| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: Uncle Sam may go after Sadrists? |
 |
|
Do you think that Uncle Sam now feels alarmed again by the Sadrists. I am sure Bush and many Republicans feel really pissed off that the government has been hijacked by Shiite extremists, it appears.
This government doesn't seem to please either the Kurds or the Sunni Arabs. That doesn't help unity or America withdrawing from a coherent Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Do you think that Uncle Sam...? |
"Uncle Sam," Adventurer, is how some Americans refer to their govt. Has to do with a historic recruiting poster.
You are not an American; not even a friend of America. So how about "the United States," "the U.S.," "America," "Washington," or, more specifically "the W. Bush Administration?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Uncle Sam," Adventurer, is how some Americans refer to their govt. Has to do with a historic recruiting poster. |
Have you been drinking the "anti-cultural appropriation" bong water, Gopher? 
In fact, Uncle Sam as a symbol of the American government pre-dates the famous recruiting poster by more than half a century.
| Quote: |
Uncle Sam Imagery
The cartoonist Frank Bellew was the first artist to portray Uncle Sam in human form, in the March 13, 1852, issue of the New York Lantern.[1]
Thomas Nast played an important role in creating the popular image of Uncle Sam in his post-Civil War era editorial cartoons. After the American Civil War, whiskers were added to Uncle Sam in reference to Abraham Lincoln. Today, with the possible exception of the Statue of Liberty, the character of Uncle Sam is probably the most easily recognizable personification of the U.S.
|
And do you suppose that many Americans objected to this pro-American recruiting poster produced by the British government in 1917?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Sam
http://tinyurl.com/yk268f |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Have you been drinking the "anti-cultural appropriation" bong water, Gopher...? |
No, I have not. They have that?
In all seriousness, thanks for the information. "Uncle Sam" may have deeper origins than the recruiting poster I cited. But the recruiting poster still remains the most famous of his appearances. In any case, please consider yourself invited to sit on my team as a partner or "lifeline" if I ever appear on any game show... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Do you think that Uncle Sam...? |
"Uncle Sam," Adventurer, is how some Americans refer to their govt. Has to do with a historic recruiting poster.
You are not an American; not even a friend of America. So how about "the United States," "the U.S.," "America," "Washington," or, more specifically "the W. Bush Administration?" |
Hey, Gopher, I think adventurer has (in addition to the neato avatar) an American passport... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
Are you saying the Americans are turning a blind eye, thus allowing him to gain power, in order to set him up as the next boogeyman of Iraq? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
Are you saying the Americans are turning a blind eye, thus allowing him to gain power, in order to set him up as the next boogeyman of Iraq? |
No just that they underestimated him and that he would go away or that someone else would have taken him out.
Here is the sad truth:P
The US could have killed Khomeini anytime before he got to Iran
The US could have killed Bin Laden in 1996 before he got to Afghanistan
The US could have gotten Sadr too.
The ban on assassinations is killing the US. What a stupid policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
Are you saying the Americans are turning a blind eye, thus allowing him to gain power, in order to set him up as the next boogeyman of Iraq? |
No just that they underestimated him and that he would go away or that someone else would have taken him out.
Here is the sad truth:P
The US could have killed Khomeini anytime before he got to Iran
The US could have killed Bin Laden in 1996 before he got to Afghanistan
The US could have gotten Sadr too.
The ban on assassinations is killing the US. What a stupid policy. |
That's a lot of could've. What's more important is what they will do now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Do you think that Uncle Sam...? |
"Uncle Sam," Adventurer, is how some Americans refer to their govt. Has to do with a historic recruiting poster.
You are not an American; not even a friend of America. So how about "the United States," "the U.S.," "America," "Washington," or, more specifically "the W. Bush Administration?" |
Gopher, I did take U.S. Government, U.S. History (I was a social studies teacher), and I am also a U.S. citizen as well as a Canadian one, and I voted in 2004 and in a municipal election. You sound like someone wrapping himself around the flag in a too jingoistic of a fashion and condemning someone else. I didn't do that to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Khomeini and Binladin are too different things. Khomeini never attacked the U.S. Unless, you count the hostage taking. Well, the hostage situation may be counted. However, Iran was not looking to go to war against the U.S. like Binladin. People were not sure what was going to happen in Iran. Granted, a CBS reporter (whose story was not taken seriously) predicted the Shah's downfall people were confident that the Shah would remain in power.
Back to Binladin, he attacked U.S. targets several times. The media ignored stories about Binladin and the Bush and Clinton administrations failed the American people. Many in the press were trying to warn about Binladin, but the bean counters weren't interested. That was a major part of the problem.
Taking out Sadr would be very complicated. It would enrage Iraqi Shiites who comprise the majority of Iraqis. However, the U.S. government blames the Sadrist faction for the botched execution and they used Malki like a puppet. U.S. officers were probably steaming when this happened. They shouldn't have handed over Saddam until after the holiday. They just didn't expect that to happen. The Iraqi government has been very unreliable. Anyway, how would killing Sadr be productive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Khomeini and Binladin are too different things. Khomeini never attacked the U.S. Unless, you count the hostage taking. Well, the hostage situation may be counted. However, Iran was not looking to go to war against the U.S. like Binladin. People were not sure what was going to happen in Iran. Granted, a CBS reporter (whose story was not taken seriously) predicted the Shah's downfall people were confident that the Shah would remain in power. |
Khomeni attacked the US as much as he could- not like Bin Laden but he was certainly looking for a fight with the US.
Khomeni was behind Terror attacks in Lebanon -remember the 250 marines killed . Iran created Hizzbollah dand they incited lots of violence against the US worldwide . Iran was looking to spread its revolution all though the mideast. Iran was engaged in a low level war against the US and still is. If the US got rid of Khomeni then perhaps there would be no supreme leader , and no Ajamadad, and no Iranian regime. No Saddam and No Iranian regime means a far more stable and rational middle east.
| Quote: |
| Back to Binladin, he attacked U.S. targets several times. The media ignored stories about Binladin and the Bush and Clinton administrations failed the American people. Many in the press were trying to warn about Binladin, but the bean counters weren't interested. That was a major part of the problem. |
That is true
| Quote: |
| Taking out Sadr would be very complicated. It would enrage Iraqi Shiites who comprise the majority of Iraqis. However, the U.S. government blames the Sadrist faction for the botched execution and they used Malki like a puppet. U.S. officers were probably steaming when this happened. They shouldn't have handed over Saddam until after the holiday. They just didn't expect that to happen. The Iraqi government has been very unreliable. Anyway, how would killing Sadr be productive?[ |
Cause he is implacable enemy of the US , the longer he stays around the more powerful and more of a problem he becomes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
Are you saying the Americans are turning a blind eye, thus allowing him to gain power, in order to set him up as the next boogeyman of Iraq? |
No just that they underestimated him and that he would go away or that someone else would have taken him out.
Here is the sad truth:P
The US could have killed Khomeini anytime before he got to Iran
The US could have killed Bin Laden in 1996 before he got to Afghanistan
The US could have gotten Sadr too.
The ban on assassinations is killing the US. What a stupid policy. |
That's a lot of could've. What's more important is what they will do now. |
think the US ought to.
1) Bribe Turkey to let the US move forces to Kurdistan.
2) Break up Iraq into three parts.
3) Get Egypt and Jordans's help and the gulf states (not talking about Saudi Arabia) as much as possible.
4) Move US forces to Kurdistan and Kuwait.
5) Train the Iraqi army as best we can
6) Invest in alternative energy
7) Go after Al Qaeda as much as possible.
8 ) Invest in new weapons such as hypervelocity space rods and hypersonic cruise missiles, so the US will be able to impose the kind of war it wants to on the enemy instead of the other way around
9) Get Europe to sanction / crack down on Hizzbollah.
If the US is able put in place the above the US will be in a fairly good strategic situation in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has had several good chances to get Sadr. I knew when they let him go in 2004 that he was going to come back to haunt them. |
Are you saying the Americans are turning a blind eye, thus allowing him to gain power, in order to set him up as the next boogeyman of Iraq? |
No just that they underestimated him and that he would go away or that someone else would have taken him out.
Here is the sad truth:P
The US could have killed Khomeini anytime before he got to Iran
The US could have killed Bin Laden in 1996 before he got to Afghanistan
The US could have gotten Sadr too.
The ban on assassinations is killing the US. What a stupid policy. |
That's a lot of could've. What's more important is what they will do now. |
think the US ought to.
1) Bribe Turkey to let the US move forces to Kurdistan.
2) Break up Iraq into three parts.
3) Get Egypt and Jordans's help and the gulf states (not talking about Saudi Arabia) as much as possible.
4) Move US forces to Kurdistan and Kuwait.
5) Train the Iraqi army as best we can
6) Invest in alternative energy
7) Go after Al Qaeda as much as possible.
8 ) Invest in new weapons such as hypervelocity space rods and hypersonic cruise missiles, so the US will be able to impose the kind of war it wants to on the enemy instead of the other way around
9) Get Europe to sanction / crack down on Hizzbollah.
If the US is able put in place the above the US will be in a fairly good strategic situation in the future. |
The technology to replace gasoline engines is already there...and I'm not talking about those stupid hydrogen cars. They've got sports cars that go from 0 to 60mph in less than 4 seconds. The new batteries can power these cars for 300 miles between charges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
al-Sadr is a punk who should have been imprisoned years ago, if not made the target of a hit squad. He's not a religious leader; he's a terrorist in imam clothing like all the other despicable radical Islamofascists.
If this current Iraqi government collapses, it will be of its own partisan doing and deservedly so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
