You are so right the Shrubnyk only provided the opportunity for the Iraqian woman to expand their horizons beyond the house. That is a good thing and I am heaping credit upon his highness.

__________________
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land" - Guess Who? You go it !

In regards WW1. The Anglo-French militaries were on the verge of collapse by the time US forces arrived, Britain was under as much pressure as Germany foodwise and both the allies were exhausted manpowerwise. Another few months and a ceasefire would have started.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

In regards the prostitition.
Morality I find it reprehensible but its always been around and likely always will as theres a supply and demand. Anyway anyone who legislates purely on personal morals is the dictator of the future.

It is a sign that Iraq is still having major security problems, which does worry me as the US surge will end shortly and the US military lacks the manpower to replace it. And i very much doubt the Iraqi military could guard one of said whorehouses let alone the country.

In regards Bush. We'll yes he is indirectly responsible, what with starting the war and all, one must accept the consequences of ones actions both good and bad. Crime and radicalism tend to be quite common in societies that become suddenly impoverished. Look at Germany after WW1.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

Totally wrong that the Anglo-French were on the verge of collapse

The war was winnable - it would have taken longer - but no doubt it was winnable

__________________
Russian Imperialism is a greater danger to the World today than AlQueda terrorism

Interesting. I see something "slightly different" in that piece - um... you know, the "historical development" of this Islamist thing, is kinda interesting, right? It's like, suddenly there was.... woah, trans-national threat, right? So Bushie and his people, they were kinda looking around for "ideas" on how to deal with this thing, and what was coming out ot the think tanks at the time, was stuff like PNAC and CFR globalism and all that, right?

And I mean, certain parts of that, make a lot of sense "operationally", right?

So, I mean, kinda what I see there, is that the terrorists changed the rules, and then the US responded by playing along with those rules. Right? We kinda "bought into 'em", that way.

So, now, I mean, sure enough, this "war on terror" thing, is entirely trans-national, right? like, we're kinda trampling into foreign countries starting wars, and grabbing their citizens off the streets, and all this, is because Bushie and his people are seeing this as an "operational" response to a trans-national threat.

So, kinda, their "valuation" here, is that they're gonna value the concept of "sovereignty of national borders", LESS THAN, the ability to eliminate these terrorists.

I mean, that's kinda what I see there, in the "valuation" piece, and then 'course, they're gonna "justify" that with whatever morality-du-jour they can happen to find lyin' around.....

So, this is kind of an interesting thing, 'cause like, they're "assuming" right off the bat, that the usual diplomatic channels "aren't going to work", right?

And I mean, that mentality there, that assumption, is fundamental to the mind-set.

And it seems to me, that's the exact same reason people go after "vice" in the first place, right? There's some kinda common recognition that "people are gonna do it anyway", but the one mindset says, "so let 'em", and the other mind set says, "so make it impossible for 'em".

And I submit, that the last tidbit there, is a pipe dream.

That kinda thing, will never ever work, not in a million billion gazillion years.

Why? It would be "contrary to human nature". That's the "biological" contraint, imposed by the "biological" model.

Look at manpower reserves and fieldforces available. And for a practical look at the success of the final German offensive which was only halted due to the arrival of the American forces. By the fourth year of the war Russia and Romania had been knocked out, Italy was draining 4-6 Allied division just to stay in the war and the only notable Allied successes were against the Ottomans. And any success in Mesopatamia wasn't of any great value, my own nation had failed to rebel in 1916 and was on the verge (1919) of the war of independence, India was having some problems and the other dominions weren't as willing to send troops.
The entry of the US brought more than just troops it brought military hardware and foodstuffs, it also removed the market for German bonds and financial reserves further weakening the socioeconomic position of the Central Powers relative to the Entente.
By 1918, without the US, the odds are Paris would have fallen, knocking both France (French morale had improved from the 1916/7 crises but it still wasn't the best, as the near collapse in 1918 proved) and Italy out of the war. Britain would have fought on for another year or two at sea eventually settling for part of the German or French colonies as the German High Sea's fleet was too weak to beat the British without outside support.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

Perhaps. But Id argue the radical Islamic needs to be undermined and fought, but with better methods than have been used so far.

My own view is that the US government, and its policy supporters are merely inept and incompetant rather than warmongers.
See terrorism is a Policing issue rather than a Military issue, which doesn't mean the military shouldn't be involved merely that the primary approach should be civilian. Terrorism (or Freedom Fighters as they will style themselves) has a several motivators and the over application of Hard power leads to increased membership and larger popular support.

In the Northern Ireland the inital overreaction of the British Army back in the 70's caused the radicialisation of the Catholic community which is only being overcome now. (Sadly the 70's were merely a repeat of the post-1916 rising when the overuse of force turned the Irish population from merely wanting limited autonomy to full support of the IRA and the Dail)
The Irish governments attempts to combat the IRA has been through the police rather than the army (save during the civil war). Sadly, Civil Liberties will be impared.
Such as the creation of the Special Criminal Court and the creation of the firearms offences.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

I agree with that perspective, that sounds pretty accurate.

The "war-mongering" bit though... that's kinda something different from the "operational response" element.

The "war-mongering" bit, it seems to me, comes out of this kinda "foreign policy" concept, that has more to do with a "moral" metric than an "operational" one.

You know, like, we "dislike" Cuba mainly 'cause Castro's been a thorn in our side, not really 'cause he's a real threat. And you know, we kinda look over there and feel sorry for all the people that have to endure those conditions, but at the same time, you don't see us marching in there to impose democracy, right? Even though, it would kinda "make sense" that we'd be more concerned about what's happening in our own back yard, than what's going on halfway around the world, yes?

So, Castro isn't seen as a threat anymore, but the Islamists are. And I mean, of all the possible threats out there, how big is the Islamist threat really? Hmm... well, I mean, the Colombian drug-lords, they chop people's heads off too, don't they? And they have a particularly nasty way of sticking a... body part.... in the authority's faces when they do that, too. And I mean, you know, Darfur, right? So, all I'm saying is, we've being "selective" in the application of those kinds of "principles", right?

And I mean, if you look at it from the "enforcement" stanpoint, you get the same kinda thing that the local cops do, it's like, "well, we can't enforce against everything, all the time, so what we're gonna do, is we're gonna do one day on traffic, then the next day on drugs, then the next day on prostitution, and we're never gonna tell anyone when we're gonna do what, so that way, people will just have to be alert that we're there, and they're gonna have to keep their criminal activities below the radar screen or else we're gonna get 'em" - so, you know, this "once a week" enforcement style, right?

But if you look at it from the "other guy's" standpoint, what you're seeing is kind of this "unfair" application of the law, on the basis that it's "selective" - so, you know, the guy who gets arrested on Thursday, is going to point to the guy that got off scot-free on Wednesday for the exact same crime ('cause the cops were out doin' something else that day), and he's gonna say, "how come they're going after me and they're letting that other clown go", and then the whole thing just feeds into a "social injustice" and "victimization" mentality, which is exactly what you see in a lot of the Islamic world, yes?

Sort of like starting a war with a country that is not a threat......

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Hard to believe. Citation?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847