Still, pretty good for one handed typing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
so we are at War with 1.2 to 1.6 billion human beings?
I thought we were in a low level struggle against violent extremism (wwnjs and ienjs being two sides of the same coin)

I can tell you are itching to use your patented prairie dog (cough Mexican) extermination techniques with a full on thermonookoolar first strike.
Aren’t you done masturbating to all the Libya war porn yet?
sheesh, pull up your pants man

And to read that you think you are some wise old n-dimensional chess Grand Master, sagely scolding us dum libs on How The Great Game is Played… hilarious (for a poo flinging monkey playing checkers with his poop you are ever so full of strategery) We needed Iraq as a base? Full on insane. hint: qatar, UAE etc etc We have something like 760 military bases across the planet! ah but why let facts and figures get in the way of wwnj ‘thinking’

Wiki has decent background info on the topic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Islam

“War against Islam” is a cathphrase used mainly by extremists in Islamic cirlces to demonize things that the West does that seems to undercut the principles of that religion (e.g. charge interest on loans.)

Only the ignorant extremists (on either side) would take that concept further and use it to justify killing.

At some point the more moderate wing of Islam may be able to control the more radical, the question is will we have to force that on the moderates or will they do it themselves.

I offer this as proof of your extremism.

I’m sure Al Qaeda says the exact same thing. Of course, it has as much weight coming from them as it does coming from you.

“It seems that the multi-dimensional chess board disappears from your view when killing Arabs (“The War on Terror”) becomes your primary focus.” Why? Even with a singular objective still has to consider all the facets of the situation.

“How other factors come into play, or whether they might be even more compelling to government lobbyists or their politicians, becomes something that you defensively, in a knee jerk fashion, simply dismiss. “ I don’t think I’m dismissing anything, can you give me an example?

“Reality check: Any terrorists threat from Iraq in 2002? Nope. Any WMD? Nope, those claims were all bogus.” This is where the bigger game comes into play, we needed a base in the area and we needed to sprout democracy, that is why in part we have seen want we have recently in Libya, we stayed the course (now we’ll see what we have sewn).

The rest of your piece… to the victor goes the spoils.

Then I posed the question whether “The War on Terror” board might be a staging ground for the real battleground of “The War for Oil”, as John Bolton seems to think the Iraqi war was about oil.

You accepted that the “War for Oil” was one factor, but not THE factor, and re-confirmed that many things were at play, but that the main factor was to kill Arabs who were trying to kill you (i.e. “The War on Terrorism.”)

I noted that protestors in 2003 rightfully argued there were far less expensive and far more effective ways to fight “The War on Terror” and that the invasion of Iraq only made sense if the “War for Oil” was the primary factor (as Bolton suggests now.) I stated my opinion that it was pathetic brazen chutzpah from wwnj’s and the Bush administration’s at the start of the war to deny that the Iraq invasion was a “War for Oil” when they are now admitting it was at least a major factor (or apparently, as per Bolton’s comments, the only one that is worth mentioning now.)

From there we digressed into your “I want to kill Arabs because they want to kill me” and you put forth further comments about killing and collatoral damage.

I understand your position: killing Arabs is good because it protects your family from them hurting you, and it’s just the way things are that Arabs sit on vast amounts of oil that America needs like a crack addict needs coke.

It seems that the multi-dimensional chess board disappears from your view when killing Arabs (“The War on Terror”) becomes your primary focus. How other factors come into play, or whether they might be even more compelling to government lobbyists or their politicians, becomes something that you defensively, in a knee jerk fashion, simply dismiss.

That dismissal is even though you had earlier admitted: “Problem is the game is three dimensional chess. Now people like me understand chess and understand the rest of the world is playing several levels above us.”

Well, if the rest of the world is playing several levels above us shcb, then you are a bloody idiot to think that “The War on Terror” is the real battlefield. You were actually talking about yourself when you said “Enky thinks he is the top shit.”

Reality check: Any terrorists threat from Iraq in 2002? Nope. Any WMD? Nope, those claims were all bogus. What was Iraq doing with its oil prior to 2003? Selling it under a oil for food program imposed by the United Nations. Who was working and developing the oil fields then? Primarily the Iraqis, the French and Chinese, with substantial $$$$$ production royalties going to Saddam’s regime. Now it is American and other Western International Companies producing & developing the oilfields and they pay a pittance in royalties to the Iraqis. In other words, America won that chess battle for Iraqi oil, for a strong military base in the region, and against the selling of Iraqi & OPEC oil in Euros.

This remains contentious here because the Bush Admin broke the rules of multi-level chess to win that battle. They didn’t (or couldn’t) use their Special Ops pieces Board under the table to develop a home grown insurgency against Saddam, instead they loaded the sleepy “War on Terrorism” board with pieces. Then they dumped them all into what they called the Iraqi “War on Terror” battle board but it was mostly just the the Iraqi “War for Oil” battleboard. In other words, we were living in fictitious times and your country was sent to war for fictitious reasons.

America is still positioning it’s chess pieces aggressively against Iran, and perhaps the economic board holds some explanation of the reason for that stance (or for Iran’s response); money is, after all, the motivating force behind most events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Moving forward, we see the Arab spring reaping great benefits & promising greater peace & prosperity. The players seem to be playing chess by the rules again, for now. (The results are strikingly good compared to the mass casualties and tens, hundreds or thousands of thousands of people killed as a result of the war in Iraq.) Was Libya attacked because Quadaffi is a Terrorist? No, of course not – he’s been a terrorist since at least 1969.

There were other reasons, perhaps his overly aggressive position on this front brought forth the combined attacks against his forces on many of the other chess levels. As one example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN0aNsA9ALg (don’t miss the comment about Saddam at around the 2 minute mark.)

Then I posed the question whether “The War on Terror” board might be a staging ground for the real battleground of “The War for Oil”, as John Bolton seems to think the Iraqi war was about oil.

You accepted that the “War for Oil” was one factor, but not THE factor, and re-confirmed that many things were at play, but that the main factor was to kill Arabs who were trying to kill you (i.e. “The War on Terrorism.”)

I noted that protestors in 2003 rightfully argued there were far less expensive and far more effective ways to fight “The War on Terror” and that the invasion of Iraq only made sense if the “War for Oil” was the primary factor (as Bolton suggests now.) I stated my opinion that it was pathetic brazen chutzpah from wwnj’s and the Bush administration’s at the start of the war to deny that the Iraq invasion was a “War for Oil” when they are now admitting it was at least a major factor (or apparently, as per Bolton’s comments, the only one that is worth mentioning now.)

From there we digressed into your “I want to kill Arabs because they want to kill me” and you put forth further comments about killing and collatoral damage.

I understand your position: killing Arabs is good because it protects your family from them hurting you, and it’s just the way things are that Arabs sit on vast amounts of oil that America needs like a crack addict needs coke.

It seems that the multi-dimensional chess board disappears from your view when killing Arabs (“The War on Terror”) becomes your primary focus. How other factors come into play, or whether they might be even more compelling to government lobbyists or their politicians, becomes something that you defensively, in a knee jerk fashion, simply dismiss.

That dismissal is even though you had earlier admitted: “Problem is the game is three dimensional chess. Now people like me understand chess and understand the rest of the world is playing several levels above us.”

Well, if the rest of the world is playing several levels above us shcb, then you are a bloody idiot to think that “The War on Terror” is the real battlefield. You were actually talking about yourself when you said “Enky thinks he is the top shit.”

Reality check: Any terrorists threat from Iraq in 2002? Nope. Any WMD? Nope, those claims were all bogus. What was Iraq doing with its oil prior to 2003? Selling it under a oil for food program imposed by the United Nations. Who was working and developing the oil fields then? Primarily the Iraqis, the French and Chinese, with substantial $$$$$ production royalties going to Saddam’s regime. Now it is American and other Western International Companies producing & developing the oilfields and they pay a pittance in royalties to the Iraqis. In other words, America won that chess battle for Iraqi oil, for a strong military base in the region, and against the selling of Iraqi & OPEC oil in Euros.

This remains contentious here because the Bush Admin broke the rules of multi-level chess to win that battle. They didn’t (or couldn’t) use their Special Ops pieces Board under the table to develop a home grown insurgency against Saddam, instead they loaded the sleepy “War on Terrorism” board with pieces. Then they dumped them all into what they called the Iraqi “War on Terror” battle board but it was mostly just the the Iraqi “War for Oil” battleboard. In other words, we were living in fictitious times and your country was sent to war for fictitious reasons.

America is still positioning it’s chess pieces aggressively against Iran, and perhaps the economic board holds some explanation of the reason for that stance (or for Iran’s response); money is, after all, the motivating force behind most events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Moving forward, we see the Arab spring reaping great benefits & promising greater peace & prosperity. The players seem to be playing chess by the rules again, for now. (The results are strikingly good compared to the mass casualties and tens, hundreds or thousands of thousands of people killed as a result of the war in Iraq.) Was Libya attacked because Quadaffi is a Terrorist? No, of course not – he’s been a terrorist since at least 1969.

There were other reasons, perhaps his overly aggressive position on this front brought forth the combined attacks against his forces on many of the other chess levels. As one example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN0aNsA9ALg (don’t miss the comment about Saddam at around the 2 minute mark.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN0aNsA9ALg

You might want to revise your “I want to kill Arabs because they want to kill us” statement to account for Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudi Arabians and there were quite disturbing funding links from the hijackers back to official Saudi sources. (Hijacker nationality: 2-United Arab Emeriti, 1-Egyptian, 1-Lebanese, 15-Saudi Arabia.)

In contrast, none of the hijackers were Iraqi and the WMD claims proved to be bogus. Prior to attacking Iraq there were essentially no terrorist there, the “terrorism” in that country arose, by your own earlier admission, after the “Mission Accomplished” speech when foreign jihadists came into the country to resist American troops.

The people you claim to be killing kill are those who you think are crazy and dangerous (the “terrorists”) and whoever is in the vicinity.

I place blame on the people putting those innocents in danger, not those who inadvertently cause suffering to the innocents.

By your logic if your patient has a gaping, bleeding chest wound you would advocate operating on him and several other healthy bystanders; all the while telling everyone who will listen to you that you were doing it for the good of the neighborhood when the truth has much to do with the patient being a key supplier of your crack cocaine.