sixty, and I've heard reports that some are dropping dead of heart attacks in the heat. The female "soldiers" are getting pregnant to get a ticket out, and you can bet the guys are shooting themselves in the feet for the same reason. Within six months it will be clear to everyone on the planet Earth that the Iraqi People will defeat the Axis of Looting. The Dollar will go south. It will be interesting to see what the boys at Langleywood come up with then. It might be "Osama Nukes Kansas" or "Mexicans Burn Los Angeles." Whatever circus they put on in the media Coliseum it had better be good because there isn't going to be enough bread for all the peasants. Previously by this author: Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Terrorists Destroy National Irony Supply
======================================================== Genghis W. Bush will stay the course in Iraq, no matter how many young Americans are wasted.
-Z-
2003-07-12 13:22 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jul 12 2003, 09:02 * ** God, I realy enjoyed this article! Good show mate! :th:
BTW, heres a fitting article:
**Hit man stalks U.S. soldiers in Iraq
**
They call this guy "assassin". I would say it's a arab patriot doing his duty! **
I agree that there is not now and has not ever been a reason for the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iraq. I think that support of our troops means doing everything one can do to make sure they come home immediately if not sooner.
I think that your post- as I understand it- is a celebration of the targeting and death of American soldiers. I find this attitude repugnant and completely unacceptable. As you are purportedly a citizen of another country I would suggest that your approval and glee over the death of Americans- no matter how wrong their orders may be- are the thoughts of an enemy of the U.S. and its people.
This is no way to oppose the neoconservative foreign policy of the imperial U.S.; it is perhaps the most counterproductive form of "protest" possible. I suggest that you may be fully aware of this fact.
2003-07-12 15:14 | User Profile
The most significant difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Iraq resistance lacks a sponsor state that will provide the guerillas with weapons, training and logistics. The Vietcong had a safe sanctuary in North Vietnam and an endless supply of modern weapons from the Soviet Union. Fighting a long term guerilla war will be difficult for the Iraq resistance without such a sponsor.
2003-07-12 16:00 | User Profile
Just because I was born in a country whose citizens'll kill anything that moves, including their own fellow citizens, just because they're told to do so, doesn't make them my troops. If their defeat or elimination is what it takes to disempower the scumbags who currently rule over western civ, even as they destroy it, so be it.
2003-07-12 16:02 | User Profile
Ironically I believe Chittum stated on his Civil War 2 site that having a sympathetic sponsor state was a necessary condition to win a guerilla war. Chittum predicted that Mexico will play the part of the sponsor state when the Mexican Nationals in the Southwestern part of the USA start an open rebellion against Washington. In such a scenario Mexico will provide the necessary logistics to support the uprising. It was Chittumââ¬â¢s belief that having such a sponsor was a necessary key for success.
Currently, I donââ¬â¢t know what state is willing to organize and equip a long term Iraqi guerilla movement. Iran and Syria are quite aware that providing such assistance would probably result in an American invasion.
During the Vietnam War the Soviet Union provided a counter balance that restricted the options of the United States. While everyone knew that North Vietnam was supplying the Vietcong, the United States never seriously considered invading North Vietnam and overthrowing the government. The fear at the time was that such a move might result in a nuclear war with Russia. So the United States was limited to bombing North Vietnam and placing some mines in harbors.
So unless the Iraq resistance gains the support of a major power such as Russia or China, I do not believe that such a resistance can create the necessary momentum to force the USA to withdraw.
2003-07-12 16:50 | User Profile
**In a War you have to take a side. I hardly can take the side of a "people" who in other threads suggest that the GI's make souveniers out of iraqi skulls. I would of course "enjoy" it much more if dubya, Pearl, Bremer, Franks would get a bullet in the head, instead of some poor bastard. But that of course will never happen. As a Nationalist I support the principle of national sovreignty for every nation. And Saddams regime being an arab national-socialist one, I know where my place is. **
I haven't always agreed with Leland or his phrasing but I can't find a lot of fault in his reasoning here. PROTEST THE WAR BUT SUPPORT THE TROOPS smacks too much of HATE THE SIN BUT LOVE THE SINNER to my ears to begin with.
2003-07-12 23:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 12 2003, 16:50 * > *And Saddams regime being an arab national-socialist one, I know where my place is. **
I haven't always agreed with Leland or his phrasing but I can't find a lot of fault in his reasoning here. PROTEST THE WAR BUT SUPPORT THE TROOPS smacks too much of HATE THE SIN BUT LOVE THE SINNER to my ears to begin with.**
Raggy, is the northeastern version "LOVE THE SIN, HATE THE SINNER " more to your liking? :lol:
I have to laugh about Leland's characterization of Saddam as a "Arab National Socialist". Are all the NA types going to Iraq to fight for the beloved Baathist regime ? Alas, you guys are all keyboard warriors. If you weren't, I know a lot of people who would gladly buy you a ticket :lol:
2003-07-13 02:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 12 2003, 12:50 * ** I haven't always agreed with Leland or his phrasing but I can't find a lot of fault in his reasoning here. PROTEST THE WAR BUT SUPPORT THE TROOPS smacks too much of HATE THE SIN BUT LOVE THE SINNER to my ears to begin with. **
Then your ears are deaf.
The rhetoric you find faultless is the language of treason. There is room for outright disagreement with our elected or unelected leadership without advocating their death. To do so is not only morally reprehensible, it is asking for justifiable suspicion. Tolerance of this kind of irresponsibility is foolish and at the very least counterproductive.
Your reasoning smacks of moral relativity. The Frankfurt School would welcome your leadership.
2003-07-13 05:54 | User Profile
If one feels the war is unjust, and the 'enemy' an indigenous population defying an invading force; if the justification for hostilities is blatantly spurious , and prosecuted by jackals who are blood-poisoning the country without ever being called out by name; if you believe that the war immediately benefits an outlaw state not your own, while bankrupting yours to no good end and guaranteeing future terrorist strikes against you....if 'support the troops but protest the war' is inevitably defined as keep your negative opinions to yourself but maintain the public facade of at least a milder version of a Freeper, all flag-waving and projecting Hitler fantasies on Hussein....if you believe these things...then what exactly are you 'dissenting' against? (Besides VNN, of course.)
What is the difference between you and a flack working for, say, Elliot Abrams or Douglas Feith - your deepest private misgivings? Well, bully for you, Heathcliff - here, borrow my Kleenex!
And that raises another question I've been dying to ask. What exactly are you doing to 'support the troops'? Knitting them sweaters? Contributing money to soldiers' families so they can keep putting food on the table? Or...as I suspect...flexing your typing finger on internet boaards, playing Ideology Cop and twirling your billyclub at cyber'defeatists'?
Cause I got some news for you. The only 'support' that matters - that the government gives a damn about at the end of the day - comes off the top of your paycheck weekly, quarterly and/or annually. And on that basis, buddy, I'm every bit the 'patriot' you are.
Jesus, it's not like you fks haven't already won. The mooing public, terrified of making a moral decision of any kind, wholeheartedly 'supports our boys'....so long as they're winning big. (Let the casualty lists swell and, of course , most keyboard-kapos go through a prima-donna paroxysm of Horowitzian 'second thoughts'.) The problem is vocally, fervently opposing the whole deadly scam is so bloody impotent to begin with, I can't believe that even so inconsequential a discouraging word would get you clowns this apoplectic with righteous wrath.
2003-07-13 07:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 06:48 * We've dawdled around the racialist/ paleocon argument long enough: if we do nothing to make the mass slaughter of our own boys and of our own blood* a permanent historical albatross for the Jews, we deserve neither the title men or Americans.
**
Well Cicero or even Pat Buchanan you're not, but for the sake of patriotism and what is left of America, I do wish this one time you and everyone else here could become one of them, articulate a cogent and emotive response to the neocon arguments, and deliver it persuasively to naive elements in our country, both our troops and elements at home, who presently uncritically support neocon arguments for the war, and see opposition as unpatriotic.
Face it though, it just ain't gonna happen - Linderite rants just don't cut the mustard. As long as Linder is viewed as the highest embodiment of white nationalist wisdom by its supporters , then not only will neocon supporters of the war think us "neither men nor Americans" but by your own admission that scorn will be at least in part justified. :(
2003-07-13 07:06 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 01:48 * ** Time to stop lying to ourselves: this is war by other means, and we must find every method possible to bring it to a resolution favorable to ourselves and our posterity. **
Then let us be men of responsibility and not make posts even hinting at threatening or approving of violence towards public office holders or anyone else for that matter. Nothing will shorten our shelf-life any quicker than that. It may be unfair, but that's the hard, cold reality of where we are today and as such, it should guide the actions of responsible men.
2003-07-13 07:24 | User Profile
**I do wish this one time you and everyone else here could articulate a cogent and emotive response to the neocon arguments, and deliver it persuasively to naive elements in our country, both our troops and elements at home, who presently uncritically support neocon arguments for the war, and see opposition as unpatriotic.
Face it though, it just ain't gonna happen - Linderite rants just don't cut the mustard. **
But VNN is not just Linder , but a targeted menu of news-links to dissenting thought & reportage that include voices that are moderate, harsh, Southern, Northern, sardonic, poker-faced....you name it. And the page is set up so the day's story links are the first thing you see. Joe Sobran, Robert Fisk, Fred Reed, Charley Reese and others are regularly made available. The less-frequent contributors, one shot items & literary reprintsare often better still. And the most egregious neo thinktankers are heartily derided and hyperlinked to provide contrast to truth and common sense.
Therefore, due to his high Alexas, "Linder" (by now he's gone beyond iconic boogeyman to brand-name racism, in your grocer's freezer, to you guys by now) is by default delivering those responses more effectively than nearly every other paleo/racialist organ in the world right now. Lump it, sonny: the people you take delight in publicly despising are doing your job better than you. You're not even effective as a VNN detractor, Okie: but you do display all the requirements of a first rate front-runner.
And before the boobird chorus chiomes in, a show of hands, please: how many of you go to VNN first to look for source material to paste here? Now how many do the reverse?........Thank you!
**Then let us be men of responsibility and not make posts even hinting at threatening or approving of violence towards public office holders or anyone else for that matter. **
Why be diplomatic? You're actually talking about Okie, whose "Alas, you guys are all keyboard warriors. If you weren't, I know a lot of people who would gladly buy you a ticket " is a thinly veiled "wassamatter, kid? No balls to kill public figures or uniformed personnel?"
2003-07-13 07:41 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 13 2003, 02:24 * ** Why be diplomatic? You're actually talking about Okie **
No, just to clarify I'm actually talking about another whose posts have been removed from this thread.
2003-07-13 15:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Raina@Jul 13 2003, 07:10 * Linder needs some sex. It's probably no more complicated than that. He's clearly a deeply frustrated man.*
Example One:
[NN:] I got a 142 [on the IQ test] with the following answers (if I haven't made a mistake in recording and transcribing them):... Does anyone have a list of the correct answers or a list from a higher score?
[Weisbrot:] No, I'm keeping those all to myself. I do have a stack of (completely unneeded) "member enlargement" spams I'll be happy to send your way, though...
[NN:] Most generous of you, WB - sorry to hear that a personal deficiency has become public knowledge.
[Weisbrot:] Indeed. But then again, you haven't exactly been discreet in advertising it. Buck up, fellow; no one's judging you.
[NN:] Again, very generous of you, WB. Good to know that the relative size of my organs has aroused no interest aside from that which you have expressed. I take it from your previous remarks that your genitals, rather, are admirably large in comparison with your brain.
[Weisbrot:] [...]
[Presumably, a manly modesty has barred Brother Weisbrot from affirming our suspicion, per his Judeo-Freudian rationale as applied to his OD contributions, that his own proportions are extravagantly negroidal.]
Example Two:
[Raina:] Linder needs some sex. It's probably no more complicated than that. He's clearly a deeply frustrated man.
Question:
When did Judeo-Freudian psycho-bullshit become part of the validated intellectual apparatus of OD contributors?
2003-07-13 15:04 | User Profile
Very eloquent Wintermute.
2003-07-13 15:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jul 13 2003, 09:03 * *Example Two:
[Raina:] Linder needs some sex. It's probably no more complicated than that. He's clearly a deeply frustrated man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question:
When did Judeo-Freudian psycho-bullshit become part of the validated intellectual apparatus of OD contributors?**
** [Raina:] Hello dissenters. I saw this site while over at a friend's house. She was surfing the web & showed this to me. I've spent all my life breaking taboos & exploring what lies beneath. This forum looks like it tackles a lot of taboo issues so voila, I'm interested. I like to learn whenever & wherever I can. I'm not "right wing" or "racial" or anything like that. But I'm still curious about this forum. It's worth checking out.**
Guess that excuses Raina.
2003-07-13 15:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by nikolai@Jul 13 2003, 09:04 * Very eloquent Wintermute.*
I second that emotion.
Question for Wintermute: what has occasioned the resumption of morale? Reading Okie (inter alia, but in particular) is getting me down of late.
2003-07-13 16:00 | User Profile
Superb work by IR, as well, this morning!
2003-07-13 16:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jul 13 2003, 01:41 -->
QUOTE* (Texas Dissident @ Jul 13 2003, 01:41 ) <!--QuoteBegin-il ragno@Jul 13 2003, 02:24 * ** Why be diplomatic? You're actually talking about Okie ** No, just to clarify I'm actually talking about another whose posts have been removed from this thread.**
Have you banned Leland Gaunt?
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-13 16:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot+Jul 12 2003, 07:22 -->
QUOTE* (weisbrot @ Jul 12 2003, 07:22 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Leland Gaunt@Jul 12 2003, 09:02 * ** God, I realy enjoyed this article! Good show mate! :th: BTW, heres a fitting article:
**Hit man stalks U.S. soldiers in Iraq
**
They call this guy "assassin". I would say it's a arab patriot doing his duty! **
I agree that there is not now and has not ever been a reason for the U.S. military to invade and occupy Iraq. I think that support of our troops means doing everything one can do to make sure they come home immediately if not sooner.
I think that your post- as I understand it- is a celebration of the targeting and death of American soldiers. I find this attitude repugnant and completely unacceptable. As you are purportedly a citizen of another country I would suggest that your approval and glee over the death of Americans- no matter how wrong their orders may be- are the thoughts of an enemy of the U.S. and its people.
This is no way to oppose the neoconservative foreign policy of the imperial U.S.; it is perhaps the most counterproductive form of "protest" possible. I suggest that you may be fully aware of this fact.**
Poor Brother Weisbrot - he suffers from the delusion, among others, that they are "our" troops.
They are not. They are goyische mercenaries in the unwitting service of Greater Judea - there has been no "America" to serve since the imperial campaign to subdue the independent Confederacy.
True Americans are the witting enemies of Imperial Judea, Greater and Lesser.
True Germans, past and present, are our allies in this cause.
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-13 16:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 13 2003, 01:04 * *Well Cicero or even Pat Buchanan you're not, but for the sake of patriotism and what is left of America, I do wish this one time you and everyone else here could become one of them, articulate a cogent and emotive response to the neocon arguments, and deliver it persuasively to naive elements in our country, both our troops and elements at home, who presently uncritically support neocon arguments for the war, and see opposition as unpatriotic.
**
Yes, Wintermute, explain calculus to the kindergardeners in twenty-five words or less. If Okie, Brother Boniface, et.al., are incapable of so little as the adult equivalent of the Santa Claus deduction, why should one entertain visions of other historic Jewish lies evaporating under the heat of such little Nationalist analysis as can be "delivered"?
Zoroaster
2003-07-13 17:30 | User Profile
Wintermute and NeoNietzsch have it right. Leland has that disagreeable Germain trait of blunt honesty, and while he could have used a better choice of words to make his point, I can't disagree with him.
The troops in Iraq are volunteers, not conscripts, and as such they are willing tools of the NWO criminals. The sooner they get fed up with Iraq the better. If things get real bad, they'll start "fragging" Officers and NCOs. It happened in Nam. I know, a "head," drug addict, tried to do me in there.
It seems to me that many posters on this forum can't break away from their Republican roots. I suspect they will vote for Bush in 04.
-Z-
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-13 18:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jul 13 2003, 10:19 * *Poor Brother Weisbrot - he suffers from the delusion, among others, that they are "our" troops.
They are not. They are goyische mercenaries in the unwitting service of Greater Judea - there has been no "America" to serve since the imperial campaign to subdue the independent Confederacy.**
It may be worth repeating the explanation, for lurkers and newbies, that we properly refer to the entity as "Greater Judea," since polities are historically named for the elites/oligarchies that govern them, rather than for the subject populations governed thereby. "Goyland" would otherwise be correct terminology, in view of the developments of the past century-and-a-half.
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-13 18:30 | User Profile
*Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jul 13 2003, 10:19 * ** .[/QUOTE] Poor Brother Weisbrot - he suffers from the delusion, among others, that they are "our" troops.
They are not. They are goyische mercenaries in the unwitting service of Greater Judea - there has been no "America" to serve since the imperial campaign to subdue the independent Confederacy.
True Americans are the witting enemies of Imperial Judea, Greater and Lesser.
True Germans, past and present, are our allies in this cause. **
Thank you, NeoNietzsche...I could not have said it better.
Avalanche
2003-07-14 01:46 | User Profile
**Zoroaster: The troops in Iraq are volunteers, not conscripts, and as such they are willing tools of the NWO criminals. **
{sigh} I'm not sure it's fair to call them willing tools. THEY think they are patriotically protecting "their country" -- and most of them do not / have not studied history and politics and so on, to even have a CHANCE of knowing what we-all know... (Hell, that's what I thought when I was in the service... my 'concept' of "my" country led me to join -- I wanted to give back to "my" country... But being in the Navy, being exposed to the USS Liberty and actual contact with black Americans, began my awakening.)
MOST of the folks in the military THINK they are protecting their own country. They are surely UNwitting tools of the jews who control "our" country, but I think you ask too much of them to expect them to be aware of the truth. How many people in your own church or school or supermarket are aware? And the military both attracts and propagandizes people who love and want to support "their" country.
Zoroaster
2003-07-14 08:40 | User Profile
Avalanche,
As you say, certainly some of the troops in Iraq believe they are doing their patriotic duty. In time, however, as the occupation of Iraq becomes more unpopular, any notions of patriotism that they may have will take a back seat to their survival and the comforts of life. The best way to support the troops is demand that they be brought home as soon as possible. Anything else provides aid and comfort to our Neocon/Zionist enemies, i.e. Genghis W. Bush and the War Party. America will not be safe until these monsters are overcome.
weisbrot
2003-07-14 14:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 02:48 * > Just because I was born in a country whose citizens'll kill anything that moves, including their own fellow citizens, just because they're told to do so, doesn't make them my troops. If their defeat or elimination is what it takes to disempower the scumbags who currently rule over western civ, even as they destroy it, so be it.*
I agree with this, with two provisios.
ONE That we agree this scenario can be made consistent with Weisbrot's observation: support of our troops means doing everything one can do to make sure they come home immediately if not sooner.
TWO That we do everything in our power to leverage this disaster - publicly - against the one group which every able-minded poster and reader of this board agrees is the instigator, cheerleader, architect and beneficiary of this war: Jews and Israel.
**
How many people in your own church or school or supermarket are aware?
Wintermute's two points- and Avalanche's pointed question- are central to the discussion.
Semantics aside, every taxpayer in the country has some stake in the military. That they and we are being tragically misused doesn't change that fact. This military won't be defeated, at least not in the sense of being destroyed. It may eventually withdraw, at which point WM's second point becomes even more vital. But the continued targeting and death of our front-line, mostly lower-to-middle-class white troops won't provide any real relief from our present situation; that is, a corrupted government with imperial designs operating in a thoroughly Jewish-dominated culture. There is no tactical or moral upside to celebrating deaths in the U.S. military.
The continued death of our military personnel won't deter brave warriors like Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle from their pursuit of conquest on behalf of the US of AIPAC- that is, unless this "war" is recognized as a disaster and the blame placed squarely on the shoulders of those who enabled it. The responsibility and accountability lies ultimately with Bush, but the blame should be directed at others: neoconservatives, American Zionists, misguided religious fanatics.
Macho posturing via threats and endorsement of pointless violence plays into the hands of the opposition. Whatever role this board has in publicly leveraging the growing disaster of our foreign policy will be reduced through such useless tactics.
W.R.I.T.O.S
2003-07-18 01:33 | User Profile
*Originally posted by nikolai@Jul 12 2003, 09:14 * ** The most significant difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Iraq resistance lacks a sponsor state that will provide the guerillas with weapons, training and logistics. The Vietcong had a safe sanctuary in North Vietnam and an endless supply of modern weapons from the Soviet Union. Fighting a long term guerilla war will be difficult for the Iraq resistance without such a sponsor. **
Yes, most people don't understand war. It will impossible for the ay-rabs to punish the American occupiers at viet nam levels without outside support from a developed nation(not other ay-rabs, they can't do sh*t by themselves). The flat, treeless terrain of iraq maximizes the US's advantages and makes guerilla fighting difficult.
Valley Forge
2003-07-18 18:54 | User Profile
What happened to Leland Gaunt?
He's one of my favorite posters.