Well I think i got the idea exactly, and that's why i can compare it. It began exactly like this in Germany... Just read the history books from the beginning...

But to come to your first part: It began on the fatal reaction to 9/11. Instead of showing the world how to handle that situation and having all the world on the side of the USA, they play war. War against terrorism never ever will work.

Killing people for killing people ? That's terror itself.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I just thought that the government of the USA where better than the ones they try to stop. I was wrong. Let's see if Bush is away and many many years have go by, if i can say "I love the USA...

Well I think i got the idea exactly, and that's why i can compare it. It began exactly like this in Germany... Just read the history books from the beginning...

But to come to your first part: It began on the fatal reaction to 9/11. Instead of showing the world how to handle that situation and having all the world on the side of the USA, they play war. War against terrorism never ever will work.

Killing people for killing people ? That's terror itself.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I just thought that the government of the USA where better than the ones they try to stop. I was wrong. Let's see if Bush is away and many many years have go by, if i can say "I love the USA" again.
But the more action, war,murderer and abuse happens, the longer it will take to recover the face of democracy of the USA in the eyes of the world.

Sounds like you already can't say it, why wait for 'many, many years'... And the eye for an eye - that's nothing Bush invented, we're talking biblical times here. The problem with your solution is if they take your eye and you don't do anything - nobody'll respect you, you'll just lose your 2nd and last eye.

Finally, don't expect pre 9/11 world any time soon... mostly because 9/11 DID happen and we're post 9/11. We all wish it didn't happen, but it did... as well as the Beirut barracks bombings, the Khobar towers, USS Cole, just to name a few of many more.

We waited too long as it was for a response. And in case you haven't seen what the other side is doing - feel free to check out any ...

Sounds like you already can't say it, why wait for 'many, many years'... And the eye for an eye - that's nothing Bush invented, we're talking biblical times here. The problem with your solution is if they take your eye and you don't do anything - nobody'll respect you, you'll just lose your 2nd and last eye.

Finally, don't expect pre 9/11 world any time soon... mostly because 9/11 DID happen and we're post 9/11. We all wish it didn't happen, but it did... as well as the Beirut barracks bombings, the Khobar towers, USS Cole, just to name a few of many more.

We waited too long as it was for a response. And in case you haven't seen what the other side is doing - feel free to check out any of the colorful beheadings that were done by the other side. Perhaps that'll put some perspective in your mind, if 9/11 wasn't sufficient.

And as a reference from America you 'loved' - check out Ronald Reagan's speech from 1964. He explained things much better than I ever could, although he was referring to the Russian nemesis at the time.

@WiredRyo - you need to do some history reading and see how well your approach worked before WWII. Hitler was completely taken aback by the trust of the British and the Russians. Totally changed his plans. Decided not to fight with anyone due to their high moral ground and signed treaties. Right? That's a blatant example from history for you about how well your approach works in real world... it took tens of millions of people dying to finally put him out of his misery. As I said, your approach was used on practically all attacks prior to 9/11 - did that accomplish anything? Did that stop anyone from attacking us on 9/11? No. It doesn't work like this, you don't get blue sky with pr...

@WiredRyo - you need to do some history reading and see how well your approach worked before WWII. Hitler was completely taken aback by the trust of the British and the Russians. Totally changed his plans. Decided not to fight with anyone due to their high moral ground and signed treaties. Right? That's a blatant example from history for you about how well your approach works in real world... it took tens of millions of people dying to finally put him out of his misery. As I said, your approach was used on practically all attacks prior to 9/11 - did that accomplish anything? Did that stop anyone from attacking us on 9/11? No. It doesn't work like this, you don't get blue sky with pretty flowers in your hair gently touching your hair while you're making your way to Woodstock and everyone loves you - that's the kind of stuff one only sees while seriously impaired by mind-altering substances. In real world... well, just watch the movie Obsession and you'll see what real world is all about, what's being preached on the other side about hating YOU personally and wanting YOU dead.

Willhelm & RSage,
Did you guys happen to notice who wrote this article?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Why do you always go back to those "cob-webby" descriptions for anyone who opposes this war and this administration. Do you realize that you are using the "flower power" "peace" "love" "tree-hugging"and even the antiquated "Woodstock" imagery to put people into a box that satisfies your own need to be right.

Well, right now your "talking points" are being dir...

Willhelm & RSage,
Did you guys happen to notice who wrote this article?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Why do you always go back to those "cob-webby" descriptions for anyone who opposes this war and this administration. Do you realize that you are using the "flower power" "peace" "love" "tree-hugging"and even the antiquated "Woodstock" imagery to put people into a box that satisfies your own need to be right.

Well, right now your "talking points" are being directed at about two-thirds of the population who happen to think the same way as WiredRyo and myself. I personally don't have the same feeling of pride for my country as I did in the past. I happen to think that we made a huge mistake going into Iraq without a plan, and with only a la-la-land, alice-in-wonderland mentality of what the outcome might be. The "dreamworld belongs to the followers of this tragic adventure down the rabbit hole. The mostly undisputed fact is that we are not being successful in this war against the people who attacked us in 9-11. The overwhelming fact is that we are only helping the radical terrorists and harming our cause. We lost the opportunity to lead the world in defense of moderation and freedom, because we resorted to the same tactics that they use.....we "Shocked and Awed" them. We are and have been fighting the wrong war in the wrong place because a group of people wanted to fight that war in that place, and lied their way into it!

And, as far as the title of this article is concerned:

"Americans Have Lost Their Country"......you make fun of this by again going back to the idea that two-thirds of the country are running around being scared, over-reacting, hyperventilating, over nothing! You make the argument that we Americans (two-thirds of us) have not really lost anything here at home. This is not the case, we have lost a lot, and it will take plenty of congressional investigations, and "righting of the wrongs" for us to get back what we once had. The Bushites have consistently acquired more, and more power with the help of their "rubber stamp" congress. They have done so on purpose and with a vengeance...

And, as far as the title of this article is concerned:

"Americans Have Lost Their Country"......you make fun of this by again going back to the idea that two-thirds of the country are running around being scared, over-reacting, hyperventilating, over nothing! You make the argument that we Americans (two-thirds of us) have not really lost anything here at home. This is not the case, we have lost a lot, and it will take plenty of congressional investigations, and "righting of the wrongs" for us to get back what we once had. The Bushites have consistently acquired more, and more power with the help of their "rubber stamp" congress. They have done so on purpose and with a vengeance. They have been much more successful at this than anything related to the war on terror.

RSage, you asked this question of WiredRyo:

What civil rights of yours have been undermined exactly? What's the specific difference in your life between the time you 'loved' the USA and now?

My reply would be in the form of a list of things we need to do to get back what we lost! You need to go to the article if you want more detail on exactly what we lost! Go ahead with an open mind, and click here

The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy.

It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage.

The List!

Restore Habeas Corpus

Stop Illegal Spying

Ban Torture, Really

Close the C.I.A. Prisons

Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’

Ban Extraordinary Rendition

Tighten the Definition of Combatant

Scr

I'd like to add something about the use of Germany and the 2nd world war as some kind of weird defense for what we are engaged in now. Seems that every time we use the metaphor of Hitler and how he got in power, we are scolded.....ie, how dare you compare the United Sates with Nazi Germany! And then you guys go right ahead with comparing Nazi Germany and the 2nd World War with the nonsense that is going on now!

Please climb out of your rabbit hole and start making sense!

There is no comparison with WW2, and Iraq2. There is also no comparison with those who did us harm on 9-11, and Saddam. Saddam is gone now.....great! Did it help us in the war on terror?

One other thing that bugs m...

I'd like to add something about the use of Germany and the 2nd world war as some kind of weird defense for what we are engaged in now. Seems that every time we use the metaphor of Hitler and how he got in power, we are scolded.....ie, how dare you compare the United Sates with Nazi Germany! And then you guys go right ahead with comparing Nazi Germany and the 2nd World War with the nonsense that is going on now!

Please climb out of your rabbit hole and start making sense!

There is no comparison with WW2, and Iraq2. There is also no comparison with those who did us harm on 9-11, and Saddam. Saddam is gone now.....great! Did it help us in the war on terror?

One other thing that bugs me is a constant attempt to make us Democrats out to be weak in the face of a threat to our nation. For crying out loud! What party did FDR belong to.....what party did Truman belong to..... Give it a break!

All any of us want to do is fight an effective and successful fight against an enemy who uses "terror" as a tactic. There's' no standing army to fight. There's no Muslims out there with "terrorists" plastered on their forehead. There's only a pathetic "tactic" called terrorism. The only way to fight that tactic is to shine a big light on the vermin, and get the entire world to agree that this "tactic" is completely unacceptable! We were close to having the ability to do just that until a band ( a few men in power) decided to go for their own agenda, instead of the agenda of all reasonable people. We had the world on our side right after 9-11. The Bushites blew it!

Actually, there are absolutely parallels between what hitler was trying to accomplish and what people in organizations like al qaeda are trying to accomplish. Granted one had an official state and army and the other belongs to many states, making up their army from various people - but the army is still there. If you, Democrats, don't want to be weak - then don't be. Your actions and words are making you out to be such, not because someone calls you that. The very fact that you don't even acknowledge the existence of the enemy and saying there's nothing to fight but a tactic - is a very telling example of your lack of comprehension of this enemy. Tactics don't blow up buildings - people...

Actually, there are absolutely parallels between what hitler was trying to accomplish and what people in organizations like al qaeda are trying to accomplish. Granted one had an official state and army and the other belongs to many states, making up their army from various people - but the army is still there. If you, Democrats, don't want to be weak - then don't be. Your actions and words are making you out to be such, not because someone calls you that. The very fact that you don't even acknowledge the existence of the enemy and saying there's nothing to fight but a tactic - is a very telling example of your lack of comprehension of this enemy. Tactics don't blow up buildings - people and weapons do. Wasting time voting on useless resolutions at the time of war doesn't make you strong - it shows your enemies that they have an ally, since you're fighting the same force that they are, and the fact that such resolution was non-binding only proves just how weak you are, where you don't even have the guts to put your foot down and say that you mean something. If you're that much for pulling troops out now (which would be a disaster for Iraqis, not to mention anyone else) - why not simply cut the funding? You won't do it because you're weak, because you're afraid that at the end of the day (i.e. come 2008 elections) - you'll get slaughtered by the US public for turning against the brave men and women who put their lines on the line daily and have to read in the papers what kind of 'support' you're giving them in accomplishing their mission.

This was was started by our elected President, with full support of our elected Congress and overwhelming support of the public. It's ridiculous to blame Bush for the idiocy that's going on between muslims in Iraq.

As for the world being with us on 9/11 - that's postcards and phone calls. A man of your age should've seen enough in his life to know that this kind of support is meaningless.

Read about Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism . Maybe then you will see how you can react on violence without violence.

And maybe you could take a look on a dictionary to get a view of the Word Nazi which means (Nationalsozialisten). Nationalsozialismus is, in definition, when you only care for your own country of the costs of others.

So in terms of definitions the actual government can be called a national socialism regime.

But soon, very soon, the USA will have a democratic government. The world will be relief, but it takes many years. Many many years to get back the positive image of the USA.
On a recent study, it came out that the USA is more hated in the world than even...

Read about Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism . Maybe then you will see how you can react on violence without violence.

And maybe you could take a look on a dictionary to get a view of the Word Nazi which means (Nationalsozialisten). Nationalsozialismus is, in definition, when you only care for your own country of the costs of others.

So in terms of definitions the actual government can be called a national socialism regime.

But soon, very soon, the USA will have a democratic government. The world will be relief, but it takes many years. Many many years to get back the positive image of the USA.
On a recent study, it came out that the USA is more hated in the world than even North Korea. Only Iran and Israel is in front. That should be enough reasons to think a second about it.

Let's track back a few years - did Buddhism practices solved the problem with a few generations back in your country? I hardly think so. It was my former country, with the help of my current country - beating the crap out of yours and your allies. That's what did it. If that force wasn't used - I wouldn't be here, although it probably would've been good for you, since the rest of the world spoke your language.

It's one thing to be nationalistic at the expense of other nations, it's something totally different to be solidly pro your country, especially when it comes under fire. You should be able to understand the difference.

It's not the Germans who top the world in charitable donatio...

Let's track back a few years - did Buddhism practices solved the problem with a few generations back in your country? I hardly think so. It was my former country, with the help of my current country - beating the crap out of yours and your allies. That's what did it. If that force wasn't used - I wouldn't be here, although it probably would've been good for you, since the rest of the world spoke your language.

It's one thing to be nationalistic at the expense of other nations, it's something totally different to be solidly pro your country, especially when it comes under fire. You should be able to understand the difference.

It's not the Germans who top the world in charitable donations and help to other nations when they're in trouble. It's the good old USA. It's the same USA that rebuilt your country, even though they could've easily turned it into its colony considering how things played out.
When the Indonesian earthquake hit, the country with highest population of muslims, while we were at war with islamofascists - still a ton of relief was sent over there, including money, doctors, supplies etc. Again, from the USA. They 'hate our guts', as you pointed out, and we save their population time and again.

And we DO have a democratic government... quit drooling over the prospects of the Democrats winning in 2008. We'll see what happens when the time comes. You deal with your elections, we'll deal with ours.

As for 'recent studies' - who gives a rip. You may have 'issues' with US - it wasn't 3000+ Germans who died on 9/11. I certainly hope that if 3000 Germans did die under a similar circumstances - you won't be stupid enough not to stand up for your country when its under attack, regardless of what uneducated morons in other countries think or say based on their own greed, lack of knowledge etc.

Yepp, you're right on this RecordSage.

but if you "beat the crap" out of others constantly, you shouldn't wondering if there are more and more terrorists trying to kill you.

See, most of the Germans, have learned their lessons, and did not forget what happened. The simply don't want any war for any circumstances.
Not all Germans think this way. There are a very small numbers of neo-cons: They want Germany big and powerful, they want to have a good army and a strong airforce. They want more resources, and control of oil. The want Germany to be the greatest country of the world. WE call them Neo-Nazis.
So maybe you can understand why so many Germans, and most of the Europeans are against ANY...

Yepp, you're right on this RecordSage.

but if you "beat the crap" out of others constantly, you shouldn't wondering if there are more and more terrorists trying to kill you.

See, most of the Germans, have learned their lessons, and did not forget what happened. The simply don't want any war for any circumstances.
Not all Germans think this way. There are a very small numbers of neo-cons: They want Germany big and powerful, they want to have a good army and a strong airforce. They want more resources, and control of oil. The want Germany to be the greatest country of the world. WE call them Neo-Nazis.
So maybe you can understand why so many Germans, and most of the Europeans are against ANY war.

You wrote in your profile, that you were born in the "Wrong country". What was that country ?

Wow! Helluva conversation. One point to make:

There *is* a factual, reliable problem with 'eye for an eye': revenge. You take revenge on the Moslem fundamentalists, they and their children want to take revenge against you. And so on. And so on... people don't, in general, respond to strength by ceasing to fight back, they respond to strength by fighting back more strongly.

In the case of WWII, a militant approach could work, because the dominant faction was centralised and well organised, and the alliances didn't run very deep--the Nazi party was relatively new on the scene. It controlled people via an appeal to an immediate need--the poorness of Germany following WWI. By toppling t...

Wow! Helluva conversation. One point to make:

There *is* a factual, reliable problem with 'eye for an eye': revenge. You take revenge on the Moslem fundamentalists, they and their children want to take revenge against you. And so on. And so on... people don't, in general, respond to strength by ceasing to fight back, they respond to strength by fighting back more strongly.

In the case of WWII, a militant approach could work, because the dominant faction was centralised and well organised, and the alliances didn't run very deep--the Nazi party was relatively new on the scene. It controlled people via an appeal to an immediate need--the poorness of Germany following WWI. By toppling the structure which controlled people in that way, the entire structure fell apart, and when the dust cleared, most people even on the side of the Nazis were looking around wondering what the hell they thought they were doing. In short, the enemy was actually vanquished.

In the case of Moslem fundamentalists, this won't really work too well. The terrorist cells are too small, too numerous, the motivations vary too much. In order to militarily stop the Moslem terrorists, you have to essentially blanket the entire Moslem region with military might sufficient to make the terrorists' movements impossible; even that won't work very well, because the terrorists move about as normal people.

You could surround the German army; you can't surround the terrorist 'army'. You could distinguish the German army from the German civilians (where there *was* a distinction); you can't make the same distinction with the terrorists.

Essentially, in order to win this war, you must dismantle the freedom of hundreds of millions of people, in order to completely crush *all* of the enemy If any terrorists are left standing, you haven't won; furthermore, the act of trying to win creates more terrorists.

The reason you can't do 'eye for an eye' here is not just moral, it's also practical.

Interesting point, but somewhat flawed. Germans were defeated by a more determined enemy and eventually crushed physically, regardless of what you call it. Carpet bombing did accomplish what it intended to do. Clearly there were casualties as part of the process, but it did do the intended job. hitler didn't commit suicide because he was 'confused' all of a sudden. He was defeated by a force he couldn't take on. Another reason you're wrong is Japan. They were even more fierce fighting force, because of their culture and couple of bombs quickly finished the war there as well. That's a superior military might and same end result.

You're right about the enemies at the time being men a...

Interesting point, but somewhat flawed. Germans were defeated by a more determined enemy and eventually crushed physically, regardless of what you call it. Carpet bombing did accomplish what it intended to do. Clearly there were casualties as part of the process, but it did do the intended job. hitler didn't commit suicide because he was 'confused' all of a sudden. He was defeated by a force he couldn't take on. Another reason you're wrong is Japan. They were even more fierce fighting force, because of their culture and couple of bombs quickly finished the war there as well. That's a superior military might and same end result.

You're right about the enemies at the time being men and fighting as such and the islamofascists being lowlife cowards that can only hide behind the civil population and blowup their and others children as a fighting force, if you will. And certainly, if one wants to avoid casualties and not fight the war as it's always been fought (i.e. what we're doing now) - the results speak for themselves - it doesn't work. However, if the military did use the power that it has - I don't think there would be any question of who'd win and how and as for the aftermath - it wouldn't be much different than it was in Japan... perhaps the thinking muslims would see that they would have much better lives if they didn't follow the fundamentalists. I'm sure there are muslims with brains somewhere out there. This approach would create casualties, of course, just as it did in WW2, but the war would be won.

Even if there were small cells here and there - you can't have a group of a few people, without some serious funding, orchestrate 9/11. In fact even with al qaeda present, which did/does have money etc. - with just a bit of organization and effort on the part of US (compared to very little of such prior to 9/11) - they haven't been able to carry out any attacks here... and we know they tried, with major attacks publically averted in Canada etc.

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying the case here. Your basic assumption seems to be that a simple application of strength is all it takes; this is no more true in war than it is in your personal life. Given a target which can be crushed, application of force will do it; without such a target, force isn't really worth anything.

The fact that there haven't been any more attacks like 9/11 isn't surprising; there were no 9/11s before 9/11 either. Certainly the increases in domestic security since 9/11 are helpful in stopping these attacks--defensive preparations tend to be effective--nevertheless, it's very hard to point to the lack of attacks and claim that that's evidence that we'...

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying the case here. Your basic assumption seems to be that a simple application of strength is all it takes; this is no more true in war than it is in your personal life. Given a target which can be crushed, application of force will do it; without such a target, force isn't really worth anything.

The fact that there haven't been any more attacks like 9/11 isn't surprising; there were no 9/11s before 9/11 either. Certainly the increases in domestic security since 9/11 are helpful in stopping these attacks--defensive preparations tend to be effective--nevertheless, it's very hard to point to the lack of attacks and claim that that's evidence that we're winning, since there wasn't a sustained series of attacks before 9/11 to compare to. Also, most of the people involved in the Canada "terrorist" training maneuver were found not guilty, and there is serious doubt as to whether or not there was even a terrorist plot at all.

You also seem to have misread/intentionally misinterpreted some of my comments. I don't believe there is any distinction between the "men" of the Nazi regime and the Moslem extremist "cowards". People aren't suicide bombers because they are cowards, they are suicide bombers because it works. The Germans used tanks when their enemies were unarmed or on horseback; that seems far more cowardly to me than a person who will die for a cause. Crazy they may be, but cowards they aren't.

As for application of US military might to topple Moslem extremists; given a wide enough and large enough fighting force, it could be done. And yes, the casualties will be enormous, absurdly so--most of whom will be, have been, innocents. The question of whether or not the sacrifice is worth it--well, ask the people who have to die. You aren't in a position to judge, because it isn't your life being sacrificed.

Cowardice is sending others to die in your stead, and killing innocents to protect yourself or simplify your job.

I may be oversimplifying things, but I didn't invent the "only the strong survive" sentiment, which has been true for centuries. Also, when you say 'most have been released in Canada' - that means nothing, unless 'ALL' replaces 'most'. Just because they nabbed a few extra people in error, doesn't diminish the fact that there was a plot. Same in England. The police in Virginia arrested the wrong man last Monday as well... that doesn't mean there wasn't horrible tragedy that was being played out.

As for definition of cowardness, I guess it depends on how you look at it. To me it's the opposite of heroism. Speaking of the Virginia massacre as an example, you could look at this cho guy an...

I may be oversimplifying things, but I didn't invent the "only the strong survive" sentiment, which has been true for centuries. Also, when you say 'most have been released in Canada' - that means nothing, unless 'ALL' replaces 'most'. Just because they nabbed a few extra people in error, doesn't diminish the fact that there was a plot. Same in England. The police in Virginia arrested the wrong man last Monday as well... that doesn't mean there wasn't horrible tragedy that was being played out.

As for definition of cowardness, I guess it depends on how you look at it. To me it's the opposite of heroism. Speaking of the Virginia massacre as an example, you could look at this cho guy and say that it took some guts to come to school, orchestrating this whole insanity, knowing ahead of time that it's unlikely he'll survive the day doing what he was planning. To me he's a coward of the lowest order... a complete low-life, who can't accomplish squat... I don't have the words strong enough and meaningful enough to describe just how low I think of this guy. The professor that saved his students and died in the process is an example of a genuine hero.

The reason I call all of the islamofascists cowards is because they don't come out and fight with their enemies face to face, because they don't have the smarts, the technology and know-how to defeat them - they know full well they'll be crushed like grapes under your feet. All they can do is strap on a bomb and explode themselves in some market... thus simply showing how pathetic and cowardly they really are.

People probably aught to buy George Tenet's new book, give it a read, and see if we have the democratic government we think we have (whether it is better or worse than anyone else's). Link

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

“There was never a serious debate tha...

read more»

People probably aught to buy George Tenet's new book, give it a read, and see if we have the democratic government we think we have (whether it is better or worse than anyone else's). Link

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.”