Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…

Michael Levin, 22,

“… moved to Israel three years ago from Pennsylvania and enlisted in the paratroopers, Israeli media reported. Levin cut short a visit to his family four days ago and returned to his unit.”

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

Peace for Israel

for instance, you (and mad jew) obviously know where i live and some basic information about me. hell, there’s even a picture of me on my website. with a little research you could find out what my name is, where i’m from, etc. that’s because i have nothing to hide. i’m not afraid to come here as i am, say who i am, and what i think. both you and mad jew choose to sociopathically demonize your own countrymen from behind computer identities and for what? freely expressing their opinions as americans. and you expect us to take you at your word? i think not.

you have been trolling here for a long time, tripey, and you NEVER back up what you say with any fact or evidence. it’s all snark and “you libs” and the same partisan attacks on your fellow americans. and to insinuate that somehow you can claim any sort of moral high ground here is laughable (just a hint — bringing my mother into it, comparing me with a murderer and rapist — there’s nothing honorable or moral in that. or should i say “honourable”? you didn’t respond to that one, you fraud). half a century ago, conservatives in this country declared war on their fellow citizens, choosing to embrace fear and division over strength and tolerance. you continue that great conservative tradition.

as long as you continue to baselessly attack people here, i will return the favor (or should i say favour?). i invite either one of you to read my posts at 85, 114 or 119 and respond to the points i make there (factually – merely saying the opposite of what i say, and then saying “prove it” isn’t a rebuttal. if you can’t come up with the facts to refute what i say, then you must not be able to refute what i say). of course, being fictional trolls with no purpose aside from creating partisan friction and derision, i don’t expect either of you will do anything short of continue to crow here, attempting to spread the disease of single-minded partisanship, with which you are so woefully afflicted.

So, I say draft all the chickenhawks and send them to Iraq. I’ll bet that they will instantly become “cut and run cowards”.

The hard part is we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t. Iraq is a nation on fire and the United States poured the gasoline on it and lit the match. It is an inferno of insanity and we own it. To pull out now will plunge the region into an even deeper regional conflict. To stay means that we will continue to see countless deaths and destruction and we will go broke funding the war in the process.

The president and the Congress have failed in their fiscal, legal and moral responsibility to the American people. It represents a complete failure of command, a violation of the oath of office and a dereliction of duty.

Mark

“…to lift her skirt to prove…”

Hey stoned and aged Rexroth’s Daughter, what hole did you come out from?

That hole needs to be sealed with concrete immediately!

Sending fast reaction force!!!!!

We lost our deal(retired intelligence and military people-Plames) with Sharone, his third party, and Isreal not to do anything until we were out of Iraq. They want to draw the US in because of the troops on the ground.

How kind of you to bring up Japan, German and the Marshall Plan. These two countries are vastly different to the circumstances and culture relevant to Iraq, but let’s toss this around briefly.

First, German wasn’t a slam dunk. It was in fact two countries until recent history, and East Germany was decidedly communist. But that’s just a technicality, right?

Next, the “democratization” process of these two countries began with a catalyst: Pearl Harbor, an attack on the U.S. Since we know Iraq never attacked us, our pre-emptive strike is a very different scenario. WWII was America defending itself. Iraq is America engaging in nation building, badly.

Finally, thank you for pointing out that Democrats are in a better position to spread the ideology of democracy. After all, F.D. Roosevelt was a Democrat and the president at the beginning of World War II. Harry Truman was a Democrat and the president at the end of WWII and the implementation of the Marshall plan and reconstruction. While Truman faced many challenges and some failures, it’s apparent you believe that the Marshall Plan was a good thing and helped build democracies in Japan and Germany. So thank your for that acknowledgement.

Classical liberals and law-abiding Americans would never defend illegal wiretaps by saying people who can account for legitimate money transfers have nothing to worry about. Classical liberals like privacy. You on the other hand capitulate to breaches in privacy and due process for the tenuous promise of a little security. How scared are you, Pumpkin?

Now, privacy is not a civil right (at the federal level), but due process is. An attorney would never defend illegal wiretaps. He or she would deny that the law has been broken. With me so far?

The government has the burden of proof in obtaining warrants. It’s not up to me to defend myself against a lack of probable cause. I probably lost you there but I have a feeling your not listening anyway, given that your head is so far up your a*s.

The president has authorized spying on Americans despite the obvious breaches in the law . And he knows the law: “[A]ny time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap … a wiretap requires a court order.” – President Bush, April 20, 2004 whitehouse.gov

Next I pointed out that Bush destabilized the region. The best retort you could come up with is that the ends justify the means because Hussein ran a totalitarian government. Yes indeed. That was true in 2003, in 1990 during Dessert Storm and in 1983 when Rumsfeld met with Hussein. So why attack now when Iran is even more poised to take over the region and further along on establishing itself as a nuclear power? SNAFU.

Now we have U.S. soldiers caught in the cross-fire of a civil war. You see it as a bold effort to establish democracy. It might have been that if Rumsfeld knew what he was doing and if Bush proceeded with less hubris and more strategy. His commitment to stay now is a desperate effort to save is reputation.

The continued violence and growing criticisms by military generals bely any claims of progress in the Middle East.

In Dessert Storm we seemed to know when it was time to pack up and leave. This kept us from depleting our military, from minimizing the loss of blood and treasure.

Retreat is not defeat. We come back stronger, with a better plan and better people at the helm. That did not happen when we went to Iraq in 2003. Maybe next time.

That’s all the time I have for you.

“g-zeus”

Actualy, oil was a factor in Vietnam.

“Herbert Hoover, later to become President of the United States did a study that showed that one of the world’s largest oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Vietnam.”

- Denny, Ludwell, We Fight of Oil, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1928

It is easy to imagine during the chess game that was the Cold War that the U.S. would not want the Communist to have control of this.

Okay – Herbert Hoover was a long time ago. Was he right?

From the 1998 Naval War College Review, Spring 1998, Vol. LI, No. 2:

“Vietnam’s southern continental shelf is its most lucrative offshore source of oil. Two fields, Big Bear and Blue Dragon, have by themselves practically underwritten Vietnam’s economy, and both fields are located less than eight kilometers west of the Benton block, and within or astride China’s claim line.”

As recently as 1992 – China and Vietnam had a little dust up in the South China Sea:

“The near-simultaneous declaration of the Law of the Territorial Sea, the Chinese occupation of reefs, and the skirmish with Vietnamese naval units all reflected China’s heightened sensitivity to resource invasions in the South China Sea.

They were a shrill warning to its neighbors that they could not exclude China from development of the area’s natural resources. China’s efforts in this direction were undoubtedly encouraged by a renewed promise of huge finds.

Revised geological surveys by the Chinese Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources led to speculation that the Spratlys archipelago could contain as much as 105 billion barrels of oil, an amount greater than China’s on-shore reserves. The area surrounding James Shoal alone was also estimated to contain upwards of 90 billion barrels of oil.

The latest encroachments, coupled with China’s shifting status from oil exporter to net importer, likely had convinced Beijing it needed to become more energetic in asserting its rights over a potentially world-class petroleum field.”

In the 50’s and 60’s – I’m pretty sure the details re: the potential of the area ( in terms of billions of bbls. of oil reserves and etc. ) were not known – but they knew enough then to know that it was too significant for the Communist to control.

FYI.