The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts [Archive] - Page 8

mjd1982

5th July 2007, 03:47 AM

How are you determining this? By the amount of postings? Or do you consider "following closely" as a consensual agreement between people here and you by way of your arguments?

I'll show you in a second

Here's something you don't know, mjd, but now you will; I argued the very same points you are arguing, and argued them here, just like you are now.

Hmmm... well you probably didnt argue them as I did, but if you can show me a link, I will be able to say that with more certainty

Those people (as you call them My ilk) you give the ad-hom attack to, have researched the points you are arguing, as have I.

Let's make a distinction here. Ad hom is a bad tactic in an argument since it stands, usually to take the place of addressing the point. You attack the arguer, instead of the argument. Now I will not hide from the fact that I can be a bit waspish here, a little bit intolerant with certain people possibly, but I always address people's points. The same cannot be said of your "ilk", this is beyond question.

The problem is You. Read that again, the problem is you and I'll reasonably tell you why.

ok...

You are so convinced that the Neocons had written PNAC with the intention of making these transformational changes in the short term,

Ok, here we have our 1st example of you not following. I have not ever said, and have explicitly denied in response to DR above, stating that PNAC wrote RAD with the intention of causing a new PH to catalyse these changes. This is a nuance that very few people on this board appear to be capable of understanding; hence a reason for the hold ups. I have stated, as you well know, that the doc illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy. Think about that before you post again in this regard.

with their expression as a catastrophic and catalyzing event to be the trigger. 9/11 turned out to be that event. I'm not saying your completely wrong as far as the intentional acts of corruption leading to up 9/11,

with what intention? I dont understand you.

it's just that any acts of corruption are indirect in causing 9/11 to happen. The larger context of corruption was seized upon after 9/11. Note here that it's a key point.

Right. Well as above. If you are interested in the truth, think about my bolded point above, and read #750. Then come back to me and tell me there's no need for a new investigation.

They have been addressed, countless times. there's no fear here to do that.

Instance #2 of you not following. DR is the 1st one to address #95, no one has fully contested #493, and no one has come close to responding to #750.

As I've stated previously, I was making these arguments you are now, in the past. I realized and was shown 9/11 was not an inside job, just that incompetence, corruption, indifference, bureaucratic procedure all had contributed to the conditions.

as above

Honest debate means you can agree to disagree.

After you have laid your cards on the table

Here is the BIG problem though: Who is going to allow a new investigation?

Instance #3 of you not following. This was discussed at the top of the thread, in an exchange with Myriad.

Dave Rogers

5th July 2007, 05:21 AM

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

What about lying to save a valued ally and friend from the clutches of American imperialism? And what is your evidence that the Taliban considered OBL to be a mass murderer, other than the assertion that they were willing to hand him over (the honesty of which offer is, of course, the point in dispute)?

In addition, there would also be the issue of the veracity of your statement which would be questionable, which again illustrates the haplessness of the arguments being put forth here.

Let's take that apart and have a look at it. You're suggesting that the statement "All the Dutch who were hiding or would have hidden Jews during World War II would have shaded the truth, or even lied, rather than hand them over to the Nazis" is questionable. Are you questioning whether any Dutch people hid Jews in World War Two (which calls the personal history of, IIRC, Audrey Hepburn into question, among others), or are you suggesting that some of those who hid Jews would, if asked directly by a German official, have immediately and openly admitted to the fact that they were hiding Jews? In other words, are you ignorant of 20th century history, or of human nature and intelligence? As regards hapless arguments, this is one of the best.

Dave

Belz...

5th July 2007, 05:50 AM

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

You didn't read what I said very carefully:

In the post you were answering to, I was attempting to make you understand the meaning of the Afghan claim by using an analogy. Specifically, I meant to explain to you that if you don't verify a claim, you cannot say whether it is true or not, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a racial slur.

Your post above merely confirms what I've suspected since the OP; namely that you cannot interpret what you read. It is obvious that you either did not read my post, did not understand what it meant, or simply ignored its content.

Such an attitude towards other people's statements make it impossible to engage in a debate with you, since the only voice you are hearing is your own.

Mjd, even if I were to agree that this was a racial slur, it doesn't follow that the claim itself is FALSE. How could you know unless you CHECK ?

Belz...

5th July 2007, 05:54 AM

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it

That's a lie. Many people contested it.

The point is that there was no discussion on the US side of whether to accept. This is what needs explanation.

But we HAVE provided explanations. Please keep up.

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

Absolutely irrelevant. It all depends on how you consider your guest. It's clear that you only consider it racial slur when it suits you.

I have not ever said, and have explicitly denied in response to DR above, stating that PNAC wrote RAD with the intention of causing a new PH to catalyse these changes. This is a nuance that very few people on this board appear to be capable of understanding; hence a reason for the hold ups. I have stated, as you well know, that the doc illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy. Think about that before you post again in this regard.

Then you have not only no proof, but no means, no motive, and no point.

SpitfireIX

5th July 2007, 05:59 AM

No, because lying to save people from genocide is different to lying to protect a mass murderer. Pretty simple, hence the use of the word "pejorative".

Go read about the "crimes" of which the Nazis considered all Jews collectively guilty. How do you know the Taliban considered bin Laden guilty of mass murder?

In addition, there would also be the issue of the veracity of your statement which would be questionable, which again illustrates the haplessness of the arguments being put forth here.

In your zeal to attack my argument, you are implying that a statement must be true in order to be an ethnic slur. I'd characterize that as worse than hapless.

JonnyFive

5th July 2007, 07:01 AM

1. By repute

So we can determine which journalists have the most repute by their repute?

That is a statement of kirkmanesque circularity.

2. Cockburn and St Clair, [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html"the link[/url] has been provided 1000 times, do keep up

Yeah... we know.

3. Journalists dont include links to offline documentation in their articles

That's so weird. Right now I'm reading this book on the history of the United States, and it has this crazy thing in the back labelled "bibliography" with all these weird titles and authors and stuff, but I don't see any web links. It's crazy, because I don't have a clue what to do with these things, them not being on the internet and all.

Cuddles

5th July 2007, 07:22 AM

1stly, this has been debated to conclusion, very few of your colleagues wish to seriously contest it, but you can flick back and see how it has gone, I think it is pretty conclusive.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure none of my colleagues post on this forum so I don't see how this is at all relevant. Secondly, the people who do post on this forum not only contest it, but have spent most of this thread showing how incredibly wrong you are. If this is your idea of not contesting then I can only assume you have serious problems with the English language. It certainly is conclusive, but apparently not in the way you seem to think.

1stly, you make the elementary mistake that what PNAC strictly wanted was not a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event.

No, it is you who make the mistake when you assume that PNAC wanted anything. They said what they thought would happen if something happened, and what they thought would happen if it did not. At no point does it say what they want to happen, or even which of the two they think would be better.

If you deny that 911 was the sort of event PNAC were referring you, then you are denying that 911 was either catastophic, or catalysing. Since this would have to be the case, I repeat my assertion that you are not being serious.

Again, I have said quite clearly that 11/9 was not anything like a new Pearl Harbour. I was not the first person to say this. Once again, a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war.

2ndly, if you wish to contest the similarity between RAD and WOT, then there is a very simple way to do it. Go to post 95, as has Darth Rotor, and see what the contentions are in this regard. There you will see that RAD is an almost blow by blow replica of the WOT. This will be very simple for you to understand, should you be posting on this thread in a serious vein.

Ooo, yes, post 95. That would be the post 95 where you lied about "unprecedented" increase in military spending, yes? The post 95 where you tried to claim that keeping military spending at its lowest level since the end of WWII was a valid reason for the US government to murder its own people? And you claim it is me who isn't being serious?

Seriously, instead of trying to make snide remarks and very bad arguments to popularity, try actually addressing my posts. I made three points. Here they are nicely summarised:

1) PNAC did not want a new Pearl Harbour. Please provide your evidence that they actually did want it. Not that they discussed what could happen if one occured, show me where it actually says that they wanted it.

2) A new Pearl Harbour did not occur. Please provide your evidence that 11/9 was in any way similar to Pearl Harbour. You know, the attack by a sovereign nation on another. The military operation. The military targets. Not "lot's of people died and the government was upset". That just doesn't cut it.

3) PNAC did not get anything out of 11/9. The whole argument was that PNAC said a new Pearl Harbour would be required to increase defense spending to what they considered appropriate levels. Defense spending is at about the same level it has been for over a decade and is still lower than it has been since the end of WWII. It is simply ridiculous to try to use PNAC's objectives as evidence that they did it because they didn't achieve their objectives.

nicepants

5th July 2007, 08:06 AM

1. By repute 1 - Who are "the most reputable journalists in the US", and how is this determined?

So, is there a list somewhere, or did you make this determination yourself that these 2 men were "2 of the most reputable journalists in the US"?

Belz...

5th July 2007, 08:14 AM

11/9

Isn't the international date standard YYYY-MM-DD ?

Or is it the other way around ?

nicepants

5th July 2007, 08:28 AM

An assertion that is by definition a racial slur (i.e. one that tars a race with a pejorative brush), is not one that any reasonable person will waste time investigating. This is a pretty simple concept, i'm afraid to say.

Cultural beliefs and practices are not "racial slurs".

For example: in American culture, it is considered offensive to raise your middle finger. This is not a racial slur, it's culture.

In some asian countries, your left hand is considered unclean, and should not be used to touch other people. This is not a racial slur, this is culture.

Cuddles

5th July 2007, 08:59 AM

Isn't the international date standard YYYY-MM-DD ?

Or is it the other way around ?

DD-MM-YYYY is standard. I've seen templates for YYYY-MM-DD, but I've never seen it used, although it does seem just as logical. The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

Belz...

5th July 2007, 10:12 AM

For example: in American culture, it is considered offensive to raise your middle finger. This is not a racial slur, it's culture.

Why do you hate Americans, nicepants ?

Belz...

5th July 2007, 10:14 AM

The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

Indeed, I've never understood that. It's just very confusing.

Why do you hate Americans, Cuddles ? ;)

nicepants

5th July 2007, 10:30 AM

DD-MM-YYYY is standard. I've seen templates for YYYY-MM-DD, but I've never seen it used, although it does seem just as logical. The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

Typically, we say "on September 5" or "on July 4"...so I'm guessing that's how MM-DD became standard practice here.

Why do you hate Americans, nicepants ?

You're right, I shouldn't have stereotyped like that. We Americans are so rude.

lapman

5th July 2007, 10:40 AM

I'm sorry, but I dont think you're being serious.

1stly, you make the elementary mistake that what PNAC strictly wanted was not a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event.
This is a completely false statement. Nowhere in the PNAC document does it state this or infer that this is a requirement. Your only reasoning for this is that it "makes sense."
If you deny that 911 was the sort of event PNAC were referring you, then you are denying that 911 was either catastophic, or catalysing.
9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event. However, the PNAC never stated or implied that such an event was required or desirable. The PNAC was simply stating a military fact of life when it comes to development of new systems, not a needed change of policy. Of course you're going to say "read post XXX for proof." Yet none of those posts contain any real evidence, only your speculations, conjectures and opinions based on coincidences that only you and the "Truth Movement" claim are related. Your PNAC - RAD - WOT relationship is no different than the Mercury Insurance - Aliens from the planet Mercury relationship. Both are bogus. Now can we finally move on to your next equally bogus point about WTC 7 being a CD?

Belz...

5th July 2007, 10:46 AM

Typically, we say "on September 5" or "on July 4"...so I'm guessing that's how MM-DD became standard practice here.

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Newtons Bit

5th July 2007, 11:05 AM

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Blasphemer!

JimBenArm

5th July 2007, 11:23 AM

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...
Man, we Americans just can't win! First, we fix your spelling so it makes sense, and you whine about how we don't stick to the "mother tongue". So, we stick to your units of measure, and you whine about us not using the metric system!
Y'all are just anti-American, ain't ya!

JonnyFive

5th July 2007, 11:54 AM

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

Why do you hate the Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Empire_%28Star_Wars%29), Belz? I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

nicepants

5th July 2007, 12:19 PM

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

It's what we grow up on :-/. I remember learning metric in grade school, and our teachers telling us "we'll be switching soon".

One thing I've always wondered. Britian is all on the metric system...yet the monetary unit is "pounds"?

rwguinn

5th July 2007, 12:28 PM

Well it still isn't very useful.

Like the imperial system. Stupid pounds and feet and miles...

May you feast in heaven, foul shade...*

*Since I assume "Rot in He%%" is just another day in paradise for you...

Belz...

5th July 2007, 01:05 PM

Man, we Americans just can't win! First, we fix your spelling so it makes sense, and you whine about how we don't stick to the "mother tongue". So, we stick to your units of measure, and you whine about us not using the metric system!
Y'all are just anti-American, ain't ya!

I'm French, Jim. The mother tongue's the tongue of Voltaire, to me.

Blasphemer!
Why do you hate the Empire, Belz? I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
It's what we grow up on :-/. I remember learning metric in grade school, and our teachers telling us "we'll be switching soon".
May you feast in heaven, foul shade...

My, my. Struck a chord, didn't I ?

*Since I assume "Rot in He%%" is just another day in paradise for you...

:D

JimBenArm

5th July 2007, 02:38 PM

I'm French, Jim. The mother tongue's the tongue of Voltaire, to me.

Don't know why, but I always thought you were French Canadian.

Must be the graceful way you smack down the morons around here.

JonnyFive

5th July 2007, 02:39 PM

My, my. Struck a chord, didn't I ?

It's not my fault that you don't accept the power of the Dark Side.

MIKILLINI

5th July 2007, 03:25 PM

Ok, here we have our 1st example of you not following. I have not ever said, and have explicitly denied in response to DR above, stating that PNAC wrote RAD with the intention of causing a new PH to catalyse these changes.

According to what you say above, PNAC was written with no intention of any Americans causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, correct? You've never said this, correct?

This is a nuance that very few people on this board appear to be capable of understanding; hence a reason for the hold ups. I have stated, as you well know, that the doc illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy.

But, according to what you say above, the document presents how it would be favorable for a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause transformations to happen sooner, correct?
Now, explain to Me your evaluation on coming to this conclusion, since you are saying that there was no intention of causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, but you are claiming the Bush Administration saw this as an opportunity, or in other words, the documents illustrative propitiousness to policy. Since over half of the signees of the document ended up in the Bush Administration, how and where do you draw the line on the propitiousness to policy and the non-intentional policy of a catastrophic and catalyzing event at the time the document was written.
Think about that before you post again in this regard.

MIKILLINI

5th July 2007, 09:21 PM

Again, I’m sorry, but this just betrays a gross misunderstanding of the document. It is stating that we need a new PH- a mass terror attack on US soil, ingrained on the public’s consciousness- in order to catalyse hegemonic aims. Not that we need to prevent a new PH ever happening- this is in fact the opposite of what is said.

A follow up for the previous post..Your words.

Darth Rotor

5th July 2007, 11:06 PM

"Frivolous"?
Yes. Quite.

Who among the EU Nations had the largest standing army in Europe, other than the Russians, in 1992? In 1995?

How many brigades did they send to Bosnia?

In 1992
In 1995
in 1998?

Excuse me, why did Americans need to be there, at all? Not sure if you were paying attention to security/defence matters in those days, but if you heard the rhetoric from Paris and Berlin, and sometimes from Rome, and moreso in Brussels. there was quite a lot of talk about the EU, WEU, Eurocorps, and the Independent European Security Identity.

Funnily enough, when push came to shove, Europe as so envisioned found its political will lacking. The Danes, Spanis, Brits and Turks, found ways to send their lads to Bosnia, but the richest and strongest member of the EU didn't, and wouldn't. The Frogs showed up, even the Danes and Dutch. But not the economic pillar of the EU.

There was no need for Americans in Bosnia, except perhaps for a regiment to work with the Russians as a pure political foil to lubricate NATO - CIS relations, and as a lever for Partnership for Peace efforts.

Frivolous. Why? It was reassuring to some American political egos that "they still need us" which is what alcohol and drug counsellors call "enabling behavior."

DR

Darth Rotor

5th July 2007, 11:42 PM

I'm sorry, I presume you have not been on this thread before, but i will state my position pretty clearly on RAD since there appear to be crossed wires here.

The RAD document illustrates that PNAC, composed significantly of members who were to assume important positions in the Bush admin on and up to 911, deemed a catastrophic and catalysing even, a new PH, to be propitious to policy, that policy of military radicalisation as outlined in RAD.
No. Pearl Harbor was presented in two different places, and the first piece of analysis was the threshold of how big a shock America needed to get on a war footing. America is still not on a war footing the way it was after WW II, and if you note some of General Batiste's remarks, bitter in tone, about his return from Iraq in 2005 and how "America isn't at war, the Army is" you might just get a sniff of a clue as to where the perceptual error is that you keep insisting upon.
This policy is now, to an overwhelmingly accurate degree, now being pursued under the banner of the WOT.
The policy may have been that way had the WOT stayed in Afghanistan, but having switched courses to Iraq, the policy that included transforming the military has hit an immense snag. The Iraq War has been an obstacle to the planned transformation.
I do not state that RAD constitutes a plan; it merely gives us a framework within which to analyse the behaviour of Bush et al in the lead up to 911,
In presenting the next defense budget, yes.
given that they had deemed such an even to be propitious.
No, this is your core error, and apparent dishonesty, unless my still not quenched, and very cynical, suspiscions on LIHOP are right. There just isn't enough evidence to support those suspiscions, only some possible threads that don't make much of a weave.
Ok, so you state that it may have been an inside job, but because an independent investigation might be too hard, you dont support it?
No, I suspect, don't state, that the terrorist activity, and potential for an attack on the US (don't forget, some rag heads went after the WTC in 1993, it's not as though terror attacks on America were anything new, FFS) might have been assessed, and counter terror efforts allowed to atrophy a bit until an attack occurred. This suspiscion is a stretch, and is only thinly supported by Clarke and Scheuer, and some FBI feedback (which can also be explained in part by "dodging blame actions") on pre 9-11 decisions in the counter terror policies that frustrated their efforts.

As for "an independent investigation: "who is going to talk that hasn't already? What possible motive could anyone "on the inside" have to talk now? I don't see the point. Perhaps some more generals will retire and say some things I don't expect to hear. The recent comments by Major eneral Tabuga on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were quite candid, though not unexpected.
Ok good! Well seeing as a CTer can be broadly defined as someone who thinks there is sufficient evidence of gov comlicity in 911 to warrant a new independent investigation into such, would you thus be a CTer?
No, I am a cynical son of a gun was on the pointy end of American policy for 20+ years, and who has seen any number of questionable choices made by the suits in DC. See Reagan in Beirut, Kosovo, Somalia.
The transformations they talk about implementing would take several decades to implement, according to them:
It is eight years later, and it hasn't happened to any extent. The tank is still around, twelve CVBG's still around, and so on.
But, the dastardly nature of the WOT is such that, as explained, it will persist beyond 2009, indeed indefinitely, as Terror can never be vanquished.
Now you are playing word games, but hell, so was Bush with his War on Terror gambit, so you are even. You suck as bad as he does. Happy now?
If the batteries ever start to run thin, and US hegemony looks set to be threatened, all that needs to happen is another inside job attack, say pinned on Venezuelan terrorist, or Iranian, or whoever, and the WOT starts up all over again,
Only as long as the GOP/neocons can keep

The White House
A majority in Congress
This is how a war can last forever, despite its initiators and founding ideologues only being around for 4 or 8 years.
There is ample precedent for ending a rotten war. Ever heard of Viet Nam?
This is why the WOT makes no sense; even if 911 wasnt an inside job, they could have called it a War on AQ, or a War on Jihadist Terrorism.
That's what they did, explicitly.
The WOT is so flexible and regenerative, that it is the perfect construct, political and not media, note that, to ensure the sustenance of US hegemony through military means throughout the 21st century, just as PNAC has set out to achieve.
PNAC departed from any "war on terror" the day the troops crossed the LD into Iraq from Kuwait. Any rhetoric conflating the two is immensely foolish, and intellectually dishonest. Yours and Bush's.
As I have said many times, RAD is a strategy proposal, one that will ~save the world for America; it is inexplicable that initiators of such would want such an occurence to wait awhile and then hope someone else would implement it;
Their statement was in how the transformation was to begin, within the next QDR. That's in the text, mj.
or that they would not want such to be implemented as firmly and as quickly as possible.
Your words, not theirs. What they most wanted was to reverse the declining trend, and position the decision makers to have a tool available to use to influence events in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That was a logical follow up to 12 years of build up, from 1991 through 2003, of infrastructure and basing in the Persian Gulf. See the US Army's On Point, the first third of the book, for an excellent treatment of the consistency of American Persian Gulf defense policy from 1991 to 2003.
Lol, this is exaclty the point! They wanted the end strength to go up, and a war would spur that change!
They didn't need a war to spur a change to end strength of that small a magnitude in 2001-2005. that one percent would be achieved by the end of the first term, if not sooner.
Hence, maybe, why he was replaced.
Nope.
Nonetheless, many of the elements of the WOT, outlined many times already, have been pursued under the aegis of this war, Iraq or no Iraq.
Nope. WOT was undertaken in Afghanistan, whose operational method is very different from Iraq, and was summarily abandoned upon the commencement of the Iraq War. All that remained was bad rhetoric.
I wouldnt go along with "extra national" at all; if a government blows up a civilian building/plane, this is terrorism too.
I guess you don't understand terrorism then. It is the tool of the weak and unable to (in legitimate means) act political faction.
The fact that PH is mentioned in another context in the doc is completely meaningless; what is your point?
That you cherry pick PH because it fits your bias.
No its not. As I have said before, if you want to argue that the neo cons wanted this change that would in their eyes, secure US hegemony for the century to come, to happen slowly, rather than as soon as would be possible and feasible, then i think you have some work to do.
PNAC's aim, in that document, was to reverse the decline in defense spending, and correct a hollow force in the making. This did not need a war to do, but needed a 3.5% GDP DoD budget to do, given the decay under Clinton.
Just because we are after the event, you cannot just throw the term "post hoc" at any efforts to use RAD as evidence.
Just because we are after the event does not make the PH reference evidence of what you claim it is. You seem to confuse coincidence, cause, and correlation.
Correct! And hence how such would be propitous to policy. Where is the problem here? I cant see whats so hard to understand.
Had the WoT effort stayed with Afghanistan, and further discrete actions purely against terror and extra national groups, I'd agree with you, as that effort would have matched perfectly the transformation themes Rummy brought into the Pentagon with him. I lived with this crap, mj, as part of my work.

As it was, the decision to go into Iraq undermined the transformation plan, or at least broke it badly.
Again a matter of execution, rather than design; though I would like to see the specific figures, since I cannot believe that significant amounts arent going into the other programmes mentioned here so far.
Given what you have convinced yourself of, I am not sure I care to spend the time to dig up 7 years of Pentagon programatic changes. Death to Comanche was a major one, but Comanche was part of the transformation of Force XXI!

(Not sure why I bother, really.)
It is evidence of propitiousness to policy, nothing more for the moment.
Opportunism is as good an explanation, with no need to infer any other motive.
This is the point; the execution is irrelevant, particularly under this bunch of bumblers.
Nope. The point is that the Iraq War was a departure from the transformation.
Hence why it would be propitious to policy. Are we agreed?
No. 9-11 provided an opportunity, public sentiment was harnessed, and then thrown away into Iraq.
In a broad sense yes, but as it was called for in PNAC, and is being done under the Global Posture Review.
We sort of agree on that.
In short, you seem to agree that a new PH would speed the changes, as military changes in a wartime environment are a lot easier to implement than in peacetime.
No. The changes were going to come in the QDR, and Rummy was supposed to take the bull by the horns and force the Pentagon out of their paradigms. Had the war been kept at the modest resource level, 20-30,000 troops in Afghanistan, this would have been manageable, and Afghanistan a good test bed for some of the exotic ideas Rummy had. Going to Iraq screwed the entire transformation. Again, Rummy's first 120 days as Sec Def sent a bit of a shock through DoD. The word trickling down to the field was "it's gonna change, get to work."
Are you stating that even taking this ease into account, PNAC would rather such changes be pursued in peacetime?
Yes, that is was RAD was written for.
I think if you are serious, you do not, and if you do not, you must agree with my assertion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.
No. See above.
Further, I am not sure that you are too far away from a CT position, given your comments on LIHOP; maybe you can inform me on this.
A CT asserts with little to no evidence, and I, a cynical old salt, suspect, but am not fool enough to think I have the kind of evidence to make that any more than a suspiscion.

Please don't insult me further regarding CT modes. Osama and his gang did just fine in taking care of their agenda, regardless of the talent the PNAC crowd has displayed in their attempts to implement their somewhat more complex agenda.

DR

Belz...

6th July 2007, 05:48 AM

Don't know why, but I always thought you were French Canadian.

I am. See the word "French" in "French Canadian" ?

Must be the graceful way you smack down the morons around here.

I'd be just as graceful if I came from any other continent.

Except Antarctica.

Unsecured Coins

6th July 2007, 05:53 AM

I am. See the word "Freedom" in "Freedom Canadian" ?

ARRRGH!! Stupid Congressional Version of Windows Vista!! :mad:

Belz...

6th July 2007, 08:02 AM

JonnyFive

6th July 2007, 08:13 AM

:D

So, Belz, can you speak FREEDOM or does not everyone in FREEDOM Canada know how to speak FREEDOM?

Personally, I've never been to FREEDOM Canada before. Is it FREE?! DO YOU LOVE GEORGE BUSH! I LOVE GEORGE BUSH! HE IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND LOVES FREEDOM!

God damn this piece of crap. I knew I shouldn't have used Windows upda... I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH. I LOVE WINDOWS TOO. WINDOWS IS FREEDOM!

Oh, FREEDOM it, I'm going to go eat something. Maybe I'll have some FREEDOM fries.

Are we going to get any actual 9/11 conspiracy FREEDOM yet? I'm sick of waiting for I LOVE GEORGE BUSH I LOVE FREEDOM!

__________________
"wake up with some real FREEDOM, called FREEDOM." -GeorgeBush

"I would like to start a thread, Johhny Five, you appear to be FREE." -wizentub

T.A.M.

6th July 2007, 08:25 AM

So I am reading through the first, very very dry, pages of the PNAC document, and I am thinking to myself,

"For such a large, detailed document, allegedly about starting wars for the purpose of increasing Defense revenue, they spend very little, strike that, almost no time in this document discussing how they are going to start this war, etc..."

But what do I know...I am not mjd1982

TAM:)

Myriad

6th July 2007, 08:40 AM

With due respect to everyone's noble efforts in engaging in debate in this thread, it's clear that you're all wasting your time. Mjd is playing a game of "disprove my opinion." The only claim he is actually making is that he holds certain opinions, and the only reasonable response is to first agree with him that yes, he does indeed hold those opinions, and then regretfully inform him that the fact that he holds those opinions is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

The trick is that he appears to be attempting to offer evidence to support his opinions, but when the validity of any part of that evidence is questioned, or the logic of forming the opinion he holds based on the evidence he presents is questioned, he denies that he has implied any such connection between the information he's presented, and his opinion.

mjd: "I don't want that sandwich. It has pickles in it."
you: "Why don't you want pickles? Are you allergic, or do you just not like the taste?"
mjd: "I never said I don't want pickles. Please pay attention."

I admit it's a good trick, it has some originality to it which makes it effective, but endless repetition of it has gotten very tedious. So let's take his word for it that the evidence he offers does not, and was never intended to, support his claims, so arguing against it is useless. His only claim is that he has certain opinions. The only counter-argument he could possibly accept as relevant is an attempt to show that he does not actually have the opinions he claims to have, which even if that were the case would be impossible to show. Furthermore, there's been no evidence that he's in any way interested in our opinions on the same topic, whether supported by evidence and logic or not.

So, mjd, having followed your advice to follow the thread, keep up, read carefully, pay attention, etc. and having come to the above conclusions as a result, I request that we now move on.

What other opinions of yours would you like to inform us of?

And for what reason do you want to do so?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Belz...

6th July 2007, 10:07 AM

So, Belz, can you speak FREEDOM or does not everyone in FREEDOM Canada know how to speak FREEDOM?

Personally, I've never been to FREEDOM Canada before. Is it FREE?! DO YOU LOVE GEORGE BUSH! I LOVE GEORGE BUSH! HE IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND LOVES FREEDOM!

God damn this piece of crap. I knew I shouldn't have used Windows upda... I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH. I LOVE WINDOWS TOO. WINDOWS IS FREEDOM!

Oh, FREEDOM it, I'm going to go eat something. Maybe I'll have some FREEDOM fries.

Are we going to get any actual 9/11 conspiracy FREEDOM yet? I'm sick of waiting for I LOVE GEORGE BUSH I LOVE FREEDOM!

__________________
"wake up with some real FREEDOM, called FREEDOM." -GeorgeBush

"I would like to start a thread, Johhny Five, you appear to be FREE." -wizentub

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

Brainache

6th July 2007, 10:33 AM

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

I think he updated his software to the new and improved Windows FREEDOM version which has been released as part of the evil Neo-con plan for FREEDOM I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH global domination.

JonnyFive

6th July 2007, 10:35 AM

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ???

ETA: What he said:

I think he updated his software to the new and improved Windows FREEDOM version which has been released as part of the evil Neo-con plan for FREEDOM I LOVE FREEDOM AND GEORGE BUSH global domination.

You shouldn't have kept the fake sig line in the quote though, it gives it away. :)

Come on, you know this thread is gone. Er... I mean... FREEDOM.

Belz...

6th July 2007, 10:39 AM

What freedom version ?

What are you talking about ?

Why are there keebler elves in my cereals ?

What's this microphone doing there ?

JonnyFive

6th July 2007, 10:57 AM

What freedom version ?

What are you talking about ?

Why are there keebler elves in my cereals ?

What's this microphone doing there ?

Bet you're wishing you listened to mjd now, eh?

I think all of this is quite propitious to United States foreign policy.

By the way, for some reason my animated paper clip in Word is telling me to tell you to stand two feet to the left, over by the large window. I really don't know why, but it says it's urgent.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 11:39 AM

What about lying to save a valued ally and friend from the clutches of American imperialism?

This is another point, and the validity of it is based quite simply in the assertion that all Afghans/half Afghans (note it is Mohabbat here that we are talking about, striclty, not the Taliban), would a) view things in the same light as yourself, and b) that they would all lie systematically in such a context, the majority of which assertions here have been couched in a pretty gross bigotry.

And what is your evidence that the Taliban considered OBL to be a mass murderer, other than the assertion that they were willing to hand him over (the honesty of which offer is, of course, the point in dispute)?

Ok, well either a mass murderer, or an accessory to mass murder. This would be based on the fact that he was, undeniably, the head of AQ, which is an organisation that perpetrates mass murder.

Let's take that apart and have a look at it. You're suggesting that the statement "All the Dutch who were hiding or would have hidden Jews during World War II would have shaded the truth, or even lied, rather than hand them over to the Nazis" is questionable.

This, due to a lack of complete understanding of the instance cited, was a slight misapprehension on my part; I wasnt aware of the historical detail. But it was of no matter, as we shall see...

Are you questioning whether any Dutch people hid Jews in World War Two (which calls the personal history of, IIRC, Audrey Hepburn into question, among others),

no, tho I wasnt fully aware of the story

or are you suggesting that some of those who hid Jews would, if asked directly by a German official, have immediately and openly admitted to the fact that they were hiding Jews? In other words, are you ignorant of 20th century history, or of human nature and intelligence? As regards hapless arguments, this is one of the best.
Dave

No. Completely wrong. Think of the context. This is that all Afghans behave in a certain, negative way. This is a stupidity that does not need to be elaborated upon. The example of the dutch would be more accurate to this situation if all dutch people housed jews during ww2, and were subsequently pressed by Nazis (since you are trying to pin a slur on all Afghans). In this situation, no one with a degree of sanity would state that no dutch would admit to having jews in their house; there would surely be a few. We can indeed make this statement more accurate. Not only does every Dutch person house jews, but every half dutch person as well. And none of them will have an inclination to squeal, according, I presume, to you, since they have 50% dutchness in them. And although your analogy has fallen apart like a chinese motorcycle, it is still a million miles from the truth, since hiding jews from nazis is not comparable in any respect to hiding/protecting OBL from the US, unless you are to make your next logical step, which you have already intimated, that being that the relation of jews-nazis equates in the minds of all Afghans to that of OBL-US.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 11:42 AM

So we can determine which journalists have the most repute by their repute?

That is a statement of kirkmanesque circularity.

Yeah... we know.

That's so weird. Right now I'm reading this book on the history of the United States, and it has this crazy thing in the back labelled "bibliography" with all these weird titles and authors and stuff, but I don't see any web links. It's crazy, because I don't have a clue what to do with these things, them not being on the internet and all.
Please find a bibliography in a newspaper, or magazine, or online article, even in reputable papers. Does this make them untrustworthy? No.

JonnyFive

6th July 2007, 12:00 PM

Please find a bibliography in a newspaper, or magazine, or online article, even in reputable papers. Does this make them untrustworthy? No.

They can, and do, still cite sources. Due to the nature of the work, they are almost invariably primary sources. My point was that not having a "link" to sources because they are offline does not preclude having sources.

Guess what, when a paper prints:
“This is an important step in this Iraqi process,” said Philip Reeker, spokesman for Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador. (NY Times, 7/4/2007)

It's exactly the same as if I were to write:
According to a spokesman for US ambassador Crocker, this is an important step in this particular stage of Iraqi national policy (Reeker, 2007)

References

Reeker, P. (details of speech or interview date)

As I am quoting a primary source on the matter, as most current events papers do. Because they don't include a bibliography doesn't mean they don't include in-line citations. If a magazine talks about someone's book or interview, they will refer directly to the source in the article.

Most of your articles corroborate very well... about something that is the opposite of what you suggested. Your Counterpunch article seems to mainly cite one source without corroboration that he is a primary source.

Darth Rotor really ripped you a new one, mjd. You came out of that one looking bad. Maybe you have some radical new evidence that will show us all. Or maybe you could link to the Counterpunch article again - that worked real well for you the last twenty times you did it.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:07 PM

Firstly, I'm pretty sure none of my colleagues post on this forum so I don't see how this is at all relevant. Secondly, the people who do post on this forum not only contest it, but have spent most of this thread showing how incredibly wrong you are. If this is your idea of not contesting then I can only assume you have serious problems with the English language. It certainly is conclusive, but apparently not in the way you seem to think.

Well, this is an opinion. Luckily, it is one that can be easily verified, and done so by yourself. It will take you 2 minutes. Please go to post 95 and 493, and then show me where someone has debated this seriously, i.e. to some form of conclusion. Then tell me who. I will wait.

No, it is you who make the mistake when you assume that PNAC wanted anything. They said what they thought would happen if something happened, and what they thought would happen if it did not. At no point does it say what they want to happen, or even which of the two they think would be better.

Good. Once again, this is something that has been made very clear, and will be taken to heart by all people who are here for serious discourse.

PNAC made a statement. I have inferred a conclusion, incredible basic, from that statement. The standard, hapless refutation from your camp, is that "They didnt say it (in so many words), so you cannot say thats what they meant". I think this is a pretty uncontroversial summation of your colleagues' arguments here.

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

In this light, if you want to debate the inference, you can do what I have urged your friends to do, many times, with i think zero success, and that is to go to #493, and debate this inference, seriously, with me to conclusion. Very easy.

Again, I have said quite clearly that 11/9 was not anything like a new Pearl Harbour. I was not the first person to say this. Once again, a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war.

I know you have said this. Subsequently, i disagreed, stating why I disagreed. The next step, in adult debate, is for you to come up and say why you disagree with my contentions. And so on. Eventually we reach some semblance of conclusion.

Unfortunately the way you are you ilk like to perform on this forum, runs along the lines of I make a point, you state that I am wrong, and that is that. I exhort you to address the points, you say you have, and little progress gets made.

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion, which judgement I will suspend, you will go and do as I have suggested.

Ooo, yes, post 95. That would be the post 95 where you lied about "unprecedented" increase in military spending, yes? The post 95 where you tried to claim that keeping military spending at its lowest level since the end of WWII was a valid reason for the US government to murder its own people? And you claim it is me who isn't being serious?

No, that was the 2200 word post (including quotes) where 1 word was put down in error. This was pointed out to me, and I apologised. This is because I am interested in serious debate, hence I will admit to beng wrong. Incidentally your calling me a "liar" in this regard is a perfect instance of an empty ad hom the type that I described above.

Seriously, instead of trying to make snide remarks and very bad arguments to popularity, try actually addressing my posts. I made three points. Here they are nicely summarised:

1) PNAC did not want a new Pearl Harbour. Please provide your evidence that they actually did want it. Not that they discussed what could happen if one occured, show me where it actually says that they wanted it.

They didnt say "We want a new PH". They implied it overwhelmingly, in stating that their revolutionary, peace love and happiness bringing changes would take decades, absent such. This is all outlined in #493. Read it.

2) A new Pearl Harbour did not occur. Please provide your evidence that 11/9 was in any way similar to Pearl Harbour. You know, the attack by a sovereign nation on another. The military operation. The military targets. Not "lot's of people died and the government was upset". That just doesn't cut it.

Oh boy... how mind numbing. Why must I repeat myself over and over again? We have just been through this. It is, again, in #493. To be quick- strictly speaking, they were not referring to a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you deny the link to 911, then you are suggesting taht such was eother not catalysing, or not catastrophic. In this light, we can conclude that you are not on this board for serious purposes.

3) PNAC did not get anything out of 11/9. The whole argument was that PNAC said a new Pearl Harbour would be required to increase defense spending to what they considered appropriate levels. Defense spending is at about the same level it has been for over a decade and is still lower than it has been since the end of WWII. It is simply ridiculous to try to use PNAC's objectives as evidence that they did it because they didn't achieve their objectives.

Oh boy oh boy... read post 95 again, find out about what PNAC really wanted and what the WOT actually constitutes. It is a rebuttal no Gravy's LC guide PNAC section, and of course, he has no interest in defending his dismantling, neither has anyone else, save DR just now, over 1600 posts. This says a lot.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:09 PM

Cultural beliefs and practices are not "racial slurs".

For example: in American culture, it is considered offensive to raise your middle finger. This is not a racial slur, it's culture.

In some asian countries, your left hand is considered unclean, and should not be used to touch other people. This is not a racial slur, this is culture.
This is not a description of Afghan culture; it is a pejorative trait limited by ethnicity- an ethnic slur- that is being applied to a half Afghan in order to defend the OT.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:18 PM

This is a completely false statement. Nowhere in the PNAC document does it state this or infer that this is a requirement. Your only reasoning for this is that it "makes sense."

Excuse, me, getting ahead of myself. I meant, as I just stated to someone else, "what they were referring to was..."

9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event.

Hence it was what they were referring to

However, the PNAC never stated or implied that such an event was required or desirable. The PNAC was simply stating a military fact of life when it comes to development of new systems, not a needed change of policy.

i.e. that to get a change to happen in timely fashion, rather than several decades, it will be propitious for there to be a war environment. Are you going to seriously dispute this?

Of course you're going to say "read post XXX for proof."

No, I will say read #493 for my argument on this.

Yet none of those posts contain any real evidence, only your speculations, conjectures and opinions based on coincidences that only you and the "Truth Movement" claim are related.

how dull...

Good. Once again, this is something that has been made very clear, and will be taken to heart by all people who are here for serious discourse.

PNAC made a statement. I have inferred a conclusion, incredible basic, from that statement. The standard, hapless refutation from your camp, is that "They didnt say it (in so many words), so you cannot say thats what they meant". I think this is a pretty uncontroversial summation of your colleagues' arguments here.

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

In this light, if you want to debate the inference, you can do what I have urged your friends to do, many times, with i think zero success, and that is to go to #493, and debate this inference, seriously, with me to conclusion. Very easy.

Billdave2

6th July 2007, 12:19 PM

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:20 PM

I'm French, Jim. The mother tongue's the tongue of Voltaire, to me.

My, my. Struck a chord, didn't I ?

:D
Ben, dans ce cas la, "cultivez votre jardin", mon pote! T'en as vraiment besoin, je crois...

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:22 PM

According to what you say above, PNAC was written with no intention of any Americans causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, correct? You've never said this, correct?

But, according to what you say above, the document presents how it would be favorable for a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause transformations to happen sooner, correct?
Now, explain to Me your evaluation on coming to this conclusion, since you are saying that there was no intention of causing a catastrophic and catalyzing event, but you are claiming the Bush Administration saw this as an opportunity, or in other words, the documents illustrative propitiousness to policy. Since over half of the signees of the document ended up in the Bush Administration, how and where do you draw the line on the propitiousness to policy and the non-intentional policy of a catastrophic and catalyzing event at the time the document was written.
Think about that before you post again in this regard.

We know, with the most simple inference, that such an event would be propitious to policy. It may be the case that the plan was conceived then, but we have no way of gauging such minutiae.

Hence how we can make the distinction.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 12:30 PM

jab712

6th July 2007, 12:41 PM

lapman

6th July 2007, 01:01 PM

Hence it was what they were referring toNot even close. They were not referring to any specific event. Just because 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event is immaterial. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic and catalyzing event as well. But the PNAC was not referring to that either.
i.e. that to get a change to happen in timely fashion, rather than several decades, it will be propitious for there to be a war environment. Are you going to seriously dispute this?Where in the document does it say that the changes MUST happen sooner than later? Where is this so called policy stated in the PNAC document that 9/11 is propitious to?

Belz...

6th July 2007, 01:05 PM

Please find a bibliography in a newspaper, or magazine, or online article, even in reputable papers.

That shouldn't be too difficult.

Does this make them untrustworthy? No.

Of course it would. Anybody can claim anything.

They didnt say "We want a new PH". They implied it overwhelmingly

The problem with implication is that its interpretation can be overwhelmingly subjective.

in stating that their revolutionary, peace love and happiness bringing changes would take decades, absent such.

First off, you're misrepresenting what they said. You're the one adding "peace love and happiness brining changes" to make it seem like no one could possibly not want this as soon as possible. That's dishonest.

Second, "absent such" does not mean that less time = good, necessarily. You'll have to find some other argument.

Belz...

6th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Why must I repeat myself over and over again?

Because you are unable to do anything else ?

This is not a description of Afghan culture; it is a pejorative trait limited by ethnicity- an ethnic slur- that is being applied to a half Afghan in order to defend the OT.

Please read the following slowly:

HOW CAN YOU KNOW WITHOUT VERIFYING THE CLAIM ?

Ben, dans ce cas la, "cultivez votre jardin", mon pote! T'en as vraiment besoin, je crois...

"Ben" ? Je ne me nomme pas "Ben". Et je ne vois pas du tout comment écrire une phrase en Français 1) aide les autres à comprendre le sense de ton message, et 2) devrait m'impressionner, considérant le nombre de francophones dans le monde.

We know, with the most simple inference, that such an event would be propitious to policy.

It has been clearly shown to you that this is not the case. Why must we repeat ourselves over and over again?

Belz...

6th July 2007, 01:13 PM

What a pernicious and nasty little post.

Actually I thought it was spot on.

The only thing you have IS an opinion, I've been saying so for ever. And without your interpretation that "even" or "absent" means "we really want X to happen", you don't even HAVE an opinion.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 01:44 PM

No. Pearl Harbor was presented in two different places, and the first piece of analysis was the threshold of how big a shock America needed to get on a war footing. America is still not on a war footing the way it was after WW II, and if you note some of General Batiste's remarks, bitter in tone, about his return from Iraq in 2005 and how "America isn't at war, the Army is" you might just get a sniff of a clue as to where the perceptual error is that you keep insisting upon.

2 points. 1stly, the US is militarising space, transforming cyberspace into a defense mechanism, undergoing a global redeployment of troops, transforming the DoD, increasing military budgets, had the patriot act, the military commissions act and more, all under the aegis of the War on Terror. Please tell me given all this, how the US is not on a war footing.

2ndly, and importantly for you, you might want to differentiate between design and execution. It is not the executon we are concerned about, rather the execution. This is the main point, and as I have mentioned many times, issues of execution are rather irrelevent.

The policy may have been that way had the WOT stayed in Afghanistan, but having switched courses to Iraq, the policy that included transforming the military has hit an immense snag. The Iraq War has been an obstacle to the planned transformation.

No, read the document:

In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
Indeed, the United
States has for
decades sought to
play a more
permanent role in
Gulf regional
security. While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Overall U.S. military force
structure must be rationalized to accommodate
the fact that the presence of these forces
in far-flung outposts or on patrol overseas
may be as important as their theaterwarfighting
missions, especially in Europe.
The requirements of Balkans stabilization,
NATO expansion (including Partnership for
Peace) and other missions within the theater
render it unrealistic to expect U.S. forces in
Europe to be readily available for other
crises, as formal Pentagon planning
presumes. The continuing challenges from
Iraq also make it unwise to draw down
forces in the Gulf dramatically. Securing
the American perimeter today – and
tomorrow – will necessitate shifts in U.S.
overseas operations.

After eight years of no-fly-zone
operations, there is little reason to anticipate
that the U.S. air presence in the region
should diminish significantly as long as
Saddam Hussein remains in power.

From an
American perspective, the value of such
bases (in Saudi/the Persian Gulf) would endure even should Saddampass from the scene. Over the long term,
Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.
interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even
should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
retaining forward-based forces in the region
would still be an essential element in U.S.
security strategy given the longstanding
American interests in the region.

Just a few. Now tell me how an invasion/overthrow/war in Iraq was not part of the transformation/deemed propitious to the transformation.

In presenting the next defense budget, yes.

Which would have been easier to pursue in a war environment. I dont think that this is a controversial point.

No, this is your core error, and apparent dishonesty,

Please dont cast such aspersions.

unless my still not quenched, and very cynical, suspiscions on LIHOP are right. There just isn't enough evidence to support those suspiscions, only some possible threads that don't make much of a weave.

Ok. Well then tell me why they would want such world changing, peace love and happiness bringing changes to occur over decades, rather than mths/years; or why any sane person would want such, all else being equal.

No, I suspect, don't state, that the terrorist activity, and potential for an attack on the US (don't forget, some rag heads went after the WTC in 1993,

rag heads? I would hope you are not meaning that term in a racist sense...

it's not as though terror attacks on America were anything new, FFS) might have been assessed, and counter terror efforts allowed to atrophy a bit until an attack occurred. This suspiscion is a stretch, and is only thinly supported by Clarke and Scheuer, and some FBI feedback (which can also be explained in part by "dodging blame actions") on pre 9-11 decisions in the counter terror policies that frustrated their efforts.

Atrophy to what purpose? To stimulate anti-terror efforts? By invading Iraq? And if you have such suspicions, then why do you not feel there should be an investigation into such? Your suspicions, if true, would lead to the Bush admin being put in front of a firing squad, as with any CT.

As for "an independent investigation: "who is going to talk that hasn't already? What possible motive could anyone "on the inside" have to talk now? I don't see the point. Perhaps some more generals will retire and say some things I don't expect to hear. The recent comments by Major eneral Tabuga on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were quite candid, though not unexpected.

People did talk. Clarke talked. Tenet talked. e,g, Tenet talked about 1mentions of the OBL threat per every 4 PDBs while Bush was in office. Nothing was done in this regard. This is an example of the ability to call people to account simply on the basis of what we already have. An indepedent investigation would take such elements seriously, and investigate them.

No, I am a cynical son of a gun was on the pointy end of American policy for 20+ years, and who has seen any number of questionable choices made by the suits in DC. See Reagan in Beirut, Kosovo, Somalia.

It is eight years later, and it hasn't happened to any extent. The tank is still around, twelve CVBG's still around, and so on.

as above, differentiate between execution and design.

Now you are playing word games, but hell, so was Bush with his War on Terror gambit, so you are even. You suck as bad as he does. Happy now?

But this is just incredibly empty headed, I'm sorry.

The point about the war on Terror is that it can never end. That is my defining the "word game" that has been created by the Bush admin. Nothing else.

This should not have been hard to understand.

Only as long as the GOP/neocons can keep

The White House
A majority in Congress

No, since it can be renewed any time they have either

There is ample precedent for ending a rotten war. Ever heard of Viet Nam?

Lol, I'm not talking about a rotten war, I'm talking about a war that cannot conceivably end.

That's what they did, explicitly.

???

No, they explicity called it the "War on Terror".

PNAC departed from any "war on terror" the day the troops crossed the LD into Iraq from Kuwait. Any rhetoric conflating the two is immensely foolish, and intellectually dishonest. Yours and Bush's.

Oh please. You are starting to get a bit over excited i think. Stick to the facts and stop the childish aspersions, if you want to debate like an adult.

The war in Iraq is part of the WOT, according to the neo cons. I take it you do not dispute this.

Their statement was in how the transformation was to begin, within the next QDR. That's in the text, mj.

hence the importance of such an event occurring before Oct 2001

Your words, not theirs. What they most wanted was to reverse the declining trend, and position the decision makers to have a tool available to use to influence events in the Middle East, and elsewhere. That was a logical follow up to 12 years of build up, from 1991 through 2003, of infrastructure and basing in the Persian Gulf. See the US Army's On Point, the first third of the book, for an excellent treatment of the consistency of American Persian Gulf defense policy from 1991 to 2003.

and what better way to do it than to say, "We're at war, do what we say, else you will all be nuked".

They didn't need a war to spur a change to end strength of that small a magnitude in 2001-2005. that one percent would be achieved by the end of the first term, if not sooner.

execution, not design

Nope. WOT was undertaken in Afghanistan, whose operational method is very different from Iraq, and was summarily abandoned upon the commencement of the Iraq War. All that remained was bad rhetoric.

The Iraq war is, in the eyes of the neo cons, an integral part of the WOT. If you are serious, you will not dispute this.

I guess you don't understand terrorism then. It is the tool of the weak and unable to (in legitimate means) act political faction.

act political faction?

It is used by those who feel the need to exploit it. This would apply both to weak groups, and governments.

Tell me, under your definition, if a government blows up a civilian plane, or aids in it, hits is not terrorism, so what is it? Take the 74 bombing of the Cubana de Aviacion flight as an example.

That you cherry pick PH because it fits your bias.

???

No, PH is used as an analogy. Analogies have different contexts. This is pretty damn simple!

PNAC's aim, in that document, was to reverse the decline in defense spending, and correct a hollow force in the making. This did not need a war to do, but needed a 3.5% GDP DoD budget to do, given the decay under Clinton.

They also wanted to defend US strategic interests, e.g. oil and gas:

But serious attention, careful
thought, and the willingness to devote
adequate resources to maintaining
America’s military strength can make the
world safer and American strategic interests
more secure now and in the future.

U.S. defense planning
has been an empty and increasingly
self-referential exercise, often dominated by
bureaucratic and budgetary rather than
strategic interests.

Just because we are after the event does not make the PH reference evidence of what you claim it is. You seem to confuse coincidence, cause, and correlation.

Haha.. no, please read more carefully. I am simply stating that it illustrates that a new PH was in their eyes propitious to policy, since under war conditions, military transformation is easier to push through. This is the most elementary of common sense.

Had the WoT effort stayed with Afghanistan, and further discrete actions purely against terror and extra national groups, I'd agree with you, as that effort would have matched perfectly the transformation themes Rummy brought into the Pentagon with him. I lived with this crap, mj, as part of my work.

as above re: iraq

As it was, the decision to go into Iraq undermined the transformation plan, or at least broke it badly.

haha, no.

Given what you have convinced yourself of, I am not sure I care to spend the time to dig up 7 years of Pentagon programatic changes. Death to Comanche was a major one, but Comanche was part of the transformation of Force XXI!

(Not sure why I bother, really.)

as u wish

Opportunism is as good an explanation, with no need to infer any other motive.

What the hell are you talking about?? Opportunism? This was before 911 happened, where is the opportunism?

Nope. The point is that the Iraq War was a departure from the transformation.

as above...

No. 9-11 provided an opportunity, public sentiment was harnessed, and then thrown away into Iraq.

Right. Stop and think for a second. The new PH provided an opportunity. Hence it was propitious to policy. Now why do you then say that in the PNAC doc, the envisioning of a new PH would not have been propitious to policy. This isnt very serious i dont think.

No. The changes were going to come in the QDR, and Rummy was supposed to take the bull by the horns and force the Pentagon out of their paradigms. Had the war been kept at the modest resource level, 20-30,000 troops in Afghanistan, this would have been manageable, and Afghanistan a good test bed for some of the exotic ideas Rummy had. Going to Iraq screwed the entire transformation. Again, Rummy's first 120 days as Sec Def sent a bit of a shock through DoD. The word trickling down to the field was "it's gonna change, get to work."

again, as above

Yes, that is was RAD was written for.

Oh boy.... RAD didnt say "We need to cause a new PH". But it states what all people with common sense know, that if such changes occur catalysed by a new PH, they will happen soon, rather than over several decades. Further, in a war environment, they should happen much easier, and roadblock and other issues should be easier to deal with. Why they, or any sane person, would not want this to happen, is something that would take a hell of a lot of explaining, I'm afraid.

WildCat

6th July 2007, 01:59 PM

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/Error_Message2.png

Keep clicking "repeat" there mjd...

simakperrce

6th July 2007, 03:00 PM

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

The problem with your theory of PNAC prediction/GOV involvement is that it is not falsifiable. As you probably know yourself, a theory that is not subject to falsifiability is worthless.

You can of course draw any kind of inference from the PNAC document but you will never leave the area of conjecture and speculation. Your interpretation of the whole case is as valid as me claiming (with Bertrand Russell) that "there is a green teapot circling between Jupiter and Saturn"

T.A.M.

6th July 2007, 03:09 PM

What a pernicious and nasty little post. If you have a sensible point to contribute to the discussion, then go ahead. If you simply wish to discourage people from posting here, then you would apparently be as pernicious as your post suggests you are, and you should maybe take your own advice.

mjd I love your writing style. It combines the average language and terminology of your ordinary poster, but slipped in there from time to time, are the occasional obtuse, albeit correct in meaning, use of words such as pernicious, and that other one you were so fond of, what was it...

You are so damn edumacated, I wish I had yous dialect...I'd sound right smart see...and dat is whaat I have always wanted to sound like ya know.

Or said your way...

You sir, are incredibly well educated. I yearn for your vernacular, as I would sound intellectually superior. For this I have had an amaranthine longing.

TAM:)

Belz...

6th July 2007, 03:38 PM

It is not the executon we are concerned about, rather the execution.

Ok, you lost me, there.

This is the main point, and as I have mentioned many times, issues of execution are rather irrelevent.

If they plan but don't execute, then why are we talking about propitiousness ?

Just a few. Now tell me how an invasion/overthrow/war in Iraq was not part of the transformation/deemed propitious to the transformation.

Why would it be is the actual question, here.

Ok. Well then tell me why they would want such world changing, peace love and happiness bringing changes to occur over decades, rather than mths/years; or why any sane person would want such, all else being equal.

Again, who ever said anything about rabbits in a field of flowers ? What's this crap about peace and love ?

rag heads? I would hope you are not meaning that term in a racist sense...

Look who's talking.

An indepedent investigation would take such elements seriously, and investigate them.

And who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

The point about the war on Terror is that it can never end. That is my defining the "word game" that has been created by the Bush admin. Nothing else.

Of course the war on terror can never end, just like the war on woo and the war on stupidity.

hence the importance of such an event occurring before Oct 2001

Ad hoc reasoning.

Tell me, under your definition, if a government blows up a civilian plane, or aids in it, hits is not terrorism, so what is it?

Is it designed to strike fear in the civilian population ?

Haha.. no, please read more carefully. I am simply stating that it illustrates that a new PH was in their eyes propitious to policy

But it doesn't, because you have to assume what "even" and "absent" means in order to do so.

, since under war conditions, military transformation is easier to push through. This is the most elementary of common sense.

Only if you assume that this war is what they had in mind. Obviously not, because there IS NO CONVENTIONAL WAR IN IRAQ. Where are the front lines, exactly ?

Right. Stop and think for a second. The new PH provided an opportunity. Hence it was propitious to policy.

Only if your premise is true.

Oh boy.... RAD didnt say "We need to cause a new PH". But it states what all people with common sense know, that if such changes occur catalysed by a new PH, they will happen soon, rather than over several decades.

Nope. It doesn't say that. You've added "soon", for some reason.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 03:49 PM

The problem with your theory of PNAC prediction/GOV involvement is that it is not falsifiable. As you probably know yourself, a theory that is not subject to falsifiability is worthless.

You can of course draw any kind of inference from the PNAC document but you will never leave the area of conjecture and speculation. Your interpretation of the whole case is as valid as me claiming (with Bertrand Russell) that "there is a green teapot circling between Jupiter and Saturn"
Yes it is falsifiable. You merely have to illustrate how the phrase employed does not imply the propitiousness of such a change happening soon. This is a very easy concept, but a very hard task, since the inference is so overwhelmingly obvious, to all but the most clouded minds. I think it is this problem that you are getting confused with falsifiability.

mjd1982

6th July 2007, 03:59 PM

Ok, you lost me, there.

Excuse me, that should be "design rather than execution"

If they plan but don't execute, then why are we talking about propitiousness ?

because it is the concept that is deemed propitious

Why would it be is the actual question, here.

cos its in the doc!!! Cultivez votre jardin Belz!

Again, who ever said anything about rabbits in a field of flowers ? What's this crap about peace and love ?

Breach of Rule 8

Look who's talking.

Encore une commentaire de genie. Bravo!

And who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

this has been discussed before, please keep up

Of course the war on terror can never end, just like the war on woo and the war on stupidity.

encore un bel argument!

Ad hoc reasoning.

Hmmm... tres malin

Is it designed to strike fear in the civilian population ?

yes... so?

But it doesn't, because you have to assume what "even" and "absent" means in order to do so.

Vraiment, tu me fais chier!

Only if you assume that this war is what they had in mind. Obviously not, because there IS NO CONVENTIONAL WAR IN IRAQ. Where are the front lines, exactly ?

As above, plus the war in Iraq ia but 1 element of the WOT, as has been told to you many times.

Voltaire te plait? Tu serais bien conseille de suivre son conseil- Cultivez votre jardin!

DGM

6th July 2007, 04:06 PM

So this is actually a very easy task. We can choose to do nothing because doing so will leave the status quo. Sorry you lose. No new investigation.

MIKILLINI

6th July 2007, 04:47 PM

Hey Wildcat, you should not have left the ignore and repeat claim option on the pick to click. Mjd has been using that one...many times. :rolleyes:
Unless mjd abstains from reading the back of the shampoo bottle; Where it says rinse, repeat.

simakperrce

7th July 2007, 01:56 AM

Yes it is falsifiable. You merely have to illustrate how the phrase employed does not imply the propitiousness of such a change happening soon. This is a very easy concept, but a very hard task, since the inference is so overwhelmingly obvious, to all but the most clouded minds. I think it is this problem that you are getting confused with falsifiability.

I am not confused at all. You are the one who constantly confuses interpretation and conjecture-based inference with facts. It is YOUR interpretation that the phrase employed does imply (sic) propitiousness for a change. It is YOUR interpretation that because that sentence MIGHT imply (sic) anything the happenings on 9/11 are the direct result thereof, and it is a fact (sic) that the government was involved.

Even if I could falsify the propitiousness thing (which I can't), how could I falsify your claim that this phrase is PROOF for the involvement of the government in 9/11?

In a nutshell what you are doing is this:
"When the time was prepitious, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" It says so in that document called bible. It's a *fact* that god created earth. You can falsify my theory if you falsify the sentence I quoted above. If you can't, you must agree with me that God is behind the creation of the earth.

Dave Rogers

7th July 2007, 07:30 AM

And although your analogy has fallen apart like a chinese motorcycle,

I'm glad to see you, at least, are able to avoid racist slurs.

Dave

mjd1982

8th July 2007, 08:32 AM

Not even close. They were not referring to any specific event.

no, just one that would be catastrophic and catalysing

Just because 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event is immaterial. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic and catalyzing event as well. But the PNAC was not referring to that either.

This has been discussed before.

IN analysing the 2 adjectives, we see that "catastrophic" is a term that can stand on its own (something can be defined as "catastrophic" without needing much further in the way of elaboration", whereas "catalysing" is a term that needs much more in the way of elaboration. Catalysing what? It is far more unspecific and undefined a term. Hence how it gets modified by the phrase "like a new PH". Hence the catalysing that is being called for is catalysing in a military context; facilitating military transformation. This has been done, since we are now in a war- a big, broad ranging, long, and potentially endless war at that. Hence how 911 was the style of event that was referred to in RAD.

Where in the document does it say that the changes MUST happen sooner than later?

This is gauged from the most elementary inference, as has been explained to all from #493, a post which all are happy to state blithely their disagreement, but none have the courage to contest fully and seriously.

Where is this so called policy stated in the PNAC document that 9/11 is propitious to?

Errr... Starts on p1, goes on until the end.

mjd1982

8th July 2007, 08:39 AM

I'm glad to see you, at least, are able to avoid racist slurs.

Dave
this is a little bit pathetic, no?

mjd1982

8th July 2007, 08:53 AM

I am not confused at all.

sounds ominous...

You are the one who constantly confuses interpretation and conjecture-based inference with facts.

Ok, 1st problem here. I am not confusing interpretation with fact, since I have stated on this thread many times that my point about PNAC is based on inference. Admittedly this is the most basic inference, so basic that amongst honest, non self deceptive people, it may even be taken as fact, but here, since this is not the circumstance, I am happy to leave it at inference, and debate such an inference. You guys, clearly, would rather not.

It is YOUR interpretation that the phrase employed does imply (sic) propitiousness for a change.

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

It is YOUR interpretation that because that sentence MIGHT imply (sic) anything the happenings on 9/11 are the direct result thereof, and it is a fact (sic) that the government was involved.

Haha, oh boy, no it's not! I am simply stating, and have been doing quite openly for ~1700 posts now, that the doc simply illustrates that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy by many of the men who would be in charge of protecting the US on and up to 911. If you can understand that, most very simple of points, you will find this thread a lot easier.

Even if I could falsify the propitiousness thing (which I can't), how could I falsify your claim that this phrase is PROOF for the involvement of the government in 9/11?

LMAO

Please shoe me where I have made such a claim??!

In a nutshell what you are doing is this:
"When the time was prepitious, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" It says so in that document called bible. It's a *fact* that god created earth. You can falsify my theory if you falsify the sentence I quoted above. If you can't, you must agree with me that God is behind the creation of the earth.

This is one the biggest piles of nonsense to be posted by your ilk, which is saying quite something! Am I actually supposed to argue against this?

1stly, the Bible line is a claim from an unverifiable source, whereas RAD is signed by Cheney et al.

2ndly, the Bible states a claim as to the cause for an event, whereas RAD states their own belief as to what might speed up the occurence of an event.

3rdly, no one is arguing that the doc illustrates any fact other than their own statement

And i honestly could go on and on, but I'd rather watch the tennis for the moment! Next time, think long and hard before you post.

lapman

8th July 2007, 11:50 AM

no, just one that would be catastrophic and catalysing
False. PH was just one of many events that happened on or around Dec 7, 1941. PH was simply used as a rallying cry, like the Lusitania and the Alamo, to gain public support for the war that FDR had already started preparing for. That is not true of 9/11. The PNAC document was not specifically written to counteract terrorism. Instead, the recommendations have, for the most part, been thrown out the door which has been shown in many posts by others that you have ignored.

This has been discussed before.

IN analysing the 2 adjectives, we see that "catastrophic" is a term that can stand on its own (something can be defined as "catastrophic" without needing much further in the way of elaboration", whereas "catalysing" is a term that needs much more in the way of elaboration. Catalysing what? It is far more unspecific and undefined a term. Hence how it gets modified by the phrase "like a new PH". Hence the catalysing that is being called for is catalysing in a military context; facilitating military transformation. This has been done, since we are now in a war- a big, broad ranging, long, and potentially endless war at that. Hence how 911 was the style of event that was referred to in RAD.
Again, another false statement. The PNAC or RAD never require or inferred any type of need for a never ending engagement. The PNAC document recommendations were to PREVENT such an engagement to occur. Therefore the WOT and Iraq are not what the PNAC wanted. So the "new PH" was not propitious to the PNAC policy since the policy of the PNAC was to prevent war, not start it.

This is gauged from the most elementary inference, as has been explained to all from #493, a post which all are happy to state blithely their disagreement, but none have the courage to contest fully and seriously.
The inference is yours and the "Truth Movements," not the PNAC. The PNAC was simply stating a fact of military life, not a need for a new PH. Again, where does it specifically state that the recommended changes need to happen sooner than later?

Unsecured Coins

8th July 2007, 11:55 AM

post #493, lapman... it explains EVERYTHING...

lapman

8th July 2007, 12:15 PM

post #493, lapman... it explains EVERYTHING...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17495469129140c319.png

Unsecured Coins

8th July 2007, 12:51 PM

maybe it's me. maybe it's because I'm a smart ass. or maybe it's a combination of both, but mjd's posts are starting to look like old Dianetics commercials redone in forum form. And my fellow children of the 80's know what I'm talking about. Watching TV after school with your friends, and during a commercial right after Cobra Commander has unleashed his plot to take over the world, you hear that keyboard going, and a question appears on the screen, then the page number.

Then, a VOLCANO. It has to be true. You can't argue with liquid hot MAG-MA.

Fast forward a couple of years. The subject is PNAC. Where is this Plan for 9-11 discussed?
Post #493

How exactly did it help out the transformation of the military?
Post #493

OH CRAP. Where are my keys?
Post number four niner three. Yes, I said niner, and no, I don't have a walkie talkie. And if you're a scientologist, I'm really sorry about that.

MIKILLINI

8th July 2007, 01:39 PM

Instruction Manual to dedicate circular reasoning:

1.) Read PNAC document

2.) Select post- 9/11 actions suitable to short term transformation.

3.) Assume "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- Like a new Pearl Harbor" as the only message of policy within PNAC document, and thus assume everything else within the document are merely details.

4.) Post message in thread, determined to be # 493.

5.) Infer message has not been challenged, repeatedly.

6.) Refer people back to # 493.

7.) Repeat steps 4-6

mjd1982

8th July 2007, 03:14 PM

False.

ROFL

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

PH was just one of many events that happened on or around Dec 7, 1941. PH was simply used as a rallying cry, like the Lusitania and the Alamo, to gain public support for the war that FDR had already started preparing for.

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....

That is not true of 9/11.

I equally hope you are not stating 911 has not catalysing the WOT

The PNAC document was not specifically written to counteract terrorism.

I know. Where did i say it did?

Instead, the recommendations have, for the most part, been thrown out the door which has been shown in many posts by others that you have ignored.

:jaw-dropp

You are out of your mind!!!

Unbelievable self deception! Show me one post that I have ignored in response to my points regarding similarities between RAD and WOT, encapsulated in #95. You will not find one. So why have you lied like this?
[/quote]

Again, another false statement. The PNAC or RAD never require or inferred any type of need for a never ending engagement. The PNAC document recommendations were to PREVENT such an engagement to occur. Therefore the WOT and Iraq are not what the PNAC wanted. So the "new PH" was not propitious to the PNAC policy since the policy of the PNAC was to prevent war, not start it.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.

Understand one thing, and do tell me if you disagree, as i will be able to gauge your apparent mental illness- in a wartime environment, military radicalisations are much easier to pursue, especially with the help of scare tactics, such as are being used by the Bush admin. Tell me if you disagree with that please.

The inference is yours and the "Truth Movements," not the PNAC. The PNAC was simply stating a fact of military life, not a need for a new PH.

Yes, the fact that changes are easier and quicker to pursue in a wartime environment than in peace!!! How hard is this to understand??! And if you do understand it, tell me why, instead of having the change happen easily and timely, they would want them to happen with difficulty, and not timely!!?

Again, where does it specifically state that the recommended changes need to happen sooner than later?

Basic, nursery level inference my friend, take some lessons in honesty, and you will find this thread a lot easier for yourself.

mjd1982

8th July 2007, 03:18 PM

What a clownish post...

Instruction Manual to dedicate circular reasoning:

1.) Read PNAC document

yes

2.) Select post- 9/11 actions suitable to short term transformation.

what the hell are you talking about? I went through the "key points" at the start of the doc. why have you lied?

3.) Assume "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- Like a new Pearl Harbor" as the only message of policy within PNAC document, and thus assume everything else within the document are merely details.

Lol, where have i said it is the only message of the doc?

4.) Post message in thread, determined to be # 493.

right, among others

5.) Infer message has not been challenged, repeatedly.

Haha, nice gag. Show me where it has been contested fully, you liar.

6.) Refer people back to # 493.

7.) Repeat steps 4-6

Had you a shred of honesty in your body, you would not post such tripe.

Can we please have some semi intelligent OT posters on this thread, please, it is getting depressing!

SpitfireIX

8th July 2007, 05:00 PM

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not. The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry. The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

Horace Wheeljack

8th July 2007, 05:28 PM

Can we please have some semi intelligent OT posters on this thread, please, it is getting depressing![/quote]

I'm only semi-intelligent if your getting depressed with the intelligent people running rings round you.

This is how i see it.

The PNAC document was written by neo-cons, it supported increases in military spending. In a section regarding new technologies a pearl harbour reference is made. You have deemed this line as important in stating the claim that 911 was propitious to policy. Its not that simple. Its been pointed out throughout this thread why not. You have failed to recognise the points made and will continue to claim that it was propitious to policy. Other posters have now abondoned any hope of progressing the discussion and are now pulling your chain.

MIKILLINI

8th July 2007, 09:09 PM

Lol, where have i said it is the only message of the doc?

Repeat steps 4-6 in My post. You are using it for a lynchpin. Let Me show you.

In your very first post;

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain. For the document is very specific about how such transformations should be achieved. They should not occur one by one by one; that would be useless. There needs to be a global framework for all these changes, aligned, moreover, with domestic policy. How long will it take for these crucial changes to happen? Many decades; we as readers can gauge that this would potentially vitiate the goal of the 21st Century being an American one; so how to do it quickly? Well, the document does tell us.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

In post #95;

It states that for such a transformation, crucial, to occur within a timeframe shorter than decades, a new Pearl Harbour would need to happen. Given that for such to happen within years/months, rather than decades is propitious, especially bearing in mind the aims of the "Projects for the new american century", then we can equally conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

Post #194;

So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.
Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Just as an aside, was psychology part of your education?

No, there is a difference here. They are stating as to how a change will occur over a long period of time; this does not mean that they do not want it achieved over a shorter one. Think- what is the alternative to what you are saying, that they state "This will be long absent a new PH... so we better start planning one!" No. They are not that dumb. So to say that they are content with it happening over a long period of time, due to the fact that they talk about how it would happen over such a period, overlooks the fact that practically speaking, they have no alternative, as well as paying zero attention to the fact that they may be more content with it happening over a shorter period.

Incidentally, you have forgotten the important point of what is the raison d'etre of PNAC? You can hazard a guess from their name; thus the idea that they would want such a hegemonic transformation to occur early in the century is 100% congruous with their raison d'etre; the opposite is 100% incongruous.

So, to reframe your point, the question is when will the process get underway. Ideally, it will happen after a new PH, since this will catalyse the policies set out in the doc. Absent 911, it would have been pretty tough to get some of the changes that have come about

# 270 IS post- 9/11 action/policy;

In short, we are left where we started with- a new PH would be propitious to policy, since it would catalyse a chain of radicalisations, as outlined by PNAC, starting with the 2001 QDR, and allow them to happen in years rather than decades.

In post #304;

All that is aiming to be illustrated for now is that the neo-cons stated that a new PH would be propitious to policy. This is based on the fact of what is in black and white in their document.

In post#309, post# 317 (Which was a response to a post of mine);

It starts with PNAC, where the propitiousness of a new PH for policy is stated.

Post # 328;

The events of 9/11 were of great influence in the QDR.

The quote above is post-9/11 actions that you have attempted to use as evidence pertaining to the minds of those who wrote PNAC. The "propitious" connection.

Post #364;

Now, there is actually a very simple way of ascertaining what characteristics of PH were meant to be mirrored in the new PH- look at the doc. The characteristic imputed to the new PH are 2. "catastrophic", and "catalysing".
Very simple.

So, given that 911 was both catastrophic and catalysing, it was a new PH in the sense that PNAC meant.

Post #410;

And finally, as I have stated, the actual changes themselves do not matter so much in their detail; what is important is the broad import, to be sped up by a new PH, since we are arguing design rather than execution.

These are 10 posts reflecting your argument. Now do you have evidence of somebody, anybody, doing something illegal within the US Government that would make relevance to your arguments?
Or just repeat steps 4-6?

Belz...

9th July 2007, 05:30 AM

because it is the concept that is deemed propitious

Circular reasoning.

cos its in the doc!!! Cultivez votre jardin Belz!Would you please stop speaking French ? Only a very few people here understand what you're saying, and this isn't a PM, so please make it so that MOST people can understand you.

Breach of Rule 8.I see you have no intention of answering my question.

Encore une commentaire de genie. Bravo!"Commentaire" is a masculine word, Mjd.

this has been discussed before, please keep upThat's not an answer: Who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

encore un bel argument!I was a comment meant to indicate that your statement was irrelevant to the issue. Simply ignoring what other people say does not make their points dissapear, Mjd.

Hmmm... tres malinAnd again you completely ignore the point. Why are you reading this forum if you are not interested in what other people have to say about your theory ?

yes... so?Then it would be.

Vraiment, tu me fais chier!Sorry if the truth hurts, but you're the one who started that inane argument about "even" and "absent" as though they meant more than they do.

As aboveSeriously there's nary a post where you don't say that.

plus the war in Iraq ia but 1 element of the WOT, as has been told to you many times. Answer the question: where are the front lines in Iraq ?

Voltaire te plait? Tu serais bien conseille de suivre son conseil- Cultivez votre jardin!Apprends à écrire en Français convenablement et on en reparlera.

Belz...

9th July 2007, 05:38 AM

Ok, 1st problem here. I am not confusing interpretation with fact, since I have stated on this thread many times that my point about PNAC is based on inference.

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

You've just shot yourself in the foot, Mjd.

If you've INFERED your conclusion from the doc, it follows that it is not the SUBJECT of the doc, otherwise it wouldn't have to be infered.

Admittedly this is the most basic inference, so basic that amongst honest, non self deceptive people, it may even be taken as fact

How is it "basic", if you can't even convince anyone that you are correct in its interpretation ?

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

Mayhap you should read the REST of his post before answering to the first word.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.

Except that they DON'T have a never ending war.

Basic, nursery level inference my friend

Just because you think so doesn't make it "basic". Perhaps you should get to proving it instead of stating it. Oh, wait. You already did, and failed.

SpitfireIX

9th July 2007, 06:01 AM

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not. The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry. The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

I just noticed that I wrote "cataclysmic" rather than "catastrophic." Sorry--I was in a rush to finish my post before the end of my dinner break. :o

aggle-rithm

9th July 2007, 07:07 AM

DD-MM-YYYY is standard. I've seen templates for YYYY-MM-DD, but I've never seen it used, although it does seem just as logical. The only format that seems to make no sense at all is the American MM-DD-YYYY.

YYYY-MM-DD works best for reporting because it's alpha-numeric order is the same as the chronological order. DD-MM-YYYY has the most significant numeric unit (the year) last, so it's not much use at all.

MM-DD-YYYY persists because it mirrors the conversational date format ("January the first, two-thousand seven").

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 07:43 AM

(snip)

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

At least in the Microsoft family of OS's, the date can be stored internally as an integer value (where 1 = January 1, 1900... except in the 1904 date system used by some older MS programs for some reason), so you can choose whatever format mask you goddamn well please and the program will be able to compare, transform, or translate the date regardless.

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

Myriad

9th July 2007, 07:57 AM

At least in the Microsoft family of OS's, the date can be stored internally as an integer value (where 1 = January 1, 1900... except in the 1904 date system used by some older MS programs for some reason), so you can choose whatever format mask you goddamn well please and the program will be able to compare, transform, or translate the date regardless.

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

That's all well and good, when the software that's manipulating dates knows it's manipulating dates, such as for date fields in a database or date stamps in an OS. But dates often get written into data that's subsequently treated as text, such as file names with leading dates (e.g. 2003_03_29_images.dir) in an OS directory. Those will only sort correctly if in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Respectfully,
Myriad

nicepants

9th July 2007, 08:06 AM

Today is 39242, and we like it that way.

Storing dates in that format is not propitious to my programming.

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 08:10 AM

That's all well and good, when the software that's manipulating dates knows it's manipulating dates, such as for date fields in a database or date stamps in an OS. But dates often get written into data that's subsequently treated as text, such as file names with leading dates (e.g. 2003_03_29_images.dir) in an OS directory. Those will only sort correctly if in YYYY-MM-DD format.

That's true. It also causes problems when a program ends up trying to parse a date from text, or stores it as a non-date type... or is written in a language that doesn't use that kind of date type. It's a good idea, anyway. Sometimes.

Bagh, we should all start using the integer dates. It would be propitious to starting the global empire, I think. :)

Belz...

9th July 2007, 08:10 AM

YYYY-MM-DD works best for reporting because it's alpha-numeric order is the same as the chronological order. DD-MM-YYYY has the most significant numeric unit (the year) last, so it's not much use at all.

MM-DD-YYYY persists because it mirrors the conversational date format ("January the first, two-thousand seven").

In programming the date is represented by both a numeric value and a character representation, so as long as you keep those straight it doesn't matter what the format is.

Checked. YYYY-MM-DD seems to be the international format, after all.

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 08:12 AM

Storing dates in that format is not propitious to my programming.

Why do you hate America, freedom, and apple pie, nicepants?

nicepants

9th July 2007, 08:46 AM

Why do you hate America, freedom, and apple pie, nicepants?

SHHHH! Don't blow my cover.

Actually, I LOVE apple pie, though it's not propitious to my abs.

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 08:53 AM

SHHHH! Don't blow my cover.

Actually, I LOVE apple pie, though it's not propitious to my abs.

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.

lapman

9th July 2007, 09:11 AM

ROFL

These posts are getting just a tad ridiculous. The assertion that you are claiming is "false" is that that PNAC were referring to an event that was catastrophic and catalysing. This does not merit response.

I hope you are not arguing taht PH was not the catalyst for US involvement in ww2....
The PH attack was the excuse for US involvement in WW2. It was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter the war, but the event itself wasn't. It was one of several attacks on the American military that started that week. You also had Wake, the Philippines and others. If it was simply stated that Japan declared war on the US, that would not have been a catalyzing statement for public approval.
Remember, the Lusitania was not the reason the US got into WW1. However, it was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter that war.

I equally hope you are not stating 911 has not catalysing the WOT
Again, Bush used 9/11 as a catalyst for public approval to start the WOT.

Originally Posted by lapman
The PNAC document was not specifically written to counteract terrorism.
I know. Where did i say it did?

You inferred it on the most elementary level. :p

:jaw-dropp

You are out of your mind!!!

Unbelievable self deception! Show me one post that I have ignored in response to my points regarding similarities between RAD and WOT, encapsulated in #95. You will not find one. So why have you lied like this?

Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content.

They required a long lasting military transformation that would project american hegemony throughout the 21st century, What better way to do it than a potentially neve ending war.
Actually, it's the opposite. Vietnam was a prime example. The seemingly endless war hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. The war in Iraq has hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. So no, the Iraq war is not supported by the PNAC document. Since the invasion of Iraq is supposed to be part of the WOT, the WOT is also not supported by the PNAC.

Understand one thing, and do tell me if you disagree, as i will be able to gauge your apparent mental illness- in a wartime environment, military radicalisations are much easier to pursue, especially with the help of scare tactics, such as are being used by the Bush admin. Tell me if you disagree with that please.
Not necessarily true. If the enemy is not technologically superior, then there is no need for any R&D of new technologies. In WW2, there was a huge gap between the technology we had in 1941 and what was needed to win the war. Hence the radical development in technology. It was the same with WW1. The WOT is different. We are fighting a technologically inferior enemy. The only change needed is in strategy, not technology.

Yes, the fact that changes are easier and quicker to pursue in a wartime environment than in peace!!! How hard is this to understand??! And if you do understand it, tell me why, instead of having the change happen easily and timely, they would want them to happen with difficulty, and not timely!!?

See above.

Basic, nursery level inference my friend, take some lessons in honesty, and you will find this thread a lot easier for yourself. Again, the inference was not made on any level. The inference of the document, as Spitfire has said, is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that would require radical technological change to win the ensuing war. 9/11 was not anywhere near that. The WOT is not that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

mjd1982

9th July 2007, 09:11 AM

It wasn't. Japan would have gone to war with the United States whether the Pearl Harbor attack had taken place or not.

Oh boy, another dull minded, ill thought out utterance...

Listen, the Japanese may well have been going to war with the US come hell or high water, but there was still a catalysing event that precipitated US involvement. This is quite simple to understand.

The Japanese high command was generally opposed to the operation; Admiral Yammamoto had to threaten to resign in order to get the plan approved. Even without Pearl Harbor Japan still would have invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake.

Hehe, this is too bad! How can you seriously write the stuff you do? This para relates to japanese motives for waging war- what relevance does it have to catalysts for US involvement?

As for Germany, the US Navy was already in a hot war with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic; one US destroyer had already been sunk, and another damaged by U-boats, and FDR had ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any German or Italian warships encountered.

Right! But to get fully involved in the war required, ultimately the catalysing event taht was PH! I get tired of telling you how basic this is, your posts just go to show Edited for civility, or you have no respect for what you write.

Roosevelt's political advisors told him that he had the votes in Congress for declarations of war againt both German and Japan before Pearl Harbor; however, his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

Ok, so there were movements for war in Congress. How does this contradict the fact that PH was the event that catalysed full US engagement in the war?

As lapman stated, from a political and morale standpoint, Pearl Harbor was primarily a rallying cry.

Woah woah woah... think about what you are saying. Who was it a rallying cry for? Its victims? How the hell can an attack be a rallying cry by its victims? Think before you post this nonsense. It served as a rallying cry to get the social and political machinery behind full US engagement in WW2- hence it was the catalyst for it! This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic. For you to try and argue that PH didnt catalyse US involvement in ww2, the most basic historical fact, is perfectly illustrative of your self deception, denial, and utter dishonesty in approaching this issue.

The point that you seem to be missing, and others have attempted to point out to you, is that the "cataclysmic and catalyzing" effect of Pearl Harbor referred to in PNAC is not on American public opinion; rather it is on military thinking, in terms of the shift from battleship-oriented to aircraft carrier-oriented naval strategy. Personally I feel this effect is often exaggerated; the US Navy was already well on its way to adopting the aircraft carrier as its main weapon (at the time of Pearl Harbor, 13 Essex-class carriers had been on order for over a year). However, this is clearly the sense that the the authors of PNAC meant to convey.

Ah, inference we have here! So it is admissible to debate after all, I dont expect you to use that evasion again.

Of course, your point debunks itself- as has been pointed out by many on this thread already, along with now yourself, the shift in military thinking was already in place; what was needed was a coherent framework, including domestic, and foreign policy (if you had read the doc carefully, you would not need me to tell you this), which would allow the full aims of RAD, which went beyond mere military gains, and included global posture review and agressive control of strategic interests. This WOT offers the perfect subterfuge for all such elements to be achieved; and as it offers us a wartime environment, the changes, in general backed by the political and social machinery, are easy to push through, just as the PH para in RAD states.

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.

mjd1982

9th July 2007, 09:22 AM

I'm only semi-intelligent if your getting depressed with the intelligent people running rings round you.

Oh boy... what a thought.

I think the 1st half of your sentence puts the 2nd half in its accurate context.

This is how i see it.

The PNAC document was written by neo-cons,

Correct

it supported increases in military spending.

amongst other things, global posture review, control of strategic resources, domestic policy shifts among others. Read the doc.

In a section regarding new technologies a pearl harbour reference is made.

Wrong. Read #95. It deals with technologies and operational concepts. It is standard OT rhetoric that it just deal with new technologies, but this is a level of comprehension that the 11 yr old kid I tutor would not descend to.

You have deemed this line as important in stating the claim that 911 was propitious to policy.

yes

Its not that simple.

oh?

Its been pointed out throughout this thread why not.

ah. I thought you were about to say something substantive. You will note that most of the posts that you imagine, say pretty much exactly the same thing as you are stating yourself right now. Go back and read.

You have failed to recognise the points made and will continue to claim that it was propitious to policy.

I have adressed near every single point that has been made thank you.

Other posters have now abondoned any hope of progressing the discussion and are now pulling your chain.

Many have abandoned which is fine- the issues are there on the table, and if anyone wants to debate them honestly, I will do such freely. If they want to post vacuously (semi-intelligently) like you have just done, then this is the reason we may get into problems.

mjd1982

9th July 2007, 09:26 AM

Repeat steps 4-6 in My post. You are using it for a lynchpin. Let Me show you.

In your very first post;

In post #95;

[/B]
Post #194;

Just as an aside, was psychology part of your education?

[/B]

# 270 IS post- 9/11 action/policy;

In post #304;

In post#309, post# 317 (Which was a response to a post of mine);

Post # 328;

The quote above is post-9/11 actions that you have attempted to use as evidence pertaining to the minds of those who wrote PNAC. The "propitious" connection.

Post #364;

Post #410;

These are 10 posts reflecting your argument. Now do you have evidence of somebody, anybody, doing something illegal within the US Government that would make relevance to your arguments?
Or just repeat steps 4-6?
It is a lynchpin of my point regarding how RAD states these changes can get done soon, given that it is their only comment on such. Since you have failed to understand your own point, I will ask you again- show me where I have stated that this is the only message of the doc? And when you fail, tell me why you have decided to lie.

mjd1982

9th July 2007, 09:30 AM

You've just shot yourself in the foot, Mjd.

If you've INFERED your conclusion from the doc, it follows that it is not the SUBJECT of the doc, otherwise it wouldn't have to be infered.

I never said it was the subject of the doc, think before you post please.

How is it "basic", if you can't even convince anyone that you are correct in its interpretation ?

It is basic to honest people. An honest person can be defined as someone who does not argue that 911 was not a new PH.

Except that they DON'T have a never ending war.

And how to you envisage the WOT ending? With "Terror" chained up, paraded thruogh the streets of NY?

mjd1982

9th July 2007, 09:45 AM

The PH attack was the excuse for US involvement in WW2. It was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter the war, but the event itself wasn't. It was one of several attacks on the American military that started that week. You also had Wake, the Philippines and others. If it was simply stated that Japan declared war on the US, that would not have been a catalyzing statement for public approval.

Yes, hence how it was the catalyst for US engagement in war- a catalysing event, just as PNAC said.

Remember, the Lusitania was not the reason the US got into WW1. However, it was used as a catalyst for public approval to enter that war.

another example of a catalyst for US engagement in war

Again, Bush used 9/11 as a catalyst for public approval to start the WOT.

and a 3rd example of a catalys for war. So all 3 examples are congruent- catastrophic catalysing events. I do not understand why this is even being argued.

Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content.

Please give me 1 example.

I always ask this to people who make your point, and there is never an answer. So give me 1 example please.

None of your ilk have any hope of "debunking" this argument, so evasion and subterfuge are the standard recourses- dramatically illustrated on this thread.

Actually, it's the opposite. Vietnam was a prime example. The seemingly endless war hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. The war in Iraq has hurt our hegemony in the region, not helped it. So no, the Iraq war is not supported by the PNAC document. Since the invasion of Iraq is supposed to be part of the WOT, the WOT is also not supported by the PNAC.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design. We are not arguing execution- it is of no surprise that these imbeciles cant do anything right, 911 being the perfect example- but design. This has been repeated umpteen times by me here.

Not necessarily true. If the enemy is not technologically superior, then there is no need for any R&D of new technologies. In WW2, there was a huge gap between the technology we had in 1941 and what was needed to win the war. Hence the radical development in technology. It was the same with WW1. The WOT is different. We are fighting a technologically inferior enemy. The only change needed is in strategy, not technology.

Oh boy. This has been dealt with again and again. Read post 95. There you will see what actually constitutes the WOT. It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan like you think. Take 1 example- the militarisation of space. This is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. Yet how does this have anything to do with fighting terrorism? Understand 1 simple point- the WOT has nothing to do wtih fighting terror- the US is giving asylum to some of th worlds worst terrorists, and is arming/supporting jihadists in Iraq and Iran. (This is all referred to in #95). It is about entrenchment of hegemony- military and strategic. Hence the disconnects like the militarisation of space.
Another term for it is the "rebuilidng of america's defenses." Hence why the strategies outlibed there, and being pursued now, are so similar. This is pretty simple to understand, if you make the effort. Go and read, and digest, posy 95.

Again, the inference was not made on any level. The inference of the document, as Spitfire has said, is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that would require radical technological change to win the ensuing war. 9/11 was not anywhere near that. The WOT is not that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You mean implication, not inference.

1stly, what war? This war is not specified in the manner you suggest. 2ndly, as above, the technological radicalisations are being pursued. Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.

Dave Rogers

9th July 2007, 10:19 AM

Belz...

9th July 2007, 10:37 AM

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.

But are those changes catalysing ?

Belz...

9th July 2007, 10:45 AM

I never said it was the subject of the doc, think before you post please.

Then what's this ?:

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

If it's the subject, then it is not infered, but stated.

It is basic to honest people.

Are you saying that I am not honest ?

An honest person can be defined as someone who does not argue that 911 was not a new PH.

Circular reasoning, Mjd. Think about it.

And how to you envisage the WOT ending? With "Terror" chained up, paraded thruogh the streets of NY?

The war on terror is NOT a war. I think that pretty much kills your argument.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design.

No, I think the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were both poorly designed.

Now, how about answering this:

Who would fund such an investigation, that would make it "independent" ?

jab712

9th July 2007, 10:53 AM

Eating too much apple pie causes catastrophic changes to mine.

Well then, you need to keep eating that apple pie. Apparently, catastrophic is no longer a bad thing, it's "called for."

lapman

9th July 2007, 10:54 AM

Yes, hence how it was the catalyst for US engagement in war- a catalysing event, just as PNAC said.

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level. And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

another example of a catalyst for US engagement in war
True, but still not what the PNAC was talking about.

and a 3rd example of a catalys for war. So all 3 examples are congruent- catastrophic catalysing events. I do not understand why this is even being argued.Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Please give me 1 example.

This one

I always ask this to people who make your point, and there is never an answer. So give me 1 example please.

this one

None of your ilk have any hope of "debunking" this argument, so evasion and subterfuge are the standard recourses- dramatically illustrated on this thread.
You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

But this is just astonishingly basic. If you want to learn, read my posts. You do not read them, thus you are clueless. The faults with both Vietnam and Iraq were faults of execution, not design. We are not arguing execution- it is of no surprise that these imbeciles cant do anything right, 911 being the perfect example- but design. This has been repeated umpteen times by me here.
I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

Oh boy. This has been dealt with again and again. Read post 95. There you will see what actually constitutes the WOT. It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan like you think. Take 1 example- the militarisation of space. Which hasn't happened. This is being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. Yet how does this have anything to do with fighting terrorism? Understand 1 simple point- the WOT has nothing to do wtih fighting terror- the US is giving asylum to some of th worlds worst terrorists, and is arming/supporting jihadists in Iraq and Iran. (This is all referred to in #95). It is about entrenchment of hegemony- military and strategic. Hence the disconnects like the militarisation of space.
Another term for it is the "rebuilidng of america's defenses." Hence why the strategies outlibed there, and being pursued now, are so similar. This is pretty simple to understand, if you make the effort. Go and read, and digest, posy 95.

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

You mean implication, not inference.

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.
1stly, what war? This war is not specified in the manner you suggest. 2ndly, as above, the technological radicalisations are being pursued.
WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.
Ok, my response is: YOU ARE WRONG. There, now 2 people have responded. So, are you finally ready to tackle WTC7?

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 11:07 AM

But are those changes catalysing ?

Yes, but I would hesitate to call them "radical" just yet. :)

Well then, you need to keep eating that apple pie. Apparently, catastrophic is no longer a bad thing, it's "called for."

Can do!

jab712

9th July 2007, 12:49 PM

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This is the only sentence in the doc that covers how, soon. Given that such crucial transformations happening in months/years, rather than decades is favourable to PNAC/the neo conservative ideologues who formed the heart of the Bush administration, then we can conclude that a new Pearl Harbour is deemed propitious to policy for the Bush administration as of September 2000.

If they wanted it to happen in months/years, rather than decades, why do they keep advocating "over the next several decades" or "over the next two decades?" Seriously, the general theme of the document is that it needs to happen over the next several decades.

PNAC Doc (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Page 5
Generally, American strategy for the coming
decades should seek to consolidate the great
victories won in the 20th century – which
have made Germany and Japan into stable
democracies, for example – maintain
stability in the Middle East, while setting the
conditions for 21st-century successes,
especially in East Asia.

Page 7
However, this transition period
must be a first step toward more substantial
reform. Over the next several decades, the
United States must field a global system of
missile defenses, divine ways to control the
new “international commons” of space and
cyberspace, and build new kinds of
conventional forces for different strategic
challenges and a new technological
environment.

Page 12
If the United States is
to retain the technological and tactical
advantages it now enjoys in large-scale
conventional conflicts, the effort at
transformation must be considered as
pressing a mission as preparing for today’s
potential theater wars or constabulary
missions – indeed, it must receive a
significant, separate allocation of forces and
budgetary resources over the next two
decades.

Page 13
Finally, it must be remembered that the
process of transformation is indeed a
process: even the most vivid view of the
armed forces of the future must be grounded
in an understanding of today’s forces. In
general terms, it seems likely that the
process of transformation will take several
decades and that U.S. forces will continue to
operate many, if not most, of today’s
weapons systems for a decade or more.
Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of
transformation will in fact be a two-stage
process: first of transition, then of more
thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint
will come when a preponderance of
new weapons systems begins to enter
service, perhaps when, for example,
unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as
numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard,
the Pentagon should be very wary of making
large investments in new programs – tanks,
planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that
would commit U.S. forces to current
paradigms of warfare for many decades to
come.

Page 59
This two-stage process is likely to take
several decades. Yet, although the precise
shape and direction of the transformation of
U.S. armed forces remains a matter for
rigorous experimentation and analysis (and
will be discussed in more detail below in the
section on the armed services), it is possible
to foresee the general characteristics of the
current revolution in military affairs.
Broadly speaking, these cover several
principal areas of capabilities:

Page 60
Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare
may no longer be fought by pilots manning
tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of
opposing fighters, but a regime dominated
by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On
land, the clash of massive, combined-arms
armored forces may be replaced by the
dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by
fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in
soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could
be largely determined not by fleets of
surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but
from land- and space-based systems, forcing
navies to maneuver and fight underwater.
Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

While, maybe it would be better to have it happen sooner, there is no indication in the document that was the sentiment. If anything, the new PH sentence suggests that it isn't something they would want. Let's rephrase shall we "Our plan will take decades, absent something absolutely horrible happening (catastrophic) that forces us to move faster on this (catalyzing), like a new PH." How does that sound? Does that sound like something they are calling for? Does it seem propitious?

You keep saying that no one is addressing your point. Your point doesn't make sense based on the text in the document. Why do we need explain when the text itself does not read the way you say it does? The document suggests a time frame of decades. Decades. Not sooner. I don't see sooner implied either. Why imply months/years, then throughout the document say decades? Decades is throughout the document. Over the next two decades, over the next several decades. What the heck part of that do you not understand? Why do you not understand that catastrophic is a bad thing? No matter how you spin it, why on earth can you jump to the conclusion that ANYONE would call for something bad? "Well Bubba, we need to have this happen sooner. We need a catastrophe that forces our hand to move faster." How on earth does that make sense???? This seems pretty elementary to me.

We aren't in immediate threat of a rival superpower. Therefore, we have time to act on our plan, which will be the next couple of decades. Read the document again, its pretty clear.

You have done NOTHING to show that a new PH is propitious to policy. The document advocates decades. So we don't need to come back and tell you how it isn't propitious to policy. The document speaks for itself, of course, if you can read.

Belz...

9th July 2007, 01:06 PM

Yes

I think you've just admitted that you WANTED it to happen.

It's basic, kindergarten-level inference, really.

DGM

9th July 2007, 01:57 PM

How again is the WOT and this administration carrying out the wishes of the PNAC?

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Letters an statements

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

simakperrce

9th July 2007, 02:03 PM

First off: if you want to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending fashion with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here, at least not to my knowledge. Unlike the Thruthers, we are not a group of people who form a movement.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to counter your arguments using childish Internet abbreviations or self-righteous remarks. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language. If you want we can switch this discussion to German any time you desire and I can throw some exotic words at you which make me look super-smart and you like an ignorant fool for not being able to decipher them immediately.

I have also expressed before that I consider your language superb. I already think you are a smart guy, so you don't have to constantly rub it in. Now, in my experience the *really* smart guys don't go along all day trying to show other people how smart and superior they are, so I think a little understatement in your replies would actually help your case, unless of course, you thrive on your bloated ego or need to prostitute it in order to get some amends.

Now that I got my full admiration of you out of the way, can we agree upon refraining from childish nonsense a la "oh, boy" and take a look at our arguments instead?

Ok, 1st problem here. I am not confusing interpretation with fact,

Maybe you think you are not. I was referring to your original post, though. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. Instead, you are trying to build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based (among other things which we haven't even addressed) on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be valid for a political essay or an op-ed piece it is not something that you could use in any court of law.

Now you will of course claim that this wasn't your intention, which of course begs the question what exactly that intention of yours is. If you want to impeach Bush this is the wrong place (not because we are all Bush acolytes but because this is not a place with any judicial powers). So what is it you want? What would you like to happen at the end, when you have convinced us all?

Err, no, the propitousness of change is not something taht I hope you will be debating, since the need for this change is the subject of the doc

I am not debating the propitiousness part. It is irrelevant since it is nothing but an inference. I am debating your stance that 9/11 must have been the consequence of said mentioning, or, that the fact that this is mentioned in PNAC is evidence of 9/11 marking the execution of the PNAC document.

Haha, oh boy, no it's not!
Condescending, unsmart comment.

I am simply stating, and have been doing quite openly for ~1700 posts now, that the doc simply illustrates that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy by many of the men who would be in charge of protecting the US on and up to 911. If you can understand that, most very simple of points, you will find this thread a lot easier.

Thanks for the hint, Sigmund.

If it was for me you could debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it, just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalyzing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated). That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability. Hence it is *worthless* at least in a case of fact-assembling, unless you produce another document in which any of the signers explicitly states that THIS (9/11) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "they" have been waiting for.

<snipped more condescending rubbish>

This is one the biggest piles of nonsense to be posted by your ilk, which is saying quite something! Am I actually supposed to argue against this?

As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for the direction and actions of American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911. I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces. We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the first case. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed (or acknowledged) by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same. IOW, it is as valid and as "useful" and as "proven" to say "earth was created by god" than to say "PNACs propitiousness statement referred to 9/11".

Next time, think long and hard before you post.

Again, condescending bullcrap. Next time, before you post, please strip your contributions of this patronizing rubbish or stop replying at all.

JonnyFive

9th July 2007, 02:04 PM

I think you've just admitted that you WANTED it to happen.

It's basic, kindergarten-level inference, really.

I'm going to declare a "war on fat" now.

Haw haw, how can I possibly declare a war on an abstract adjective? That's silly. Clearly this was an "inside job." Inside my stomach!

HeyLeroy

9th July 2007, 02:13 PM

Still on PNAC, eh.

Carry on.

SpitfireIX

9th July 2007, 02:21 PM

Still on PNAC, eh.

Carry on.

do
{
:deadhorse
:bwall
}
while (TRUE);

David Wong

9th July 2007, 02:39 PM

Sorry I've been gone... which page has the discussion on WTC 7 and the evidence that PNAC actually executed (rather than just profited from) 9/11?

SpitfireIX

9th July 2007, 02:43 PM

Sorry I've been gone... which page has the discussion on WTC 7 and the evidence that PNAC actually executed (rather than just profited from) 9/11?

See previous two posts. :rolleyes:

David Wong

9th July 2007, 02:52 PM

See previous two posts. :rolleyes:

I was hoping you had previously broached and subsequently resolved the WTC issue, and then circled back to PNAC.

lapman

9th July 2007, 03:01 PM

Nope. Still on the PNAC and "new PH."

MIKILLINI

9th July 2007, 03:06 PM

Yes, but I would hesitate to call them "radical" just yet. :)

Can do!

J5, is that desire for apple pie more from design than execution?

MIKILLINI

9th July 2007, 03:10 PM

MIKILLINI

9th July 2007, 03:33 PM

First off: if you decide to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending kind of manner with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here. We are not a group of people who form a movement. We are individuals who are interested in facts.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to derail your arguments with childish Internet abbreviations. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language.

Can we thusly agree upon refraining from such childish nonsense and take a look at our arguments instead?

I was referring to your original post. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything from anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. You build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be a valid approach for a political essay it is not something that you could use in any court or something that will give you a case that holds water.

I am not debating the propitiousness of change. I am debating that 9/11 was the consequence of said mentioning, which you claim is the logical conclusion, hence fact.

Condescending, childish BS

If it was for me you can debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalysing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated). That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability. Hence it is worthless, unless you produce another document in which any of the undersignees explicitly states that THIS (911) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "we" have been waiting for.

<snipped more condescending rubbish>

As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911. I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, the earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces. We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the belief that it could have been god after all. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same.

Again, condescending bullcrap. Next time, before you post, please strip your contributions of this patronizing rubbish or stop replying at all.

In the context of cherry picking, it seems that mjd has overlooked those points in the document. But they are not propitious to his case, therefore they don't matter to him since a catastrophic and catalyzing event happened on 9/11. So he bends the parameters to fit the arguments. Perhaps the logic is to grade the wot with a curve? :con2:

DGM

9th July 2007, 03:54 PM

And this letter from the PNAC to the president. Dated 1/23/2003

In sum, there is an increasingly dangerous gap between our strategic ends and our military means, and the Bush Doctrine cannot be carried out effectively without a larger military force.

By every measure, current defense spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities. Ten years ago, America's defense burden was 4.8% of GDP. Although the decline in defense spending has been halted, we have not done nearly enough to make up for this decade of neglect. The modest increase planned for next year will still leave Pentagon spending at about 3.4 % of GDP, and Congressional Budget Office projections are that the proportion will decline to approximately 3% by 2007.

Inadequate funding results in an inadequate force. Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform. A reduced active-duty force means an increasing reliance on reserve troops, not just in times of war but to meet daily presence requirements. Inadequate modernization programs have also slowed the normal and necessary replacement of planes, ships and equipment; indeed, to make up for the "procurement holiday" of the past decade, tens of billions more over the next decade will have to be spent than is currently budgeted. And, finally, inadequate research spending has hampered the development of missile defenses and is delaying the transformation of our conventional forces and the exploitation of new technologies.

It sure doesn't seem like the WOT was what they had in mind. Maybe Bush didn't get the memo on how he was supposed to do things.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm

MIKILLINI

9th July 2007, 04:15 PM

jab712

9th July 2007, 04:58 PM

Maybe the memo was intercepted by mjd. :rolleyes:

Maybe Bush's reading skills parallel MJD's? Why read when you can pick a few words and interpret....yeah!

MIKILLINI

9th July 2007, 05:31 PM

Maybe Bush's reading skills parallel MJD's? Why read when you can pick a few words and interpret....yeah!
:D

Now there's a point to consider; Bush doesn't like to read, so he has advisers to "brief" him. Possibly Mjd is using "advisers" to brief his arguments. The bottom of each page must read;
Reminder: PNAC is not PNAC without a catastrophic and catalyzing event-Like a new Pearl Harbor, only this can be applied as propitious to policy.

SpitfireIX

9th July 2007, 11:34 PM

Oh boy, another dull minded, ill thought out utterance...

Listen, the Japanese may well have been going to war with the US come hell or high water, but there was still a catalysing event that precipitated US involvement. This is quite simple to understand.

No, the event that precipitated the US's going to war with Japan was Japan's going to war with the US. The Pearl Harbor attack was merely one manifestation of Japan's action. My point is that the US and Japan would still have been at war even if the Japanese had only attacked the Philippines, Guam, and Wake, rather than Pearl Harbor. Do you dispute this? If not, then you must concede that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war against Japan, and thus clearly cannot by itself be considered "a catalyzing event that precipitated US involvement." Also, please explain how you believe that Pearl Harbor precipitated war between the other Axis powers and the US.

Hehe, this is too bad! How can you seriously write the stuff you do?

Because I have a BA in American history, and have extensively studied World War II with particular emphasis on the Pacific War. But that's beside the point--the majority of knowledgeable, professional historians would tell you something similar. I imagine that doesn't matter to you, though, as you've evidently got everything all figured out.

This para relates to japanese motives for waging war- what relevance does it have to catalysts for US involvement?

The point is that the US would have joined the war whether Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor or not. See above.

Right! But to get fully involved in the war required, ultimately the catalysing event taht was PH!

No, this was not required, which was the point I was trying to make. FDR could have had a declaration of war without Pearl Harbor, or any Japanese attack at all; however, he elected to wait, in order to allow the Army and Navy more time to prepare.

I get tired of telling you how basic this is, your posts just go to show Edited for civility, or you have no respect for what you write.

Frankly, you would do well to climb down from your high horse of condescension, because you are simply wrong, as is easily demonstrated by both facts and the inference of which you are clearly so fond.

Ok, so there were movements for war in Congress. How does this contradict the fact that PH was the event that catalysed full US engagement in the war?

It shows that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war; Roosevelt could have simply asked for a declaration of war when he felt the military was ready. Also, I didn't say there were "movements for war in Congress"--I said that FDR "had the votes" had he chosen to ask for them.

Woah woah woah... think about what you are saying. Who was it a rallying cry for? Its victims? How the hell can an attack be a rallying cry by its victims? Think before you post this nonsense.

You are clearly attempting to twist what I wrote in an effort to belittle my argument. Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry for all Americans, both servicemen and -women and civilians. Perhaps you've heard the expression, "Remember Pearl Harbor?"

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/T/wwiip259.jpg

It served as a rallying cry to get the social and political machinery behind full US engagement in WW2- hence it was the catalyst for it!

Are you saying that Pearl Harbor was necessary for actual declarations of war on the Axis powers, or are you saying that American participation in the war would have been half-hearted without Pearl Harbor? If the former, this is wrong, as I have shown; if the latter, this is at best questionable.

This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic.

This is astonishingly, astonishingly oversimplified.

For you to try and argue that PH didnt catalyse US involvement in ww2, the most basic historical fact, is perfectly illustrative of your self deception, denial, and utter dishonesty in approaching this issue.

This is not a "basic historical fact." It is a popular misconception, a point that you seem unable to grasp because of your deep emotional investment in believing that the PNAC report is some sort of "smoking gun."

Ah, inference we have here! So it is admissible to debate after all, I dont expect you to use that evasion again.

Please show an example where I claimed that inference is not admissible in a debate. Further, it's not an inference--it's clear from the following passage, as has been noted:

. . . the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.

Of course, your point debunks itself- as has been pointed out by many on this thread already, along with now yourself, the shift in military thinking was already in place; what was needed was a coherent framework, including domestic, and foreign policy (if you had read the doc carefully, you would not need me to tell you this), which would allow the full aims of RAD, which went beyond mere military gains, and included global posture review and agressive control of strategic interests.

What was and is needed for the PNAC plan, first and foremost, is much more money, both from increased defense spending, and from canceling certain expensive programs. As shown below, this has not really happened.

This WOT offers the perfect subterfuge for all such elements to be achieved; and as it offers us a wartime environment, the changes, in general backed by the political and social machinery, are easy to push through, just as the PH para in RAD states.

Yes, that's why the JSF and the CVX have been canceled, because the PNAC plan has been so easy to push through, right? :rolleyes: Also, you're not making any sense here. Why is a subterfuge needed to achieve this transformation? You've claimed that a shift in military thinking had already taken place, so who is being fooled?

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.

Well, let's consider your honesty, mjd1982. Just as one example, you claimed that the large increase in defense spending after September 11 somehow achieved a goal of the PNAC plan, even after you were shown that virtually all of the money went for increased security (such as combat air patrols) and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not into transformation of the military. How can you claim with any degree of intellectual honesty that this is achieving the goals of PNAC?

Belz...

10th July 2007, 05:54 AM

This is astonishingly, astonishingly basic.

Only because you see this issue in basic terms where others try to see the whole picture.

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.

Typical from a truther. You think your conclusions are so evident that only a dishonest shill could disagree.

JonnyFive

10th July 2007, 07:28 AM

J5, is that desire for apple pie more from design than execution?

You're not a high-enough order of Freemason for me to tell you that particular information. Sacrifice more puppies to Moloch and we'll talk.

Cuddles

10th July 2007, 08:06 AM

Well, this is an opinion. Luckily, it is one that can be easily verified, and done so by yourself. It will take you 2 minutes. Please go to post 95 and 493, and then show me where someone has debated this seriously, i.e. to some form of conclusion. Then tell me who. I will wait.

Opinion? What is? The fact that it has been contested? Have you not noticed how long this thread is? Seriously? And you still think you are not being contested?

PNAC made a statement. I have inferred a conclusion, incredible basic, from that statement. The standard, hapless refutation from your camp, is that "They didnt say it (in so many words), so you cannot say thats what they meant". I think this is a pretty uncontroversial summation of your colleagues' arguments here.

Exactly. You infered. They very clearly do not say what they want, they simply say what they think will happen given two different scenarios. All the rest is entirely your own opinion. Feel free to give some actual evidence to support it at any time, but simply claiming that you are the only serious person here does not magically make it true. Also, please note that there are still none of my collegeagues on this forum, so you really need to stop imagining that there are.

Now as has been shown many times by me, this is a pretty explicit tactic of someone who has zero interest in honest discourse. This is because it is asserting that inference, even basic inference, is inadmissible to debate. Of course, this is garbage, since inference is a perfectly standard tool in any sort of discussion. To say that this should not be the case is stupid, and anyone who would utter such does not take themselves seriously.

In this light, if you want to debate the inference, you can do what I have urged your friends to do, many times, with i think zero success, and that is to go to #493, and debate this inference, seriously, with me to conclusion. Very easy.

Yep, very easy. This is not a debate. We like facts and evidence, not waffling arguments about what kinds of opinion should be allowed. If you can't support your opinion then it carries no weight whatsoever. No-one is going to bother debating your inferences because that is all they are. Please bring some actual evidence to the table or just admit that you have nothing.

I know you have said this. Subsequently, i disagreed, stating why I disagreed. The next step, in adult debate, is for you to come up and say why you disagree with my contentions. And so on. Eventually we reach some semblance of conclusion.

Unfortunately the way you are you ilk like to perform on this forum, runs along the lines of I make a point, you state that I am wrong, and that is that. I exhort you to address the points, you say you have, and little progress gets made.

Yes, the next adult step would be to say why. Oddly enough I did exactly that in the post you just replied to. I thought the bit where I said "a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war" was fairly explicit really. Care to actually answer that point? After all, that's what an adult debater would do.

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion, which judgement I will suspend, you will go and do as I have suggested.

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion you will stop the pathetic patronising manner, since it is clear that most people here know far more than you about the events at hand.

No, that was the 2200 word post (including quotes) where 1 word was put down in error. This was pointed out to me, and I apologised. This is because I am interested in serious debate, hence I will admit to beng wrong. Incidentally your calling me a "liar" in this regard is a perfect instance of an empty ad hom the type that I described above.

For someone who tries to give the appearance of knowing so much about debate, you don't seem to know much about logical fallacies. That was not an ad hom attack. An ad hom would be saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a liar. I am saying that your arguments are wrong and you are a liar. There's an important difference. As for whether it was a lie or not, either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good.

They didnt say "We want a new PH". They implied it overwhelmingly, in stating that their revolutionary, peace love and happiness bringing changes would take decades, absent such. This is all outlined in #493. Read it.

Read it. There's nothing in it except your own personal opinion. No facts, no evidence.

Oh boy... how mind numbing. Why must I repeat myself over and over again? We have just been through this. It is, again, in #493. To be quick- strictly speaking, they were not referring to a new PH, but a catastrophic and catalysing event. If you deny the link to 911, then you are suggesting taht such was eother not catalysing, or not catastrophic. In this light, we can conclude that you are not on this board for serious purposes.

Catastrophic in what sense? Military? Certainly not. Pearl Harbour was a military event. Which part of this do you find hard to understand? PNAC was talking about the military. A catastrophic military event could provide the impetus to drive military funding. No military catastrophy occured. Catalysing? Not really. Has there been a massive change in military funding? No. Has there been a change in how the military operates? No. In fact, 11/9 was actually the opposite of catalysing, since the changes planned for more technical wars were found not to work in the modern guerilla environment and so they have had to revert to older tactics.

Oh boy oh boy... read post 95 again, find out about what PNAC really wanted and what the WOT actually constitutes. It is a rebuttal no Gravy's LC guide PNAC section, and of course, he has no interest in defending his dismantling, neither has anyone else, save DR just now, over 1600 posts. This says a lot.

No, that is what you think PNAC really wanted. Your own inferences are not necessarily truth. Please stop pretending that you either know more than anyone else or are more intelligent than anyone else. You're only making yourself look silly.

lapman

10th July 2007, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by lapman
Every post by everyone else since. Yes, you acknowledge and quote the posts, but you ignore the content
Please give me 1 example.
Post #89 is a perfect example. You had plenty of places to go for your answers instead of this ridiculous thread. This only shows that you have no intention of looking for answers. You just want to argue for arguments sake. To belittle others to boost your own ego.
Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.
This is a lie. Gravy, WildCat, Gumboot, Hokulele, DJM and Belz responded. You talk about honesty, yet you haven't shown much yourself.

Your PNAC's "new PH" = 9/11 theory has been totally proven false. It has been shown that 9/11 has not been the "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to speed up it's recommendations when in fact the opposite has happened which has been shown in the above memos. So, can we now move on to WTC7?

mortimer

10th July 2007, 08:40 AM

This should all be very, very simple to understand, so much so that I am certain it is honesty here, not intellect, that is lacking.
And by "honest", you mean "agreeing fully with your inferences", as you previously stated.

Real conducive to civilized discourse. :rolleyes:

lapman

10th July 2007, 09:16 AM

Yes, that's why the JSF and the CVX have been canceled,
The JSF(F-35) was canceled? When. According to here (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/), it's still alive and scheduled for production.:rolleyes:

SpitfireIX

10th July 2007, 09:25 AM

The JSF(F-35) was canceled? When. According to here (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/), it's still alive and scheduled for production.

Erm, you seem to have missed the :rolleyes: at the end of the sentence.

Belz...

10th July 2007, 10:03 AM

Gotta love the F-35.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 10:14 AM

I'm Army. I don't love nothing from no stinkin' Airforce

Belz...

10th July 2007, 10:21 AM

Bah. Army. Navy. Air force. They ALL have neat vehicles.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 11:20 AM

yeah, but I like my TANK better.

v=NTuhOapwAlE

please note, that is not MY tank.

lapman

10th July 2007, 11:40 AM

yeah, but I like my TANK better.

v=NTuhOapwAlE

please note, that is not MY tank.

Umm, I only see a white box. So we have a stealth tank? Camo'ed tank during a white out? Or a sleeping polar bear during a snow storm? :rolleyes:

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 11:45 AM

SHUT UP!! I's a tank in a snowstorm.
NTuhOapwAlE

simakperrce

10th July 2007, 01:09 PM

BTW, mjd, have you ever entertained the idea that 9/11 was indeed a catalyzing event, albeit one orchestrated and executed by Al Quaeda with the propitiousness of a worldwide Muslim uprising and asynchronous warfare in mind? The testimony of the ringleaders and the evidence at hand certainly makes this version more plausible than one which relies merely on a single document (see how I used the word "plausible" here instead of claiming it was "a fact"?)

But I guess I forgot how educated and enlightened liberals tend to agree that "some bearded guys in a cave" would never be able to analyze propitiousness or anything as complicated as it in the way we smart Westerners would.

Belz...

10th July 2007, 01:15 PM

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 02:53 PM

You're not a high-enough order of Freemason for me to tell you that particular information. Sacrifice more puppies to Moloch and we'll talk.

I'm workin' on it, absent some catastrophic and...well, you know. ;)

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 03:15 PM

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.

EXACTLY!! But some person just skips over that point, endlessly.:faint:

Darth Rotor

10th July 2007, 03:49 PM

2 points. 1stly, the US is militarising space, transforming cyberspace into a defense mechanism, undergoing a global redeployment of troops, transforming the DoD,
All initiated before 9-11, and before Bush even took office.
Increasing military budgets, had the patriot act, the military ommissions act and more, all under the aegis of the War on Terror.
Since 9-11.
Please tell me given all this, how the US is not on a war footing.
The military is, and their families, and the bulk of America goes on about its business. What sacrifice in the here and now is being asked of Americans? None, the war is being paid for On Credit. At least FDR did the hard work of raising war bonds. :p
2ndly, and importantly for you, you might want to differentiate between design and execution. It is not the executon we are concerned about, rather the execution. This is the main point, and as I have mentioned many times, issues of execution are rather irrelevent.
That made no sense, at all.
Now tell me how an invasion/overthrow/war in Iraq was not part of the transformation/deemed propitious to the transformation.
That made no sense. As I understood Wolfowitz, Bennet's, and Woolsley's soundbytes in the summer and fall of 2002, in the information campaign to the war, the idea they had was that transforming Iraq would be a catalyst to transforming the entire middle east. This was no secret, regardless of how many people in the DoD, to inlcude me, a peon, and people like Shinseki and LTGEN Odom (USMC) didn't see things as rosily as those members of PNAC.
Which would have been easier to pursue in a war environment. I don't think that this is a controversial point.
Perhaps if the "war" was kept cheap, per Rummy's original plan; (3-15 billion, that's what he told Congress it would cost) this would have been true, but the risk, known in the Pentagon if nowhere else, was that it would be a lot more like Bosnia, but bigger, and a lot harder, for obvious reasons of METT-T differences between Bosnia and Iraq.
Ok. Well then tell me why they would want such world changing, peace love and happiness bringing changes to occur over decades, rather than mths/years; or why any sane person would want such, all else being equal.
Your strawman, you answer it.
rag heads? I would hope you are not meaning that term in a racist sense...
I don't care much what you hope. Dealing with terrorists is something a certain generation of military men, mine, had in front of them for an entire career. Mine began in 1980, and if you recall BGEN Dozier, you will note that not all terrorists are rag heads, only some of them are. At least the IRA have calmed down a bit.
Atrophy to what purpose? To stimulate anti-terror efforts? By invading Iraq? And if you have such suspicions, then why do you not feel there should be an investigation into such? Your suspicions, if true, would lead to the Bush admin being put in front of a firing squad, as with any CT.
Who do you think will talk, beyond Tenet, Clarke, Scheuer? Who is still holding out who will talk? I don't see Scooter Libby talking, do you? Rummy? Cheney? No. Why? Fear of that same firing squad, if there is indeed something there to hide, which is an unknown.
as above, differentiate between execution and design.
More misdirection.
The point about the war on Terror is that it can never end.
This is only true if all succeeding administrations continue the policy. Now, if the WoT is going to be as attractive as the War on Drugs, perhaps, but given its current ill standing, your presumption of inertia is based on

What? Exactly?
Lol, I'm not talking about a rotten war, I'm talking about a war that cannot conceivably end.
I can conceive of it ending, and returnig to a policy more similar to the Clinton era law enforcement style approach. Not hard to do. Look for a change in 2008.
No, they explicity called it the "War on Terror".
Yes. But what has been undertaken is a war on two nation states.
Oh please. You are starting to get a bit over excited i think. Stick to the facts and stop the childish aspersions, if you want to debate like an adult.
Likewise.
The war in Iraq is part of the WOT, according to the neo cons. I take it you do not dispute this.
I most certainly dispute that complete mischaracterization of my words, as I do not concur, at all, with BushCo on that, and never have since the Iraq war began.
"We're at war, do what we say, else you will all be nuked".
In what world did this get spoken?
execution, not design
More misdirection.
The Iraq war is, in the eyes of the neo cons, an integral part of the WOT. If you are serious, you will not dispute this.
That the neocons feel that way is so, that I feel that way is completely false.
No, PH is used as an analogy. Analogies have different contexts. This is pretty damn simple!
By you, them, or both?
They also wanted to defend US strategic interests, e.g. oil and gas:
As has every US administration since Nixon in 1973. This is not news.
[quote]I am simply stating that it illustrates that a new PH was in their eyes propitious to policy, since under war conditions, military transformation is easier to push through.
Rummy found otherwise, in practice.
This is the most elementary of common sense.
No, it's Ivory Tower, Silver Bullet, head in the sand rubbish.
The new PH provided an opportunity.

Hence it was propitious to policy.
Opportunity, or design? You really love "propitious" as a word. Opportune is less fancy.
Now why do you then say that in the PNAC doc, the envisioning of a new PH would not have been propitious to policy. This isnt very serious i dont think.
Still beating that horse?
RAD didnt say "We need to cause a new PH".
Correct.
But it states what all people with common sense know, that if such changes occur catalysed by a new PH, they will happen soon, rather than over several decades.
But those of us who actually aren't eggheads, unlike Paul Wolfowitz for example, know that such pie in the sky rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, spewed out by Think Tanks as part of their usual regurgiation of Ivory Tower policy recommendation.
Further, in a war environment, they should happen much easier, and roadblock and other issues should be easier to deal with. Why they, or any sane person, would not want this to happen, is something that would take a hell of a lot of explaining, I'm afraid.
Nope, the reality of war is that the war drives the transformation, not the eggheads. See, for example, the armored HUMMV's, NOT in Rummy's transformation plan. See also the counter IED measures: not in the transformation plan Pre Iraq War.

An empty wagon rattles the most. See ya, mj, and enjoy.

DR

mjd1982

10th July 2007, 05:21 PM

MJD1982,

A question for you.

Some posters in this thread, including myself, have suggested that offers from the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA for trial may not have been entirely sincere. Our suggestion is that Afghan diplomats, in negotiations with a foreign country both potentially hostile and possessed of overwhelming military force, may have prevaricated, concealed information, uttered half-truths and hinted vaguely at offers they had no intention of making good - all of these fairly common tactics in any negotiation. I would suggest that they did this in order to further what they saw as their country's best interests, by avoiding giving the appearance before other Islamic nations with extremist tendencies of having given in to America and failed to preserve the safety of a guest, while at the same time avoiding an open conflict with America which could only have one possible ultimate outcome - the entire destruction of their form of government, and quite possibly their own personal extinction.

You have countered this with the assertion that it is unthinkable for Afghan diplomats to have acted in such a manner, and that even to suggest that they were in any way dishonest is a racist slur against the Afghan people.

My question is this: What is it, in the world you inhabit, that diplomats actually do?

Dave
Ok, well no, I have not suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted. I trust there will not be any sensible disputes with this.

That correction aside, my point is what it always has been- regardless of whether you think that the chap was lying or telling the truth, the fact as reported by MSNBC is that there was no discussion within in the US government as to whether to take up the Afghan offer of handing over OBL to the US. Moreover, Mohabbat is an important witness, as important a witness as can be found regarding such a question as US-Talibam dynamics over OBL pre 911, and his opinion is unequivocal. Thus, whereas OTers may scuttle about scraping barrels for the latest subterfuge to muddy the issue (he may have been lying, is Cockburn really reliable, Olbermann has an agenda to list some that have been raised just for this issue), this does not deflect away from the core issue that his crucial testimony is another point which adds to the call for investigation of connivance. Saying that he must have been lying cos he contradicts the State dept is neither here nor there. The point stands.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 05:36 PM

The point stands.

Under who's authority? I'm starting to think that this is less and less your wish to "show us the truth" as it is a marathon on why you refuse to believe what we believe. Even after your points are dismantled, you brush them off as "irrelevant" and continue on like nothing happened.

Dare I say, you have ignorance down to an artform.

mjd1982

10th July 2007, 05:45 PM

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc

Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

This one

this one
[quote]

neither of which were examples of anything. I assume a typo.

[QUOTE=lapman;2752787]
You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more

I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

Which hasn't happened.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.

Oh really? And how so?

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.

WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

Again, understand the difference between a project being pursued in peacetime, and in wartime, and the haze will clear from your thinking. If it doesnt, let me know and I will try and explain it more simply for you.

WRONG The catalyzing event is based purely on a military level, not public opinion level.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

And the PNAC document is not about engaging in a war, but being prepared in case such an engagement is needed.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc

Because the PNAC was not talking about, inferring or giving any impression that such an even was require, needed or wanted.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

This one

this one
[quote]

neither of which were examples of anything. I assume a typo.

[QUOTE=lapman;2752787]
You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that.

Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more

I have read your posts. The faults of Vietnam and Iraq were faults of both execution and design. You are the one that refuses to even try to understand that.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

Which hasn't happened.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Either way, the "new PH" that the PNAC is referring to is a military, not public opinion, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Nothing else. The second reference to PH in the document proves it.

Oh really? And how so?

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.

WRONG. The only things that have been pursued are the programs that were already in place when the document was written with the exception of the Comanche, which was canceled. Programs like the JSF were kept even though the PNAC recommended canceling it.

[QUOTE=lapman;2752787]
Ok, my response is: YOU ARE WRONG. There, now 2 people have responded. So, are you finally ready to tackle WTC7?

I suspect that you are not aware of the true meaning of "response". Equally I suspect it is you who are not ready to "tackle" WTC7, in any useful meaning of the word.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 05:58 PM

Under who's authority? I'm starting to think that this is less and less your wish to "show us the truth" as it is a marathon on why you refuse to believe what we believe. Even after your points are dismantled, you brush them off as "irrelevant" and continue on like nothing happened.

Dare I say, you have ignorance down to an artform.

I dare you do say he has it down to an artform. As I see it, it's really the only evidential thing presented here. Used as a wear 'em down, exasperate them untill they post no more, and then go to some other site and claim victory. Even though he is dishonestly saying none of his posts (other than #95) are being challenged, he is either ignoring deliberately the challenges made and the slayer ing of his case, or as you say UC, the refusal to believe everyone else's evidence. Or he thinks we don't "see" it as he "sees" it, we prefer to use evidence to prove what's real and validate it, he uses evidence to invalidate what has been proven right and wrongfully apply it for his purpose. It's more like an abstract artform.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 06:00 PM

ask and ye shall recieve
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/salma-hayek-butt.jpg

twinstead

10th July 2007, 06:02 PM

Personally, I'm sick of mjd trying to cram his interpretation of a single document and world view down our throats as some kind of evidence that 911 was an inside as if it is the word of Jesus Christ Himself.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 06:08 PM

side note - you have the greatest ave ever. I will be stealing it for use at another forum

mjd1982

10th July 2007, 06:14 PM

If they wanted it to happen in months/years, rather than decades, why do they keep advocating "over the next several decades" or "over the next two decades?" Seriously, the general theme of the document is that it needs to happen over the next several decades.

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw). They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH. Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious. It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know.

While, maybe it would be better to have it happen sooner, there is no indication in the document that was the sentiment. If anything, the new PH sentence suggests that it isn't something they would want.

As above

Let's rephrase shall we "Our plan will take decades, absent something absolutely horrible happening (catastrophic) that forces us to move faster on this (catalyzing), like a new PH." How does that sound? Does that sound like something they are calling for? Does it seem propitious?

no, but it doesnt say that

You keep saying that no one is addressing your point. Your point doesn't make sense based on the text in the document. Why do we need explain when the text itself does not read the way you say it does? The document suggests a time frame of decades. Decades. Not sooner. I don't see sooner implied either. Why imply months/years, then throughout the document say decades? Decades is throughout the document. Over the next two decades, over the next several decades. What the heck part of that do you not understand? Why do you not understand that catastrophic is a bad thing?

as above. Incidentally, you do not contest the point that no one has contested my points. I will agree with you on that, sad tho it is.

No matter how you spin it, why on earth can you jump to the conclusion that ANYONE would call for something bad? "Well Bubba, we need to have this happen sooner. We need a catastrophe that forces our hand to move faster." How on earth does that make sense???? This seems pretty elementary to me.

Errr... Politicians do kill people, you know that? Much of the time

We aren't in immediate threat of a rival superpower. Therefore, we have time to act on our plan, which will be the next couple of decades. Read the document again, its pretty clear.

Not strictly true. It has been forecast by Goldman Sachs that by 2050 the US will be the 5th economy in the world, behind China INdia Russia and Brazil. Economically it can no longer be guaranteed top spot in the short to mid term. This is also discounting the growth and increasing integration of the EU block. So all the more priority on the US to exercise military radicalisation to press this advantage home. Hence why, in the eyes of PNAC, these changes should be the centrepiece of policy for the new administration by October 2001, such as happened.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 06:16 PM

Mjd, please respond to posts#1853, #1855, and #1867. These are from PNAC.

mjd1982

10th July 2007, 06:18 PM

How again is the WOT and this administration carrying out the wishes of the PNAC?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Letters an statements

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
The US military has been increased in size, as I have illustrated before. Not significantly, but this is an illustration, again, of execution rather than design. The execution has, nonetheless, been remarkable in its precision to RAD, as illustrated in #95. Read it and be enlightened.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 06:19 PM

and stop respond with "as above" just lump all the [rule 8] into one quote box and address it.

or not.

DGM

10th July 2007, 06:41 PM

The US military has been increased in size, as I have illustrated before. Not significantly, but this is an illustration, again, of execution rather than design. The execution has, nonetheless, been remarkable in its precision to RAD, as illustrated in #95. Read it and be enlightened.
Why is it then that the PNAC does not agree with your assessment of the WOT. Do you know them better?

:confused: :rolleyes:

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 06:42 PM

Always love the Hayek, and that pic is HOT!

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

Evidence of circular reasoning posted above ^

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw).1 They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH.2 Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious.[3 It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know].

1. No they have not stated this as a "choice"
2. You are adding to the document, MJd
3. Stop using "We". This shows what you are really getting at Mjd, it was an inside job, the last sentence says it all.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 06:44 PM

Auto reply from mjd1982 -
This has been address in post #493. Please stop the childish nonesense and post something propitious to policy!

DGM

10th July 2007, 06:45 PM

My question is this: What is it, in the world you inhabit, that diplomats actually do?

Dave Ok, well no, I have suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted. I trust there will not be any sensible disputes with this.

That correction aside, my point is what it always has been- regardless of whether you think that the chap was lying or telling the truth, the fact as reported by MSNBC is that there was no discussion within in the US government as to whether to take up the Afghan offer of handing over OBL to the US. Moreover, Mohabbat is an important witness, as important a witness as can be found regarding such a question as US-Talibam dynamics over OBL pre 911, and his opinion is unequivocal. Thus, whereas OTers may scuttle about scraping barrels for the latest subterfuge to muddy the issue (he may have been lying, is Cockburn really reliable, Olbermann has an agenda to list some that have been raised just for this issue), this does not deflect away from the core issue that his crucial testimony is another point which adds to the call for investigation of connivance. Saying that he must have been lying cos he contradicts the State dept is neither here nor there. The point stands.

Can you not read? How is this an answer to Dave's question. (Hint it's not)

twinstead

10th July 2007, 06:46 PM

Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 07:00 PM

Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?

Thats right. But He also had a predetermined perception of us here at JREF.
It makes more sense to be describing himself;

I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 07:08 PM

BAM!!! Two times!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/salma_hayek_gallery_25.jpg

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 07:23 PM

I'll raise ya one.http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Salma-Hayek---From-Dusk-til-Dawn-Print-C10102031.jpeg

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 07:33 PM

you fail. I've already used Salma With Snake.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2673438#post2673438
you can't step with teh MASTA, suckafool!!

jab712

10th July 2007, 07:46 PM

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

Huh???? This makes no sense. Respond with something that actually makes sense. This doesn't. I will wait.

Unsecured Coins

10th July 2007, 07:51 PM

grab a sandwhich. this might be a while

DGM

10th July 2007, 08:06 PM

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided. Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner; to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one. To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

Translation: Although 9/11 has nothing to do with it the changes will happen and it's an inside job because of it.:confused: :boggled:

SpitfireIX

10th July 2007, 08:17 PM

Huh???? This makes no sense. Respond with something that actually makes sense. This doesn't. I will wait.

8HGh9ddRwTM

jab712

10th July 2007, 08:33 PM

8HGh9ddRwTM

LOL, too funny!:D

jab712

10th July 2007, 09:02 PM

Now, to address the point about their statement of the "2 stage transition process over decades" (has already been addressed many times btw). They have an option here. They have stated that they can have a quick (quicker), easy transformation process via a new PH. Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH". As sensible people, we know they can only go for one. This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious. It just means that they cannot publicly, overtly, call for the mass murder of US civilians, which is something we all know.

blah blah blah

As above
blah blah

no, but it doesnt say that
That is my interpretation of what it says. I dumbed it down, of course.

as above. Incidentally, you do not contest the point that no one has contested my points. I will agree with you on that, sad tho it is.

Hello....MJD...**jab712 knocks on MJD's head** the posters in this thread have contested your points. You just have horrific reading comprehension skills and can't figure it out.

Errr... Politicians do kill people, you know that? Much of the time Enough of their own citizens (civilians) to cause a catastrophic catalyzing event? How often is this happening that our government wouldn't bat an eye at offing potentially 10,000 of their own citizens? Holy friggen poo poo....that must be happening a lot for them to not even flinch about "calling for a new PH" and writing it down, no less, for the whole country to see. That is pretty brazen.

I was going to come up with a little skit of how it all went down, but then I thought maybe only I would find it amuzing, so I will just keep that to myself for now and spare the rest of you.

Not strictly true. It has been forecast by Goldman Sachs that by 2050 the US will be the 5th economy in the world, behind China INdia Russia and Brazil. Economically it can no longer be guaranteed top spot in the short to mid term. This is also discounting the growth and increasing integration of the EU block. So all the more priority on the US to exercise military radicalisation to press this advantage home. Hence why, in the eyes of PNAC, these changes should be the centrepiece of policy for the new administration by October 2001, such as happened.

Irrelevant to the topic we are currently discussing. In case you forgot, we are speaking of the PNAC document. My statement was according to the PNAC doc was saying. I don't give a tinkers toot what Goldman Sachs is forecasting for 2050. According to the PNAC document (which is what I was referring to), the US, at present, has no immediate threat of a rival superpower. It says it in the friggen document. Please keep up.

I know what the problem is. You aren't reading the actual document. You are only looking at a few paragraphs that are relevant to your points. Good grief. Go back to my post on page 47, click on the link that says PNAC document and read the dang thing...start to finish. Read the introduction, read the table of contents, read the boxes in gray that have the text bolded, even read the sassy little comments in italics. Be sure to read the ENTIRE document, not just your favorite paragraphs.

Then when you are finished, read it again, you apparently need to read it more than once. Feel free to print it out and highlight things that you want to address.

You have constantly demanded that people go back and read your post or reply to your post. Frankly, I am tired of it. I think it is safe to say that everyone is tired of it. Go back and read the document. Come back with something other than your new PH propitious garbage. This is getting quite old. Move on.

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 09:11 PM

8HGh9ddRwTM

Such cool wallpaper; Adds to them crickets.:)

Mjd is probably more into this video;

http://www.betterbadnews.com/podpress_trac/web/84/0/Betterbadnews-ROSIEODONNEL911TRUTHVIDEOSIEZEDINTORABORACAVE981.m ov

MIKILLINI

10th July 2007, 10:13 PM

you fail. I've already used Salma With Snake.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2673438#post2673438
you can't step with teh MASTA, suckafool!!

teh MASTA? Bah! Selma, with a classic aura;

http://www.sfmission.com/gallery_files/site_pics/Mexico/Veracruz/Who_is_Who/Salma_Hayek/salma_Hayek2.jpg

Belz...

11th July 2007, 05:30 AM

Ok, well no, I have not suggested that to imply that they were in any way dishonest is racist- I have countered the oft repeated assertion here that Mohabbat is half Afghan (note, half), Afghans have a kind of cultural code of deceit, thus Mohabbat is being deceitful, as being bigoted.

Yes, we know this is what you said. But that was NOT what was being said, and therefore all you're doing is misunderstanding the point.

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.

Unfortunately, this is another difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 : the American people are not being drafted for the war in any way, shape or form. The American industry is not being diverted to producing more tanks, ships or airplanes. They just sent in the army against a technically inferior foe, and then got caught into a hot zone. How was this catalysing, again ?

Belz...

11th July 2007, 05:35 AM

ask and ye shall recieve
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/salma-hayek-butt.jpg

Coins, if you're no longer interested in posting in this thread, would you mind not spamming it ? Thanks.

Same to you Mikillini. The rules apply to everyone, methinks.

Belz...

11th July 2007, 05:36 AM

Other than to make the changes happen quicker.

Which, again, says nothing about "quicker" being "better" in this instance.

And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier.

Absolutely, completely false.

So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder.

Of course not. Having erosion work its "magic" is easy, but slow.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?

The USA was ill-prepared for that kind of combat. It was pretty obvious once the whole thing started.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!

Speculation, since it hasn't happened.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc

Gosh, you really do love to read your own posts, don't you ?

Belz...

11th July 2007, 05:40 AM

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:02 AM

First off: if you want to continue to discuss this matter in this condescending fashion with sprinkling your replies with patronizing comments, ad hominems and "LMAO"s you might consider ignoring me altogether.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but LMAO's are simply a reflection of my natural reaction/state of mind when reading a post, the rest of which is crystallised in verbal form. It all constitutes a communication of a reaction nonetheless. But I will note your suggestion for future communication with you.

Next: there is no such thing as "my ilk". I am a relative scarce poster around here and the opinion I express is solely my own and is not endorsed by anyone around here, at least not to my knowledge. Unlike the Thruthers, we are not a group of people who form a movement.

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board, and is by far and away the minority view in the US. It could also be deemed, in the form it appears on this board, a counter reactionary group, since it is established counter to the reactionary group that is the CTers. Hence it can, loosely, be described as a movement. Ilk means a group of people sharing a common affliliation, hence it is acccurate.

I have refrained from calling you names or trying to counter your arguments using childish Internet abbreviations or self-righteous remarks. If there is something funny for you about my English it might be that it is not my first language. If you want we can switch this discussion to German any time you desire and I can throw some exotic words at you which make me look super-smart and you like an ignorant fool for not being able to decipher them immediately.

Gerne! Ich wuerde gern auf Deutsch diskutieren. Ich habe fur drei Monate in Passau studiert, du siehst (auch habe ich Deutsch an der Universitaet Oxford studiert). Aber ich habe kein Deutsch seit lange Zeit gesprochen, also muess ich mich ueben, glaub'ich.

Deine Sprachniveau ist doch beeindrueckend, wie alle Deutsche, besser als main Deutsch, das is klar.

Wir koennten weitermachen auf Deutsch, aber die anderen wuerden nicht verstehen, denk'ich...

I have also expressed before that I consider your language superb. I already think you are a smart guy, so you don't have to constantly rub it in. Now, in my experience the *really* smart guys don't go along all day trying to show other people how smart and superior they are, so I think a little understatement in your replies would actually help your case, unless of course, you thrive on your bloated ego or need to prostitute it in order to get some amends.

Now that I got my full admiration of you out of the way, can we agree upon refraining from childish nonsense a la "oh, boy" and take a look at our arguments instead?

Maybe you think you are not. I was referring to your original post, though. In that, as I pointed out earlier, you mention the word "fact" or "evidence" a good number of times without actually providing such. That you "infer" anything is your good right. But you do not do so in your OP. Instead, you are trying to build an entire case around why 9/11 MUST HAVE BEEN an inside job based (among other things which we haven't even addressed) on a few statements in a document which you INTERPRET in a certain way. While this approach might be valid for a political essay or an op-ed piece it is not something that you could use in any court of law.

This is precisely the opposite of what I have been saying for the entirety of this thread. Indeed if you see the OP, you will see that I have stated that the position of the Truth movement is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 911 for there to be a new investigation into such. This is the founding premise of everything I say here. Hence, for instance, when I state that the intermediary betweem the Taliban and the US says that Bush refused to have OBL killed, while an OTer may state that he must have been lying, this is irrelevant to the point, that being that it forms an important piece of evidence. This is an internet forum, not a court of law, as you rightly allude, and so we have to proceed accordingly- look at evidence, and see if it is in any way serious. The point about the PNAC doc is not that it proves 911 was in inside job, as for some reason many people thnk i am arguiing, buut that it illustrates the propitiousness of 911 in the minds of the men who would be charged with protecting the US from such an event on and up to 911.

Now you will of course claim that this wasn't your intention, which of course begs the question what exactly that intention of yours is. If you want to impeach Bush this is the wrong place (not because we are all Bush acolytes but because this is not a place with any judicial powers). So what is it you want? What would you like to happen at the end, when you have convinced us all?

as above, an investigation

I am not debating the propitiousness part. It is irrelevant since it is nothing but an inference. I am debating your stance that 9/11 must have been the consequence of said mentioning, or, that the fact that this is mentioned in PNAC is evidence of 9/11 marking the execution of the PNAC document.

Again, as above. You need to debate the propitiousness, since if this was the case that they would have seen a new PH as such, then we must analyse their behaviours accordingly

If it was for me you could debate this point for another 1700 posts. I don't care. The document, as I understand it (interpret it, just as you), states that IN CASE of a catalyzing event the policy of change will eventually have to be adjusted (accelerated).

Lets be more precise. It will happen quicker. And the corollary of quicker in this context, is easier. It will happen quicker because the backlogs and upheavals that are referred to in the same paragraph will be easier to bypass. Thus if you want to argue that they didnt wat the transformation to happen quicker, you are also arguing that they wanted it to be harder (amongst other irrationalities outlined in #493)

That 9/11 THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN *THAT* catalyzing event that is mentioned in this doc is your inference. As I said before it is an inference that is not subject to falsifiability.

No, the point is that 911 was a catastophic and catalysing event, as pnac calls for. If you can illustrate how it has one or neither of these qualities, that is how you can falsify it

Hence it is *worthless* at least in a case of fact-assembling, unless you produce another document in which any of the signers explicitly states that THIS (9/11) WAS THE CATALYZING EVENT that PNAC referred to and that "they" have been waiting for.

Again, as above

As for the "ilk"-remark see above. You obviously did not understand the analogy. You cited a document, which contains vague and general guidelines for the direction and actions of American policy over the next decades to be EVIDENCE for an inside job on 911.

tell me how these are vague

I tried to explain to you, that contrary to what you said in your first post, your inference and interpretation of this document is opinion and not facts.

yes, and inference is admissible in sensible debate. Hence you can debate the inference.

Incidentally, others attempts to exclude inference from this debate is a perfect example of evasion of sensible debate

It is not a fact that the catalystic event mentioned in PNAC was 911. I agree in so far that it COULD have been. Pure and simple. By the same token, earth COULD have been created by god rather than by the big bang and ensuing gravitational forces.

If you are trying to argue that I am saying that they mentioned this event, thus they are guilty of it, you are wrong. I am merely stating that they deemed it propitious. Nothing else. Similarly, if the author of Genesis states that God looked at the world and thought it was good, then this is not proof that God created the world, or even that he looked at the world and thought it to be good; but simply that in the eyes of the author, Godlooked at the workd and deemed it good.

We have good evidence that the latter was the case, but it is still an inference which doesn't entirely exclude the first case. One of the central creationist arguments that earth was IN FACT created by god is the document called Bible, which, in vague and general terms describes the creation of earth by god. Without implying that you are actually a creationist, your train of thought in regard to 9/11 being a major event, predicted, orchestrated and executed (or acknowledged) by some specific, powerful entity (God, the GOV, Cheney, the CIA) is the exact same. IOW, it is as valid and as "useful" and as "proven" to say "earth was created by god" than to say "PNACs propitiousness statement referred to 9/11".

as above. Your points are all linked to the same misconception

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:06 AM

And this letter from the PNAC to the president. Dated 1/23/2003

It sure doesn't seem like the WOT was what they had in mind. Maybe Bush didn't get the memo on how he was supposed to do things.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm
As I have stated before, this is an example of execution, not of design. We all know about Bush's abilities of execution, so it shouldnt surprise us when he fails. Moreover, this is merely a smidgeon of the whole plan, the overwhelming proportion of which is being pursued.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:23 AM

No, the event that precipitated the US's going to war with Japan was Japan's going to war with the US. The Pearl Harbor attack was merely one manifestation of Japan's action.

Yes, the manifestation that propelled the US into full engagement in the war! Why must you keep hounding this insane point? Your thoughts on it are utterly irrelevant anyway, since evem if you do not believe that PH was th catalysing event that got the US into ww2, PNAC do believe it, and it is their mindset that we are looking at, not yours!

My point is that the US and Japan would still have been at war even if the Japanese had only attacked the Philippines, Guam, and Wake, rather than Pearl Harbor. Do you dispute this? If not, then you must concede that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war against Japan, and thus clearly cannot by itself be considered "a catalyzing event that precipitated US involvement." Also, please explain how you believe that Pearl Harbor precipitated war between the other Axis powers and the US.

:jaw-dropp

Ok, the US and Japan may wel have gone to war. Yet how you infer that this means that PH was not the event that catalysed them into war, is beyond me. I suspect the flat earth society will come calling for you soon. In any case, this is irrelevant, since as I have said, in the eyes of PNAC, (and the rest of the world), PH was indeed a catalysing event that got US into the war

Because I have a BA in American history, and have extensively studied World War II with particular emphasis on the Pacific War. But that's beside the point--the majority of knowledgeable, professional historians would tell you something similar. I imagine that doesn't matter to you, though, as you've evidently got everything all figured out.

Errr...

The attack spurred the U.S. into a declaration of war, and the United States officially entered World War II the next day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

The point is that the US would have joined the war whether Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor or not. See above.

No, this is not the point; the point is whther PH was the catalyst for US involvement in ww2.

No, this was not required, which was the point I was trying to make. FDR could have had a declaration of war without Pearl Harbor, or any Japanese attack at all; however, he elected to wait, in order to allow the Army and Navy more time to prepare.

It was required to gain the public backing that it subsequently did. They could have gone into war anytime he chose, more or less, but PH gave him the public support needed

It shows that Pearl Harbor was not required for the US to enter the war; Roosevelt could have simply asked for a declaration of war when he felt the military was ready. Also, I didn't say there were "movements for war in Congress"--I said that FDR "had the votes" had he chosen to ask for them.

No, but it was the catalyst for US involvement- hence why they entered the next day!

You are clearly attempting to twist what I wrote in an effort to belittle my argument. Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry for all Americans, both servicemen and -women and civilians. Perhaps you've heard the expression, "Remember Pearl Harbor?"

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/T/wwiip259.jpg

Hmmmm... this has a curious parallel with another event that happened quite recently, no?

Are you saying that Pearl Harbor was necessary for actual declarations of war on the Axis powers, or are you saying that American participation in the war would have been half-hearted without Pearl Harbor? If the former, this is wrong, as I have shown; if the latter, this is at best questionable.

Lol, neither! I am saying that it was the catalyst for US involvement in the war, and that it garnered public support for it. You may wanna resit that hstory BA

This is not a "basic historical fact." It is a popular misconception, a point that you seem unable to grasp because of your deep emotional investment in believing that the PNAC report is some sort of "smoking gun."

It is a statement of attitude towards a new PH

Please show an example where I claimed that inference is not admissible in a debate. Further, it's not an inference--it's clear from the following passage, as has been noted:

Well, you have attempted to belittle my use of inference just above

What was and is needed for the PNAC plan, first and foremost, is much more money, both from increased defense spending, and from canceling certain expensive programs. As shown below, this has not really happened.

Execution, not design- this is the 1st hurdle at which your point falls

Yes, that's why the JSF and the CVX have been canceled, because the PNAC plan has been so easy to push through, right? :rolleyes: Also, you're not making any sense here. Why is a subterfuge needed to achieve this transformation? You've claimed that a shift in military thinking had already taken place, so who is being fooled?

As above, plus think about the need to get social and political opinion beind causes such as the Iraq invasion

Well, let's consider your honesty, mjd1982. Just as one example, you claimed that the large increase in defense spending after September 11 somehow achieved a goal of the PNAC plan, even after you were shown that virtually all of the money went for increased security (such as combat air patrols) and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not into transformation of the military. How can you claim with any degree of intellectual honesty that this is achieving the goals of PNAC?

Execution, not design.

The wars have been poorly executed, and hence funds have possibly not been available for other things. This is not to say they are not being pursued, actively, under the aegis of the WOT. Understand this distinction, and things will become clearer for you.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:46 AM

Opinion? What is? The fact that it has been contested? Have you not noticed how long this thread is? Seriously? And you still think you are not being contested?

The length of the thread is a perfect reflecton of the fact that issues are not being addressed. I have got tired of repeating myself, and of telling people to address points which they have no inclination to do. This is what has been taking up the space here. There are no serious challenges happening.

Exactly. You infered. They very clearly do not say what they want, they simply say what they think will happen given two different scenarios. All the rest is entirely your own opinion. Feel free to give some actual evidence to support it at any time, but simply claiming that you are the only serious person here does not magically make it true. Also, please note that there are still none of my collegeagues on this forum, so you really need to stop imagining that there are.

A perfect example of all of the points I have just made. I repeated to you, and the rest, many times so far that inference is admissible to sensible debate. To claim it is not is to try to evade sensible debate.

Yep, very easy. This is not a debate. We like facts and evidence, not waffling arguments about what kinds of opinion should be allowed. If you can't support your opinion then it carries no weight whatsoever. No-one is going to bother debating your inferences because that is all they are. Please bring some actual evidence to the table or just admit that you have nothing.

So you are stating that this is not a forum for debate now? Repeat the point about inference- how telling it is of your mindset...

Yes, the next adult step would be to say why. Oddly enough I did exactly that in the post you just replied to. I thought the bit where I said "a civilian terrorist attack on civilians is in no way similar to a military operation against military forces during a war" was fairly explicit really. Care to actually answer that point? After all, that's what an adult debater would do.

This has been answered time and time and time again. Read #493 (yes, another perfect illustration of my 1st point)

If you are a serious person here for serious discussion you will stop the pathetic patronising manner, since it is clear that most people here know far more than you about the events at hand.

nice gag!

For someone who tries to give the appearance of knowing so much about debate, you don't seem to know much about logical fallacies. That was not an ad hom attack. An ad hom would be saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a liar. I am saying that your arguments are wrong and you are a liar. There's an important difference. As for whether it was a lie or not, either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good.

And ad hom is an argument that tried to discredit it opposing argument by attacking the arguer (ad hom) rather than the point. Thus what you did was an ad hom

Your latter point is the most ironic piece of hypocrisy I have seen on this thread, It is you who has not done your research when commenting on what I said; "either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good."

Read it. There's nothing in it except your own personal opinion. No facts, no evidence.

as illustrated above, it is you who has not read this

Catastrophic in what sense? Military? Certainly not. Pearl Harbour was a military event. Which part of this do you find hard to understand? PNAC was talking about the military. A catastrophic military event could provide the impetus to drive military funding. No military catastrophy occured.

errrr... Ok, so if the japanese had bombed NY, it would not have catalysed entry to the war and hence an increase inmilitary spending an focus? What an absurd and desperate point

Catalysing? Not really. Has there been a massive change in military funding? No.

yes, it has increases significantly. #95

Has there been a change in how the military operates? No. In fact, 11/9 was actually the opposite of catalysing, since the changes planned for more technical wars were found not to work in the modern guerilla environment and so they have had to revert to older tactics.

again, read #95 and see (and hopefully understand) what changes are afoot. To repeatmyself again, the prime failing is tht you dont understand what the WOT constitutes; plus you cannot distinguish between execution and design

No, that is what you think PNAC really wanted. Your own inferences are not necessarily truth. Please stop pretending that you either know more than anyone else or are more intelligent than anyone else. You're only making yourself look silly.

Inference is admissible to debate, therefore eitheraccept it, or debate it.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:55 AM

Post #89 is a perfect example. You had plenty of places to go for your answers instead of this ridiculous thread. This only shows that you have no intention of looking for answers. You just want to argue for arguments sake. To belittle others to boost your own ego.

This post, like all OT posts here, has been dealt with by me at the top of the thread. I went through all the posts and responded to them accordingly.

This is a lie. Gravy, WildCat, Gumboot, Hokulele, DJM and Belz responded. You talk about honesty, yet you haven't shown much yourself.

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

Your PNAC's "new PH" = 9/11 theory has been totally proven false. It has been shown that 9/11 has not been the "catastrophic and catalyzing" event to speed up it's recommendations when in fact the opposite has happened which has been shown in the above memos. So, can we now move on to WTC7?

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:57 AM

911 would have been viewed as propitious by AQ as well as PNAC. Hence it worked for both parties.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 06:59 AM

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.
This is a step by step process. If the propitiousness can be realised, which it woudl be in any honest forum, then this will allow the sensible conclusion to be reached with minimal effort.

aggle-rithm

11th July 2007, 07:07 AM

Standard troofer tactics. If the following were actually true:

.....when it comes to addressing the real hard facts, there is only one conclusion that a rational mind will come to, and it is that of the “Truth Movement” ....Namely, that there is sufficient evidence of US government complicity in 9/11 for an independent investigation to be held.

...would it REALLY be necessary to quibble about semantics for 49 pages?

ETA: Might I suggest we stop feeding the troll?

JonnyFive

11th July 2007, 07:09 AM

mjd, if you're really interested in having an honest debate about these issues, please respond to the matters addressed in posts #697, #415, #1417, and #832.

twinstead

11th July 2007, 07:14 AM

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

It appears that the only sensible responses are ones that aren't contrary to your opinion.

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

And YOU, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish between conjecture and fact. Do THAT, and YOU will understand.

Belz...

11th July 2007, 08:12 AM

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board

Belief is not a factor, here.

and is by far and away the minority view in the US.

Evidence, please ? I have yet to see any indication that the truth movement is anything more than a fringe group of like-minded kool-aid drinkers.

Gerne! Ich wuerde gern auf Deutsch diskutieren. Ich habe fur drei Monate in Passau studiert, du siehst (auch habe ich Deutsch an der Universitaet Oxford studiert). Aber ich habe kein Deutsch seit lange Zeit gesprochen, also muess ich mich ueben, glaub'ich.

English, please.

that the position of the Truth movement is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 911 for there to be a new investigation into such.

But there isn't. All you've done, so far, is state your interpretation of NON-WRITTEN words in the document in question. That is NOT sufficient for even suspicion.

This is the founding premise of everything I say here.

Indeed. And phantoms are seldom enough for a conviction.

This is a step by step process.

No, it isn't, because one does NOT follow from the other. EVEN if you were to convince me that it WAS propitious, it wouldn't give you ANY footing to argue the government's actual complicity in the event.

If the propitiousness can be realised, which it woudl be in any honest forum

I do believe THAT is an ad hominem.

then this will allow the sensible conclusion to be reached with minimal effort.

Ridiculous. Just because the death of my neighbor could be propitious to me, doesn't mean I'm a suspect when he does die.

lapman

11th July 2007, 08:12 AM

:jaw-dropp

Ok, the US and Japan may wel have gone to war. Yet how you infer that this means that PH was not the event that catalysed them into war, is beyond me. I suspect the flat earth society will come calling for you soon. In any case, this is irrelevant, since as I have said, in the eyes of PNAC, (and the rest of the world), PH was indeed a catalysing event that got US into the war

The catastrophic and catalyzing event that the PNAC is talking about has nothing to do with war. It is neither implied or inferred as such. The "new PH" the PNAC is referring to is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that causes the requirement of a radical change of military technology and doctrine. War and public opinion have nothing to do with it. 9/11 was not such an event. In fact, 9/11 and the ensuing WOT and Iraq war have had the opposite effect. The memos that have been posted is proof of that. 9/11 could not have been what PNAC was referring to, "by design," since it was a low tech attack. One other thing. Design mean nothing when the execution fails.

lapman

11th July 2007, 08:48 AM

The wars have been poorly executed, and hence funds have possibly not been available for other things. This is not to say they are not being pursued, actively, under the aegis of the WOT. Understand this distinction, and things will become clearer for you.
Here again you show a complete lack of understanding of design and execution. The design and execution of the Iraq war and Afghanistan worked perfectly. It the lack of design of what to do afterwords that has kept us in Afghanistan and especially Iraq for so long. In Afghanistan, the capture of OBL was the only failure. However the overthrow of the Taliban succeeded. In Iraq, the mission was to overthrow Saddam and the Baath party. It was a complete success. It's the lack of any planing of what to do afterward, the constabulary role, that failed. Therefor the PNAC recommendations were not followed, so the "new PH" is irrelevant.

Cuddles

11th July 2007, 09:41 AM

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

Looks like we can add politics and economics to the list of things mjd doesn't understand. Quicker means easier? On which planet exactly? We are talking about proposed changes to the funding, organisation and operation of one of the entire US military, one of the biggest organisations on the planet. And you seriously believe that it is easier to quickly, as opposed to, say, over several decades as set out in the PNAC document? Ever wondered why governments and companies have 5 and 10 year plans rather than 5 week plans? Could it be because doing things very quickly is not the best way of doing them? This question just betrays your utter lack of comprehension about how the world actually works.

Cuddles

11th July 2007, 10:08 AM

A perfect example of all of the points I have just made. I repeated to you, and the rest, many times so far that inference is admissible to sensible debate. To claim it is not is to try to evade sensible debate.

So you are stating that this is not a forum for debate now? Repeat the point about inference- how telling it is of your mindset...

Now you're nearly getting it. This is not a forum for pointless semantic arguments, which is what you seem to mean when you say "debate". It is a forum for evidence and debate about that evidence. If you think you have joined some kind of university debating society that is in any way interested in what you think is "admissable" then you are sadly mistaken. Please stick to actual facts, not your opinion about what something says that no-one else agrees with.

This has been answered time and time and time again. Read #493 (yes, another perfect illustration of my 1st point)

You can keep saying this as much as you like, you still haven't actually answered it. A military act of war is not a civilian terrorist attack and never will be.

nice gag!

It was not a gag. If you are here for serious debate you should at least pretend to be taking it seriously.

And ad hom is an argument that tried to discredit it opposing argument by attacking the arguer (ad hom) rather than the point. Thus what you did was an ad hom

I rest my case. You do not know what an ad hom attack is. I was not trying to discredit you, your own arguments have done that perfectly well all by themselves. Pointing out your other flaws in addition to dismantaling your arguments is not an ad hom. An insult, yes, but not ad hom in any way.

Your latter point is the most ironic piece of hypocrisy I have seen on this thread, It is you who has not done your research when commenting on what I said; "either you were lying or you made a claim having done absolutely no research whatsoever. Either way, it really doesn't make you look good."

You said that a 33% increase in spending was unprecedented. You were proven wrong by a simple Google search. Either you knew it was not unprecedented and lied about it or you failed to do the most basic research that a primary school student could be expected to manage. There is nothing vaguely ironic or hypocritcal in me pointing this out.

as illustrated above, it is you who has not read this

Illustrated above? No it isn't. You have claimed to have answered many things, but you have not actually done so. Simply claiming that it is answered above yet again still does not actually do so.

errrr... Ok, so if the japanese had bombed NY, it would not have catalysed entry to the war and hence an increase inmilitary spending an focus? What an absurd and desperate point

Would you like to point out where I said this? Or would you like to take that pile of straw somewhere else?

yes, it has increases significantly. #95

No, it hasn't. As I pointed out in my original post, which you still haven't actually tried to respond to despite your repeated claims, military spending has remained at its lowest levels since the end of WWII.

again, read #95 and see (and hopefully understand) what changes are afoot. To repeatmyself again, the prime failing is tht you dont understand what the WOT constitutes; plus you cannot distinguish between execution and design

I have still read it. Despite your apparent delusions, once I have read something I cannot go back an un-read it. I read it when it was posted and I will still have read it at every point in the future. Please stop telling everyone to go back and read things that they have already read and responded to.

And once again, just in case you actually didn't read the post you just replied to, the changes that were being put in place prior to 11/9 have actually had to be undone in many cases because it was found that they were not at all appropriate to the realities of war in the 21st century.

Inference is admissible to debate, therefore eitheraccept it, or debate it.

No. It is your opinion and is not supported by any evidence or any other person. It is up to you to support it or it will just be ignored.

Great gag. Please link me to these responses- note I said sensible responses

You, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish betweem design and execution. Do that, and you will understand.

Since you are such an honest and serious debater, please immediately withdraw your attribution of these comments to me. Lying about who said what doesn't seem to be the best way to get this honest debate you so desperately whine about not having.

Augustine

11th July 2007, 10:21 AM

This is only true if all succeeding administrations continue the policy. Now, if the WoT is going to be as attractive as the War on Drugs, perhaps, but given its current ill standing, your presumption of inertia is based on

What? Exactly?

I can conceive of it ending, and returnig to a policy more similar to the Clinton era law enforcement style approach. Not hard to do. Look for a change in 2008.

DR, always enjoy your posts and experience. Did you see McCaffrey's recent report where he effectively said that the military needed to use 2008 as a planning horizon? What do you think about his assessment? I thought his report was pretty on-target, a lot of head-nodding on my end.

lapman

11th July 2007, 10:55 AM

Why? Explain yourself, dont just make assertions. These assertions look all the more silly given that PH catalysed public and political opinon, not just military, which is the point of RAD. Again, very simple to understand.
Yes, simple to understand, but irrelevant when it comes to the PNAC reference.

right, well why is there then so much sabre rattling of invasion of Iraq? Again, a catastrophically slack reading of the doc...
...on your part. Iraq and the PNAC document have nothing in common.

Other than to make the changes happen quicker. And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.
Wrong. Quicker is not necessarily easier. In terms of R&D and doctrine change, it's immensely harder, especially when the need of radical change in not required. Either way, the PNAC document did not make any type of implication that this was required, needed or wanted. You have been asked several times to show this in the document and you have yet to do so.

Oh, and learn the difference between imply and infer

Noted, and you do the same.
Well, interesting, but since there is nothing of substance there, I cannot really say anything more
A perfect example of how you ignore the content. You simply refuse to admit when you are wrong. Your post are becoming more and more condescending, which shows that you are losing the battle, so you switch tactics and claim that nobody is responding.

How was Vietnam a fault of design- the design in question being that the establishment of a US client regime in S. Vietnam would help US interests in the area and check communist expansion? How is this design wrong?The design was to use military advisers to accomplish this. When this design was executed, it was found to be faulty so they had to change the design to include US troops and air power in a limited sense, which also proved faulty when executed.

Haha, which is very much on its way to happening!
Not necessarily true. Please provide proof.

Once again, since you have chosen to post with zero substance, I dont know what you expect me to say

Read: O crap, he's right. I better blow this off somehow.

Oh really? And how so?

The second reference illustrates how PH required a radical change in both technology and doctrine. Since the first reference also strictly refers to the military, it is directly related to the second reference.

Incidentally, if I refer to 2 broad analogies separately in a document, or indeed a piece of literature, you do know that this does not mean that both have the same import dont you?
Yes I do. Do you understand that in the PNAC document they do have the same import? If not, I'll try to use pictures so you'll be able to understand.

I suspect you dont, but understand this, and the point will become clearer to you.
I do perfectly. At some point, you will pull your head out of the brown spot that bubbles and see reality.

Again, understand the difference between a project being pursued in peacetime, and in wartime, and the haze will clear from your thinking. If it doesnt, let me know and I will try and explain it more simply for you.

see above

I suspect that you are not aware of the true meaning of "response".
Yes I do. Let me educate you:
re·sponse (rĭ-spŏns')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English respons, from Old French, from Latin respōnsum from neuter past participle of respondēre, to respond; see respond.]

noun
The act of responding.
A reply or an answer.
A reaction, as that of an organism or a mechanism, to a specific stimulus.

In saying that your post #95 is a response, by definition, hence, by the true meaning.
Equally I suspect it is you who are not ready to "tackle" WTC7, in any useful meaning of the word.Read: You debunked me on SLC, I'm not ready for you to do it again here.

So, let's talk about WTC7. Danny Jowenko made is comments based on the last 6 seconds of muted video and only told that WTC was on fire. Nothing else. The damage, as stated int the NIST documents, was not addressed since he had no knowledge of it. Studying the floor plan is not being well versed in what happened to WTC7. Studying all the information including the NIST documents is. As far as the eyewitness, any sound like an explosion that occured immediatly prior to the collapse of the main structure would have been the sounds of the roof collapse that started 8 seconds prior to the main structure collapse. Add to this the fact that there is no recorded sound of the so-called explosives which would have been heard for blocks, if not miles. Even the video that you will post of the collapse to try to show that there was too much sound has the clear sound of the collapse and then silence. So your assurtion that there was too much noise is false. Since there were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the building, comments like, "it's going to blow up" would make sense. Since there were distinct signs of immenent collapse, comments like, "it's going to come down" would also make sense.

Your turn.

nicepants

11th July 2007, 12:19 PM

The belief in the OT version of events is one that is, I presume, shared by most on this board, and is by far and away the minority view in the US.

1 - Just because we don't believe the Government did it, doesn't mean we believe every facet of the OT.

2 - Are you trying to say that a majority of Americans believe the Government did it? (We'll need a source for that)

Unsecured Coins

11th July 2007, 12:28 PM

here comes the 84% poll claim in 3, 2...

twinstead

11th July 2007, 12:28 PM

Is it the minority view of the population in general, or the minority view of experts in the relevant fields who actually know what they are talking about?

I would suspect that both are a resounding NO, especially the latter where it really counts.

nicepants

11th July 2007, 12:29 PM

And of course, what is the corrollary to quicker? Easier. So if you are arguiing that they wanted the changes to happen slower, you are also saying they wanted the process to be harder. Explain.

So:
quicker = easier
slower = harder?

Can you solve a Rubick's cube, Mjd? If so, you would then agree that solving it in 5 seconds should be EASIER than solving it in 60 seconds.

Likewise, solving it in .0001 seconds should be much easier than solving it in 5 seconds.

Likewise, if brain surgery typically takes 18 hours (a long time), it would be much EASIER if the surgeon completed it in just 5 minutes (faster).

Sorry...your correlation is completely incorrect.

lapman

11th July 2007, 12:37 PM

here comes the 84% poll claim in 3, 2...
And NWO Kitty found that 100% of people bleed heavily when shot in the groin several times. So what. :wackyskeptical:

mortimer

11th July 2007, 12:42 PM

This is pointless, folks. mjd has already stated that you are lying if you don't agree with him. How can you carry on a rational debate with someone who says things like that?

twinstead

11th July 2007, 12:54 PM

This is pointless, folks. mjd has already stated that you are lying if you don't agree with him. How can you carry on a rational debate with someone who says things like that?

It's all about the lurkers. mjd is the internet equivalent of that bearded, disheveled, wild-eyed old man ranting to shadows on most busy inner-city street corners; he will never be convinced.

So, if we can't make mjd understand that his position is untenable, we can sure make the more rational viewers of this forum realize it. All they have to do is follow the thread.

DGM

11th July 2007, 01:16 PM

911 would have been viewed as propitious by AQ as well as PNAC. Hence it worked for both parties.

To this I reply:
SO WHAT!
Why even mention the federal government if this is all you mean?

Darth Rotor

11th July 2007, 01:24 PM

DR, always enjoy your posts and experience. Did you see McCaffrey's recent report where he effectively said that the military needed to use 2008 as a planning horizon? What do you think about his assessment? I thought his report was pretty on-target, a lot of head-nodding on my end.
Not sure which of McCaffrey's writings you mean, I read a detailed piece by him some months ago. Good stuff, can't recall it in detail as of this moment.

Got a link?

I don't always agree with him, but I find his experience as both a general, and then a civilian trying to do that insane "Drug Czar" job interesting. His perspective is unique, and usually his suggestions adhere to the practical.

I concur that "out in 2008" has been a rational planning framework since about 2005, but the question is "early 2008 or late 2008?" Immense political implications to both domestically, and since the whole world watches our domestic game play, internationally as well.

A thought on Al Qeada, and the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" issue.

It was good for Al Qaeda that Zarqawi was so successful in Iraq, it wasn't good for Iraq. It was a disaster for the US. I am aware of multiple opportunities in the summer of 2004 when a strike similar to the strike that did him in, had him and one thing or another went wrong, and in a number of cases a "weapons tight" order was given. To say that killing him in 2004 would have saved hundreds, hell, thousands of Iraqi lives, a mosque in Sammara, and most likely advanced the successful dialogue and rapproachment with many Sunni factions is an understatement.

That it took two more years to actually "get him" is an immense defeat in the perception war, that the US is at War on Terror, and Terrorists, and will hunt them down and kill them with dispatch. The recruiting poster for the Al Q side can point to how well Osama has stayed at large, and how successful Mr Z was at destabalizing Iraq when the American intent was to stabilize Iraq.

Put in maritime terms, his "stability denial" mission was an immense success, as a lot of U Boat "sea denial" missions were successful in WW II.

DR

JonnyFive

11th July 2007, 01:40 PM

And NWO Kitty found that 100% of people bleed heavily when shot in the groin several times. So what. :wackyskeptical:

Statistics don't lie. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2566670#post2566670)

Augustine

11th July 2007, 01:52 PM

Not sure which of McCaffrey's writings you mean, I read a detailed piece by him some months ago. Good stuff, can't recall it in detail as of this moment.

Got a link?

I don't always agree with him, but I find his experience as both a general, and then a civilian trying to do that insane "Drug Czar" job interesting. His perspective is unique, and usually his suggestions adhere to the practical.

I concur that "out in 2008" has been a rational planning framework since about 2005, but the question is "early 2008 or late 2008?" Immense political implications to both domestically, and since the whole world watches our domestic game play, internationally as well.

A thought on Al Qeada, and the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" issue.

It was good for Al Qaeda that Zarqawi was so successful in Iraq, it wasn't good for Iraq. It was a disaster for the US. I am aware of multiple opportunities in the summer of 2004 when a strike similar to the strike that did him in, had him and one thing or another went wrong, and in a number of cases a "weapons tight" order was given. To say that killing him in 2004 would have saved hundreds, hell, thousands of Iraqi lives, a mosque in Sammara, and most likely advanced the successful dialogue and rapproachment with many Sunni factions is an understatement.

That it took two more years to actually "get him" is an immense defeat in the perception war, that the US is at War on Terror, and Terrorists, and will hunt them down and kill them with dispatch. The recruiting poster for the Al Q side can point to how well Osama has stayed at large, and how successful Mr Z was at destabalizing Iraq when the American intent was to stabilize Iraq.

Put in maritime terms, his "stability denial" mission was an immense success, as a lot of U Boat "sea denial" missions were successful in WW II.

DR

http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/pages/documents/AAR-Iraq032607USMA.pdf

Re: Zarqawi, no doubt his efforts towards destabilizing the country were very successful in the crucial years, and he beat the US at the PR game by running free for as long as he did. However, I think the "silver lining" for the US is that the benefit of Zark's sustained time as AQI's number one was that his brutal methods became ingrained into AQI TTPs, and it is precisely those methods that are recently alienating significant portions of the Iraqi population. (Zawahiri tried unsuccessfully to reign him in, rather savvy of the "Egyptian physician" IMHO.) Bottom line, it is what it is, deal with past mistakes and adjust fire accordingly - early indicators of the surge seem promising, but the real test will be whether it lasts and if we figure out how to make it work in the more diverse neighborhoods.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:11 PM

Simak, mjd doesn't realise that EVEN IF he were right about propitiousness, it wouldn't prove a thing about 9/11 being an inside job.
As I have told you an astonishing number of times, starting with the 2nd para of post #1, my task here is not to prove that 911 was an inside job, but to illustrate the validity of the CTer pov- i.e. that there is sufficient evidence of US complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

DGM

11th July 2007, 04:20 PM

As I have told you an astonishing number of times, starting with the 2nd para of post #1, my task here is not to prove that 911 was an inside job, but to illustrate the validity of the CTer pov- i.e. that there is sufficient evidence of US complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

So quit screwing around and produce some credible evidence. What was not answered to the majority of humanity's satisfaction.

twinstead

11th July 2007, 04:24 PM

Well, mjd, all we want is for you to show not only that you have enough evidence to warrant a new investigation, but exactly WHO will be in charge of this new investigation.

You can't even show these satisfactorily IMO, MUCH less prove that 911 was an inside job.

Also, I submit that ANY new investigation, from anybody, that comes to the same general conclusion as the official story will be categorically rejected by you and your 'movement'.

I would bet big money on that one.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:34 PM

All initiated before 9-11, and before Bush even took office.

Since 9-11.

I dont understand why you keep sayin this when I, and you, have both acknowledged the fact already- the pursuit of such goals in wartime is easier and quicker than in peace time. This is the point of the PH comment.

The military is, and their families, and the bulk of America goes on about its business. What sacrifice in the here and now is being asked of Americans? None, the war is being paid for On Credit. At least FDR did the hard work of raising war bonds. :p

They are sufficiently onside to allow the military radicalisations to be pursued, as has been outlined in the original post 95. This is all that has to be done.

That made no sense, at all.

I corrected it in the post below. I said differentiate between design and execution (I have told you this many times before as well).

That made no sense. As I understood Wolfowitz, Bennet's, and Woolsley's soundbytes in the summer and fall of 2002, in the information campaign to the war, the idea they had was that transforming Iraq would be a catalyst to transforming the entire middle east. This was no secret, regardless of how many people in the DoD, to inlcude me, a peon, and people like Shinseki and LTGEN Odom (USMC) didn't see things as rosily as those members of PNAC.

What does that have to do with anything? The point was that the invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly intimated in RAD.

Perhaps if the "war" was kept cheap, per Rummy's original plan; (3-15 billion, that's what he told Congress it would cost) this would have been true, but the risk, known in the Pentagon if nowhere else, was that it would be a lot more like Bosnia, but bigger, and a lot harder, for obvious reasons of METT-T differences between Bosnia and Iraq.

Once again the cost of the war is a fault of execution not design. Understand this, and you will understand a lot more

Your strawman, you answer it.

Fine- if people have a plan to change the world for the better, it is sensible to believe they will want to happen easily, smoothly, and soon. To believe otherwise will take some explaining, and is beyond anyone on this forum.

I don't care much what you hope. Dealing with terrorists is something a certain generation of military men, mine, had in front of them for an entire career. Mine began in 1980, and if you recall BGEN Dozier, you will note that not all terrorists are rag heads, only some of them are. At least the IRA have calmed down a bit.

Ok cool, so you are a racist. How enlightening. It will be interesting to see what the mods make of this. I will not reply to the rest of your post, and I hope to never have to see you on this forum again.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:36 PM

I dare you do say he has it down to an artform. As I see it, it's really the only evidential thing presented here. Used as a wear 'em down, exasperate them untill they post no more, and then go to some other site and claim victory. Even though he is dishonestly saying none of his posts (other than #95) are being challenged, he is either ignoring deliberately the challenges made and the slayer ing of his case, or as you say UC, the refusal to believe everyone else's evidence. Or he thinks we don't "see" it as he "sees" it, we prefer to use evidence to prove what's real and validate it, he uses evidence to invalidate what has been proven right and wrongfully apply it for his purpose. It's more like an abstract artform.
Where am I ignoring your "challenges"?

Where have you, sensibly, addressed the posts I continually referred you to?

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:39 PM

Mjd, please respond to posts#1853, #1855, and #1867. These are from PNAC.
I have replied to 53 and 55, and 67is identical to 55, and so warrants the same answer.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:42 PM

Why is it then that the PNAC does not agree with your assessment of the WOT. Do you know them better?

:confused: :rolleyes:
They state it should be increased more. What, bearing in mind the difference I have told you between design and execution, does this have to do with anything?

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:45 PM

Always love the Hayek, and that pic is HOT!

Evidence of circular reasoning posted above ^

1. No they have not stated this as a "choice"
2. You are adding to the document, MJd
3. Stop using "We". This shows what you are really getting at Mjd, it was an inside job, the last sentence says it all.
1. I'm not stating they said it was a choice. Please think before you write
2. Where have I added to the doc?
3. Yes, I do think it was an inside job. I think we have quite a sleuth on our hands here...

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:47 PM

Why does it appear to me that mjd started with a firm belief that 911 was an inside job and is subjectively interpreting the PNAC in such a way to confirm his predisposition?
If this is the case, go to #493, as you will not, and show me how this is wrong. You can add a 4th point to that- the corollary of quicker in this instance, is easier. Think. Go.

DGM

11th July 2007, 04:49 PM

They state it should be increased more. What, bearing in mind the difference I have told you between design and execution, does this have to do with anything?

So the PNAC designed 9/11 but the federal government did not execute it.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 04:52 PM

Huh???? This makes no sense. Respond with something that actually makes sense. This doesn't. I will wait.

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades.

The whole military transformation, as called for in RAD, will take decades, even tho the new PH has happened.

This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided.

This was always going to be the case

Nonetheless, this is not to say that it would not have been wanted to happen sooner;

This is not to say that the neo cons do not want it sped up

to understand why quickly, realise that the corollary to a quick transformation in this context is, necessarily, an easy one.

understand that the corollary to quick, in this context is, easy (it happens quickly since it happens absent complications, dissent etc

To argue that they did not want this, is to make the absurd statement that they wanted a difficult and complex process of transformation.

to take the opposite side is to say that they wanted a complex and difficult process, which is absurd.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 05:03 PM

blah blah blah

blah blah

Well contested! What was I saying about evasion?

That is my interpretation of what it says. I dumbed it down, of course.

Well you will have to justify your interpretation in the face of my points, rather than just stating it

Hello....MJD...**jab712 knocks on MJD's head** the posters in this thread have contested your points. You just have horrific reading comprehension skills and can't figure it out.

Ok, well we can do a little experiment to see who is right here. I have already done this with one of your ilk with a predictable result. Go to #95. Its nice and early, and crystallises many of the views that I am still having to repeat to you people now. Show me one person who, in ~1800 posts, other than Dart Rotor, who should hopefully be banned from this forum very soon, has contested this post, one of the most important and representative ones, coherently.

When you fail, tell me why this is the case.

Enough of their own citizens (civilians) to cause a catastrophic catalyzing event? How often is this happening that our government wouldn't bat an eye at offing potentially 10,000 of their own citizens? Holy friggen poo poo....that must be happening a lot for them to not even flinch about "calling for a new PH" and writing it down, no less, for the whole country to see. That is pretty brazen.

This is an argument from incredulity, and has zero value

Irrelevant to the topic we are currently discussing. In case you forgot, we are speaking of the PNAC document. My statement was according to the PNAC doc was saying. I don't give a tinkers toot what Goldman Sachs is forecasting for 2050. According to the PNAC document (which is what I was referring to), the US, at present, has no immediate threat of a rival superpower. It says it in the friggen document. Please keep up.

Ok, but it also alludes to a similar environment in europe in the 30's; this is one of the founding premises of the doc. This change could happen any time, and unseat us from our position as guarantors of peace and happiness. This leads to the overt suggestion of the urgency of such measures, and hence how they would need to be pursued expediently. Also note #493, and the corollary of quick in this instance, =easy

I know what the problem is. You aren't reading the actual document. You are only looking at a few paragraphs that are relevant to your points. Good grief. Go back to my post on page 47, click on the link that says PNAC document and read the dang thing...start to finish. Read the introduction, read the table of contents, read the boxes in gray that have the text bolded, even read the sassy little comments in italics. Be sure to read the ENTIRE document, not just your favorite paragraphs.

Then when you are finished, read it again, you apparently need to read it more than once. Feel free to print it out and highlight things that you want to address.

Believe me when I tell you I have read the doc more closely, and with more clarity, than you.

You have constantly demanded that people go back and read your post or reply to your post. Frankly, I am tired of it. I think it is safe to say that everyone is tired of it.

Haha, then respond to the posts. Do as I have said above, i will wait.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 05:04 PM

Coins, if you're no longer interested in posting in this thread, would you mind not spamming it ? Thanks.

Same to you Mikillini. The rules apply to everyone, methinks.
Your best post! I have alerted the mods, they do not care it would appear.

lapman

11th July 2007, 05:15 PM

The whole military transformation, as called for in RAD, will take decades, even tho the new PH has happened.Which you have now shown that the "new PH" did not occur since 9/11 did not cause the rapid radicalization as the PNAC document claims. Hence, since this did not occur, 9/11 was not propitious to policy since said policy was not able to be carried out. The design vs execution argument is irrelevant. Only the outcome is relevant.
Your statement that I quoted completely nullifies the hundreds of posts you have done attempting to equate 9/11 to the PNAC's new PH. Therefore you have done nothing to show that a new, independent investigation needs to be done.

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 05:17 PM

mjd, if you're really interested in having an honest debate about these issues, please respond to the matters addressed in posts #697, #415, #1417, and #832.
Ok, well #1417 is my post, #832:

But not catalysing in the way the PNAC discussed it.

Yes it was, a la #95.

Why ?

(Questioning why " zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity")

And you think that throughout history, people have not spoken about these things when threatened ? That seems monstrously naive.

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

Yeah, JFK CTers say the same thing 45 years later.

E Howard Hunt

*****

I responded to this post already come to think of it.

#697

They call her "The Shredder." She can twiddle my whammy bar any day.

dont know what you want me to say to this

#415;

Okay, we get it; you see things we don't. Get to the good stuff.

I did a cryptoquote last night and I thought how apt it was; more words to keep in mind:

???

I

mjd1982

11th July 2007, 05:19 PM

It appears that the only sensible responses are ones that aren't contrary to your opinion.

And YOU, as the rest of your camp, cannot distinguish between conjecture and fact. Do THAT, and YOU will understand.
I am arguing that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a new investigation. This is based, in part on inference, a standard tool in adult debate. Please dont make me havr to tell u this again.

DGM

11th July 2007, 05:59 PM

From post #95

1. The doc states that the myriad of transformations needs to happen within one framework, i.e. under one banner. This is, clearly, the WOT. You think this is just a big coincidence not worth investigating?

As I have showed you from the letters, the PNAC does not consider the WOT to be in keeping with the plan.

Do you think the democrats on the commission would have let this go if it had any merit?

2. The doc also states that the defense policies it outlines need to be crystalised in the president’s mind by October 2001; the time of the QDR, thus implying that a new PH might have to happen by this date. Again, coincidence? I hope you would not think not.

Clearly this is not the case. The PNAC sent three letters to Bush before finally sending a letter to congress due to Bush's inaction.

lapman

11th July 2007, 06:06 PM

I am arguing that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a new investigation.You have yet to provide such evidence that could be used in a court of law to sue for such an investigation.
This is based, in part on inference, a standard tool in adult debate. Wrong. Evidence and facts are the standard tools in an adult debate. Inference has never been accepted as any type of real evidence except in the twoofer fantasy world. Even if a new, independent investigation did occur with people that you would accept, if the results showed that there was no government complicity in 9/11, you would find other inferences to try to prove that the investigation was faulty. So, what is you "sensible" response to my WTC7 argument?

Darth Rotor

11th July 2007, 06:29 PM

Ok cool, so you are a racist.
Another fool on the internet, using words he doesn't understand the meaning of.

How droll.

Having had a repeatedly reinforced, for about 26 years off and on, negative experience and impression of Islamist thugs and terrorists, aka rag heads in some circles, I now and again use it for shock value. I see that offends you. I suggest you invest in a thicker skin. Or, go cry in a corner.

I note that this excuse provides you with a convenient excuse to run away, but that hardly matters. You and I had reached the point of talking at one another, rather than to, and what we disagree on is not likely to change. You have plenty of other friends to play with here.

I don't think you have a clue at what military transformation entails, yet you pretend you do.

Good luck with your skin.

DR

MIKILLINI

11th July 2007, 08:17 PM

1. I'm not stating they said it was a choice. Please think before you write But you infer that they do, to make your case;

Now, when it comes onto the inevitable stage of the logistics of the changes they envisage, they have a choice- either they state, "We advocate a slow process over the coming decades", or "We advocate the engineering of a new PH".
It's then followed by a disclaimer;

This is of course, not to say that they do not deem a new PH, which will create the wartime environemtn for their changes to happen easily,propitious.
Please think before you debunk yourself;

The transformation, in its totality, will, even now, post new PH, take decades. This is a reality that would never have been able to have been avoided.

Dave Rogers

12th July 2007, 04:21 AM

Ok cool, so you are a racist. How enlightening. It will be interesting to see what the mods make of this. I will not reply to the rest of your post, and I hope to never have to see you on this forum again.

Now what was your response when I pointed out your own racist remark?

Dave

Belz...

12th July 2007, 05:37 AM

As I have told you an astonishing number of times

You're going to have to work on that attitude, mister.

starting with the 2nd para of post #1, my task here is not to prove that 911 was an inside job, but to illustrate the validity of the CTer pov- i.e. that there is sufficient evidence of US complicity to warrant a new investigation into such.

Saying that it was "propitious" to someone's policies does NOT constitude evidence of said person's complicity in anything. At most, it raises suspicion, which itself is NOT evidence.

the pursuit of such goals in wartime is easier and quicker than in peace time.

Quicker, usually. Easier, no.

The point was that the invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly intimated in RAD.

And since the war in Iraq has little if anything to do with 9/11, we can safely forget that last sentence.

Once again the cost of the war is a fault of execution not design.

How do you know this ? How do you know that the design wasn't fundamentally flawed ? Or are you just saying this because you can't fathom admitting that you are wrong on this issue ?

Fine- if people have a plan to change the world for the better, it is sensible to believe they will want to happen easily, smoothly, and soon.

Not if "soon" means "worst results".

Ok cool, so you are a racist. How enlightening.

Do you even READ other people's posts ?

Mjd, you seem to have a very serious issue with interpreting what you read. I strongly, honestly suggest reading courses.

It will be interesting to see what the mods make of this.

Racist comments are not against the rules, so even if you WERE correct, WHICH YOU ARE NOT, it wouldn't matter.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 05:44 AM

You can add a 4th point to that- the corollary of quicker in this instance, is easier.

Of course not. Since when does "quicker" mean "easier" ?

The whole military transformation, as called for in RAD, will take decades, even tho the new PH has happened.

In that case, you have no argument, because the new PH did not accelerate anything. But thanks for playing.

Dart Rotor, who should hopefully be banned from this forum very soon

For what ? Having been misinterpreted by you ? Since when is that a breach of the rules ?

This is an argument from incredulity, and has zero value

Finally, it seems we agree.

I have alerted the mods, they do not care it would appear.

Mods are not required when civil debate is still possible. Please step down from that pedestal, you're making yourself look silly.

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

And yet, somehow, someone always speaks up.

Questioning why " zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity"

Yes. Why ?

inference, a standard tool in adult debate.

Since when ?

Belz...

12th July 2007, 05:48 AM

Please think before you debunk yourself;

When fantasy is used in reality's stead, it's common to see one trip over oneself and simply cancel one's own argument out.

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 05:48 AM

I will say that 911 was in fact a catalyzing event such as Pearl Harbor was,as far as it made America want to kick someone in the balls.
One million men (as I remember) volunteered to fight after the PH attack.

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil or whatever you want to say, but I do not understand how you can view the document as evidence that they wanted it done in the manner to which you imply. The document does not seem to support your claim.

What I understand from you is this....

They set a plan and draw it up. They then create 9/11 to get public support, and then support to go to war to get oil and all that, right?

And your only evidence is the PNAC document?
I can understand how you're drawing your conclusion, but I hope you understand it is false.
Because you're reading your personal opinion into what the document is saying by looking for motive for another event you believe to be a conspiracy.
If you were to view the document without an agenda in mind, you would see the document does not support your theory.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 05:49 AM

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 06:53 AM

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.

I did not say I subscribed to the theory, I said I understand the theory. It is a fairly common theory that the Iraq war is about oil. Understanding a theory and believing it are not inclusive. You understand the CT theory, what it entails, but that does not mean you support or agree with it.

T.A.M.

12th July 2007, 07:09 AM

Belz...

12th July 2007, 08:12 AM

I did not say I subscribed to the theory, I said I understand the theory. It is a fairly common theory that the Iraq war is about oil. Understanding a theory and believing it are not inclusive. You understand the CT theory, what it entails, but that does not mean you support or agree with it.

Which is why I never implied that you subscribed to the theory.

Belz...

12th July 2007, 08:15 AM

Your first few posts here, I didnt think you were living up to your name, as you were not playing the role "Devil's Advocate" as one would expect (believing A, but for the sake of argument, arguing for side B), but now I see you are...so well done.

The jury's still out on that one.

nicepants

12th July 2007, 08:24 AM

Mjd - Still waiting for your response response to #1942 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2758971&postcount=1942)

Faster:Easier
Slower:Harder

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 02:05 PM

The catastrophic and catalyzing event that the PNAC is talking about has nothing to do with war. It is neither implied or inferred as such. The "new PH" the PNAC is referring to is the type of catastrophic and catalyzing event that causes the requirement of a radical change of military technology and doctrine. War and public opinion have nothing to do with it. 9/11 was not such an event. In fact, 9/11 and the ensuing WOT and Iraq war have had the opposite effect. The memos that have been posted is proof of that. 9/11 could not have been what PNAC was referring to, "by design," since it was a low tech attack. One other thing. Design mean nothing when the execution fails.
Tho I tire of telling u this, I will do so again.

Go and read #95, and see what is being pursued under the WOT. You will see the astonishing correlation with RAD. Then, and only then, you may continue with your argument, since in any other circumstance, it would be pointless.

ETA- Oh, and incidentallym think of some of th disconnects in the WOT that illustrate the absurduty ofyour argument, tho this has been illustrted by me too many times now. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. They knew that, yet they went. Space defense systems, which are being pursued more radically under the aegis of 911, have nothing to do with 911. Securing cyberspace has nothing to do with 911. Yet it is being pursued under the WOT.

THINK!!!

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 02:11 PM

Here again you show a complete lack of understanding of design and execution. The design and execution of the Iraq war and Afghanistan worked perfectly. It the lack of design of what to do afterwords that has kept us in Afghanistan and especially Iraq for so long. In Afghanistan, the capture of OBL was the only failure. However the overthrow of the Taliban succeeded. In Iraq, the mission was to overthrow Saddam and the Baath party. It was a complete success. It's the lack of any planing of what to do afterward, the constabulary role, that failed. Therefor the PNAC recommendations were not followed, so the "new PH" is irrelevant.
1) You misunderstand the use of the term "design". It does not mean the strategy for doing something, it means the intent of doing something

2) You misunderstand the use of the term "execution". This applies to everything from the war at the start, to the way ot has been carried out post mission accomplished, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are interested in intent (design) and not in performance (execution).

Try, again, to understand this please.

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 02:14 PM

Looks like we can add politics and economics to the list of things mjd doesn't understand. Quicker means easier? On which planet exactly? We are talking about proposed changes to the funding, organisation and operation of one of the entire US military, one of the biggest organisations on the planet. And you seriously believe that it is easier to quickly, as opposed to, say, over several decades as set out in the PNAC document? Ever wondered why governments and companies have 5 and 10 year plans rather than 5 week plans? Could it be because doing things very quickly is not the best way of doing them? This question just betrays your utter lack of comprehension about how the world actually works.
I said in this context, quicker means easier. You will notice in the PH para, it goes on to talk about why it would take a long time. There are programmes in place which should(absent a new PH) take ages to shift, etc. In order to get the shift in gear, grease the wheels, a new PH would have to happen, since this would provide a strong reason for such shifts to happen- a was against a deadly, implacable enemy. These hindrances can be got rid of, hence the transformation will be easier, and quicker for it.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 02:24 PM

Again with that "sooner than later" bullspit?

I'll come back again in fifty pages...

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 02:25 PM

Now you're nearly getting it. This is not a forum for pointless semantic arguments, which is what you seem to mean when you say "debate". It is a forum for evidence and debate about that evidence. If you think you have joined some kind of university debating society that is in any way interested in what you think is "admissable" then you are sadly mistaken. Please stick to actual facts, not your opinion about what something says that no-one else agrees with.

evidence is the pnac doc. It is evidence regarding the belief of the propitiousnes of a new PH to policy. Inference is admissible to sensible debate. Hence, if you want a sensible debate, you can debate the inference.

You can keep saying this as much as you like, you still haven't actually answered it. A military act of war is not a civilian terrorist attack and never will be.

One of Bush's 1st words to his principals post 911? "We're at war".

Go to the post and see how 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalysing event. Your argumment is absurd, since it presupposes that if any of the characteristics of PH were missing from 911, then 911 would nt bt what the neo cons were referring to. I.e. eventually, you could, under that tactic, say that it wasnt a new PH since it wasnt done by japanese.

You said that a 33% increase in spending was unprecedented. You were proven wrong by a simple Google search. Either you knew it was not unprecedented and lied about it or you failed to do the most basic research that a primary school student could be expected to manage. There is nothing vaguely ironic or hypocritcal in me pointing this out.

There was when your comment stumped itself by your failure to do a simple jref search

No, it hasn't. As I pointed out in my original post, which you still haven't actually tried to respond to despite your repeated claims, military spending has remained at its lowest levels since the end of WWII.

Riiiight... well explain this please

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/table1_lg.gif

I have still read it. Despite your apparent delusions, once I have read something I cannot go back an un-read it. I read it when it was posted and I will still have read it at every point in the future. Please stop telling everyone to go back and read things that they have already read and responded to.

And once again, just in case you actually didn't read the post you just replied to, the changes that were being put in place prior to 11/9 have actually had to be undone in many cases because it was found that they were not at all appropriate to the realities of war in the 21st century.

such as?

As I have told many of your friends, realise the difference between a military strategy being pursued in war time, and being pursued in peace time. This wil help your confusion.

No. It is your opinion and is not supported by any evidence or any other person. It is up to you to support it or it will just be ignored.

Lol, how cute. The evidence is the document; I am making simple inferences from it. Inference is admissible to adult debate, if you are a child, you do not have to participate

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 02:41 PM

Yes, simple to understand, but irrelevant when it comes to the PNAC reference.

Lol, again, a substanceless post. I will ask you again- tell me where RAD states that the catalysing does not have to be done in relation to public opinion.

...on your part. Iraq and the PNAC document have nothing in common.

*Sigh*, for the 100th time...

In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
Indeed, the United
States has for
decades sought to
play a more
permanent role in
Gulf regional
security. While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The continuing challenges from
Iraq also make it unwise to draw down
forces in the Gulf dramatically. Securing
the American perimeter today – and
tomorrow – will necessitate shifts in U.S.
overseas operations.

and more

Wrong. Quicker is not necessarily easier. In terms of R&D and doctrine change, it's immensely harder, especially when the need of radical change in not required. Either way, the PNAC document did not make any type of implication that this was required, needed or wanted. You have been asked several times to show this in the document and you have yet to do so.

see post 1983

Noted, and you do the same.

???

A perfect example of how you ignore the content. You simply refuse to admit when you are wrong. Your post are becoming more and more condescending, which shows that you are losing the battle, so you switch tactics and claim that nobody is responding.

Lol, let's read your original post:

You have dramatically illustrated that you have no intention of arguing any point. Your statements have been proven wrong over and over again and you refuse to admit that

Substanceless.

The design was to use military advisers to accomplish this. When this design was executed, it was found to be faulty so they had to change the design to include US troops and air power in a limited sense, which also proved faulty when executed.

Design in this context=intent

Not necessarily true. Please provide proof.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp#USSeeksMilitarizationofSpace

Read: O crap, he's right. I better blow this off somehow.

Again, to illustrate your substanceless post:

And you are 100,000% WRONG! That is what we have all showed you time and time again. You are wrong, period. Anything you post after this, including your reply is wrong. Just plain wrong on every level. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You are completely clueless on the working of the military. You have no idea what radicalization of the military is. Yet you will continually repeat the wrong statements over and over again and continually refer to posts that were wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.

I think that is a world record for saying "You're" and "wrong" in a single post. What do you expect to accomplish with crap like this? What do you expect me to reply?

The second reference illustrates how PH required a radical change in both technology and doctrine. Since the first reference also strictly refers to the military, it is directly related to the second reference.

The whole doc refers to the military. This doesnt mean that every analigy in the doc is homogeneous, that's a slightly dull assertion.

Yes I do. Let me educate you:

In saying that your post #95 is a response, by definition, hence, by the true meaning.

Not english. I know i've written here in french and german, but just hitting the keyboard randomly is not a language I understand

Read: You debunked me on SLC, I'm not ready for you to do it again here.

Errr.....