<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/</link>
	<description>Making the Connections</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:31:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peggy</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-2029</link>
		<dc:creator>peggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-2029</guid>
		<description>Oops.  She&#039;s a she.  Or at least has a female name.  Same points apply, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops.  She&#8217;s a she.  Or at least has a female name.  Same points apply, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peggy</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-2024</link>
		<dc:creator>peggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-2024</guid>
		<description>This is an article worth responding to:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12403157.htm

The author is (or pretends to be) opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq, but he does not acknowledge that many of the resistance fighters are not &quot;jihadist terrorists&quot; or former Baathists.  Therefore he thinks that it is necessary to continue to maintain US troops in Iraq.  Someone should tell him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an article worth responding to:<br />
<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12403157.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12403157.htm</a></p>
<p>The author is (or pretends to be) opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq, but he does not acknowledge that many of the resistance fighters are not &#8220;jihadist terrorists&#8221; or former Baathists.  Therefore he thinks that it is necessary to continue to maintain US troops in Iraq.  Someone should tell him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peggy</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-2011</link>
		<dc:creator>peggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:40:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-2011</guid>
		<description>Stan - What you say is very scary, but I guess it has been inevitable that someone would try this, given the way that things have been going for at least the past fifty years. The idea of a police state is not new. There are police-states all over the place. The idea of world domination is also not new, as everyone knows, and has been tried before, as everyone also knows.  The newest and scariest part of this police-state-world-dominator configuration that Bush and Co seem to be aiming toward has been with us, you and me, for our whole lifetimes.  I mean the nuclear weaponry.  One might say that Bush is the scariest part, but he is just a stupid man who has been put in a position where he can do major harm.  He and his crew can and will leave their positions of power, but that will not change the fact that somebody else at some point in the not-so-distant future could come in and actually push that button.  Are we just trying to postpone the inevitable here?  Or is there a genuine way to undo some of what has already been done, and start in a new direction?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stan &#8211; What you say is very scary, but I guess it has been inevitable that someone would try this, given the way that things have been going for at least the past fifty years. The idea of a police state is not new. There are police-states all over the place. The idea of world domination is also not new, as everyone knows, and has been tried before, as everyone also knows.  The newest and scariest part of this police-state-world-dominator configuration that Bush and Co seem to be aiming toward has been with us, you and me, for our whole lifetimes.  I mean the nuclear weaponry.  One might say that Bush is the scariest part, but he is just a stupid man who has been put in a position where he can do major harm.  He and his crew can and will leave their positions of power, but that will not change the fact that somebody else at some point in the not-so-distant future could come in and actually push that button.  Are we just trying to postpone the inevitable here?  Or is there a genuine way to undo some of what has already been done, and start in a new direction?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jurassicpork</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1988</link>
		<dc:creator>jurassicpork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1988</guid>
		<description>We have to get these !@#$%^&amp;* out now, by hook or crook (no pun intended).

(NOTE from moderator on edit.  There is a rule against using sexist or homophobic epithets here.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have to get these !@#$%^&#038;* out now, by hook or crook (no pun intended).</p>
<p>(NOTE from moderator on edit.  There is a rule against using sexist or homophobic epithets here.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nuttymango</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1987</link>
		<dc:creator>nuttymango</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1987</guid>
		<description>Another ex-military person standing up to Bushco, Lt. Col. (USAF-Ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski119.html

Oh and don&#039;t foget Rear Admiral John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, NH, fighting to hold Bushco accountable for side-stepping the Geneva conventions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another ex-military person standing up to Bushco, Lt. Col. (USAF-Ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski119.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski119.html</a></p>
<p>Oh and don&#8217;t foget Rear Admiral John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, NH, fighting to hold Bushco accountable for side-stepping the Geneva conventions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: name</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1983</link>
		<dc:creator>name</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1983</guid>
		<description>â€œdegrading American political willâ€ == Wehrkraftzersetzung

still, these guys are far more crazy, and, given the resources at their disposal, also far more dangerous. 

BTW, what is it with the general who was fired for &quot;sexual misconduct&quot; ? A 4-star general does not get fired for that thinks me, and several sites are saying that the general was caught planning a coup against W. Any comment on that ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>â€œdegrading American political willâ€ == Wehrkraftzersetzung</p>
<p>still, these guys are far more crazy, and, given the resources at their disposal, also far more dangerous. </p>
<p>BTW, what is it with the general who was fired for &#8220;sexual misconduct&#8221; ? A 4-star general does not get fired for that thinks me, and several sites are saying that the general was caught planning a coup against W. Any comment on that ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1975</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1975</guid>
		<description>If you google P2OG you will get around 9,240 hits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you google P2OG you will get around 9,240 hits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m.c.</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1974</link>
		<dc:creator>m.c.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1974</guid>
		<description>I think your level of analysis is very good/superb. If I&#039;m not mistaken, Powell &amp; his former deputy Armitage were the only top administration officials connected with U.S.foreign policy with military combat experience. I read somewhere that Armitage was either a SEAL or trained with the SEALS during the vietnam war. Wikipedia says he speaks fluent Vietnamese. The sleuth in me says ONI.

Rumsfeld was a Naval Aviator &amp; Flight Instructor(&#039;54-&#039;57) No mention of Korean War or other combat experience I can find. Former HLS Secretary Tom Ridge is a Vietnam Vet. but to my understanding was not a principal in Iraq War policy.

My quick point is the two folks who were near the center of decision making who fit the rational mind mold are the only ones who have seen fighting in their careers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think your level of analysis is very good/superb. If I&#8217;m not mistaken, Powell &#038; his former deputy Armitage were the only top administration officials connected with U.S.foreign policy with military combat experience. I read somewhere that Armitage was either a SEAL or trained with the SEALS during the vietnam war. Wikipedia says he speaks fluent Vietnamese. The sleuth in me says ONI.</p>
<p>Rumsfeld was a Naval Aviator &#038; Flight Instructor(&#8217;54-&#8217;57) No mention of Korean War or other combat experience I can find. Former HLS Secretary Tom Ridge is a Vietnam Vet. but to my understanding was not a principal in Iraq War policy.</p>
<p>My quick point is the two folks who were near the center of decision making who fit the rational mind mold are the only ones who have seen fighting in their careers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m rivard</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1973</link>
		<dc:creator>m rivard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1973</guid>
		<description>Stan, do you have anything on the P2OG?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stan, do you have anything on the P2OG?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Eden</title>
		<link>http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/08/10/the-global-battlefield/#comment-1971</link>
		<dc:creator>John Eden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:04:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=173#comment-1971</guid>
		<description>What do you think is the likelyhood that Bush &amp; Co. would make some overt power grab if they began to think that the Republican Party were beginning to see the Iraq occupation and all the concommitant crap as a political liability? Say the Sheehan situation does break open a national wave of revulsion at last, and significant Repubs begin to hint at impeachment, albeit to save their own necks?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think is the likelyhood that Bush &#038; Co. would make some overt power grab if they began to think that the Republican Party were beginning to see the Iraq occupation and all the concommitant crap as a political liability? Say the Sheehan situation does break open a national wave of revulsion at last, and significant Repubs begin to hint at impeachment, albeit to save their own necks?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

