I chose reckless G as my blogger name in reference to my tendency to recklessly put myself in the public eye and under government scrutiny by speaking out against policies that I feel endanger our future on the planet. Reckless people are by nature either very foolish or very brave…the jury’s still out in my case.
Currently (and for the last five years) I’m involved in waging the war on war. This covers not only the occupation of Iraq, and impending attack on Iran, but also the war against our civil liberties, and all related issues.
I’ve been described as being anti-American, a liberal, and a leftist. I would describe myself as a defender of the US constitution, a humanist, and a centrist. You can decide for yourself, based on my blog entries.
Peace,
reckless G
Welcome Reckless…
ah war! so much to blog about…..
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ” ~John Stewart Mill
and….
“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” – Sir Winston Churchill
Welcome Reckless…
ah war! so much to blog about…..
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ” ~John Stewart Mill
and….
“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” – Sir Winston Churchill
Nice quotes Alpha, really. Ready to go after her because she is against wars? Still not ready with proposals of your own?
Nice quotes Alpha, really. Ready to go after her because she is against wars? Still not ready with proposals of your own?
Go after her?? Moi?? : )
What do you mean by proposals of my own? Like how would I, if allowed to take control of the situation in Iraq handle it?
I find Churchill’s quote above to be very appropriate to our situation in Iraq, and as a student of history and warfare wonder if those in counsel to the President and Congress who approved our actions there brought this to their attention. I find, as has been repeated so many times, that those who fail to learn from history, or adhere to the wisdom of those who have gone before are doomed to repeat it. “George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
But, I am also reminded of Walt Whitman who stated “Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background, the countless minor scenes and interiors of the secession war; and it is best they should not. The real war will never get in the books.”
What today seems to be all important, tomorrow will be forgotten….how many of you actually remember of horror of what happened on 9/11…”We will never forget!” yet we do..we do.
Go after her?? Moi?? : )
What do you mean by proposals of my own? Like how would I, if allowed to take control of the situation in Iraq handle it?
I find Churchill’s quote above to be very appropriate to our situation in Iraq, and as a student of history and warfare wonder if those in counsel to the President and Congress who approved our actions there brought this to their attention. I find, as has been repeated so many times, that those who fail to learn from history, or adhere to the wisdom of those who have gone before are doomed to repeat it. “George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
But, I am also reminded of Walt Whitman who stated “Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background, the countless minor scenes and interiors of the secession war; and it is best they should not. The real war will never get in the books.”
What today seems to be all important, tomorrow will be forgotten….how many of you actually remember of horror of what happened on 9/11…”We will never forget!” yet we do..we do.
Hey guys, thanks for joining in.
I’m of the opinion that war is a primitive expression of human lust for power and wealth. Ideally I subscribe to the notion that the best way to eliminate an enemy is to become their friend. But I am a realist, and not a pacifist. I own a gun and if the US were to be attacked/invaded, I wouldn’t hesitate to take up arms in defense. What I object to is the idea of America as the aggressor against sovereign nations such as Iraq and Iran.
A war built on deceit is often cloaked in virtue. The American incursions into the Middle East are not for the sake of freedom, democracy, or even safety. Good soldiers and innocent civilians are dying simply to line the pockets of the warmongers and to secure “strategic national interests.” Alas, it has always been so.
Regarding the ugliness of war; here is another letter from the Iraqi woman, who is in Baghdad with her three children to renew their visa. For the benefit of those who doubt the author’s authenticity, I left it pretty much unedited:
“Dear freinds : in my town AlKarada the damage was so bad we lost our house. in AlKarada and nieghbourhood the distruction from bombcars distroy every thing in my country more than 15 bomb cars in only my town Al Karada, we are till now survived from buss taxi bombed near us, we wanted (I,,,Omar ,Abeer, ,Anoush and my brother’s family ) to ride but at last minute we change our mind to walk .because not enough money for us and then after two minutes it bombed 100 miter from us .today we survived by miracle we helped the wounded people and others holding the pieces of bodies it was awful view I ever seen you can’t imagin my children how they freezed when they saw the died bodies and the wounded people we tried to help but how many wounded persons .??.also before several days there were bomb neer my brother’s appartment and it
damage I have photos of all the windows glass and the door .also the borders
closed now I don’t know what can I do if the borders close for long time .I’m
waiting to open the borders and then I’ll go to Amman as soon as I
can .I have some photos of Baghdad and the explosions (15 bombs ) in AlKarada. Baghdad looks like grave land .the Taxi cars it became more expensive .I think I stuck in Baghdad and my children’s school will bigin on 6th/Feb. of this week.”
alpha6, it’s easy to debate the merits and faults of war from afar, but your platitudes are an affront to those living the reality of war.
Edward Troy, thanks for the chivalry, but I assure you I am not easily intimidated.
Hey guys, thanks for joining in.
I’m of the opinion that war is a primitive expression of human lust for power and wealth. Ideally I subscribe to the notion that the best way to eliminate an enemy is to become their friend. But I am a realist, and not a pacifist. I own a gun and if the US were to be attacked/invaded, I wouldn’t hesitate to take up arms in defense. What I object to is the idea of America as the aggressor against sovereign nations such as Iraq and Iran.
A war built on deceit is often cloaked in virtue. The American incursions into the Middle East are not for the sake of freedom, democracy, or even safety. Good soldiers and innocent civilians are dying simply to line the pockets of the warmongers and to secure “strategic national interests.” Alas, it has always been so.
Regarding the ugliness of war; here is another letter from the Iraqi woman, who is in Baghdad with her three children to renew their visa. For the benefit of those who doubt the author’s authenticity, I left it pretty much unedited:
“Dear freinds : in my town AlKarada the damage was so bad we lost our house. in AlKarada and nieghbourhood the distruction from bombcars distroy every thing in my country more than 15 bomb cars in only my town Al Karada, we are till now survived from buss taxi bombed near us, we wanted (I,,,Omar ,Abeer, ,Anoush and my brother’s family ) to ride but at last minute we change our mind to walk .because not enough money for us and then after two minutes it bombed 100 miter from us .today we survived by miracle we helped the wounded people and others holding the pieces of bodies it was awful view I ever seen you can’t imagin my children how they freezed when they saw the died bodies and the wounded people we tried to help but how many wounded persons .??.also before several days there were bomb neer my brother’s appartment and it
damage I have photos of all the windows glass and the door .also the borders
closed now I don’t know what can I do if the borders close for long time .I’m
waiting to open the borders and then I’ll go to Amman as soon as I
can .I have some photos of Baghdad and the explosions (15 bombs ) in AlKarada. Baghdad looks like grave land .the Taxi cars it became more expensive .I think I stuck in Baghdad and my children’s school will bigin on 6th/Feb. of this week.”
alpha6, it’s easy to debate the merits and faults of war from afar, but your platitudes are an affront to those living the reality of war.
Edward Troy, thanks for the chivalry, but I assure you I am not easily intimidated.
Reckless,
I have been in wars on three continents and dozens of countries. Don’t preach to me about the horrors of war. You think bombs are bad, you should see what people can do to each other with machetes and shovels. I didn’t see you anywhere when Hutu’s were chopping up Tutsis like it was a sushi bar.
I have little sympathy for your friend; I do however have it for her children. They will have no childhood, having to live in a time where the adults in their lives are driven by religious hate towards one another, so much so that they are willing to kill all, women, children, everyone in profession of their radicalism. They are responsible for the bombs that are killing each other, not the US. And don’t give me any of the “well they were better off when Saddam was in charge.” Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who are buried in mass graves. They, the citizens of Iraq need to take responsibility for their actions. If they would act civilized, this crap wouldn’t be going on. Savages mister….savages!
Reckless,
I have been in wars on three continents and dozens of countries. Don’t preach to me about the horrors of war. You think bombs are bad, you should see what people can do to each other with machetes and shovels. I didn’t see you anywhere when Hutu’s were chopping up Tutsis like it was a sushi bar.
I have little sympathy for your friend; I do however have it for her children. They will have no childhood, having to live in a time where the adults in their lives are driven by religious hate towards one another, so much so that they are willing to kill all, women, children, everyone in profession of their radicalism. They are responsible for the bombs that are killing each other, not the US. And don’t give me any of the “well they were better off when Saddam was in charge.” Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who are buried in mass graves. They, the citizens of Iraq need to take responsibility for their actions. If they would act civilized, this crap wouldn’t be going on. Savages mister….savages!
alpha6, you so haughtily proclaim the citizens of Iraq; “savages.” Is that how you describe the Union and Confederate populations during the US Civil War? And what could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sir, your elitism is showing.
I agree that “the citizens of Iraq need to take responsibility for their actions.” Now that the U.S. has destabilized a once peaceful and functioning nation, the situation has degenerated into the very civil war Saddam so successfully prevented and there is nothing the US military can do to put it back together. So why don’t we leave? Why are we building military bases and embassies and angling to provoke conflict with Iran?
Hutus and Tutsis, Sunni and Shia, they can all go at each other until the end of time for all I care. But when rich corporate sponsors reap profits from trillions of US taxpayer dollars and the decimation of our military, I’m going to exercise my right to “preach” against it.
alpha6, you so haughtily proclaim the citizens of Iraq; “savages.” Is that how you describe the Union and Confederate populations during the US Civil War? And what could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sir, your elitism is showing.
I agree that “the citizens of Iraq need to take responsibility for their actions.” Now that the U.S. has destabilized a once peaceful and functioning nation, the situation has degenerated into the very civil war Saddam so successfully prevented and there is nothing the US military can do to put it back together. So why don’t we leave? Why are we building military bases and embassies and angling to provoke conflict with Iran?
Hutus and Tutsis, Sunni and Shia, they can all go at each other until the end of time for all I care. But when rich corporate sponsors reap profits from trillions of US taxpayer dollars and the decimation of our military, I’m going to exercise my right to “preach” against it.
I agree Reckless, as citizens, we need to speak out when our tax dollars are being foolishly spent and when they are creating injust and suffering.
With respect to US citizens considering Iraqis lives of less value (a topic at the end of today’s show). President Bush created that mind set when he said, as he has many times, fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here. I heard several Iraqis, when I was in Jordan and Syria this summer, say “you do not care about the lives of Iraqis.” They made reference to Bush’s above statement.
I am concerned about anti Muslim comments made at the bginning of the show and in recent local letters to the editor. My response is more Americans need to visit Muslim countries like Iran, Syria and Jordan and meet the people. They are warm and hospitable. Having been to these countries last year I assure you they are safe. You have been misled by the media and politicians when this Irishish looking American women can walk the streets of Iran and Syria and feel very safe.
I agree Reckless, as citizens, we need to speak out when our tax dollars are being foolishly spent and when they are creating injust and suffering.
With respect to US citizens considering Iraqis lives of less value (a topic at the end of today’s show). President Bush created that mind set when he said, as he has many times, fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here. I heard several Iraqis, when I was in Jordan and Syria this summer, say “you do not care about the lives of Iraqis.” They made reference to Bush’s above statement.
I am concerned about anti Muslim comments made at the bginning of the show and in recent local letters to the editor. My response is more Americans need to visit Muslim countries like Iran, Syria and Jordan and meet the people. They are warm and hospitable. Having been to these countries last year I assure you they are safe. You have been misled by the media and politicians when this Irishish looking American women can walk the streets of Iran and Syria and feel very safe.
Dear Reckless,
I am not sure that I am that chivalrous, when it comes to blogging, it was a prediction of what is happenning. Truly, it is opinion, which is what we have here, not gender, though you identified yourself that way. On my posts, I have been asking, “what conservatives have done to advance humanity?” With the follow up, “what is their vision for the future of humanity?”
Alpha brought up the Tutsis and Hutus; the world, including liberals (he referred to you specifically, though I would prefer he clarify that contention), stood by and watched as one of the most shocking massacres of wholesale slaughters, took place in recent history. I think we should have done something. What and how fast, I am not sure, as it was a very swift action, relative to our ability to mobilise to do anything — a limitation of this nations and any nations power. That I think we should have done something, is a difference between what you wrote and what I am writing now.
If Alpha was on the front lines, in any war he was in, he could have been randomly extinguished by the various unpredictable ways war can end life including, friendly fire, enemy fire, accidents, and illness. Many people think, we as human beings, have considerable personal control over firing on another human being to kill them.
Alpha also repeats the theme that we (the US) are not the aggressors in Iraq and Iran. I do not share your opinion that Iraq was peaceful under S. Hussein. They were not at war with us, and were being over seen by the US and Britain. S. Hussein was a former hitman for the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party and assumed power with considerable violence and executions, once that occurred, he had roads, hospitals and schools built, turning Iraq into a very prosperous country with a middle class. This went on until the the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to power. Hussein then started a premptive war with Iran, which began to go badly, and that is when Reagan, Rumsfeld and the cast of bad characters in this administration got involved with S. Hussein. He was their guy, not many liberals that I knew were for supporting him.
Conservatives want liberals to believe Saddam Hussein and Iraq were somehow the focal point for WMD and had co-conspiratorial responsibility for 9-11. There is, of course, the considerable evidence that Hussein used chemical weapons AFTER the Reagan administration engagement with him. The sixty four million dollar question is, “Did he have massed quantities of WMD, after 1995?”
9-11 is something that Al Qaeda (led by the evil Osama bin Laden)proudly takes monstrous credit for, and many in this country accepted that as a reality, I am in agreement. The howling conservatives want to include s. Hussein as a part of this, that is why we are there (whether for money, oil or covering up the nature of involvement. That, of course, leads to, “was there a connection between Hussein and Bin Laden?” That question to me is ridiculous — an effort to present a canard as some sort of “truthful” possibility. With three thousand dead, these types of deceits have no place in a country founded as the hopeful beacon for humanity.
happy blogging!!!!
Dear Reckless,
I am not sure that I am that chivalrous, when it comes to blogging, it was a prediction of what is happenning. Truly, it is opinion, which is what we have here, not gender, though you identified yourself that way. On my posts, I have been asking, “what conservatives have done to advance humanity?” With the follow up, “what is their vision for the future of humanity?”
Alpha brought up the Tutsis and Hutus; the world, including liberals (he referred to you specifically, though I would prefer he clarify that contention), stood by and watched as one of the most shocking massacres of wholesale slaughters, took place in recent history. I think we should have done something. What and how fast, I am not sure, as it was a very swift action, relative to our ability to mobilise to do anything — a limitation of this nations and any nations power. That I think we should have done something, is a difference between what you wrote and what I am writing now.
If Alpha was on the front lines, in any war he was in, he could have been randomly extinguished by the various unpredictable ways war can end life including, friendly fire, enemy fire, accidents, and illness. Many people think, we as human beings, have considerable personal control over firing on another human being to kill them.
Alpha also repeats the theme that we (the US) are not the aggressors in Iraq and Iran. I do not share your opinion that Iraq was peaceful under S. Hussein. They were not at war with us, and were being over seen by the US and Britain. S. Hussein was a former hitman for the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party and assumed power with considerable violence and executions, once that occurred, he had roads, hospitals and schools built, turning Iraq into a very prosperous country with a middle class. This went on until the the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to power. Hussein then started a premptive war with Iran, which began to go badly, and that is when Reagan, Rumsfeld and the cast of bad characters in this administration got involved with S. Hussein. He was their guy, not many liberals that I knew were for supporting him.
Conservatives want liberals to believe Saddam Hussein and Iraq were somehow the focal point for WMD and had co-conspiratorial responsibility for 9-11. There is, of course, the considerable evidence that Hussein used chemical weapons AFTER the Reagan administration engagement with him. The sixty four million dollar question is, “Did he have massed quantities of WMD, after 1995?”
9-11 is something that Al Qaeda (led by the evil Osama bin Laden)proudly takes monstrous credit for, and many in this country accepted that as a reality, I am in agreement. The howling conservatives want to include s. Hussein as a part of this, that is why we are there (whether for money, oil or covering up the nature of involvement. That, of course, leads to, “was there a connection between Hussein and Bin Laden?” That question to me is ridiculous — an effort to present a canard as some sort of “truthful” possibility. With three thousand dead, these types of deceits have no place in a country founded as the hopeful beacon for humanity.
happy blogging!!!!
Edward, Re: the Tutsis and Hutus you wrote: “That I think we should have done something, is a difference between what you wrote and what I am writing now.”
This is why I don’t consider myself a true liberal. While I do have compassion for all living things, I do not believe in intervening in the affairs of others. That goes for Saddam Hussein’s method of rule in Iraq too. I am conservative in my view that the U.S. is not the world’s police, or nursemaid, or mommy. I want my taxes spent here, in my country, to make life better for our citizens. I also want less government interference in our personal lives, including less laws and amendments.
I have spoken against the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning, not just out of compassion for the Iraqi people, but out of a selfish desire to conserve our national resources (Treasury and Military). I also believe that these military adventures in the Middle East make American cities and citizens more prone to terrorist attack.
So how is that leftist or liberal?
Edward, Re: the Tutsis and Hutus you wrote: “That I think we should have done something, is a difference between what you wrote and what I am writing now.”
This is why I don’t consider myself a true liberal. While I do have compassion for all living things, I do not believe in intervening in the affairs of others. That goes for Saddam Hussein’s method of rule in Iraq too. I am conservative in my view that the U.S. is not the world’s police, or nursemaid, or mommy. I want my taxes spent here, in my country, to make life better for our citizens. I also want less government interference in our personal lives, including less laws and amendments.
I have spoken against the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the beginning, not just out of compassion for the Iraqi people, but out of a selfish desire to conserve our national resources (Treasury and Military). I also believe that these military adventures in the Middle East make American cities and citizens more prone to terrorist attack.
So how is that leftist or liberal?
Reckless,
In response to your comment, “alpha6, you so haughtily proclaim the citizens of Iraq; “savages.” Is that how you describe the Union and Confederate populations during the US Civil War? And what could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sir, your elitism is showing.
First, I would say that blowing yourself up in a crowded market place, full of innocent people is barbaric and savage in the why I was terming it. Just like cutting the breasts off women so that they can’t feed their infants and the cutting off of heads in a public display with a dull knife is savage. Death is not savage, people are. In the American Civil War, as with most wars fought before WW1, the battle took place on fields away from the general population. In Iraq right now, those engaged in this “civil war” are not targeting combatants, they are targeting the population, quite a significant difference if you ask me. And I stand by my earlier assertion; it is cowardly acts carried out by savages. And you ask, “What could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” How about the slaughter of over 800,000 people in 100 days as the US and Europe stood by and the UN reduced its UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
Ed bought up a great point with regards to this failure of the Clinton administration to act during this genocide.
Additionally, your line of “Now that the U.S. has destabilized a once peaceful and functioning nation…” is really interesting. Let’s see, wasn’t it this peaceful nation that was at war with Iran, tried to exterminate the Kurd population and invaded Kuwait? Oh, I guess you forgot about that…selective memory is a luxury that is not available to us realists. But if it allows you to sleep better at night, then by all means disregard anything that doesn’t conform to your agenda.
And Clean, please, don’t even get me started on Syria, the Gestapo could have learned something from the way they ran things in Lebanon.
Lastly, Ed, your comments above are right on in my opinion, except the last part about the Saddam and Al Qaeda connections. After the invasion into Afghanistan, many of the Taliban fighters moved into the northern part of Iraq, where they were welcomed by Saddam who then started to work with and support them in their fight against the US and the west as more pressure was being placed on him regarding the UN resolutions. I am not exactly sure where this fell in with regards to intelligence at the time and any of that justification, but in any respect, there was in fact a definitive connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Reckless,
In response to your comment, “alpha6, you so haughtily proclaim the citizens of Iraq; “savages.” Is that how you describe the Union and Confederate populations during the US Civil War? And what could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sir, your elitism is showing.
First, I would say that blowing yourself up in a crowded market place, full of innocent people is barbaric and savage in the why I was terming it. Just like cutting the breasts off women so that they can’t feed their infants and the cutting off of heads in a public display with a dull knife is savage. Death is not savage, people are. In the American Civil War, as with most wars fought before WW1, the battle took place on fields away from the general population. In Iraq right now, those engaged in this “civil war” are not targeting combatants, they are targeting the population, quite a significant difference if you ask me. And I stand by my earlier assertion; it is cowardly acts carried out by savages. And you ask, “What could be more savage than dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” How about the slaughter of over 800,000 people in 100 days as the US and Europe stood by and the UN reduced its UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
Ed bought up a great point with regards to this failure of the Clinton administration to act during this genocide.
Additionally, your line of “Now that the U.S. has destabilized a once peaceful and functioning nation…” is really interesting. Let’s see, wasn’t it this peaceful nation that was at war with Iran, tried to exterminate the Kurd population and invaded Kuwait? Oh, I guess you forgot about that…selective memory is a luxury that is not available to us realists. But if it allows you to sleep better at night, then by all means disregard anything that doesn’t conform to your agenda.
And Clean, please, don’t even get me started on Syria, the Gestapo could have learned something from the way they ran things in Lebanon.
Lastly, Ed, your comments above are right on in my opinion, except the last part about the Saddam and Al Qaeda connections. After the invasion into Afghanistan, many of the Taliban fighters moved into the northern part of Iraq, where they were welcomed by Saddam who then started to work with and support them in their fight against the US and the west as more pressure was being placed on him regarding the UN resolutions. I am not exactly sure where this fell in with regards to intelligence at the time and any of that justification, but in any respect, there was in fact a definitive connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Iraq was peaceful when the U.S. invaded, and had been for over 10 years. The “threat” of Saddam was contained, at least within his own borders. As we all know, Saddam didn’t tolerate dissent, and kept the Sunni, Shia, Christians, Jews and Kurds from killing each other. He kept the lid on a boiling pot, and we took it off.
Alpha6, your comment; “there was in fact a definitive connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda” disappoints me. I thought you were smarter than that. Almost makes me think you’ve been drinking the FOX news Kool-Aid.
All of this esoteric talk of war doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. Some believe we are in a global war against terror. I believe we are in an Orwellian war between governments and their citizens.
Using the excuse of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and are being occupied by U.S. military forces. Iran is next. Israel and Syria will get involved, probably Saudi Arabia and others too. We are running headlong toward WWIII. And all we do is sit at our computers and argue history and semantics.
What we’re all about to receive, we probably deserve.
Iraq was peaceful when the U.S. invaded, and had been for over 10 years. The “threat” of Saddam was contained, at least within his own borders. As we all know, Saddam didn’t tolerate dissent, and kept the Sunni, Shia, Christians, Jews and Kurds from killing each other. He kept the lid on a boiling pot, and we took it off.
Alpha6, your comment; “there was in fact a definitive connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda” disappoints me. I thought you were smarter than that. Almost makes me think you’ve been drinking the FOX news Kool-Aid.
All of this esoteric talk of war doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. Some believe we are in a global war against terror. I believe we are in an Orwellian war between governments and their citizens.
Using the excuse of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and are being occupied by U.S. military forces. Iran is next. Israel and Syria will get involved, probably Saudi Arabia and others too. We are running headlong toward WWIII. And all we do is sit at our computers and argue history and semantics.
What we’re all about to receive, we probably deserve.
Reckless,
Shame on you for doubting me. Please read the below linked article regarding Saddam and Al Qaeda. (One of many; let me know how many sources I need to link to back up what I post, I aim to please) I don’t watch fox news, or any news for that matter, I get all my news from several US and foreign news sites. Listening to someone else tell me what they want me to know doesn’t mesh with my style of life. As far as any Kool-aid, well, I only drink what I make…and its all from scratch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
Reckless,
Shame on you for doubting me. Please read the below linked article regarding Saddam and Al Qaeda. (One of many; let me know how many sources I need to link to back up what I post, I aim to please) I don’t watch fox news, or any news for that matter, I get all my news from several US and foreign news sites. Listening to someone else tell me what they want me to know doesn’t mesh with my style of life. As far as any Kool-aid, well, I only drink what I make…and its all from scratch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
From Alpha6’s link:
“Last week, American intelligence officials revealed that several high-ranking al-Qa’eda members had moved to northern Iraq where they had linked up with Iraqi intelligence officials…US Defence Department officials said that a number of very senior al-Qa’eda members was now based in northern Iraq close to the Iranian border at Halabja. Although Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the al-Qa’eda fighters’ presence, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said last week that it was highly unlikely that they could have entered Iraq without Saddam’s knowledge.”There are al-Qa’eda in a number of locations in Iraq,” he said. “In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control over its population, it’s very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what is taking place in the country.” – From Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, essentially Australia’s version of FOX.
Come on! You’re really going to take the word of the same people who lied about the intelligence regarding WMD? That’s absolutely laughable. And I thought you were a real sleuth.
Can you give me links to any sources that don’t involve US government officials feeding corporate news companies what they want the public to think?
From Alpha6’s link:
“Last week, American intelligence officials revealed that several high-ranking al-Qa’eda members had moved to northern Iraq where they had linked up with Iraqi intelligence officials…US Defence Department officials said that a number of very senior al-Qa’eda members was now based in northern Iraq close to the Iranian border at Halabja. Although Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the al-Qa’eda fighters’ presence, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said last week that it was highly unlikely that they could have entered Iraq without Saddam’s knowledge.”There are al-Qa’eda in a number of locations in Iraq,” he said. “In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control over its population, it’s very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what is taking place in the country.” – From Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, essentially Australia’s version of FOX.
Come on! You’re really going to take the word of the same people who lied about the intelligence regarding WMD? That’s absolutely laughable. And I thought you were a real sleuth.
Can you give me links to any sources that don’t involve US government officials feeding corporate news companies what they want the public to think?
Oh I see, I can provide sources for my comments, which you can totally disregard because they don’t fit into your litmus test of credibility? However, I have yet to see you provide anything to back up what you spout.
I actually thought you were going to be different from those who argue out of emotion with nothing to back it up, but I am mistaken.
Now you want us to believe that this British paper, citing Australian sources is in cahoots with Fox news and the Bush administration.
Go ahead, the blog is all yours. I have learned long ago not to try and reason with unreasonable people. Eventually your uncontrolled emotional rant will be the end of you and the rest of us can continue with some intelligent and civil conversations.
Oh I see, I can provide sources for my comments, which you can totally disregard because they don’t fit into your litmus test of credibility? However, I have yet to see you provide anything to back up what you spout.
I actually thought you were going to be different from those who argue out of emotion with nothing to back it up, but I am mistaken.
Now you want us to believe that this British paper, citing Australian sources is in cahoots with Fox news and the Bush administration.
Go ahead, the blog is all yours. I have learned long ago not to try and reason with unreasonable people. Eventually your uncontrolled emotional rant will be the end of you and the rest of us can continue with some intelligent and civil conversations.
OK, sorry for the slight Reckless, that was not very professional and I apologize. However, in response to your request, I have provided additionally links to back the Saddam – Al Qaeda connection. (you know I could never walk away from a debate)
Here is just a clip, the rest you have to go to the links and read the whole articles. This is from ABC, hardly a right wing support arm…
“Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
and from the Wall Street Journal…”Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
Need more?
OK, sorry for the slight Reckless, that was not very professional and I apologize. However, in response to your request, I have provided additionally links to back the Saddam – Al Qaeda connection. (you know I could never walk away from a debate)
Here is just a clip, the rest you have to go to the links and read the whole articles. This is from ABC, hardly a right wing support arm…
“Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
and from the Wall Street Journal…”Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
Need more?
OK, sorry for the slight Reckless, that was not very professional and I apologize. However, in response to your request, I have provided additionally links to back the Saddam – Al Qaeda connection. (you know I could never walk away from a debate)
Here is just a clip, the rest you have to go to the links and read the whole articles. This is from ABC, hardly a right wing support arm…
“Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
OK, sorry for the slight Reckless, that was not very professional and I apologize. However, in response to your request, I have provided additionally links to back the Saddam – Al Qaeda connection. (you know I could never walk away from a debate)
Here is just a clip, the rest you have to go to the links and read the whole articles. This is from ABC, hardly a right wing support arm…
“Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
Here is another one, for some reason I can’t paste more then one link per comment…glitch in the system.
This is from the Wall Street Journal…”Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
Here is another one, for some reason I can’t paste more then one link per comment…glitch in the system.
This is from the Wall Street Journal…”Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
Good alpha6, glad you didn’t quit me, I enjoy hearing your perspective. Just be aware I am very picky about sources. I don’t trust the government or corporate media, and I prefer to have backup sources from independent news media or official sites.
I doubt you will find me very emotional, and I rarely rant or spew hatred, but I can be tough on my opposition. Please bear with me as I hold you accountable for your position, just as I expect to be held accountable for mine.
I concede that perhaps after Afghanistan, and on the verge of US invasion Saddam felt compelled to welcome help from al Qaeda against a mutual enemy. But he’s dead…so now what?
Good alpha6, glad you didn’t quit me, I enjoy hearing your perspective. Just be aware I am very picky about sources. I don’t trust the government or corporate media, and I prefer to have backup sources from independent news media or official sites.
I doubt you will find me very emotional, and I rarely rant or spew hatred, but I can be tough on my opposition. Please bear with me as I hold you accountable for your position, just as I expect to be held accountable for mine.
I concede that perhaps after Afghanistan, and on the verge of US invasion Saddam felt compelled to welcome help from al Qaeda against a mutual enemy. But he’s dead…so now what?
Reckless,
as you have written more and I have read more of what you have written, I sense that you are slightly isolationist, pragmatic, anti war with a nurturing patriotism. I think you go by the issues which leads to thoughtful curiosity, and sometimes contentious debate. The Middle East has been an insoluble black hole for thinking people of the world, since it became front page news. It might be the rabbit hole of great thinkers.
Reckless,
as you have written more and I have read more of what you have written, I sense that you are slightly isolationist, pragmatic, anti war with a nurturing patriotism. I think you go by the issues which leads to thoughtful curiosity, and sometimes contentious debate. The Middle East has been an insoluble black hole for thinking people of the world, since it became front page news. It might be the rabbit hole of great thinkers.
The NY Times article, “Build-a-War Workshop,” in the Feb. 10th, 2007 edition states, ” the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.” Now the Bush Administration is doing the same with Iran.
The NY Times article, “Build-a-War Workshop,” in the Feb. 10th, 2007 edition states, ” the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.” Now the Bush Administration is doing the same with Iran.
Dear Alpha,
Why are intelligence people now, years later, coming out with statements compromising the cooked up ideologue illustrated “truth” served on a platter by the lapdog media. Feiths office was a den of perfidious intelligence quacks. If these same sources indicated that I shot Lincoln, Garfield, both Kennedys and King, would you believe it? Please be serious. You just can’t believe this. Is it possible that there were indigenous Al Qeada people in prewar Iraq? Yes. Out of millions of disenfranchised Iraqis, did someone make the decision to be a part of Al Qeada, so they could kill the infidel S. Hussein? Yes, but note I said KILL Hussein. does that mean befriend him, invite him over as a dinner guest, play with the kids? For this “link” to exist, the following must be necessary; You know this organisation wants to kill you, so you trust the organisation to help you. In human history only hereditary inbred imbeciles got power and that was only titular as a regent would have acted for the imbecile. There is no evidence that Hussein was an imbecile, murderer yes. Used WMD after meeting with Rumsfeld, yes!
The closest thing in history I can think approaching this situation is the 1939 Hitler Stalin Non Agression pact. Anyone recall how that turned out?
I am stating with great confidence; There were never any constructed direct links between S. Hussein and Al Qeada, organised by the Ba’athist Socialist Party and Al Qeada operatives. Al Qeada is waging a heretical quasi religious war on all “infidels,” and when operating in Afghanistan, under the taliban destroyed the most extraordinary Budhist heritage; the magnificent bas relief Budhas of Bamiyan statues nearly a thousand feet high. Not just anti Christian, socialist, communist, capitalist or American. Al Qeada is virulent homocidal sociopathic venom. It must be destroyed.
Dear Alpha,
Why are intelligence people now, years later, coming out with statements compromising the cooked up ideologue illustrated “truth” served on a platter by the lapdog media. Feiths office was a den of perfidious intelligence quacks. If these same sources indicated that I shot Lincoln, Garfield, both Kennedys and King, would you believe it? Please be serious. You just can’t believe this. Is it possible that there were indigenous Al Qeada people in prewar Iraq? Yes. Out of millions of disenfranchised Iraqis, did someone make the decision to be a part of Al Qeada, so they could kill the infidel S. Hussein? Yes, but note I said KILL Hussein. does that mean befriend him, invite him over as a dinner guest, play with the kids? For this “link” to exist, the following must be necessary; You know this organisation wants to kill you, so you trust the organisation to help you. In human history only hereditary inbred imbeciles got power and that was only titular as a regent would have acted for the imbecile. There is no evidence that Hussein was an imbecile, murderer yes. Used WMD after meeting with Rumsfeld, yes!
The closest thing in history I can think approaching this situation is the 1939 Hitler Stalin Non Agression pact. Anyone recall how that turned out?
I am stating with great confidence; There were never any constructed direct links between S. Hussein and Al Qeada, organised by the Ba’athist Socialist Party and Al Qeada operatives. Al Qeada is waging a heretical quasi religious war on all “infidels,” and when operating in Afghanistan, under the taliban destroyed the most extraordinary Budhist heritage; the magnificent bas relief Budhas of Bamiyan statues nearly a thousand feet high. Not just anti Christian, socialist, communist, capitalist or American. Al Qeada is virulent homocidal sociopathic venom. It must be destroyed.
Ed,
I have pointed out, linked and from multiple sources shown that there was a direct link between Saddam and Al Qeada. I have not asked you to take my word for it, and I have backed up what I say with sources.
Your “I am stating with great confidence; There were never any constructed direct links between S. Hussein and Al Qeada…” may be your belief, but it is not supported by the facts or available information.
If you choose to believe something in the face of fact, there is nothing I, nor anyone else can do to convince you otherwise, but then again, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I do feel that it is appropriate to at least look at what information is available and then, if God has given you the ability, draw some logical conclusions from it.
“We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away.”
- Chuang Tzu
That said, I do feel that you are correct in your last paragraph when describing Al Qeada. Just remember, the whole world stood by as they shelled those Bamiyan statues and did nothing. It was the US who finally stood up to them, and look at the condemnation we have received for it. If the US had not decided to address Al Qeada, then who knows to what limits they would have reached in their quest for the destruction of all that doesn’t agree with their beliefs.
“to sit back and do nothing is to cooperate with the oppresser.” – Jane Elliot
Ed,
I have pointed out, linked and from multiple sources shown that there was a direct link between Saddam and Al Qeada. I have not asked you to take my word for it, and I have backed up what I say with sources.
Your “I am stating with great confidence; There were never any constructed direct links between S. Hussein and Al Qeada…” may be your belief, but it is not supported by the facts or available information.
If you choose to believe something in the face of fact, there is nothing I, nor anyone else can do to convince you otherwise, but then again, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I do feel that it is appropriate to at least look at what information is available and then, if God has given you the ability, draw some logical conclusions from it.
“We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away.”
- Chuang Tzu
That said, I do feel that you are correct in your last paragraph when describing Al Qeada. Just remember, the whole world stood by as they shelled those Bamiyan statues and did nothing. It was the US who finally stood up to them, and look at the condemnation we have received for it. If the US had not decided to address Al Qeada, then who knows to what limits they would have reached in their quest for the destruction of all that doesn’t agree with their beliefs.
“to sit back and do nothing is to cooperate with the oppresser.” – Jane Elliot
Oh really, al Qaeda needs to be destroyed? That kind of talk smacks of the same ideology al Qaeda itself uses to recruit suicide bombers. They believe we’re evil, we believe they’re evil. They believe God is on their side, we believe God is on our side. They believe if we are not destroyed, we’ll destroy them, we believe if they are not destroyed, they’ll destroy us. It’s enough to make me dizzy!
“Problems cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking that created them” – Albert Einstein
As I said before, we need to remove the reason they want to kill us. Notice that al Qaeda never talks about the great Satan; Sweden. They never mention wanting to destroy Germany. Obviously we have done something (understatement of the year) to piss off Muslims in the Middle East. Maybe if we stop poking them in the eye with a stick, they won’t feel the need to poke back.
Now we are on the verge of exacerbating the problem by attacking Iran. All in the name of the “global war on terror” of course. What bullshit. The US created the terrorists, and we have the power, by our actions, to either uncreate them, or create more of them. The choice is ours.
Oh really, al Qaeda needs to be destroyed? That kind of talk smacks of the same ideology al Qaeda itself uses to recruit suicide bombers. They believe we’re evil, we believe they’re evil. They believe God is on their side, we believe God is on our side. They believe if we are not destroyed, we’ll destroy them, we believe if they are not destroyed, they’ll destroy us. It’s enough to make me dizzy!
“Problems cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking that created them” – Albert Einstein
As I said before, we need to remove the reason they want to kill us. Notice that al Qaeda never talks about the great Satan; Sweden. They never mention wanting to destroy Germany. Obviously we have done something (understatement of the year) to piss off Muslims in the Middle East. Maybe if we stop poking them in the eye with a stick, they won’t feel the need to poke back.
Now we are on the verge of exacerbating the problem by attacking Iran. All in the name of the “global war on terror” of course. What bullshit. The US created the terrorists, and we have the power, by our actions, to either uncreate them, or create more of them. The choice is ours.
Reckless….reckless, reckless….
July 31, 2006 – “Two suitcases containing bottles of gasoline, propane gas and a detonating device that were found abandoned in German regional trains last month were bombs primed to go off and kill a “high number” of people, police said. The July 31 attempt “is likely to have a terrorist background,” Zierke said. Investigators found pieces of paper with Arabic letters and telephone numbers from Lebanon in clothes which were in the suitcases to pad the gas bottles, he said. They also found starch bags from Lebanon which were sold in a store in or around Essen, a city in North-Rhine Westphalia.”
“The planned bombing is the second attempted terrorist act in Germany in recent years. German police arrested three Iraqi men suspected of planning an assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during his visit to Berlin in 2004. They belong to the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group, the Federal Prosecutor has said. The men are currently standing trail in Stuttgart.”
Lets see, we have these attacks in Germany, there were the attacks in Spain, England, Indonesia, and a host of other countries. And what about the great appeaser France?
“French intelligence report reveals letter written, signed by bin Laden in which he instructs radical Islamic organization in Algeria to ‘attack in eastern and southern France.’” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363370,00.html
And Sweden?? “Islamic extremists of the Salafyist variety have posted a very explicit threat to launch a wave of terrorist attacks against Sweden.” (Can’t post the link here, comments only allow for the posting of one link for some reason, but if you search you can find the article or if you want ask and I will post it on a separate comment.)
You assertion that the US created the terrorist is akin to the police creating criminals. They are not going to go away, and if you chose to ignore them as we did during the Clinton years, then be prepared to pay the price.
Reckless….reckless, reckless….
July 31, 2006 – “Two suitcases containing bottles of gasoline, propane gas and a detonating device that were found abandoned in German regional trains last month were bombs primed to go off and kill a “high number” of people, police said. The July 31 attempt “is likely to have a terrorist background,” Zierke said. Investigators found pieces of paper with Arabic letters and telephone numbers from Lebanon in clothes which were in the suitcases to pad the gas bottles, he said. They also found starch bags from Lebanon which were sold in a store in or around Essen, a city in North-Rhine Westphalia.”
“The planned bombing is the second attempted terrorist act in Germany in recent years. German police arrested three Iraqi men suspected of planning an assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during his visit to Berlin in 2004. They belong to the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group, the Federal Prosecutor has said. The men are currently standing trail in Stuttgart.”
Lets see, we have these attacks in Germany, there were the attacks in Spain, England, Indonesia, and a host of other countries. And what about the great appeaser France?
“French intelligence report reveals letter written, signed by bin Laden in which he instructs radical Islamic organization in Algeria to ‘attack in eastern and southern France.’” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363370,00.html
And Sweden?? “Islamic extremists of the Salafyist variety have posted a very explicit threat to launch a wave of terrorist attacks against Sweden.” (Can’t post the link here, comments only allow for the posting of one link for some reason, but if you search you can find the article or if you want ask and I will post it on a separate comment.)
You assertion that the US created the terrorist is akin to the police creating criminals. They are not going to go away, and if you chose to ignore them as we did during the Clinton years, then be prepared to pay the price.
Here is a nice guy from Sweden…
Mohamed Moumou
Name: Mohamed Moumou
AKAs: Mohamed Mumu
Abu Shrayda
Abu Amina
Abu `Abdallah
Abou Abderrahman
DOB: 30 JULY 1965
Alt. DOB: 30 SEPTEMBER 1965
POB: Fez, Morocco
Citizenship: Morocco
Citizenship: Sweden
Passport: 9817619, Expires 14 DECEMBER 2009 (Sweden)
Address: Storvretsvagen 92, 7 TR. C/O Drioua, 142 31 Skogas, Sweden
Address: Jungfruns Gata 413, Postal Address Box: 3027, 13603 Haninge, Sweden
Address: London, England
Address: Dobelnsgatan 97, 7 TR C/O Lamrabet, 113 52 Stockholm, Sweden
Address: Trodheimsgatan 6, 164 32 Kista, Sweden
Mohamed Moumou’s extremist activities date back to the mid-1990′s, when he traveled to Afghanistan to participate in the al Qaida-run Khalden terrorist training camp. A Moroccan national with Swedish citizenship, Moumou was the uncontested leader of an extremist group centered around the Brandbergen Mosque in Stockholm, Sweden. Moumou’s leadership derives from connections to senior al Qaida leaders, some of whom he had met in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late-1990s. Moumou reportedly served, at some time in the past, as Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s representative in Europe for issues related to chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, Moumou reportedly maintains ties to al-Zarqawi’s inner circle in Iraq.
Here is a nice guy from Sweden…
Mohamed Moumou
Name: Mohamed Moumou
AKAs: Mohamed Mumu
Abu Shrayda
Abu Amina
Abu `Abdallah
Abou Abderrahman
DOB: 30 JULY 1965
Alt. DOB: 30 SEPTEMBER 1965
POB: Fez, Morocco
Citizenship: Morocco
Citizenship: Sweden
Passport: 9817619, Expires 14 DECEMBER 2009 (Sweden)
Address: Storvretsvagen 92, 7 TR. C/O Drioua, 142 31 Skogas, Sweden
Address: Jungfruns Gata 413, Postal Address Box: 3027, 13603 Haninge, Sweden
Address: London, England
Address: Dobelnsgatan 97, 7 TR C/O Lamrabet, 113 52 Stockholm, Sweden
Address: Trodheimsgatan 6, 164 32 Kista, Sweden
Mohamed Moumou’s extremist activities date back to the mid-1990′s, when he traveled to Afghanistan to participate in the al Qaida-run Khalden terrorist training camp. A Moroccan national with Swedish citizenship, Moumou was the uncontested leader of an extremist group centered around the Brandbergen Mosque in Stockholm, Sweden. Moumou’s leadership derives from connections to senior al Qaida leaders, some of whom he had met in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late-1990s. Moumou reportedly served, at some time in the past, as Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s representative in Europe for issues related to chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, Moumou reportedly maintains ties to al-Zarqawi’s inner circle in Iraq.
OK alpha6, as usual your research skills are beyond compare. But I was referring to al Qaeda and especially bin Laden’s labeling of America as the great Satan, and their continual references to the US as the primary target, rather than individual attacks on targets within the countries I mentioned. Obviously there is a worldwide network of terrorist organizations that attack Western targets in general, including those in Europe. Many though not all of those attacks occur against buildings and organizations that have a direct link to the US.
But again, what are we talking about here? Are you justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Are you suggesting the US should attack Iran? What is your position on American interventionism?
If the US continues to provoke and attack nations and organizations within the Islamic world, where is it going to lead us?
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” – Ghandi
OK alpha6, as usual your research skills are beyond compare. But I was referring to al Qaeda and especially bin Laden’s labeling of America as the great Satan, and their continual references to the US as the primary target, rather than individual attacks on targets within the countries I mentioned. Obviously there is a worldwide network of terrorist organizations that attack Western targets in general, including those in Europe. Many though not all of those attacks occur against buildings and organizations that have a direct link to the US.
But again, what are we talking about here? Are you justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Are you suggesting the US should attack Iran? What is your position on American interventionism?
If the US continues to provoke and attack nations and organizations within the Islamic world, where is it going to lead us?
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” – Ghandi
Reckless, and Alpha
sadly the Wahabist herecy and the Taliban/Al Qeada interpretation of that includes the extirmination of ALL infidels, including S. Hussein and Westerners, Sufis, Shi’a, Sikhs, Bhuddhists, Communists, Taoists, and anyone or any organisation, not totally accepting that view, which includes carving out “greater Iraq”. The leaders consider themselves a type of conduit to God, requiring a purity of faith in the personage of those leaders. Many Christians believe they are going to heaven, as do myself and my girlfriend. The Wahabists believe the same thing, but have different requirements, our extirmination and that creation of “greater Iraq,” or efforts to that end. Because of the suicide missions engaged in by the forces, it is extremely foolish to question the zealous purity of faith in the cause. There used to be a Caliphate that they want to revive. It may have been the same Caliphate utterly crushed by the greatest general and organizer of fighting men ever, Temijian — Ghengis Khan.
Alpha,
As Bethmann-Hollveg said about the 1839 treaty guaranteeing the sovereignty of Belgium, at the dawn of WWI “nothing but a scap of paper.” The Bush administration, if what you are saying is true, is both lying and tautologically truthful at the same time about the same issue. This evades Aristotilean logic. Someone IS LYING. Am I to believe a rationalised convoluted possibility or a logical probability, that is nearly a certitude.
Tigers and crocodiles, can be monstrous maneaters (in the animal world we are like chicken in a crockpot for two days, and come apart most easily, hence the addictive nature of our flesh to those creatures enjoying a little homo sapsucker, Bone In) but fight each other ferociously, even to the death, for kills that have been made. They interact directly, but not in a collaborative and co-operative manner. Could low level meeting have occurred? I think they did. But now, considered a presumptive double agent, by the hierarchical superiors in the repective organisations, who would you report to?
Zawahiri had his own organisation later after the Us Invasion accepted into the Al Qeada portfolio. He was not a part of Al Qeada before the US invasion or incursion, visit or however you want to describe our presence in Iraq. Sharing a street corner and crosswalk doesn’t make a conspiracy, though I am aware of a conviction in a Virginia court of law for murder with that as the only evidence — since overturned.
Bush administratoin officials (past and present) have had access to at least the same documents you have ferreted, and they have backed off this so called “link” as a politically untenable position — with good reason it doesn’t exist at levels and at a time when it would have had any relevance to that argument. What does that mean? Any meaningful linkages would have been post invasion, when any man in the trench fighting the superior military threat to you will do. There is far too much documentation, statements, fatwas and the like that are contrary to your link.
If I am wrong, I’ll take my flogging. I don’t believe the revisionism, but understand and trust the motives for revision.
Reckless, and Alpha
sadly the Wahabist herecy and the Taliban/Al Qeada interpretation of that includes the extirmination of ALL infidels, including S. Hussein and Westerners, Sufis, Shi’a, Sikhs, Bhuddhists, Communists, Taoists, and anyone or any organisation, not totally accepting that view, which includes carving out “greater Iraq”. The leaders consider themselves a type of conduit to God, requiring a purity of faith in the personage of those leaders. Many Christians believe they are going to heaven, as do myself and my girlfriend. The Wahabists believe the same thing, but have different requirements, our extirmination and that creation of “greater Iraq,” or efforts to that end. Because of the suicide missions engaged in by the forces, it is extremely foolish to question the zealous purity of faith in the cause. There used to be a Caliphate that they want to revive. It may have been the same Caliphate utterly crushed by the greatest general and organizer of fighting men ever, Temijian — Ghengis Khan.
Alpha,
As Bethmann-Hollveg said about the 1839 treaty guaranteeing the sovereignty of Belgium, at the dawn of WWI “nothing but a scap of paper.” The Bush administration, if what you are saying is true, is both lying and tautologically truthful at the same time about the same issue. This evades Aristotilean logic. Someone IS LYING. Am I to believe a rationalised convoluted possibility or a logical probability, that is nearly a certitude.
Tigers and crocodiles, can be monstrous maneaters (in the animal world we are like chicken in a crockpot for two days, and come apart most easily, hence the addictive nature of our flesh to those creatures enjoying a little homo sapsucker, Bone In) but fight each other ferociously, even to the death, for kills that have been made. They interact directly, but not in a collaborative and co-operative manner. Could low level meeting have occurred? I think they did. But now, considered a presumptive double agent, by the hierarchical superiors in the repective organisations, who would you report to?
Zawahiri had his own organisation later after the Us Invasion accepted into the Al Qeada portfolio. He was not a part of Al Qeada before the US invasion or incursion, visit or however you want to describe our presence in Iraq. Sharing a street corner and crosswalk doesn’t make a conspiracy, though I am aware of a conviction in a Virginia court of law for murder with that as the only evidence — since overturned.
Bush administratoin officials (past and present) have had access to at least the same documents you have ferreted, and they have backed off this so called “link” as a politically untenable position — with good reason it doesn’t exist at levels and at a time when it would have had any relevance to that argument. What does that mean? Any meaningful linkages would have been post invasion, when any man in the trench fighting the superior military threat to you will do. There is far too much documentation, statements, fatwas and the like that are contrary to your link.
If I am wrong, I’ll take my flogging. I don’t believe the revisionism, but understand and trust the motives for revision.
Jeez you guys are killing me! Does it really matter if al Qaeda is or ever was in Iraq or not? We are arguing irrelevant details when the fate of the planet is at stake. A tomato squashes just as easily no matter how you pronounce the “a.”
When the Bush administration was posturing to attack Iraq and I thought it was the wrong course, I wrote letters to the editor, marched in protest, and ultimately went to Iraq so I could come back and explain to people here what life was like there, and how people would be affected by a military strike. None of it was any use of course, since it wasn’t left to the American people to decide. The administration had made up their mind – long before 9/11 – to invade and occupy Iraq for the long term. They’ve also made up their minds to attack Iran. Obviously my previous course being completely ineffective, I’m interested in what you and other citizens think is the best way to stop the madmen at the helm of this runaway ship from crashing into the iceberg.
What I want to know is; what do you believe is the correct course of action right now for America. And what are we going to do about it?
Jeez you guys are killing me! Does it really matter if al Qaeda is or ever was in Iraq or not? We are arguing irrelevant details when the fate of the planet is at stake. A tomato squashes just as easily no matter how you pronounce the “a.”
When the Bush administration was posturing to attack Iraq and I thought it was the wrong course, I wrote letters to the editor, marched in protest, and ultimately went to Iraq so I could come back and explain to people here what life was like there, and how people would be affected by a military strike. None of it was any use of course, since it wasn’t left to the American people to decide. The administration had made up their mind – long before 9/11 – to invade and occupy Iraq for the long term. They’ve also made up their minds to attack Iran. Obviously my previous course being completely ineffective, I’m interested in what you and other citizens think is the best way to stop the madmen at the helm of this runaway ship from crashing into the iceberg.
What I want to know is; what do you believe is the correct course of action right now for America. And what are we going to do about it?
{Jeez you guys are killing me! Does it really matter if al Qaeda is or ever was in Iraq or not? We are arguing irrelevant details when the fate of the planet is at stake. A tomato squashes just as easily no matter how you pronounce the “a.”}
Al Qeada was or wasn’t there and our peerless purveyors of (mis)information were and were not lying. It comes down to; are these the people that you want to trust after the televangelist snakeoil salesmanship of the issue? I don’t trust the present maladministration to make an honorable effort to solve the problems over there, whether we are there or not.
Al Qeada is there now and I believe ONLY because we invaded Iraq. Naturally this theatre of war and deception of the American public has removed Afghanistan from the news, almost completely. If this was an objective of the administration, it should receive high marks in the effort to sucker the public — again.
Solution; A perimeter of control, to interdict cross border traffic, human and contraband. Begin withdrawing from the cities as much as possible. Control airstrips and ground traffic highways. Sweep the country side and control it. Suggest tripartition, announce to the Iraqi governement we are leaving by 11/1/07. I want those military people home for Thanksgiving. Only then do we begin to withdraw from the post colonial polyglot constructed state of Iraq. Some of those assetts may be used to bolster efforts in Afghanistan, then we need to get out of there too; by the end of 08. Conservation, alternative energy, insulation, buying locally and a foreign policy that respects the sanctity of life, will do wonders to keep others from being motivated to get into our business and lives. If that policy supported democracy as an official ideology instead of dictators, we could even get ahead of the game. But there are too many people like Alpha who cheer for the glory of war, and individual heroism without really thinking is that the optimum for this country as a whole. Sometimes war is necessary, this was not a necessity.
Alpha, you will dig diligently for any shred, any scintilla of documentation to support this intrusion into Iraq. Were it UFOs it would be interesting. But I think where you are coming from is very dangerous. Iran is next in that scenario with thirty millions in a fairly homogenous country — national coalescence and theologically uniform. So how many will we need to kill to make sure we hand over our own debt ridden country to China??? Quite frankly if we are no better than they are why are we fighting them??? You will say they want to kill us. I will say we are killing them, naturally they will be motivated in their own country to kill us. But you will present documents showing some undying friendship with Al Qeada or Abe Lincoln for all I know, and I again will not believe it. But other than the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned the American public about and the investors therein, why are we going — to keep a nuclear genie in the bottle??. Successful nuclear programmes have been secret. Who doesn’t know about Iran’s nuclear programme.
{Jeez you guys are killing me! Does it really matter if al Qaeda is or ever was in Iraq or not? We are arguing irrelevant details when the fate of the planet is at stake. A tomato squashes just as easily no matter how you pronounce the “a.”}
Al Qeada was or wasn’t there and our peerless purveyors of (mis)information were and were not lying. It comes down to; are these the people that you want to trust after the televangelist snakeoil salesmanship of the issue? I don’t trust the present maladministration to make an honorable effort to solve the problems over there, whether we are there or not.
Al Qeada is there now and I believe ONLY because we invaded Iraq. Naturally this theatre of war and deception of the American public has removed Afghanistan from the news, almost completely. If this was an objective of the administration, it should receive high marks in the effort to sucker the public — again.
Solution; A perimeter of control, to interdict cross border traffic, human and contraband. Begin withdrawing from the cities as much as possible. Control airstrips and ground traffic highways. Sweep the country side and control it. Suggest tripartition, announce to the Iraqi governement we are leaving by 11/1/07. I want those military people home for Thanksgiving. Only then do we begin to withdraw from the post colonial polyglot constructed state of Iraq. Some of those assetts may be used to bolster efforts in Afghanistan, then we need to get out of there too; by the end of 08. Conservation, alternative energy, insulation, buying locally and a foreign policy that respects the sanctity of life, will do wonders to keep others from being motivated to get into our business and lives. If that policy supported democracy as an official ideology instead of dictators, we could even get ahead of the game. But there are too many people like Alpha who cheer for the glory of war, and individual heroism without really thinking is that the optimum for this country as a whole. Sometimes war is necessary, this was not a necessity.
Alpha, you will dig diligently for any shred, any scintilla of documentation to support this intrusion into Iraq. Were it UFOs it would be interesting. But I think where you are coming from is very dangerous. Iran is next in that scenario with thirty millions in a fairly homogenous country — national coalescence and theologically uniform. So how many will we need to kill to make sure we hand over our own debt ridden country to China??? Quite frankly if we are no better than they are why are we fighting them??? You will say they want to kill us. I will say we are killing them, naturally they will be motivated in their own country to kill us. But you will present documents showing some undying friendship with Al Qeada or Abe Lincoln for all I know, and I again will not believe it. But other than the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned the American public about and the investors therein, why are we going — to keep a nuclear genie in the bottle??. Successful nuclear programmes have been secret. Who doesn’t know about Iran’s nuclear programme.
I find it interesting that because I choose to dispell lies and unfounded statements by factual information that you draw the conclusion that I somehow support what is going on in Iraq.
Reckless asked some interesting questions and in that light I will deviate from my factual analysis and give you my two cents. Mind you that this is my opinion and thus should be taken as such. This may be lengthy, but I will try and order it so that it makes sense.
First, I think that there was justification to go into Iraq, given our foreign policy at the time. I don’t think there should be too much debate about this, since the intelligence, though flawed at the time (which history always shows to be as such) indicated that Iraq was actively involved with terrorist organizations, whether it be Al Qeada or Hamas or whoever. My contention is not that we attacked Iraq, but why we didn’t apply the same policy to other countries engaged in the same activities as Iraq. For example, Syria has been actively supporting Hamas, Fata, the PLO and numerous other terrorist organizations for years. They occupied Lebanon and ran it through its military intelligence. We have Iran, who has openly supported terrorist attacks in the Middle
East, Israel and Europe. They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. What about Pakistan and its providing a safe haven for Al Qeada in its northern provinces. Additionally, the Pakistani Government support terrorists conducting cross border attacks into Kashmir in India. I can’t even began to list the countries in Africa that we should be conducting operations in, if this is our policy. I could go on and on. I believe that if we have a policy, that it should be enforced across the board. This is one of the problems I see with Iraq, why them and not Syria? If we are going to attack this problem on a world basis, we should be attacking it in force, not just playing around in one area.
My second contention is that I do not see Iraq as a military failure, I see it as a policy failure of the State department. The direct cause of this significant problem is the State departments inability to formulate a plan that is implementable in Iraq and now the military is engaged in a campaign that they shouldn’t be. History has taught us again and again that occupational armies do not work. Now the troops are paying the price for an incompetent State Department. The error that they made was thinking that free elections was what Iraq needed. But if they had taken the time to actually understand how it and other countries work, they would have engaged in a policy that was geared more towards a government, placed into power by us and then, after the country was stabilized, through the puppet Government if you will, then in time, elections and a democracy type government could have emerged as a natural course of things.
All that aside, I think that the argument of if we should be in Iraq or not is mute. We are there, it happened, now lets deal with it. There are two ways to deal with this type of combat, where the enemy co-mingles with the population. One is to take on the policy of – if a town, village, community, whatever supports a terrorist or is the base for a terrorist attack, then it is utterly destroyed. This type of aggressive behavior worked very well for the Romans and proved to be an effective means of controlling any populace they occupied. While I agree with this type of action, I do not think that the US has the fortitude to do what is necessary and thus, engaged as we are, we are doomed to failure in the military sense. The way we are operating gives the enemy all the advantages, and our forces just react to the situations.
Ed actually has a pretty good sense of what my suggested solution would be. Right now, most of the enemy targeting our troops are from countries other then Iraq. There is no control of the borders with other countries and thus there is a continuing stream of weapons and fighters crossing. Once in cities, they become part of the population and the probability of successful action is greatly diminished. By moving the military out of the cities and controlling the borders and all open area, we would effectively cut off this continued resupply of terrorist and their supplies. And our military functions best in that type of environment. I would also establish very large quick reaction forces, that would be able to hit, and hit hard any insurgency activity that crops up. I would invest heavily in HUMIT intelligence sources and target the terrorist through other means with reliable intelligence. You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how. By carefully culling out the leadership, you would gain much more then frontal attacks.
Do I have the solutions to Iraq and terrorism? I have opinions, ideas, nothing more. Would I do things differently? Yes? Should we be there? Its to late for that, we are already there. Should we pull out and hope for world peace? It is a fools hope as long as there is evil that is willing to destroy everything not like them. Should we be the ones to address this problem? I am always reminded of past generations who’s children stood up and took action when their parents failed to. Either we pay the price, or it will be our children. Peace is nice, but it is only the time to prepare for the next war. And if we are successful in our current endeavors, I am reminded of what Bertold Brecht said:
Don’t yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.
I find it interesting that because I choose to dispell lies and unfounded statements by factual information that you draw the conclusion that I somehow support what is going on in Iraq.
Reckless asked some interesting questions and in that light I will deviate from my factual analysis and give you my two cents. Mind you that this is my opinion and thus should be taken as such. This may be lengthy, but I will try and order it so that it makes sense.
First, I think that there was justification to go into Iraq, given our foreign policy at the time. I don’t think there should be too much debate about this, since the intelligence, though flawed at the time (which history always shows to be as such) indicated that Iraq was actively involved with terrorist organizations, whether it be Al Qeada or Hamas or whoever. My contention is not that we attacked Iraq, but why we didn’t apply the same policy to other countries engaged in the same activities as Iraq. For example, Syria has been actively supporting Hamas, Fata, the PLO and numerous other terrorist organizations for years. They occupied Lebanon and ran it through its military intelligence. We have Iran, who has openly supported terrorist attacks in the Middle
East, Israel and Europe. They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. What about Pakistan and its providing a safe haven for Al Qeada in its northern provinces. Additionally, the Pakistani Government support terrorists conducting cross border attacks into Kashmir in India. I can’t even began to list the countries in Africa that we should be conducting operations in, if this is our policy. I could go on and on. I believe that if we have a policy, that it should be enforced across the board. This is one of the problems I see with Iraq, why them and not Syria? If we are going to attack this problem on a world basis, we should be attacking it in force, not just playing around in one area.
My second contention is that I do not see Iraq as a military failure, I see it as a policy failure of the State department. The direct cause of this significant problem is the State departments inability to formulate a plan that is implementable in Iraq and now the military is engaged in a campaign that they shouldn’t be. History has taught us again and again that occupational armies do not work. Now the troops are paying the price for an incompetent State Department. The error that they made was thinking that free elections was what Iraq needed. But if they had taken the time to actually understand how it and other countries work, they would have engaged in a policy that was geared more towards a government, placed into power by us and then, after the country was stabilized, through the puppet Government if you will, then in time, elections and a democracy type government could have emerged as a natural course of things.
All that aside, I think that the argument of if we should be in Iraq or not is mute. We are there, it happened, now lets deal with it. There are two ways to deal with this type of combat, where the enemy co-mingles with the population. One is to take on the policy of – if a town, village, community, whatever supports a terrorist or is the base for a terrorist attack, then it is utterly destroyed. This type of aggressive behavior worked very well for the Romans and proved to be an effective means of controlling any populace they occupied. While I agree with this type of action, I do not think that the US has the fortitude to do what is necessary and thus, engaged as we are, we are doomed to failure in the military sense. The way we are operating gives the enemy all the advantages, and our forces just react to the situations.
Ed actually has a pretty good sense of what my suggested solution would be. Right now, most of the enemy targeting our troops are from countries other then Iraq. There is no control of the borders with other countries and thus there is a continuing stream of weapons and fighters crossing. Once in cities, they become part of the population and the probability of successful action is greatly diminished. By moving the military out of the cities and controlling the borders and all open area, we would effectively cut off this continued resupply of terrorist and their supplies. And our military functions best in that type of environment. I would also establish very large quick reaction forces, that would be able to hit, and hit hard any insurgency activity that crops up. I would invest heavily in HUMIT intelligence sources and target the terrorist through other means with reliable intelligence. You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how. By carefully culling out the leadership, you would gain much more then frontal attacks.
Do I have the solutions to Iraq and terrorism? I have opinions, ideas, nothing more. Would I do things differently? Yes? Should we be there? Its to late for that, we are already there. Should we pull out and hope for world peace? It is a fools hope as long as there is evil that is willing to destroy everything not like them. Should we be the ones to address this problem? I am always reminded of past generations who’s children stood up and took action when their parents failed to. Either we pay the price, or it will be our children. Peace is nice, but it is only the time to prepare for the next war. And if we are successful in our current endeavors, I am reminded of what Bertold Brecht said:
Don’t yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.
If we in the united States have no moral calling no ethical honor, no shred of humanity, there are two historical empires to follow; Alpha brought up the Romans. To be specific the last Punic War is the proper way to do this. Leave no stone unturned and salt the fields.
The other is the beyond compare destruction of Persepolis, by Ghengis Khan. Revenge for the return of his ambassador’s head disarticulated from the body which was not returned. Certainly few people survived.
But we do have morals and a standing in the pantheon of nations, and therefore to me at least some higher level of responsibility. The cycles of war and peace are not sustaining. Wars, because of pollution and resource destruction do not allow sustainability. We need to get out of there and apply our still considerable resources, especially human resources to the competition for global markets with China — something that could actually be beneficial.
If we in the united States have no moral calling no ethical honor, no shred of humanity, there are two historical empires to follow; Alpha brought up the Romans. To be specific the last Punic War is the proper way to do this. Leave no stone unturned and salt the fields.
The other is the beyond compare destruction of Persepolis, by Ghengis Khan. Revenge for the return of his ambassador’s head disarticulated from the body which was not returned. Certainly few people survived.
But we do have morals and a standing in the pantheon of nations, and therefore to me at least some higher level of responsibility. The cycles of war and peace are not sustaining. Wars, because of pollution and resource destruction do not allow sustainability. We need to get out of there and apply our still considerable resources, especially human resources to the competition for global markets with China — something that could actually be beneficial.
Thanks Edward and alpha6 for your thoughtful replies to my query. You are both intelligent people with clear ideas, and an amazing understanding of military strategy. But…
alpha6 your solution for Iraq both surprises and horrifies me. What you are proposing sounds exactly like the way Saddam Hussein maintained control of that country; “You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how” and “- if a town, village, community, whatever supports a terrorist or is the base for a terrorist attack, then it is utterly destroyed.”
Are you aware that with this display of uncompassionate brutality, you fit the category of terrorist, or at the very least; ruthless oppressor? You would be a good replacement for Saddam. If “we” are going to act like “them,” then what’s the point? In the “global war on terror” we IS the enemy!
Also, your statement; “a policy that was geared more towards a government, placed into power by us and then, after the country was stabilized, through the puppet Government if you will, then in time, elections and a democracy type government could have emerged as a natural course of things” reminds me of the CIA’s attempt to do just that in Iran, only it didn’t turn out so well remember? Instead of democracy, which the CIA killed with their coup against Mossadegh and installation of the Shah, Iran went with ousting the puppet regime in favor of the rule of Shi’a Muslim clerics. We’re still feeling the effects of that fiasco.
Alpha6 wrote: “My contention is not that we attacked Iraq, but why we didn’t apply the same policy to other countries engaged in the same activities as Iraq…If we are going to attack this problem on a world basis, we should be attacking it in force, not just playing around in one area.”
I think you’re intelligent enough to figure out the motives for this war were not what they appeared to be. While YOU may have seen the need to invade Iraq because of their alleged ties to terrorism, that was not the administration’s agenda. As evidenced by just what you cited; why Iraq and not the many other countries with even stronger ties to terrorism?
And alpha6 you wrote: “I do not see Iraq as a military failure, I see it as a policy failure of the State department. The direct cause of this significant problem is the State departments inability to formulate a plan that is implementable in Iraq…Now the troops are paying the price for an incompetent State Department.”
If you and Troy and other citizens can come up with the information necessary to implement a successful plan for Iraq, what makes you think our State department is unable to? Of course they knew the consequences of their chosen method of implementation. Remember, these are all of the same people who in Gulf War I, discussed the error of trying to take Baghdad, oust Saddam and set up an occupation. Everyone knew what would happen in Iraq and Bush I decided against regime change. This time the neocons got exactly what they wanted; a long period of chaos and instability in Iraq that required a continuing military presence, so that the third phase of their power play could be engaged. Namely, attacking Iran. Now that our forces are in place – phase 1 – in Afghanistan (because we conveniently haven’t been able to find bin Laden) and – phase 2 – in Iraq, and permanent military bases have been established in both countries, everything is in place for the third phase – Iran.
We can’t do anything about fixing our strategy in Iraq – this administration won’t allow it. But maybe we can prevent them from carrying out phase 3. Any ideas as to how to prevent a military strike in Iran at this juncture?
Or alpha6, perhaps you agree that the US should strike Iran. I notice you cited the oft misquoted Ahmedinijad’s reference to Israel; “They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth.” Be aware; he did NOT say that! What he did say, was “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Get that? The REGIME OCCUPYING JERUSALEM, referring to the Zionist government’s illegal occupation of Jerusalem (UN General Assembly Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’).
As for their nuclear ambitions, well…that’s another thing entirely, best saved for another discussion, but read the recent letters to the editor regarding same for a preview.
Thanks Edward and alpha6 for your thoughtful replies to my query. You are both intelligent people with clear ideas, and an amazing understanding of military strategy. But…
alpha6 your solution for Iraq both surprises and horrifies me. What you are proposing sounds exactly like the way Saddam Hussein maintained control of that country; “You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how” and “- if a town, village, community, whatever supports a terrorist or is the base for a terrorist attack, then it is utterly destroyed.”
Are you aware that with this display of uncompassionate brutality, you fit the category of terrorist, or at the very least; ruthless oppressor? You would be a good replacement for Saddam. If “we” are going to act like “them,” then what’s the point? In the “global war on terror” we IS the enemy!
Also, your statement; “a policy that was geared more towards a government, placed into power by us and then, after the country was stabilized, through the puppet Government if you will, then in time, elections and a democracy type government could have emerged as a natural course of things” reminds me of the CIA’s attempt to do just that in Iran, only it didn’t turn out so well remember? Instead of democracy, which the CIA killed with their coup against Mossadegh and installation of the Shah, Iran went with ousting the puppet regime in favor of the rule of Shi’a Muslim clerics. We’re still feeling the effects of that fiasco.
Alpha6 wrote: “My contention is not that we attacked Iraq, but why we didn’t apply the same policy to other countries engaged in the same activities as Iraq…If we are going to attack this problem on a world basis, we should be attacking it in force, not just playing around in one area.”
I think you’re intelligent enough to figure out the motives for this war were not what they appeared to be. While YOU may have seen the need to invade Iraq because of their alleged ties to terrorism, that was not the administration’s agenda. As evidenced by just what you cited; why Iraq and not the many other countries with even stronger ties to terrorism?
And alpha6 you wrote: “I do not see Iraq as a military failure, I see it as a policy failure of the State department. The direct cause of this significant problem is the State departments inability to formulate a plan that is implementable in Iraq…Now the troops are paying the price for an incompetent State Department.”
If you and Troy and other citizens can come up with the information necessary to implement a successful plan for Iraq, what makes you think our State department is unable to? Of course they knew the consequences of their chosen method of implementation. Remember, these are all of the same people who in Gulf War I, discussed the error of trying to take Baghdad, oust Saddam and set up an occupation. Everyone knew what would happen in Iraq and Bush I decided against regime change. This time the neocons got exactly what they wanted; a long period of chaos and instability in Iraq that required a continuing military presence, so that the third phase of their power play could be engaged. Namely, attacking Iran. Now that our forces are in place – phase 1 – in Afghanistan (because we conveniently haven’t been able to find bin Laden) and – phase 2 – in Iraq, and permanent military bases have been established in both countries, everything is in place for the third phase – Iran.
We can’t do anything about fixing our strategy in Iraq – this administration won’t allow it. But maybe we can prevent them from carrying out phase 3. Any ideas as to how to prevent a military strike in Iran at this juncture?
Or alpha6, perhaps you agree that the US should strike Iran. I notice you cited the oft misquoted Ahmedinijad’s reference to Israel; “They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth.” Be aware; he did NOT say that! What he did say, was “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Get that? The REGIME OCCUPYING JERUSALEM, referring to the Zionist government’s illegal occupation of Jerusalem (UN General Assembly Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’).
As for their nuclear ambitions, well…that’s another thing entirely, best saved for another discussion, but read the recent letters to the editor regarding same for a preview.
Reckless, war is brutality, there is no nice way to fight it, and those who attempt to do so will eventually meet their doom.
And with regards to your statement “I notice you cited the oft misquoted Ahmedinijad’s reference to Israel; “They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth.” Be aware; he did NOT say that! What he did say, was “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” I give you….
“There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.” Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, he said: “As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
Whole article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
and of course, I can provide dozens of links from numerous sources that will say the same thing in case you “don’t like” the source I linked.
Lastly, if you ever had any dealings with the state department, you would realize that they are perhaps the most inept government agency we have.
Reckless, war is brutality, there is no nice way to fight it, and those who attempt to do so will eventually meet their doom.
And with regards to your statement “I notice you cited the oft misquoted Ahmedinijad’s reference to Israel; “They have nuclear ambitions and have openly stated they want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth.” Be aware; he did NOT say that! What he did say, was “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” I give you….
“There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.” Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, he said: “As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
Whole article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
and of course, I can provide dozens of links from numerous sources that will say the same thing in case you “don’t like” the source I linked.
Lastly, if you ever had any dealings with the state department, you would realize that they are perhaps the most inept government agency we have.
Again not good enough alpha6. Hope you don’t mind if I disassemble this dissemblance. The article you linked to says:
“Iran’s new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth”.
Note first that Ahmedinejad was addressing a conference titled The World Without Zionism. Keep that in mind in the context of his speech. Note that the inflammatory words in quotes are not given in the context of the sentence they appeared in. That entire paragraph is a construct of the authors.
The article says: “But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: “There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”
Note the brackets with words injected by the article’s authors. He didn’t actually say these things, but they make it appear that he did.
Later in the story comes an aha! moment:
“The US said the president’s remarks proved the accuracy of Washington’s fears. “I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran’s nuclear intentions,” Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said.”
This is another of those propaganda pieces designed to manufacture public consent for a strike against Iran. Obviously the writers of this article side with the pro-Israel anti-Iran faction.
As for this part:
“Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, he said: “As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
The DIRECT quote from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads’s Speech at “The World Without Zionism” conference:
“Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.”
Beware of tricks – he can say that again! As you can see, he was talking about regime change, NOT the destruction of Israel. The state of Israel and the Israeli government are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, and thus statements that Ahmedinijad said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map are patently false.
That was from http://worldnews.about.com/od/middleeastinpictures/ig/Middle-East-in-Pictures/The-World-Without-Zionism.htm
See also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
Lastly, the State Dept. didn’t plan the war, the People for a New American Century did.
Again not good enough alpha6. Hope you don’t mind if I disassemble this dissemblance. The article you linked to says:
“Iran’s new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth”.
Note first that Ahmedinejad was addressing a conference titled The World Without Zionism. Keep that in mind in the context of his speech. Note that the inflammatory words in quotes are not given in the context of the sentence they appeared in. That entire paragraph is a construct of the authors.
The article says: “But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: “There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”
Note the brackets with words injected by the article’s authors. He didn’t actually say these things, but they make it appear that he did.
Later in the story comes an aha! moment:
“The US said the president’s remarks proved the accuracy of Washington’s fears. “I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran’s nuclear intentions,” Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said.”
This is another of those propaganda pieces designed to manufacture public consent for a strike against Iran. Obviously the writers of this article side with the pro-Israel anti-Iran faction.
As for this part:
“Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, he said: “As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
The DIRECT quote from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads’s Speech at “The World Without Zionism” conference:
“Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.”
Beware of tricks – he can say that again! As you can see, he was talking about regime change, NOT the destruction of Israel. The state of Israel and the Israeli government are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, and thus statements that Ahmedinijad said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map are patently false.
That was from http://worldnews.about.com/od/middleeastinpictures/ig/Middle-East-in-Pictures/The-World-Without-Zionism.htm
See also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
Lastly, the State Dept. didn’t plan the war, the People for a New American Century did.
I didn’t figure you for an anti-Semite, but this is becoming more clear. You point to the title of the week long Conference “The World Without Zionism” as if that justifies what he says. That such a conference is taking place should be enough to alarm any civil person.
In your blind hate for Israel and in the defense of this madman, you left out what he stated following this “quoting” of the Iman, ” …Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, who said that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world.”
The president then said: “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,” according to a quote published by IRNA.
I don’t think that you can confuse Zionism with the government of Israel and isn’t it convenient that you failed to mention that he also whats a world without the US. For your information, he is talking about us. Lets see how you try and spin this one. I often wondered how people were able to continue to justify what Hitler was doing when it was clear. Now I am beginning to see that no matter what the facts are there are people who are willing to be blind to the obvious to serve their own agendas, even if it means their own destruction.
Also, so that those here know that it is you who is spinning the facts, I have posted this from Al Jazeera, hardly a western friendly site and as interpreted by them.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
Israels eradication?? Pretty clear to me. Come on Reckless…spin baby spin.
I didn’t figure you for an anti-Semite, but this is becoming more clear. You point to the title of the week long Conference “The World Without Zionism” as if that justifies what he says. That such a conference is taking place should be enough to alarm any civil person.
In your blind hate for Israel and in the defense of this madman, you left out what he stated following this “quoting” of the Iman, ” …Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, who said that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world.”
The president then said: “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,” according to a quote published by IRNA.
I don’t think that you can confuse Zionism with the government of Israel and isn’t it convenient that you failed to mention that he also whats a world without the US. For your information, he is talking about us. Lets see how you try and spin this one. I often wondered how people were able to continue to justify what Hitler was doing when it was clear. Now I am beginning to see that no matter what the facts are there are people who are willing to be blind to the obvious to serve their own agendas, even if it means their own destruction.
Also, so that those here know that it is you who is spinning the facts, I have posted this from Al Jazeera, hardly a western friendly site and as interpreted by them.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
Israels eradication?? Pretty clear to me. Come on Reckless…spin baby spin.
Alpha, you’ve done enough spinning to make a spider vomit.
As usual, anyone who refutes the claim that Iran’s president wants to wipe Israel off the map gets labeled an anti-Semite. Shall I then assume that because of your blind acceptance of a skewed interpretation of Ahmedinejad’s speech, you are an anti-Muslim?
The reason that the title of the conference; A World without Zionism is relevant, is because Zionism is a political movement, the policies of which have been manifested in the long oppression of the Palestinian people and the flagrant theft of Arab land in the Middle East. Do the Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and Palestinians who’ve been the recipients of Zionism’s particular brand of brutality want the regime out of Israel? You bet! Do they want Zionism’s influence of US policy eliminated? Certainly! Just as much as the Western world wants to eliminate al Qaeda.
Again your selected quotes show a skewed interpretation;
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.”
The phrase; “…a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication” is an interpretation, not the truth. It doesn’t matter where you sourced this, it is a lie. You are being duped by the war machine gearing up to attack Iran.
alpha6, your words; “I often wondered how people were able to continue to justify what Hitler was doing when it was clear. Now I am beginning to see that no matter what the facts are there are people who are willing to be blind to the obvious to serve their own agendas, even if it means their own destruction” are quite ironic, considering they apply so aptly to your own position.
Alpha, you’ve done enough spinning to make a spider vomit.
As usual, anyone who refutes the claim that Iran’s president wants to wipe Israel off the map gets labeled an anti-Semite. Shall I then assume that because of your blind acceptance of a skewed interpretation of Ahmedinejad’s speech, you are an anti-Muslim?
The reason that the title of the conference; A World without Zionism is relevant, is because Zionism is a political movement, the policies of which have been manifested in the long oppression of the Palestinian people and the flagrant theft of Arab land in the Middle East. Do the Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and Palestinians who’ve been the recipients of Zionism’s particular brand of brutality want the regime out of Israel? You bet! Do they want Zionism’s influence of US policy eliminated? Certainly! Just as much as the Western world wants to eliminate al Qaeda.
Again your selected quotes show a skewed interpretation;
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.”
The phrase; “…a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel’s eradication” is an interpretation, not the truth. It doesn’t matter where you sourced this, it is a lie. You are being duped by the war machine gearing up to attack Iran.
alpha6, your words; “I often wondered how people were able to continue to justify what Hitler was doing when it was clear. Now I am beginning to see that no matter what the facts are there are people who are willing to be blind to the obvious to serve their own agendas, even if it means their own destruction” are quite ironic, considering they apply so aptly to your own position.
Reckless, I have provided you information from numerous sources, the last being from Al Jazeera. Do you know what Al Jazeera is? It is the most accessed Arab news source in the world. I did not lend my interpretation to what was said there, unlike you. I quoted it exactly as it appeared and listed my source, something that you apparently don’t feel a need to do to justify anything that you say. How can you continue to assert that Ahmadinejad didn’t say what numerous sources state that he said?
And, in his speech he didn’t call for the elimination of US Policy, he called for a “world without the United States.” There is no misinterpretation of that. You are here voicing support for a person that calls for the elimination of both Israel and the United States, who engages in sponsored terrorism, not against military targets, but civilians, and are justifying it though left wing pro-Arab propaganda.
Lastly, I am not the one trying to change the world and do not post here with any one position or an agenda. However, I do feel it is necessary to point out obvious lies and agendas which people like yourself are attempting to spread. What you fail to realize is that you have taken a position which is not supported by any fact and is refuted through the words and actions of those who’s cause you are trying to advance.
Hopefully those reading these posts can ascertain the truth, not because of what I say, but from the evidence that I am able to provide so that they can gain knowledge for themselves. By knowing the facts, people can make intelligent conclusions. In your case, emotional scare tactics might work on the weak minded, but for those who choose to dig past the rhetoric, the real picture will be revealed.
Reckless, I have provided you information from numerous sources, the last being from Al Jazeera. Do you know what Al Jazeera is? It is the most accessed Arab news source in the world. I did not lend my interpretation to what was said there, unlike you. I quoted it exactly as it appeared and listed my source, something that you apparently don’t feel a need to do to justify anything that you say. How can you continue to assert that Ahmadinejad didn’t say what numerous sources state that he said?
And, in his speech he didn’t call for the elimination of US Policy, he called for a “world without the United States.” There is no misinterpretation of that. You are here voicing support for a person that calls for the elimination of both Israel and the United States, who engages in sponsored terrorism, not against military targets, but civilians, and are justifying it though left wing pro-Arab propaganda.
Lastly, I am not the one trying to change the world and do not post here with any one position or an agenda. However, I do feel it is necessary to point out obvious lies and agendas which people like yourself are attempting to spread. What you fail to realize is that you have taken a position which is not supported by any fact and is refuted through the words and actions of those who’s cause you are trying to advance.
Hopefully those reading these posts can ascertain the truth, not because of what I say, but from the evidence that I am able to provide so that they can gain knowledge for themselves. By knowing the facts, people can make intelligent conclusions. In your case, emotional scare tactics might work on the weak minded, but for those who choose to dig past the rhetoric, the real picture will be revealed.
alpha6, I’m frustrated and puzzled. Can’t you see the difference between what Ahmedinejad said and what reporters said he said? Go back and look where the quote marks are placed. Also remember, in most cases the text of his speech is being translated from Farsi to either Arabic or English. That also leaves room for interpretation. Just because al Jazeera reported it doesn’t prove a thing. Al Jazeera has reporters that are Muslim Sunni, Muslim Shia, Christian and even Jewish. Everyone has an agenda. Al Jazeera is Arab, Iran is Persian.
Believe me, I care as much for the people of Israel as I do for those of Iran and Iraq. Iran is not going to attack Israel with nukes. They won’t for several reasons, one of which is illustrated here:
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0702111128162815.htm
‘Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani Sunday stressed that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have no place in his country’s national security doctrine. Larijani said: “Repeatedly and frankly we have announced that in Iran’s national security doctrine there is no room for atomic and chemical weapons as we consider them against Islamic laws. Iran’s Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) in this connection had issued a decree that mass destruction weapons are prohibited by the Muslim religion.” In addition, he said that Iran will not contemplate acquiring WMDS as it will trigger an atomic arm race in the region which will in turn endanger the peace and stability of the region and the world. Therefore we support the idea of a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction.” Larijani reiterated that all of Iran’s nuclear activities are transparent and within the framework of the NPT and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).’
alpha6, I’m frustrated and puzzled. Can’t you see the difference between what Ahmedinejad said and what reporters said he said? Go back and look where the quote marks are placed. Also remember, in most cases the text of his speech is being translated from Farsi to either Arabic or English. That also leaves room for interpretation. Just because al Jazeera reported it doesn’t prove a thing. Al Jazeera has reporters that are Muslim Sunni, Muslim Shia, Christian and even Jewish. Everyone has an agenda. Al Jazeera is Arab, Iran is Persian.
Believe me, I care as much for the people of Israel as I do for those of Iran and Iraq. Iran is not going to attack Israel with nukes. They won’t for several reasons, one of which is illustrated here:
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0702111128162815.htm
‘Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani Sunday stressed that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have no place in his country’s national security doctrine. Larijani said: “Repeatedly and frankly we have announced that in Iran’s national security doctrine there is no room for atomic and chemical weapons as we consider them against Islamic laws. Iran’s Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) in this connection had issued a decree that mass destruction weapons are prohibited by the Muslim religion.” In addition, he said that Iran will not contemplate acquiring WMDS as it will trigger an atomic arm race in the region which will in turn endanger the peace and stability of the region and the world. Therefore we support the idea of a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction.” Larijani reiterated that all of Iran’s nuclear activities are transparent and within the framework of the NPT and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).’
help. anyone? Ed, Mitch…Conman where are you. is it me or is it him?
help. anyone? Ed, Mitch…Conman where are you. is it me or is it him?
Hmmm…strange he wasn’t asked about this…
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.”…..”The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html
And the same guy you have quoted above has also said this – “Iran’s chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.
“We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change,”
“Iran has refused to comply with international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. It also has condemned as “Invalid” And “Illegal” a UN Security Council resolution passed last month…”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
Hmmm…strange he wasn’t asked about this…
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.”…..”The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html
And the same guy you have quoted above has also said this – “Iran’s chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.
“We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change,”
“Iran has refused to comply with international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. It also has condemned as “Invalid” And “Illegal” a UN Security Council resolution passed last month…”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
After countless declarations of peaceful intentions of nuclear plan, Iran’s chief nuclear envoy confirms fears by saying if county is threatened, situation may change.
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani (Same guy as Reckless referenced above) also said this.
“We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change”
Ironicly, Iran has refused to comply with international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. It also has condemned as “Invalid” And “Illegal” a UN Security Council resolution passed last month…
Oh yeah, sounds like they are working with the IAEA…
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
After countless declarations of peaceful intentions of nuclear plan, Iran’s chief nuclear envoy confirms fears by saying if county is threatened, situation may change.
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani (Same guy as Reckless referenced above) also said this.
“We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change”
Ironicly, Iran has refused to comply with international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. It also has condemned as “Invalid” And “Illegal” a UN Security Council resolution passed last month…
Oh yeah, sounds like they are working with the IAEA…
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
And in case you missed this…
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies….The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html
And in case you missed this…
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies….The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html
So here is where the action is…if you really want to call it that.
Its not you reckless!
As usual, you dazzle with brilliance! And you can guess how the rest of the quote would go.
Let me start with alpha’s #30 post above.
I can sum up his first point with one word. OIL!
As with point number two. MONEY!!
And yes, as far as solutions go for us in Iraq I have to agree that Edward has a pretty good grip on what best has a chance of helping everyone involved at this point.
Were we buffaloed and bamboozeled into Iraq in the first place? Some of us were alpha but not all.
Therefore, when you write… “I would invest heavily in HUMIT intelligence sources and target the terrorist through other means with reliable intelligence. You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how. By carefully culling out the leadership, you would gain much more then frontal attacks”. I couldn’t agree more. And that is exactally what I was calling for before our invasion as the solution to Saddam. Patience and…precision.
I don’t think that was what G.W. and the gang wanted though. As reckless pointed out so well in her post #32 the real reasons for this invasion are far more complex than the baffled by bullshit arguments of post #33 thru #38.
But back to alpha’s #30 post because it is so relevant when he writes…”Do I have the solutions to Iraq and terrorism? I have opinions, ideas, nothing more. Would I do things differently? Yes? Should we be there? Its to late for that, we are already there. Should we pull out and hope for world peace? It is a fools hope as long as there is evil that is willing to destroy everything not like them. Should we be the ones to address this problem? I am always reminded of past generations who’s children stood up and took action when their parents failed to. Either we pay the price, or it will be our children. Peace is nice, but it is only the time to prepare for the next war. And if we are successful in our current endeavors, I am reminded of what Bertold Brecht said:
Don’t yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again”.
I can make no greater argument for the need to EVOLVE!
And alpha, I don’t mean to cower in fear. I have had guns and knives pulled on me more than once and I even let myself get hit once just for principle but,..my body doesn’t let that happen any more. My breathing changes and I enter into a state of speed, strength and flexability that has gotten me here today, even though I could have died.
This is the way I see our security issue as a country too.
I am not going to go to your house to kill you but if you come to mine to kill me you better be ready to die yourself.
And now we get to 9/11!
Pay attention everyone, the veil that has been being lifted ever so slowly is beginning to reveal the wizzard behind the curtin. Look into this and you will really begin to see what brought about all this Babbel-on. Good nite!
So here is where the action is…if you really want to call it that.
Its not you reckless!
As usual, you dazzle with brilliance! And you can guess how the rest of the quote would go.
Let me start with alpha’s #30 post above.
I can sum up his first point with one word. OIL!
As with point number two. MONEY!!
And yes, as far as solutions go for us in Iraq I have to agree that Edward has a pretty good grip on what best has a chance of helping everyone involved at this point.
Were we buffaloed and bamboozeled into Iraq in the first place? Some of us were alpha but not all.
Therefore, when you write… “I would invest heavily in HUMIT intelligence sources and target the terrorist through other means with reliable intelligence. You would be amazed at how effective it would be to discourage your enemy if they were to awaken one morning and find the person they were sleeping next to dead with no clue as to who did it nor how. By carefully culling out the leadership, you would gain much more then frontal attacks”. I couldn’t agree more. And that is exactally what I was calling for before our invasion as the solution to Saddam. Patience and…precision.
I don’t think that was what G.W. and the gang wanted though. As reckless pointed out so well in her post #32 the real reasons for this invasion are far more complex than the baffled by bullshit arguments of post #33 thru #38.
But back to alpha’s #30 post because it is so relevant when he writes…”Do I have the solutions to Iraq and terrorism? I have opinions, ideas, nothing more. Would I do things differently? Yes? Should we be there? Its to late for that, we are already there. Should we pull out and hope for world peace? It is a fools hope as long as there is evil that is willing to destroy everything not like them. Should we be the ones to address this problem? I am always reminded of past generations who’s children stood up and took action when their parents failed to. Either we pay the price, or it will be our children. Peace is nice, but it is only the time to prepare for the next war. And if we are successful in our current endeavors, I am reminded of what Bertold Brecht said:
Don’t yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again”.
I can make no greater argument for the need to EVOLVE!
And alpha, I don’t mean to cower in fear. I have had guns and knives pulled on me more than once and I even let myself get hit once just for principle but,..my body doesn’t let that happen any more. My breathing changes and I enter into a state of speed, strength and flexability that has gotten me here today, even though I could have died.
This is the way I see our security issue as a country too.
I am not going to go to your house to kill you but if you come to mine to kill me you better be ready to die yourself.
And now we get to 9/11!
Pay attention everyone, the veil that has been being lifted ever so slowly is beginning to reveal the wizzard behind the curtin. Look into this and you will really begin to see what brought about all this Babbel-on. Good nite!
Thanks for the support Star Eagle, glad to have you on board. This has been an interesting dialogue thanks to all of the contributors, but mainly alpha6, whose opinions I may disagree with, but whose conviction and intellect I respect.
Now…alpha6 and I can each come up with sources that disprove the other’s premise. Both sides are valid. Maybe Ahmedinijad wants to wipe Israel off the map, maybe he doesn’t. So the question is, what if anything we should do about it. Some favor a pre-emptive strike to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and prevent the possibility that someday they might make a nuke, and someday they might attack Israel.
Putting all of the facts aside for a moment, let’s just look at the principle. Here’s a little story I made up to illustrate the argument;
You’ve parked in your neighbor’s space for the umpteenth time. He comes out and yells; “God dammit alpha6 I’m gonna kill you!” Fearing he means it, you blow up your neighbor’s apartment building, killing your neighbor along with twenty three innocent civilians. But the fire from the explosion spreads into the rest of the neighborhood. More people are killed, more property destroyed, and then…your own house catches on fire!
You see where this is going?
Thanks for the support Star Eagle, glad to have you on board. This has been an interesting dialogue thanks to all of the contributors, but mainly alpha6, whose opinions I may disagree with, but whose conviction and intellect I respect.
Now…alpha6 and I can each come up with sources that disprove the other’s premise. Both sides are valid. Maybe Ahmedinijad wants to wipe Israel off the map, maybe he doesn’t. So the question is, what if anything we should do about it. Some favor a pre-emptive strike to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and prevent the possibility that someday they might make a nuke, and someday they might attack Israel.
Putting all of the facts aside for a moment, let’s just look at the principle. Here’s a little story I made up to illustrate the argument;
You’ve parked in your neighbor’s space for the umpteenth time. He comes out and yells; “God dammit alpha6 I’m gonna kill you!” Fearing he means it, you blow up your neighbor’s apartment building, killing your neighbor along with twenty three innocent civilians. But the fire from the explosion spreads into the rest of the neighborhood. More people are killed, more property destroyed, and then…your own house catches on fire!
You see where this is going?
Exactly, you are saying this obviously overcrowded neighborhood needed cleaning up. Now a developer can come in and build a really nice area to proper fire codes.
Great idea Reckless!! Now if we can just get congress to go along with your plan, the middle east can be cleaned up and made nice for us all to enjoy.
Exactly, you are saying this obviously overcrowded neighborhood needed cleaning up. Now a developer can come in and build a really nice area to proper fire codes.
Great idea Reckless!! Now if we can just get congress to go along with your plan, the middle east can be cleaned up and made nice for us all to enjoy.
OK that’s one way to look at it. But if the “fire” that is started in the Middle East spreads to the US, there may not be anyone left to develop the nice “clean” neighborhood.
From your posts you seem to be exhibiting a double standard. It’s ok for the US and Israel to develop nukes in self-defense and to threaten, attack, and invade other countries, but it’s not ok for Iran (or Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or any other Muslim country) to do so. Interesting. You don’t appear to have any compassion at all for non Judeo-Christian societies.
Please explain the difference you see between “us” and “them” so I can better understand where you are coming from.
OK that’s one way to look at it. But if the “fire” that is started in the Middle East spreads to the US, there may not be anyone left to develop the nice “clean” neighborhood.
From your posts you seem to be exhibiting a double standard. It’s ok for the US and Israel to develop nukes in self-defense and to threaten, attack, and invade other countries, but it’s not ok for Iran (or Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or any other Muslim country) to do so. Interesting. You don’t appear to have any compassion at all for non Judeo-Christian societies.
Please explain the difference you see between “us” and “them” so I can better understand where you are coming from.
You mis-read me “G”. I have plenty of compassion for all people. What I have no compassion for are terrorists and the spreading of hate and destruction. For the last 30 years, the majority of terrorist attacks, have been carried out by Muslims. Of course there were the Red Army factions and IRA, but the vast majority have been by Muslims. Their Imans preach hated of the west and Israel and they are proud of their children when they strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in crowded market places. I do not see this in the western culture, so you can start there if you are looking for differences.
It may surprise you that I have several best friends that are Muslim. I have been in combat with Muslims who I depended on to watch my back and I would have given my own life in their defense if it was necessary. These type of people you develop bonds with that are stronger then family.
I do not say this in a mean way, but it would be very difficult for you to understand where I am coming from because you have not experienced what I have in life and anyway, I am not sure I could explain it. Its the same with you no doubt, your beliefs and perceptions are the product of your life experience. I could try and understand your positions, but not having your experiences to draw from, it would be difficult to truly appreciate your position.
I can tell you this though. I do not believe that there are good or evil societies, but I do believe there are good and evil men. It has always been this way, and always will. If you can learn to recognize the difference, then that is a good start.
“All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
You mis-read me “G”. I have plenty of compassion for all people. What I have no compassion for are terrorists and the spreading of hate and destruction. For the last 30 years, the majority of terrorist attacks, have been carried out by Muslims. Of course there were the Red Army factions and IRA, but the vast majority have been by Muslims. Their Imans preach hated of the west and Israel and they are proud of their children when they strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in crowded market places. I do not see this in the western culture, so you can start there if you are looking for differences.
It may surprise you that I have several best friends that are Muslim. I have been in combat with Muslims who I depended on to watch my back and I would have given my own life in their defense if it was necessary. These type of people you develop bonds with that are stronger then family.
I do not say this in a mean way, but it would be very difficult for you to understand where I am coming from because you have not experienced what I have in life and anyway, I am not sure I could explain it. Its the same with you no doubt, your beliefs and perceptions are the product of your life experience. I could try and understand your positions, but not having your experiences to draw from, it would be difficult to truly appreciate your position.
I can tell you this though. I do not believe that there are good or evil societies, but I do believe there are good and evil men. It has always been this way, and always will. If you can learn to recognize the difference, then that is a good start.
“All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Wow… What a thread. I just scanned these comments.
Now I’m going to sit down to a gourmet repast…
Cheers,
Wow… What a thread. I just scanned these comments.
Now I’m going to sit down to a gourmet repast…
Cheers,
Welcome Mitch, looking forward to your input.
Philosophy triumphs easily over past evils and future evils; but present evils triumph over it.
- Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Good post alpha6, you’re right, we probably come from very different backgrounds and experiences, but I appreciate what you’re saying. Being agnostic, I’m not sure what I believe about the nature of good and evil. Maybe an equal measure of both exists in all of us, and depending on our life experience, chemical balance, and innate tendencies, one or the other tends to dominate. I don’t know if there are actually evil people or just evil acts.
And there is the problem of each of our perception of what evil is. I’m sure we agree that the actions of Hitler were evil. The events of 9/11 certainly. But…is attacking countries that have not attacked us, evil? Is being responsible for the ruination of a country and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, evil? Is stealing land and evicting the people who have lived there for generations, evil? Is war profiteering, evil?
And my biggest question, which I’ve wondered about ever since 9/11; why do some (mostly Muslim) people believe the United States and Israel are evil? They would have to believe that pretty strongly in order to justify the horrible act of suicide missions. But most Americans would never agree that WE are evil. And most Palestinians don’t think Hamas is evil. So what’s up with that?
Forcible ways make not an end of evil, but leave hatred and malice behind them.
– Sir Thomas Browne
What I do know, is that when you slap the “evil” label on someone, it makes it easy to oppress, torture, kill and steal from them. And those acts are evil, so then…who is the evil one?
Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty. – Simone Weil
Welcome Mitch, looking forward to your input.
Philosophy triumphs easily over past evils and future evils; but present evils triumph over it.
- Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Good post alpha6, you’re right, we probably come from very different backgrounds and experiences, but I appreciate what you’re saying. Being agnostic, I’m not sure what I believe about the nature of good and evil. Maybe an equal measure of both exists in all of us, and depending on our life experience, chemical balance, and innate tendencies, one or the other tends to dominate. I don’t know if there are actually evil people or just evil acts.
And there is the problem of each of our perception of what evil is. I’m sure we agree that the actions of Hitler were evil. The events of 9/11 certainly. But…is attacking countries that have not attacked us, evil? Is being responsible for the ruination of a country and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, evil? Is stealing land and evicting the people who have lived there for generations, evil? Is war profiteering, evil?
And my biggest question, which I’ve wondered about ever since 9/11; why do some (mostly Muslim) people believe the United States and Israel are evil? They would have to believe that pretty strongly in order to justify the horrible act of suicide missions. But most Americans would never agree that WE are evil. And most Palestinians don’t think Hamas is evil. So what’s up with that?
Forcible ways make not an end of evil, but leave hatred and malice behind them.
– Sir Thomas Browne
What I do know, is that when you slap the “evil” label on someone, it makes it easy to oppress, torture, kill and steal from them. And those acts are evil, so then…who is the evil one?
Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty. – Simone Weil
reckless G wrote:
[I own a gun and if the US were to be attacked/invaded, I wouldn’t hesitate to take up arms in defense.]
In a letter to Osama bin Laden, Abu Mussab al Zarqawi wrote of Americans: “These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.”
When I was re-reading this thread, your sentence above flew in the face of al Zarqawi’s words.
That’s a start, even if al Zarwawi’s dead.
Cheers,
reckless G wrote:
[I own a gun and if the US were to be attacked/invaded, I wouldn’t hesitate to take up arms in defense.]
In a letter to Osama bin Laden, Abu Mussab al Zarqawi wrote of Americans: “These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.”
When I was re-reading this thread, your sentence above flew in the face of al Zarqawi’s words.
That’s a start, even if al Zarwawi’s dead.
Cheers,
Yes, I am perfectly willing to put my life on the line for my country, as I’m sure the majority of Americans would be if we were attacked or invaded. I guess the occupying army would then refer to us as “insurgents.” heh heh
Yes, I am perfectly willing to put my life on the line for my country, as I’m sure the majority of Americans would be if we were attacked or invaded. I guess the occupying army would then refer to us as “insurgents.” heh heh
You know, this brings up a good point regarding what’s going on in Iraq right now. In a hypothetical scenario where America is invaded and occupied by, say Iran…
1. Do you think we would produce militias and perhaps even suicide bombers that would attack our own countrymen who supported and aided the occupiers?
2. If your neighbor was co-operating with the Occupation Authority, would you try to stop him/her with force?
3. Would you kill another American in an effort to resist the occupation?
The answer to these questions might go a long way to understanding what is happening in Iraq.
You know, this brings up a good point regarding what’s going on in Iraq right now. In a hypothetical scenario where America is invaded and occupied by, say Iran…
1. Do you think we would produce militias and perhaps even suicide bombers that would attack our own countrymen who supported and aided the occupiers?
2. If your neighbor was co-operating with the Occupation Authority, would you try to stop him/her with force?
3. Would you kill another American in an effort to resist the occupation?
The answer to these questions might go a long way to understanding what is happening in Iraq.
In comment 42,
Alpha qoutes the following;
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies….The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
Please note the reference to the ultra conservative Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi. I bring this up because, I raised an issue about conservatives in human history. Here Alpha references this Mesbah-Yazdi as an ultra conservative. I sought to point out that Conservatives have contributed to history without contributing to the betterment of humanity. WWI pitted monarchies and empire against constitutional monarchies, parliamentary democracies and democratic republics — generally more conservative governments against generally more liberal governments. Replace empire and monarchies, with dictatorships in one form or another and you have the general difference between the Axis and Allies, in WWII. Throwing nationalism into the conservative dictatorship mix brings us the answer to the relative ease with which Hitler decided to abrogate the Non-Aggression pact with Stalin; not just the perceived weakness of the CCCP in the Finnish campaign. The Endless cheerleading of Germans gave Hitler the popular power to make the decision to send a very confident miltary machine to attack the USSR weak or not.
Conservativism plus nationalism, in differing nation states appears to me to be a combustable mix. Now we can inject the theological oxidizer, which may or may not completely replace nationalism, so those same individuals can feel as though “purification” of humanity is in order. What do you get; Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, Hezbollah, Al Qeada and myriad affiliated organizations and various copy cat cells.
Only Muslim??? Look at the Branch Davidians, Peoples Temple. Go back to 1608 and end with the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, and you get the Thirty Years War between “Christian” people.
Injecting the theological oxidizer into conservativism, gives us Falwell, Haggard, Swaggart, and the aforementioned Mesbah-Yazdi.
As an unabashed liberal, I would be incredibly foolish to think of my expansive toleration as making me immune from attack by such individuals. I do not support the American conservative position blended with Nationalism, that calls for blindly attacking anything Islamic or any Muslim. While liberals in the Islamic world have less in common with me than American conservative nationalists, it might actually be easier in general to engage in a dialogue to mitigate differences. I am not delusional when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road; there are creatures, within the species, that want me dead for the simple reason of nation of birth, just as there are those who want you dead for your morphology.
I would ask my fellow Americans who see themselves as conservatives to work toward the idea that they are living in a liberal country just as surely as Churchill lived in England and understood that, and vote for people who support reaching out to those around the world who are open to an amalgamation of what our winning ways have brought us and their own cultural heritage can do for them, taking humanity forward.
We have spent $500,000,000,000.oo on this war. I would think that this same commitment to abating global warming, education, universal healthcare, raising the age of social security, would have been far more effective in combatting terrorism, by simply not engaging with them. Honestly if this investment had gone into energy self sufficiency, we could tell the middle eastern theo-conservatives to take their oil grease their hindquarters and get a 4×4 kicked up their butts.
I have had a great correspondence with Mitch, that leads me to beleive there is hope, and that there is movement among those who are more conservative than I, to consider viable sustaining plans for this country and where do we want to go.
In comment 42,
Alpha qoutes the following;
“Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies….The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
Please note the reference to the ultra conservative Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi. I bring this up because, I raised an issue about conservatives in human history. Here Alpha references this Mesbah-Yazdi as an ultra conservative. I sought to point out that Conservatives have contributed to history without contributing to the betterment of humanity. WWI pitted monarchies and empire against constitutional monarchies, parliamentary democracies and democratic republics — generally more conservative governments against generally more liberal governments. Replace empire and monarchies, with dictatorships in one form or another and you have the general difference between the Axis and Allies, in WWII. Throwing nationalism into the conservative dictatorship mix brings us the answer to the relative ease with which Hitler decided to abrogate the Non-Aggression pact with Stalin; not just the perceived weakness of the CCCP in the Finnish campaign. The Endless cheerleading of Germans gave Hitler the popular power to make the decision to send a very confident miltary machine to attack the USSR weak or not.
Conservativism plus nationalism, in differing nation states appears to me to be a combustable mix. Now we can inject the theological oxidizer, which may or may not completely replace nationalism, so those same individuals can feel as though “purification” of humanity is in order. What do you get; Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, Hezbollah, Al Qeada and myriad affiliated organizations and various copy cat cells.
Only Muslim??? Look at the Branch Davidians, Peoples Temple. Go back to 1608 and end with the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, and you get the Thirty Years War between “Christian” people.
Injecting the theological oxidizer into conservativism, gives us Falwell, Haggard, Swaggart, and the aforementioned Mesbah-Yazdi.
As an unabashed liberal, I would be incredibly foolish to think of my expansive toleration as making me immune from attack by such individuals. I do not support the American conservative position blended with Nationalism, that calls for blindly attacking anything Islamic or any Muslim. While liberals in the Islamic world have less in common with me than American conservative nationalists, it might actually be easier in general to engage in a dialogue to mitigate differences. I am not delusional when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road; there are creatures, within the species, that want me dead for the simple reason of nation of birth, just as there are those who want you dead for your morphology.
I would ask my fellow Americans who see themselves as conservatives to work toward the idea that they are living in a liberal country just as surely as Churchill lived in England and understood that, and vote for people who support reaching out to those around the world who are open to an amalgamation of what our winning ways have brought us and their own cultural heritage can do for them, taking humanity forward.
We have spent $500,000,000,000.oo on this war. I would think that this same commitment to abating global warming, education, universal healthcare, raising the age of social security, would have been far more effective in combatting terrorism, by simply not engaging with them. Honestly if this investment had gone into energy self sufficiency, we could tell the middle eastern theo-conservatives to take their oil grease their hindquarters and get a 4×4 kicked up their butts.
I have had a great correspondence with Mitch, that leads me to beleive there is hope, and that there is movement among those who are more conservative than I, to consider viable sustaining plans for this country and where do we want to go.
Reckless G,
You have to crawl pretty far out on the branch of hypothesis to accept the idea that a country like Iran could invade and occupy the U.S. Yet, were it possible to militarily occupy the U.S., Iran is arguably one nation who would have a better-than-even chance at success. According to Wikipedia, Iran has the largest military in the world… (a more debatable position you’ll rarely see)
According to 2005 CIA estimates, Iran could martial a force of about 18,319,545 men and 17,541,037 women between the ages of 18 and 49. When you consider that during the Iran/Iraq war, Iran accepted boys as young as 9 into the military, let’s just round up to 50 million personnel.
Compare that to the U.S., which, according to this same source, could expect to martial a force of about 108 million men and women.
The point is, based on this unfavorable ratio, Iran would probably not be stupid enough to try to invade and occupy the U.S.
That said, there are ways to attack the U.S. that would be vastly more effective in neutralizing this country than military invasion and occupation. The known 9/11 targets were wholly symbolic, and as payload delivery systems, the airliners were crude. I will not elaborate other than to say if I can see these vulnerabilities, so can others. On that day, the least of our worries will be whether our neighbor is Republican, Democrat, sympathetic to the enemy or loyal to the U.S.
Think in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Those of us who own firearms will be using them to feed our families.
Cheers,
Reckless G,
You have to crawl pretty far out on the branch of hypothesis to accept the idea that a country like Iran could invade and occupy the U.S. Yet, were it possible to militarily occupy the U.S., Iran is arguably one nation who would have a better-than-even chance at success. According to Wikipedia, Iran has the largest military in the world… (a more debatable position you’ll rarely see)
According to 2005 CIA estimates, Iran could martial a force of about 18,319,545 men and 17,541,037 women between the ages of 18 and 49. When you consider that during the Iran/Iraq war, Iran accepted boys as young as 9 into the military, let’s just round up to 50 million personnel.
Compare that to the U.S., which, according to this same source, could expect to martial a force of about 108 million men and women.
The point is, based on this unfavorable ratio, Iran would probably not be stupid enough to try to invade and occupy the U.S.
That said, there are ways to attack the U.S. that would be vastly more effective in neutralizing this country than military invasion and occupation. The known 9/11 targets were wholly symbolic, and as payload delivery systems, the airliners were crude. I will not elaborate other than to say if I can see these vulnerabilities, so can others. On that day, the least of our worries will be whether our neighbor is Republican, Democrat, sympathetic to the enemy or loyal to the U.S.
Think in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Those of us who own firearms will be using them to feed our families.
Cheers,
This country is facing the ignorance of how wars are won, even though we have few defeats, until recent history; draw in Korea, loss in Viet Nam, retreat from Lebanon, a job half done in the Persian Gulf War (really just weapons testing, and of course get Neil Bush out of the newspapers), retreat from Somalia. The biggest question is; Does the public feel as though this operation is one of potentially desperate survival — is sovereignty threatened. If so the next question is; does the public believe that the military industrial complex is genuinely making an effort worthy enough to ensure national survival. If that is true, I would then ask; does the military believe they are in a situation where they truly believe failure is the end of the nation.
Quite honestly, I can’t imagine that any of these questions are going to get a majority yes. Do any of you think the answer is yes?? Sovereignty is not threatened, the military industrial complex doesn’t need to make the effort save sovereignty, and the military doesn’t think national survival hinges on their presence in Iraq.
When the oil embargo came to be, at the behest of our good friend the late Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi he of the resurrected Peacock throne (a CIA artifice), our country had a great chance, to shuck off the middle east, and some other national irritants, and go towards energy independence. Reagan, however ended the alternative energy tax deduction, where investments in alternatives to sucking up middle east oil on knee pads, could have lead to the USA having the technological high ground, in those alternatives. While national security, would have been a good reason to take the alternative energy course, it didn’t match the interests of the oil lobby. Now granted there are those who think the one tenth of one percent of planetary climatologists and the disciplines under that vast umbrella, who say there is no global warming will differ on this, but that same global warming is also a good reason for the alternative energy drive.
Back in January 2001, I began an around the clock effort to identify threats to this country, as well as “bad” world characters. I also remembered how US citizens were tested as pathogen vectors. I delved further ,and found information in studies, indicating the the use of anti-biotics, was causing the plasmid DNA of bacteria, to evolve new cell protein coats, to protect them from hostile environmental toxins, and how these plasmids are transferrable on an inter species basis, and further how it would be possible to create bacteria of exceptional virulence and with near absolute anti-biotic resistance. Do I think the purveyors of theological conservative dictatorship and their various minions would use these items if developed? Without reservation; Yes.
Conspicuous materialism may not be what motivates these individuals, and their sheeplike followers, lackeys and what have you. I believe technology can lead us and the rest of the world of nations away from these cretinous nefarious scoundrels. I also accept the broad concept of self determination of peoples, hence the tripartition of Iraq at this time, although right at the time of toppling of S. Hussein, I did not think that a good idea. I was hoping we were going to quickly marshall the effort to create a parliamentary government. That hope is dashed.
This is a war we are not going to “win” or even get “Peace with honor.” The stakes are not understood to be a question of national security and the goal is as well defined as a drop of water in the ocean. We need to get out, as much as possible, as fast as possible, leaving a skeleton to secure egress and get them out too. A timetable will, present to the Iraqis, a clearcut understanding, that it is their country and no longer our occupation, and they can do whatever they want. Hopefully, that will not include mass slaughter. As it stands now, we are likely to leave a situation where the Shi’a and Sunni will engage in something like the thirty years war and spread thoughout the Islamic world. That is likely to be our legacy, thanks to the worst foreign policy and the worst presidency, in the last 167 years of our nations history.
This country is facing the ignorance of how wars are won, even though we have few defeats, until recent history; draw in Korea, loss in Viet Nam, retreat from Lebanon, a job half done in the Persian Gulf War (really just weapons testing, and of course get Neil Bush out of the newspapers), retreat from Somalia. The biggest question is; Does the public feel as though this operation is one of potentially desperate survival — is sovereignty threatened. If so the next question is; does the public believe that the military industrial complex is genuinely making an effort worthy enough to ensure national survival. If that is true, I would then ask; does the military believe they are in a situation where they truly believe failure is the end of the nation.
Quite honestly, I can’t imagine that any of these questions are going to get a majority yes. Do any of you think the answer is yes?? Sovereignty is not threatened, the military industrial complex doesn’t need to make the effort save sovereignty, and the military doesn’t think national survival hinges on their presence in Iraq.
When the oil embargo came to be, at the behest of our good friend the late Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi he of the resurrected Peacock throne (a CIA artifice), our country had a great chance, to shuck off the middle east, and some other national irritants, and go towards energy independence. Reagan, however ended the alternative energy tax deduction, where investments in alternatives to sucking up middle east oil on knee pads, could have lead to the USA having the technological high ground, in those alternatives. While national security, would have been a good reason to take the alternative energy course, it didn’t match the interests of the oil lobby. Now granted there are those who think the one tenth of one percent of planetary climatologists and the disciplines under that vast umbrella, who say there is no global warming will differ on this, but that same global warming is also a good reason for the alternative energy drive.
Back in January 2001, I began an around the clock effort to identify threats to this country, as well as “bad” world characters. I also remembered how US citizens were tested as pathogen vectors. I delved further ,and found information in studies, indicating the the use of anti-biotics, was causing the plasmid DNA of bacteria, to evolve new cell protein coats, to protect them from hostile environmental toxins, and how these plasmids are transferrable on an inter species basis, and further how it would be possible to create bacteria of exceptional virulence and with near absolute anti-biotic resistance. Do I think the purveyors of theological conservative dictatorship and their various minions would use these items if developed? Without reservation; Yes.
Conspicuous materialism may not be what motivates these individuals, and their sheeplike followers, lackeys and what have you. I believe technology can lead us and the rest of the world of nations away from these cretinous nefarious scoundrels. I also accept the broad concept of self determination of peoples, hence the tripartition of Iraq at this time, although right at the time of toppling of S. Hussein, I did not think that a good idea. I was hoping we were going to quickly marshall the effort to create a parliamentary government. That hope is dashed.
This is a war we are not going to “win” or even get “Peace with honor.” The stakes are not understood to be a question of national security and the goal is as well defined as a drop of water in the ocean. We need to get out, as much as possible, as fast as possible, leaving a skeleton to secure egress and get them out too. A timetable will, present to the Iraqis, a clearcut understanding, that it is their country and no longer our occupation, and they can do whatever they want. Hopefully, that will not include mass slaughter. As it stands now, we are likely to leave a situation where the Shi’a and Sunni will engage in something like the thirty years war and spread thoughout the Islamic world. That is likely to be our legacy, thanks to the worst foreign policy and the worst presidency, in the last 167 years of our nations history.
What is winning? What is losing? What is the goal of war? Unlike alpha6 or Edward, who obviously believe war has some merit or altruistic purpose, I don’t believe that wars are fought to establish democracy or protect our freedom or even to free some other nation’s people. As evidenced by Troy’s list of war “failures,” the purpose is never to “win” anything but wealth and power. By that standard the US has won every war. Not the collective US of course, only those with connections to the military industrial complex have been winners.
Hasn’t anyone, besides me and perhaps Star Eagle considered the possibility that our military is being misused to fight wars that have nothing to do with American security or freedom? Who is benefiting from these military adventures? Not the American people. Not the Iraqi people, or the Afghanis. So who? Who benefits?
This country was never meant to have a standing army. The founding fathers intended the government to mobilize a military force only when necessary to protect the nation. Why? Because they knew the potential for abuse inherent in having an army at the disposal of the commander in chief. We can trace where it all went horribly wrong back to Eisenhower’s farewell speech, excerpted here;
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Prophetic!
It was fear that brought us to this woeful state. Fear of communism, fascism, the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians. Always a new threat, a new enemy on the horizon, ready to pounce, ready to attack, invade, take away our liberty. Because of fear the unholy alliance of military and corporate interests was born. And it is fear that is still being used to propel the ugly beast forward into foreign lands at the expense of our soldier’s lives and our national treasure. It is fear that keeps the citizenry from being “alert and knowledgable.”
It is not the fault of President Bush, nor the military industrial complex that we find ourselves embroiled in an unwinnable war. It is not the terrorists fault, or the fault of the so-called Islamo-fascist movement. It is our fault. Because we give in to fear.
Fear is truly our ONLY enemy.
What is winning? What is losing? What is the goal of war? Unlike alpha6 or Edward, who obviously believe war has some merit or altruistic purpose, I don’t believe that wars are fought to establish democracy or protect our freedom or even to free some other nation’s people. As evidenced by Troy’s list of war “failures,” the purpose is never to “win” anything but wealth and power. By that standard the US has won every war. Not the collective US of course, only those with connections to the military industrial complex have been winners.
Hasn’t anyone, besides me and perhaps Star Eagle considered the possibility that our military is being misused to fight wars that have nothing to do with American security or freedom? Who is benefiting from these military adventures? Not the American people. Not the Iraqi people, or the Afghanis. So who? Who benefits?
This country was never meant to have a standing army. The founding fathers intended the government to mobilize a military force only when necessary to protect the nation. Why? Because they knew the potential for abuse inherent in having an army at the disposal of the commander in chief. We can trace where it all went horribly wrong back to Eisenhower’s farewell speech, excerpted here;
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Prophetic!
It was fear that brought us to this woeful state. Fear of communism, fascism, the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians. Always a new threat, a new enemy on the horizon, ready to pounce, ready to attack, invade, take away our liberty. Because of fear the unholy alliance of military and corporate interests was born. And it is fear that is still being used to propel the ugly beast forward into foreign lands at the expense of our soldier’s lives and our national treasure. It is fear that keeps the citizenry from being “alert and knowledgable.”
It is not the fault of President Bush, nor the military industrial complex that we find ourselves embroiled in an unwinnable war. It is not the terrorists fault, or the fault of the so-called Islamo-fascist movement. It is our fault. Because we give in to fear.
Fear is truly our ONLY enemy.
I do not think we will be leaving Iraq anytime soon otherwise why would we be building the largest US Embassey (21 buildings on 104 acres with its own electricty generating plant, water system, septic system, etc.) in the world. Although it is currently too dangerous, eventually multinational and US oil companies will make lots of money from the provisions of the New Iraqi Oil Law. As in previous wars old men just do not like change and send young guys to die so they do not have to.
It does not sound like many of the people commenting have been to the Middle East. From my visit to Iran last year, I assure you Iran wants to talk with the US and in 2003 made an offer through the Swiss to do so. At other times the radical President of Iran has offered to meet and even debate Pres. Bush. He was not that well liked by the more educated and the Iranian elections at the end of last year showed his concervative agenda lost much of its popularity, because he had not improved the economy which is main area of responsibility. Alhpa 6′s quote by the conservative mullah was from 2/19/06 – dated.
The Iranians know increased trade and arrangements with multinational finacial institutions are needed for their stagnant economy (high unemployment and inflation). I could not charge anything so I arrived in Tehran with a stack of cash. They would not accept my checks or credit card – new bills in perfect shape are a must.
Even though there is no American Embassey (I was told it is now a police training facility.), there are numerous large Embassys in Tehran including a Vatican Embassy. I encourage anyone who has not visited this beautiful country to go. It is NOT dangerous. A number of young people came up to me and wanted to talk English and one group invited me to come visit them in their town. I encourage Michael to interview David Barsamian, Boulder author, who returned from Iran 2 days ago.
With respect to the Israel/Palestine discussion, I met many Palestinians in Syria and Jordan. Most said their parents were told in 1948, by British soldiers, to leave their homes and they could return in a few weeks. They have never been allowed to return. The return of millions of Palestinian refugees does not get much press, but UN resolution 242 of 1967 calls for a “just settlement of the refugee problem which Israel continues to ignore. I met human rights workers from various countries who said the way the Palestinians are treated, by the Israeli government, with the support of the US, is horrendous.
I do not think we will be leaving Iraq anytime soon otherwise why would we be building the largest US Embassey (21 buildings on 104 acres with its own electricty generating plant, water system, septic system, etc.) in the world. Although it is currently too dangerous, eventually multinational and US oil companies will make lots of money from the provisions of the New Iraqi Oil Law. As in previous wars old men just do not like change and send young guys to die so they do not have to.
It does not sound like many of the people commenting have been to the Middle East. From my visit to Iran last year, I assure you Iran wants to talk with the US and in 2003 made an offer through the Swiss to do so. At other times the radical President of Iran has offered to meet and even debate Pres. Bush. He was not that well liked by the more educated and the Iranian elections at the end of last year showed his concervative agenda lost much of its popularity, because he had not improved the economy which is main area of responsibility. Alhpa 6′s quote by the conservative mullah was from 2/19/06 – dated.
The Iranians know increased trade and arrangements with multinational finacial institutions are needed for their stagnant economy (high unemployment and inflation). I could not charge anything so I arrived in Tehran with a stack of cash. They would not accept my checks or credit card – new bills in perfect shape are a must.
Even though there is no American Embassey (I was told it is now a police training facility.), there are numerous large Embassys in Tehran including a Vatican Embassy. I encourage anyone who has not visited this beautiful country to go. It is NOT dangerous. A number of young people came up to me and wanted to talk English and one group invited me to come visit them in their town. I encourage Michael to interview David Barsamian, Boulder author, who returned from Iran 2 days ago.
With respect to the Israel/Palestine discussion, I met many Palestinians in Syria and Jordan. Most said their parents were told in 1948, by British soldiers, to leave their homes and they could return in a few weeks. They have never been allowed to return. The return of millions of Palestinian refugees does not get much press, but UN resolution 242 of 1967 calls for a “just settlement of the refugee problem which Israel continues to ignore. I met human rights workers from various countries who said the way the Palestinians are treated, by the Israeli government, with the support of the US, is horrendous.
[As in previous wars old men just do not like change and send young guys to die so they do not have to.]
That’s harsher than it is wrong, and it’s typical of the vitriol spewing from the left.
What Congress did today was perverse.
Cheers,
[As in previous wars old men just do not like change and send young guys to die so they do not have to.]
That’s harsher than it is wrong, and it’s typical of the vitriol spewing from the left.
What Congress did today was perverse.
Cheers,
Not only that, it is completely incorrect. If some of you bothered to study history, it would tell of a different story.
And, lets not forget that it was the Congress that authorized the “Use of military force in Iraq.” How convenient it is that the left forgets that THEY gave authorization to do so!!!
“Ending a somber debate that pushed past midnight, the Senate voted 77-23 for the resolution. The action came hours after the House gave its approval on a 296-133 vote.” This vote wasn’t even close!!!
“the resolution gives Bush the power to use any means he determines necessary and appropriate–including military force–to respond to the perceived threat posed by Iraq.”
Notice the wording…..there is no misinterpretations of it.
“In the Senate, key lawmakers who voted for the resolution included Majority Leader Tom Daschle, (D-S.D.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)”
Hey, wouldn’t know it from her flip-flopping now would you. And read the title of the resolution and the wording, there is no way you can misinterpret it. And don’t give me the “but he lied” crap, most of those who voted stated they did their own “independent study of the facts” before voting on this important resolution.
Talk about deceitful… but what else is new, I doubt that most of you have even read it or looked at what those who voted for the measure stated when center stage and they thought it was political advantages to vote for it. No, it is much easier to just go off what you are fed by the left wing media.
Mitch, well put!
Not only that, it is completely incorrect. If some of you bothered to study history, it would tell of a different story.
And, lets not forget that it was the Congress that authorized the “Use of military force in Iraq.” How convenient it is that the left forgets that THEY gave authorization to do so!!!
“Ending a somber debate that pushed past midnight, the Senate voted 77-23 for the resolution. The action came hours after the House gave its approval on a 296-133 vote.” This vote wasn’t even close!!!
“the resolution gives Bush the power to use any means he determines necessary and appropriate–including military force–to respond to the perceived threat posed by Iraq.”
Notice the wording…..there is no misinterpretations of it.
“In the Senate, key lawmakers who voted for the resolution included Majority Leader Tom Daschle, (D-S.D.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)”
Hey, wouldn’t know it from her flip-flopping now would you. And read the title of the resolution and the wording, there is no way you can misinterpret it. And don’t give me the “but he lied” crap, most of those who voted stated they did their own “independent study of the facts” before voting on this important resolution.
Talk about deceitful… but what else is new, I doubt that most of you have even read it or looked at what those who voted for the measure stated when center stage and they thought it was political advantages to vote for it. No, it is much easier to just go off what you are fed by the left wing media.
Mitch, well put!
You are indeed correct about the wimpy Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The “left” wing media, like the NY Times, was a cheer leader for the invasion. I and millions of people around the world knew Iraq was not a threat and protested. There was little US media coverage of our voices.
My reasoning was that for 12 years (1991-2003) the US and Britain bombed the north and south of Iraq without any major retaliation by Iraq. If they had WMDs, they would have used them as we attacked them. The US and UK without UN agreement designated the north and south of Iraq as no fly zones. I also listen to former Marine Intelligence officer and UN inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) Scott Ritter who said essentially there were no WMDs in Iraq. So the evidence was available to show Iraq was not a threat. The same is true now about Iran, it is not a threat. Ritter’s new book Target Iran is good as was as was Iraq Confidential.
You are indeed correct about the wimpy Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The “left” wing media, like the NY Times, was a cheer leader for the invasion. I and millions of people around the world knew Iraq was not a threat and protested. There was little US media coverage of our voices.
My reasoning was that for 12 years (1991-2003) the US and Britain bombed the north and south of Iraq without any major retaliation by Iraq. If they had WMDs, they would have used them as we attacked them. The US and UK without UN agreement designated the north and south of Iraq as no fly zones. I also listen to former Marine Intelligence officer and UN inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) Scott Ritter who said essentially there were no WMDs in Iraq. So the evidence was available to show Iraq was not a threat. The same is true now about Iran, it is not a threat. Ritter’s new book Target Iran is good as was as was Iraq Confidential.
What Congress did was perverse?! Speaking out against a policy of greed, unfounded aggression and sucking this nation dry to fill the coffers of corporate pigs is perverse? NO! Abandoning UN inspections and diplomacy in favor of tearing asunder a nation of 21 million people, for no goddamn good reason is perverse! Oh, so sorry for the vitriol fellas. I guess “being lied into” attacking Iraq and soon Iran isn’t something I should get angry about. Yeh, up yours.
You guys need to get some perspective. War is an asinine concept that only adds to the suffering on this planet. It should never be a solution. In fact it never is a solution. It hasn’t solved one single human problem on this planet ever!
I can’t even believe people like Clean and myself have to argue the merits of diplomacy, compassion, and the freedom to speak out against our government. It should be a given. The fact that we are being attacked for criticizing the policies of our government, when over 70% of Americans AGREE WITH US is just beyond belief.
I thought America was the home of the free and the brave. Clean and I are free and brave enough to speak out against something we know to be wrong. We care enough about America to want to change a policy that is damaging our nation and killing our troops.
Alpha, Mitch, what’s your excuse?
What Congress did was perverse?! Speaking out against a policy of greed, unfounded aggression and sucking this nation dry to fill the coffers of corporate pigs is perverse? NO! Abandoning UN inspections and diplomacy in favor of tearing asunder a nation of 21 million people, for no goddamn good reason is perverse! Oh, so sorry for the vitriol fellas. I guess “being lied into” attacking Iraq and soon Iran isn’t something I should get angry about. Yeh, up yours.
You guys need to get some perspective. War is an asinine concept that only adds to the suffering on this planet. It should never be a solution. In fact it never is a solution. It hasn’t solved one single human problem on this planet ever!
I can’t even believe people like Clean and myself have to argue the merits of diplomacy, compassion, and the freedom to speak out against our government. It should be a given. The fact that we are being attacked for criticizing the policies of our government, when over 70% of Americans AGREE WITH US is just beyond belief.
I thought America was the home of the free and the brave. Clean and I are free and brave enough to speak out against something we know to be wrong. We care enough about America to want to change a policy that is damaging our nation and killing our troops.
Alpha, Mitch, what’s your excuse?
[Yeh, up yours]
Nice.
I get your intent.
You ask me to give you an excuse, as though I am some sort of war apologist.
For the record, I hate war. Always have. Always will.
If a radical Islamist attacks you, or worse, your spouse and children, what will you do differently than you did on 9/11?
Let me put it to you another way. When you find yourself dressed in blaze-orange jump suit with your hands bound behind your back, and you notice that the floor you’re seated on is lined with visquene…
At that moment, give your captors that daisy you’re holding and see if it makes a difference.
What Congress, and you, fail to do is to understand the nature of this enemy.
Cheers,
[Yeh, up yours]
Nice.
I get your intent.
You ask me to give you an excuse, as though I am some sort of war apologist.
For the record, I hate war. Always have. Always will.
If a radical Islamist attacks you, or worse, your spouse and children, what will you do differently than you did on 9/11?
Let me put it to you another way. When you find yourself dressed in blaze-orange jump suit with your hands bound behind your back, and you notice that the floor you’re seated on is lined with visquene…
At that moment, give your captors that daisy you’re holding and see if it makes a difference.
What Congress, and you, fail to do is to understand the nature of this enemy.
Cheers,
Greetings,
Edward, reckless G and now clean,you three are forward looking Patriots.I honor your strength, dignity and courage in this debate with the truly old guard mentality that still lives (and clings) in the past.
Mitch and alpha6, all the intellect in the world won’t help you now because the tide has turned and “the times… they are a changing”… again, and now, you (two) too are going to be very angry, for awhile at least, no, perhaps forever, because you seem unable to “get it”.
Listen, I don’t have time to take prisoners and I have paid my dues so here it is. I cut my teeth chewing up this “argument” back in the Vietnam days and it really hasn’t changed much since then to be honest.
That is why I keep saying you have got to quit the “divide and conquer” mentality and see what is really happening. And then you have to really do something about it.
I agree the “wimpy Democrats” are no good but then…the weasel**** Repulicans are no better.
GET OVER IT….DAMNIT!!!
Lets grow up and move on. THINK!
Anybody can bitch…and bitch…and bitch!
Here is one little example of what I am talking about. I have been thinking a bit lately about Africa. So last nite we go to “Blood Diamonds”. First of all, I know, its only a movie but…it helped me see that what I have been thinking about could maybe work there.
And what have I been thinking, remember the good old days of Colonialism? Well, we kind of do it again, only this time a little different. True, were going to have to kick a little ass, especially in some of the badder places (like clean up the weapons problem, yeah, the weapons we supply them), but then we really do go in with economic aid, and we help these countries develop “green” (settle down now) and sustainable economies.
We help them like they were “family”. Kind of a cross between Tough Love and the Peacecorps, with some Wall Street thrown in.
But first we have got to clean our own house, and its not going to get done with us pissing all over each other (and ourselves) with these labels (you know the ones), blaming each other for “losing”! Or…”not winning”.
It boils down to MONEY, and OIL!!! And a system of POWER that I doubt any of us (through the looking glass) experiece daily (if ever) on a personal level. So don’t kid yourselves into thinking, that in this present system (Democrats–Republicans), any side you choose is going to make a real difference.
We don’t have much time left if we don’t change the system and until I hear some real efforts at solutions, all your bitchin is just that…BITCHIN!
Mitch and alpha6, you guys are very intellignt but this isn’t rocket science and its really not about who’s ideology is right and who’s is wrong because the fact is that “elephants and asses are conning the masses”.
Greetings,
Edward, reckless G and now clean,you three are forward looking Patriots.I honor your strength, dignity and courage in this debate with the truly old guard mentality that still lives (and clings) in the past.
Mitch and alpha6, all the intellect in the world won’t help you now because the tide has turned and “the times… they are a changing”… again, and now, you (two) too are going to be very angry, for awhile at least, no, perhaps forever, because you seem unable to “get it”.
Listen, I don’t have time to take prisoners and I have paid my dues so here it is. I cut my teeth chewing up this “argument” back in the Vietnam days and it really hasn’t changed much since then to be honest.
That is why I keep saying you have got to quit the “divide and conquer” mentality and see what is really happening. And then you have to really do something about it.
I agree the “wimpy Democrats” are no good but then…the weasel**** Repulicans are no better.
GET OVER IT….DAMNIT!!!
Lets grow up and move on. THINK!
Anybody can bitch…and bitch…and bitch!
Here is one little example of what I am talking about. I have been thinking a bit lately about Africa. So last nite we go to “Blood Diamonds”. First of all, I know, its only a movie but…it helped me see that what I have been thinking about could maybe work there.
And what have I been thinking, remember the good old days of Colonialism? Well, we kind of do it again, only this time a little different. True, were going to have to kick a little ass, especially in some of the badder places (like clean up the weapons problem, yeah, the weapons we supply them), but then we really do go in with economic aid, and we help these countries develop “green” (settle down now) and sustainable economies.
We help them like they were “family”. Kind of a cross between Tough Love and the Peacecorps, with some Wall Street thrown in.
But first we have got to clean our own house, and its not going to get done with us pissing all over each other (and ourselves) with these labels (you know the ones), blaming each other for “losing”! Or…”not winning”.
It boils down to MONEY, and OIL!!! And a system of POWER that I doubt any of us (through the looking glass) experiece daily (if ever) on a personal level. So don’t kid yourselves into thinking, that in this present system (Democrats–Republicans), any side you choose is going to make a real difference.
We don’t have much time left if we don’t change the system and until I hear some real efforts at solutions, all your bitchin is just that…BITCHIN!
Mitch and alpha6, you guys are very intellignt but this isn’t rocket science and its really not about who’s ideology is right and who’s is wrong because the fact is that “elephants and asses are conning the masses”.
OK sorry about the rant and the “up yours.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I value all of yours. After five years of fighting the direction our country is going and being put down for it, I guess I’m just really frustrated and tired.
Star Eagle, wish we could do more than just bitch. Wish we could think our way out of this, but short of impeachment, I don’t see any options. And I don’t see humans evolving fast enough to avoid another catastrophic world war.
Mitch, I am not afraid of “radical Islamists” attacking me. I’m more worried about our president taking us into a conflict with Iran. If we are afraid of the terrorists then they’ve won. They’ve terrorized us. That is the nature of the enemy. Well, I refuse to be terrorized. I refuse to compromise my principles because a few thugs attacked us on 9/11.
Alpha6, you have a warrior’s perspective and I respect your willingness to put your life on the line for your beliefs, but I think this “war on terrorism” is a made up excuse to establish dominance in the Middle East and gain control of the world’s last remaining oil supply. Maybe that’s ok with you, worth fighting and dying for. My dad was a warrior too, and his reply to me when I asked what he thought of that possibility was: “So? We need that oil.” I hate the idea, but love the honesty.
I guess part of my frustration is that no one will talk about the real reasons we are there. If we as a nation reach a consensus that the oil is worth fighting for, then so be it. But we can’t even discuss it because the whole thing has been disguised by this false premise that we are fighting terrorism. We’re not. We’re just creating more. We’re just giving the “Islamo fascists” more reason to enact another 9/11.
The wolf of total nuclear annihilation is at the door. Meanwhile we little piggies fight amongst ourselves about the color of the wolf’s fur.
OK sorry about the rant and the “up yours.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I value all of yours. After five years of fighting the direction our country is going and being put down for it, I guess I’m just really frustrated and tired.
Star Eagle, wish we could do more than just bitch. Wish we could think our way out of this, but short of impeachment, I don’t see any options. And I don’t see humans evolving fast enough to avoid another catastrophic world war.
Mitch, I am not afraid of “radical Islamists” attacking me. I’m more worried about our president taking us into a conflict with Iran. If we are afraid of the terrorists then they’ve won. They’ve terrorized us. That is the nature of the enemy. Well, I refuse to be terrorized. I refuse to compromise my principles because a few thugs attacked us on 9/11.
Alpha6, you have a warrior’s perspective and I respect your willingness to put your life on the line for your beliefs, but I think this “war on terrorism” is a made up excuse to establish dominance in the Middle East and gain control of the world’s last remaining oil supply. Maybe that’s ok with you, worth fighting and dying for. My dad was a warrior too, and his reply to me when I asked what he thought of that possibility was: “So? We need that oil.” I hate the idea, but love the honesty.
I guess part of my frustration is that no one will talk about the real reasons we are there. If we as a nation reach a consensus that the oil is worth fighting for, then so be it. But we can’t even discuss it because the whole thing has been disguised by this false premise that we are fighting terrorism. We’re not. We’re just creating more. We’re just giving the “Islamo fascists” more reason to enact another 9/11.
The wolf of total nuclear annihilation is at the door. Meanwhile we little piggies fight amongst ourselves about the color of the wolf’s fur.
With respect to radical Islamist, one has to look at what motivates them and why they target Americans versus not the Swiss, ect. before we can defeat them. Thus, one has to look at our Foreign Policy, our overthrow of regimes, US troops in over 100 countries, our foreign aid with Israel being the largest recipient, etc. Some intersting books on the subject are: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins and “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq” by Stephen Kinzer.
Two or three years ago a NY Times journalist interviewed the wives of Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan who said the reason for their existance was they see Americans as killing Muslims and taking their land and supporting those who (Israel) do.
I have looked in the eyes of three Iraqi former prisoners of Abu Ghraib who had been arrested in 2003 by US forces and tortured over six months. We were invited to the home of the Sunni Sheik and offered refeshments. These men were working on helping end the violence in their country.
For Eagle County residence, who want to express their opinions to Rep. Mark Udall, he is having a community meeting in Edwards at 5 PM on Thursday, 2/22,-see his Web site for details.
With respect to radical Islamist, one has to look at what motivates them and why they target Americans versus not the Swiss, ect. before we can defeat them. Thus, one has to look at our Foreign Policy, our overthrow of regimes, US troops in over 100 countries, our foreign aid with Israel being the largest recipient, etc. Some intersting books on the subject are: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins and “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq” by Stephen Kinzer.
Two or three years ago a NY Times journalist interviewed the wives of Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan who said the reason for their existance was they see Americans as killing Muslims and taking their land and supporting those who (Israel) do.
I have looked in the eyes of three Iraqi former prisoners of Abu Ghraib who had been arrested in 2003 by US forces and tortured over six months. We were invited to the home of the Sunni Sheik and offered refeshments. These men were working on helping end the violence in their country.
For Eagle County residence, who want to express their opinions to Rep. Mark Udall, he is having a community meeting in Edwards at 5 PM on Thursday, 2/22,-see his Web site for details.
Reckless, I am not sure we have time to evolve out of this either, but some of us have to try anyway. All I know is that this is essentialy the same dogfight we had over Vietnam and all it did was tear this country apart socially and FINANCIALLY, in ways we have yet to recover from.
As far as Impeachment goes, yes that is very possible at this time. Not because of the war as such, but because of the deciet and cover-ups involved in its excecution.
I watched however in 1974 when we felled the lying decieving “King” of that day and age, Tricky Dick. The problem then was that the opposition basically were stomping their feet and saying No..No..No..but had no real plan beyond the new laws that came with the new wave of mostly Democratic legislators swept into office by the Watergate scandal.
The two-party system remained firmly in place after and in fact was touted as proof that the system worked.
Well, yes and no. For one, without a vibrant press there is no way that the political process would have worked in and of itself.
And even then, for some of us, it was quite obvious before the 1972 election (similar to the recent 2004 election) that the Republican Party’s electoral machine of the day was steamrolling over another war hero, Lt. George McGovern–35 combat missions flown (30 as lead pilot–chronicled in the book “The Wild Blue” by Stephen E. Ambrose) in a B-24 over Europe in WW2, and who had in fact, actually voted against the war.
The winning Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, was a Navy reserve officer who served in the supply corps in the South Pacific and of course was the sitting President and Commander-in -Chief of our military forces in Vietnam at the time.
Similar, but if anything even worse with the additional “fortunate son” status G.W. brought to the table in 2004.
In those days the vitriolic V.P. Spiro Agnew went down first, as well may happen this time with our present vitriolic V.P. and his crumbling legal standing.
There is no real shortage of smoking guns out there with a sitting “opposition” Congress to carry out their vendetta against this President.
Where I am going with this is that these times are in fact spookily familiar with the early-mid 1970′s. Right down to the Cheney-Rumsfeld re-appearance as main players again 30 years on. Boo!
At that time we were preparing for our 1976 Bi-Centenial in honor of our Revolutiion of 1776 and thinking we had won the second Revolution we were ready to celebrate.
But the fact of the matter is that we fumbled the ball because we let up (pardoned Nixon for one) and I watched as this country basically went into a free-fall of disco, cocaine and hot sex (at least it wasn’t a total waste).
That is why I am so adamant this time about having solutions and changing the system. But alas, every time I bring up SOLUTIONS all I get is SILENCE.
So reckless, clean and you too Edward…keep the faith. I like your spirits…and your brains.
Reckless, I am not sure we have time to evolve out of this either, but some of us have to try anyway. All I know is that this is essentialy the same dogfight we had over Vietnam and all it did was tear this country apart socially and FINANCIALLY, in ways we have yet to recover from.
As far as Impeachment goes, yes that is very possible at this time. Not because of the war as such, but because of the deciet and cover-ups involved in its excecution.
I watched however in 1974 when we felled the lying decieving “King” of that day and age, Tricky Dick. The problem then was that the opposition basically were stomping their feet and saying No..No..No..but had no real plan beyond the new laws that came with the new wave of mostly Democratic legislators swept into office by the Watergate scandal.
The two-party system remained firmly in place after and in fact was touted as proof that the system worked.
Well, yes and no. For one, without a vibrant press there is no way that the political process would have worked in and of itself.
And even then, for some of us, it was quite obvious before the 1972 election (similar to the recent 2004 election) that the Republican Party’s electoral machine of the day was steamrolling over another war hero, Lt. George McGovern–35 combat missions flown (30 as lead pilot–chronicled in the book “The Wild Blue” by Stephen E. Ambrose) in a B-24 over Europe in WW2, and who had in fact, actually voted against the war.
The winning Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, was a Navy reserve officer who served in the supply corps in the South Pacific and of course was the sitting President and Commander-in -Chief of our military forces in Vietnam at the time.
Similar, but if anything even worse with the additional “fortunate son” status G.W. brought to the table in 2004.
In those days the vitriolic V.P. Spiro Agnew went down first, as well may happen this time with our present vitriolic V.P. and his crumbling legal standing.
There is no real shortage of smoking guns out there with a sitting “opposition” Congress to carry out their vendetta against this President.
Where I am going with this is that these times are in fact spookily familiar with the early-mid 1970′s. Right down to the Cheney-Rumsfeld re-appearance as main players again 30 years on. Boo!
At that time we were preparing for our 1976 Bi-Centenial in honor of our Revolutiion of 1776 and thinking we had won the second Revolution we were ready to celebrate.
But the fact of the matter is that we fumbled the ball because we let up (pardoned Nixon for one) and I watched as this country basically went into a free-fall of disco, cocaine and hot sex (at least it wasn’t a total waste).
That is why I am so adamant this time about having solutions and changing the system. But alas, every time I bring up SOLUTIONS all I get is SILENCE.
So reckless, clean and you too Edward…keep the faith. I like your spirits…and your brains.
“I have looked in the eyes of three Iraqi former prisoners of Abu Ghraib who had been arrested in 2003 by US forces and tortured over six months. We were invited to the home of the Sunni Sheik and offered refreshments. These men were working on helping end the violence in their country.”
Did you bother to visit any of the families of the over 200,000 Kurds that were gassed or executed by Saddam in 1998 alone?
“The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed. Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists told The Associated Press during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations. ”
Have you bothered to visit the houses of any of the families of those who family members are still rotting in mass graves?
These Afgan women that you talked to must not have lived in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule. If so they would have told you that under their rule;
They are not allowed to leave their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative (called a mahram) such as a father, brother or husband.
Even in their own homes, they are not allowed to appear on a balcony, and the Taliban has made the painting of all windows compulsory so that women cannot be seen from outside their homes.
They are forbidden from laughing or talking loudly enough that a stranger can hear their voice. They are prohibited from wearing shoes that make noise as they walk, as a man must never hear a woman’s footsteps.
Women are forbidden to sing, participate in sports, ride bicycles or motorcycles, or drive automobiles. And they are not allowed to attend public gatherings of any kind.
Women and girls are prohibited from going to school, and any attempt to educate females has been banned by the Taliban.
Except for a handful of female nurses and doctors that are allowed to work in some hospitals in the capital city of Kabul, women are forbidden to work outside the home.
Women are not allowed to be treated by male doctors or even dentists. And since there are so few female medical personnel in Afghanistan (and no new ones being trained), it means that most Afghan women are deprived of any professional medical care whatsoever.
And that is just a short list.
I don’t know what women you talked to, but obviously it wasn’t anyone who lived as a virtual prisoner under Taliban rule.
Your attempt to “personalize” this to convince others of your misguided agenda by what you wrote above with no regard to history or the horrors that existed is pathetic.
If you are against the war and want to speak out, that’s fine, but to attempt to humanize what these people have done to their populations is disgusting and indicative of a self-serving personal agenda.
“I have looked in the eyes of three Iraqi former prisoners of Abu Ghraib who had been arrested in 2003 by US forces and tortured over six months. We were invited to the home of the Sunni Sheik and offered refreshments. These men were working on helping end the violence in their country.”
Did you bother to visit any of the families of the over 200,000 Kurds that were gassed or executed by Saddam in 1998 alone?
“The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed. Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists told The Associated Press during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations. ”
Have you bothered to visit the houses of any of the families of those who family members are still rotting in mass graves?
These Afgan women that you talked to must not have lived in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule. If so they would have told you that under their rule;
They are not allowed to leave their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative (called a mahram) such as a father, brother or husband.
Even in their own homes, they are not allowed to appear on a balcony, and the Taliban has made the painting of all windows compulsory so that women cannot be seen from outside their homes.
They are forbidden from laughing or talking loudly enough that a stranger can hear their voice. They are prohibited from wearing shoes that make noise as they walk, as a man must never hear a woman’s footsteps.
Women are forbidden to sing, participate in sports, ride bicycles or motorcycles, or drive automobiles. And they are not allowed to attend public gatherings of any kind.
Women and girls are prohibited from going to school, and any attempt to educate females has been banned by the Taliban.
Except for a handful of female nurses and doctors that are allowed to work in some hospitals in the capital city of Kabul, women are forbidden to work outside the home.
Women are not allowed to be treated by male doctors or even dentists. And since there are so few female medical personnel in Afghanistan (and no new ones being trained), it means that most Afghan women are deprived of any professional medical care whatsoever.
And that is just a short list.
I don’t know what women you talked to, but obviously it wasn’t anyone who lived as a virtual prisoner under Taliban rule.
Your attempt to “personalize” this to convince others of your misguided agenda by what you wrote above with no regard to history or the horrors that existed is pathetic.
If you are against the war and want to speak out, that’s fine, but to attempt to humanize what these people have done to their populations is disgusting and indicative of a self-serving personal agenda.
So what? It’s their culture, let them live how they want, or change it if they don’t like it. Why do hawks always throw this crap in our faces whenever we attempt to show the human side of conflict or illicit some compassion? The difference between what Saddam or the Taliban did to people and what the US is doing to people is that WE are doing it! We’re supposed to be better than the tyrants and fascists. You can’t excuse our bad behavior by saying “Well they did it first!” That’s a playground mentality. As Star Eagle says; grow UP!
The US is not the world’s moral authority, far from it. We’re not the police or the playground supervisor. We didn’t go in to Afghanistan because the Taliban were oppressing women. We didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam killed the Kurds. We’re in both countries for three reasons, which NOBODY can dispute…To secure the region’s resources for the US. To feed the military industrial complex. To surround Iran and make it easier for the US to attack
There are no altruistic reasons for war. War ALWAYS causes more suffering than it alleviates. War does not end conflict, it breeds more. Those who decry the cruelties of tyrants but excuse the cruelty of war are nothing but hypocrites.
So what? It’s their culture, let them live how they want, or change it if they don’t like it. Why do hawks always throw this crap in our faces whenever we attempt to show the human side of conflict or illicit some compassion? The difference between what Saddam or the Taliban did to people and what the US is doing to people is that WE are doing it! We’re supposed to be better than the tyrants and fascists. You can’t excuse our bad behavior by saying “Well they did it first!” That’s a playground mentality. As Star Eagle says; grow UP!
The US is not the world’s moral authority, far from it. We’re not the police or the playground supervisor. We didn’t go in to Afghanistan because the Taliban were oppressing women. We didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam killed the Kurds. We’re in both countries for three reasons, which NOBODY can dispute…To secure the region’s resources for the US. To feed the military industrial complex. To surround Iran and make it easier for the US to attack
There are no altruistic reasons for war. War ALWAYS causes more suffering than it alleviates. War does not end conflict, it breeds more. Those who decry the cruelties of tyrants but excuse the cruelty of war are nothing but hypocrites.
Easy Reckless, I was only pointing out the other side of what Clean brought up. Your rapid decent to name calling is becoming more frequent and does nothing for the discussion.
I can dispute two of the three reasons you listed that NOBODY can dispute. But why go into a discussion with someone who enters it with such totalitarian language that it does not give room for discussion.
By your increasingly abusive language towards those who do not share your view, I can only conclude that you no longer wish to discuss any of this, but would rather just have some cheerleading squad agree with you.
At this point, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to linger here just to be slighted and insulted. That you were never looking for anything other then to justify your own beliefs is now apparent. Have fun with your same thinking friends. I am now moving on.
Easy Reckless, I was only pointing out the other side of what Clean brought up. Your rapid decent to name calling is becoming more frequent and does nothing for the discussion.
I can dispute two of the three reasons you listed that NOBODY can dispute. But why go into a discussion with someone who enters it with such totalitarian language that it does not give room for discussion.
By your increasingly abusive language towards those who do not share your view, I can only conclude that you no longer wish to discuss any of this, but would rather just have some cheerleading squad agree with you.
At this point, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to linger here just to be slighted and insulted. That you were never looking for anything other then to justify your own beliefs is now apparent. Have fun with your same thinking friends. I am now moving on.
Not so fast alpha6! How do I know you’re not just leaving because you think you’re losing the argument? After all, you and others have harshly criticized my viewpoint and other’s who support it, but when I show some passion about the issue, you walk away? The name calling is happening on both sides of this argument. Witness your comment to Clean:
“If you are against the war and want to speak out, that’s fine, but to attempt to humanize what these people have done to their populations is disgusting and indicative of a self-serving personal agenda.”
I’m not looking to justify my own beliefs. I don’t have to look any further than the polls that show 70% of Americans agree with me. I enjoy having a discussion with those whose perspectives are different than mine because it gives me greater insight as to how we got here and where we can go from here. The fact that we can say how we really feel and what we think without constraint is part of the appeal. Without you, this just wouldn’t be any fun. If it’s true that you feel insulted, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were so thin skinned.
What I really wanted to do was discuss why and how the US got into Iraq and how to prevent another fiasco with Iran. On that note, I too am leaving this blog…to start another.
See you on the flip side.
Not so fast alpha6! How do I know you’re not just leaving because you think you’re losing the argument? After all, you and others have harshly criticized my viewpoint and other’s who support it, but when I show some passion about the issue, you walk away? The name calling is happening on both sides of this argument. Witness your comment to Clean:
“If you are against the war and want to speak out, that’s fine, but to attempt to humanize what these people have done to their populations is disgusting and indicative of a self-serving personal agenda.”
I’m not looking to justify my own beliefs. I don’t have to look any further than the polls that show 70% of Americans agree with me. I enjoy having a discussion with those whose perspectives are different than mine because it gives me greater insight as to how we got here and where we can go from here. The fact that we can say how we really feel and what we think without constraint is part of the appeal. Without you, this just wouldn’t be any fun. If it’s true that you feel insulted, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were so thin skinned.
What I really wanted to do was discuss why and how the US got into Iraq and how to prevent another fiasco with Iran. On that note, I too am leaving this blog…to start another.
See you on the flip side.
alpha6 seems to have gotten some facts incorrect in that it has been widely reported that Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in the eighties, not 200,000.
I have never been to Afghanistan thus have not spoken to Afghan women, but spoke to many Iraqi women refugees who were living in Jordan and Syria to escape the violence in Iraq. All said human rights were worse now for women in Iraq under the US occupation versus under Saddam. Videos I took of some of these women speaking have been shown on Grassroots TV and Basalt Access Roaring Fork TV. Iraqis and NGOs told me it was too dangerous for an American to travel around Iraq.
Though I did meet one American women, in Jordan, who had gone to the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq to visit an Italian built hospital for victims of landmines. It does require hiring some security which can be expensive.
I am responsible for what I do and what my country does in my name, not what Saddam did. The British Journal Lancet estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the US led invasion. If I had the time, I could tell you horrible stories I heard from Iraqis refugees who fled the violence. Over 2 million of them have fled.
I went to the Middle East twice last year to get the scoop myself. Something I recommend.
alpha6 seems to have gotten some facts incorrect in that it has been widely reported that Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in the eighties, not 200,000.
I have never been to Afghanistan thus have not spoken to Afghan women, but spoke to many Iraqi women refugees who were living in Jordan and Syria to escape the violence in Iraq. All said human rights were worse now for women in Iraq under the US occupation versus under Saddam. Videos I took of some of these women speaking have been shown on Grassroots TV and Basalt Access Roaring Fork TV. Iraqis and NGOs told me it was too dangerous for an American to travel around Iraq.
Though I did meet one American women, in Jordan, who had gone to the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq to visit an Italian built hospital for victims of landmines. It does require hiring some security which can be expensive.
I am responsible for what I do and what my country does in my name, not what Saddam did. The British Journal Lancet estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the US led invasion. If I had the time, I could tell you horrible stories I heard from Iraqis refugees who fled the violence. Over 2 million of them have fled.
I went to the Middle East twice last year to get the scoop myself. Something I recommend.
War sucks and I am against it. A simple statement, but a blanket statement. Are there circumstances, under which I would take up arms? Well yes. If I truly believed that there were masses of people with the ability to control my life without my input, then yes. This means a threat to the quality of my existence and those whom I care about deeply. If I further felt that there were people that would have to have an interdependant relationship with me and their survival was intricately linked to mine, then I can see a shared responsibility for mutual survival.
From that perspective; I can’t imagine not participating in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII. Most battles are smaller though, someone wanting to kick your A, or even wanting to kill you — I have fought for my life and do understand what that means. In general, I do not want to bother with those looking for a fight. Many of you have had fights, even those of you who codemn war with blanket statements. But I am much closer to the peace makers, flower power and make love not war than the gratuitously indulgent violent types waiting for the chance to go after The Most Dangerous Game.
Some here label the killers “radical Islam,” Islamo-fascists,” and the like. Al Qeada and affiliated orgs are about as Islamic as the Branch Davidians are Christian. This is buying into the propaganda, by using the Military industrial’s assigned terminology.
All of those manipulating war lovers and desperate to get a kill in, us and whoever we have managed to figure a way to get into some conflict with, have cheerleaders. Rah Rah for death. Most of the apologists for wars are very sensitive cheerleaders.
There are other things to spend resources on — global warming comes to mind, universal health care, and education too.
War sucks and I am against it. A simple statement, but a blanket statement. Are there circumstances, under which I would take up arms? Well yes. If I truly believed that there were masses of people with the ability to control my life without my input, then yes. This means a threat to the quality of my existence and those whom I care about deeply. If I further felt that there were people that would have to have an interdependant relationship with me and their survival was intricately linked to mine, then I can see a shared responsibility for mutual survival.
From that perspective; I can’t imagine not participating in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII. Most battles are smaller though, someone wanting to kick your A, or even wanting to kill you — I have fought for my life and do understand what that means. In general, I do not want to bother with those looking for a fight. Many of you have had fights, even those of you who codemn war with blanket statements. But I am much closer to the peace makers, flower power and make love not war than the gratuitously indulgent violent types waiting for the chance to go after The Most Dangerous Game.
Some here label the killers “radical Islam,” Islamo-fascists,” and the like. Al Qeada and affiliated orgs are about as Islamic as the Branch Davidians are Christian. This is buying into the propaganda, by using the Military industrial’s assigned terminology.
All of those manipulating war lovers and desperate to get a kill in, us and whoever we have managed to figure a way to get into some conflict with, have cheerleaders. Rah Rah for death. Most of the apologists for wars are very sensitive cheerleaders.
There are other things to spend resources on — global warming comes to mind, universal health care, and education too.
So alpha6 is taking his ball and going home to play with himself and his like minded friends because the pot was calling the kettle black. Boo Hoo to the Bully-Boy!
Let him run and try and hide cause now I see reckless G has moved on to one of alpha’s main BITCHES, the news media. I can’t wait for this debate! Star Eagle
So alpha6 is taking his ball and going home to play with himself and his like minded friends because the pot was calling the kettle black. Boo Hoo to the Bully-Boy!
Let him run and try and hide cause now I see reckless G has moved on to one of alpha’s main BITCHES, the news media. I can’t wait for this debate! Star Eagle
And in todays news….
“Female Pakistani Minister Shot Dead for Refusing to Wear Veil”
“A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist was shot dead Tuesday by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.”
More good news for women around the world. Nice bunch of people you left wingers support. I bet she felt “safe” just walking around…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253125,00.html
Nice intellectual post there Star…keep up the good work.
And in todays news….
“Female Pakistani Minister Shot Dead for Refusing to Wear Veil”
“A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist was shot dead Tuesday by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.”
More good news for women around the world. Nice bunch of people you left wingers support. I bet she felt “safe” just walking around…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253125,00.html
Nice intellectual post there Star…keep up the good work.
Star Eagle wrote:
[…all the intellect in the world won't help you now because the tide has turned and "the times... they are a changing"... again, and now, you (two) too are going to be very angry, for awhile at least, no, perhaps forever, because you seem unable to "get it".]
Surely you aren’t suggesting argumentum ad populum should rule the day. I don’t give a crap whether my views are “popular,” which is good, for judging by the tenor of comments since I read here last Saturday night, you and others have disesteemed my views (and those similar) in an HST kind of way: “They don’t hardly make ‘em like him any more – but just to be on the safe side, he should be castrated anyway.”
I surely do disagree with you and those who, by your standard, “get it”—it being, of course, a “thing” that all boils down to “MONEY, and OIL!!! And a system of POWER that I doubt any of us (through the looking glass) experiece [sic] daily (if ever) on a personal level.”
For the record, I wouldn’t comment here if those of you who “get it” made me angry…
[A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist was shot dead Tuesday by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.]
Way to punctuate this thread, Alpha6. You put an uncomfortable twist on Groucho Marx’s quote:
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.”
If you liked the Taliban, you’ve got to love unsolicited honor killings of female political leaders…
Cheers,
Star Eagle wrote:
[…all the intellect in the world won't help you now because the tide has turned and "the times... they are a changing"... again, and now, you (two) too are going to be very angry, for awhile at least, no, perhaps forever, because you seem unable to "get it".]
Surely you aren’t suggesting argumentum ad populum should rule the day. I don’t give a crap whether my views are “popular,” which is good, for judging by the tenor of comments since I read here last Saturday night, you and others have disesteemed my views (and those similar) in an HST kind of way: “They don’t hardly make ‘em like him any more – but just to be on the safe side, he should be castrated anyway.”
I surely do disagree with you and those who, by your standard, “get it”—it being, of course, a “thing” that all boils down to “MONEY, and OIL!!! And a system of POWER that I doubt any of us (through the looking glass) experiece [sic] daily (if ever) on a personal level.”
For the record, I wouldn’t comment here if those of you who “get it” made me angry…
[A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist was shot dead Tuesday by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.]
Way to punctuate this thread, Alpha6. You put an uncomfortable twist on Groucho Marx’s quote:
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.”
If you liked the Taliban, you’ve got to love unsolicited honor killings of female political leaders…
Cheers,
Sue, I admire your spirit, your willingness to lay it out there… all in the name of what you believe is right. You are a true Beacon of Democracy, whether folks believe what you say or not.
Perhaps I’m of those multi-degreed folks who is a classic moderate, and proud to be so, one who is waiting for the perfect third party to sweep me up on their bandwagon and allow me the opportunity to lead them, an opportunity to represent grassroots America, the true voting America.
Keep ‘em coming. You are about 70% correct in your comments regarding Isreali policy and the U.S. backing thereunto. You ever been there? I have. — Jon
Sue, I admire your spirit, your willingness to lay it out there… all in the name of what you believe is right. You are a true Beacon of Democracy, whether folks believe what you say or not.
Perhaps I’m of those multi-degreed folks who is a classic moderate, and proud to be so, one who is waiting for the perfect third party to sweep me up on their bandwagon and allow me the opportunity to lead them, an opportunity to represent grassroots America, the true voting America.
Keep ‘em coming. You are about 70% correct in your comments regarding Isreali policy and the U.S. backing thereunto. You ever been there? I have. — Jon
Jon,
Thanks for the encouragement. While my views may seem extreme, it’s only because I am taking the counterpoint to those who say Israel is completely blameless and to say otherwise is anti-Semitic or hateful. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around and the Palestinian Authority should take its share.
[You are about 70% correct in your comments regarding Isreali policy and the U.S. backing thereunto.]
I’m interested in hearing which comments you put in the 30% incorrect category.
No I’ve not been there. I had planned to go last summer but plans got changed. I’d like to hear your impressions.
Jon,
Thanks for the encouragement. While my views may seem extreme, it’s only because I am taking the counterpoint to those who say Israel is completely blameless and to say otherwise is anti-Semitic or hateful. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around and the Palestinian Authority should take its share.
[You are about 70% correct in your comments regarding Isreali policy and the U.S. backing thereunto.]
I’m interested in hearing which comments you put in the 30% incorrect category.
No I’ve not been there. I had planned to go last summer but plans got changed. I’d like to hear your impressions.