PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Americanism


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
06-19-2004, 05:08 AM
Actually, I couldn't agree more. There's been some awful niavete in this thread and some serious factual misrepresentations on the part of the usual suspects.

This, and $3 will buy you a latte in any nearby Starbuck's. :p

Hogan
06-19-2004, 07:40 AM
Does it, John? What I've read, from many sources, consistently states that there was not a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The report if I understand things correctly also states that..


See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

enjoy....

Erik
06-19-2004, 09:23 AM
Your point doesn't contradict me, BTW: Hitler CONSIDERED dropping them, but he didn't, after all. Bush is doing a lot more than "considering."

Neil, I'm not going to stay long but you brought it up as an associative technique. I'm just pointing out that it was a very low tactic and your statements were factually inaccurate. And, associating Hitler with Bush is a new low by almost anyone's standards.

By the way, I figured you threw bricks through Starbucks windows, you aren't telling me that you shop there are you? How can you consider yourself a good Santa Cruzan? And, was that you with a car at the council meeting? :D

Neil Mick
06-19-2004, 02:02 PM
Neil, I'm not going to stay long but you brought it up as an associative technique. I'm just pointing out that it was a very low tactic and your statements were factually inaccurate. And, associating Hitler with Bush is a new low by almost anyone's standards.

Sorry, but one person CONSIDERING an action, no matter who he is, is FAR less along the lines, of someone actually consulting their lawyers, and juggling definitions around, to suit their anti-humanitarian agendas. The statement WAS accurate, but I only mentioned the H-word, in passing...please don't kill me. :P


By the way, I figured you threw bricks through Starbucks windows, you aren't telling me that you shop there are you? How can you consider yourself a good Santa Cruzan?

Yeah, but they keep replacing the damn windows!! And, no: I SWEAR it wasn't me holding the Starbuck's cup! HONEST!

And, was that you with a car at the council meeting? :D

Um, I gotta go: is that a familiar car-alarm I hear? I SWEAR, it's not mine: I was just sitting in it, to wait for a friend... yeah, um: that's it! :)

Neil Mick
06-21-2004, 11:53 AM
See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

enjoy....

Hate to burst your bubble, John: but this article doesn't show anything, about possible "collaboration" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. At best, it takes to task the 9-11 Commission's wording on their findings.

Recently, you hear a lot of spin on how the Commission SHOWS that Hussein and Al Qaeda had "contacts," based upon a few meetings and a phone call or two. In the end, Hussein and bin Ladin agreed not to kill each other...bin Ladin couldn't even get Hussein to agree to set up a training ground.

In comparison, we have Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand in 1983, setting up nuclear power plants and giving him shiploads of weapons and bacteriological agents. Who's the greater supporter of Iraqi dictators, now?

In short: a "few meetings" doesn't spell out a "collaboration," no matter how the Rightwing periodicals try to spin it.

Hogan
06-21-2004, 12:56 PM
Hate to burst your bubble, John: but this article doesn't show anything, about possible "collaboration" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. At best, it takes to task the 9-11 Commission's wording on their findings.

Recently, you hear a lot of spin on how the Commission SHOWS that Hussein and Al Qaeda had "contacts," based upon a few meetings and a phone call or two. In the end, Hussein and bin Ladin agreed not to kill each other...bin Ladin couldn't even get Hussein to agree to set up a training ground.

In comparison, we have Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand in 1983, setting up nuclear power plants and giving him shiploads of weapons and bacteriological agents. Who's the greater supporter of Iraqi dictators, now?

In short: a "few meetings" doesn't spell out a "collaboration," no matter how the Rightwing periodicals try to spin it.


OK, Neil, you win. You were always right. Damn it ! How I wish Saddam was still in power !

Neil Mick
06-21-2004, 07:11 PM
OK, Neil, you win. You were always right. Damn it ! How I wish Saddam was still in power!

Very funny, but you know something? I WISH I WERE wrong! I HATE this situation! I would just love it if we really went to Iraq to fight terror, that the Abu Ghraib pictures were just the result of a few bad-apples, that OBL really WAS in cahoots with Hussein to bring terror to the US.

I would just love to get out there with you, cheer and wave flags, as the militarist parades march by.

But, I think that even you see that all is not right, in Kansas (or, Iraq).

Over $100billion, to fight this war, and rising. (http://www.costofwar.com/) Every household in America, dropping a quarter into the Iraq-war meter machine, every 20 minutes! All to "liberate" Iraqi's, and "get rid of" Hussein! A war we will continue to fight, for many years' to come, with no clear victory, no exit-strategy.

John, come back in four years, and try to tell me that this war was worth it. And believe me: I will lay ODDS down on the bet that we will still be there, at that time.

Kerry isn't planning to leave anytime soon! :disgust:

Sorry if I sound emotional: I just got back from seeing the movie "Control Room," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4971287) which documented the Al Jazeera perspective of the Iraqi invasion back in March, 2003. This war was just so...stupid, in all senses of the word. :disgust:

Neil Mick
06-23-2004, 03:35 PM
But, John: I am really curious. I am listening to a radio host reading over the latest releases about the authorization of torture, by the President. This sort of stuff turns my craw. How do you do it? How do you keep on cheering and intending to vote for someone who says that torture is OK?

AFAIC, torture is about as far removed from American values, as you can get. So, whta's YOUR rationale for all these new changes? That "we're in a war, so it's all justified?" That "we're dealing with terrorists, so killing one person to save two," is justifiable? :(

rendshakir
07-21-2004, 04:56 PM
I am from Iraq - and have lost a number of relatives over the last few wars as well as under Saddam. To put it into context despite these deaths, despite the terrorism, power outages and sad losses of life, Iraq has become finally bearable for many Iraqis. Not so under Saddam - 35 years, over 2 million Iraqis slaughtered - over 500,000 bodies in mass graves, and actions that make AG prison look like a benevelont charity. Thank you - for giving me the possibility of a future Iraq where children can be brought up in dignity and security. My dear friends, if you knew what life was like under Saddam, if you had some insight into the genocide and fear, I do not think you would speak so strongly against the war. I never thought I could speak of a war that has killed my own family as a good war, but in this case I can. My heart goes out to all soldiers that have lost their lives - all I can say is their actions have changed my future, and those of thousands of people for the better, they have saved many thousands of lives, and their sacrifice has not been in vain.

JoHo
07-22-2004, 01:46 AM
Dear All
we too here in Austria just look for the "bad" stuff only.
i salute to all the service man, woman who makes a lot of (self) sacrifice for a better world.
i found this
O`Sensei said
Be grateful even for hardship, setbacks, and bad people. Dealing with such obstacles is an essential part of training in Aikido. (true for our daily life!)
the other one is from Mr.Shaw
this is the true joy in life .. being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as amighty one .. being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy .. I´m of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as i live it is my privilege to do fot it whatever i can.
For the harder i work the more i live.
Life is no brief candle to me. It´s a sort of splendid torch which i´ve got to hold up for the moment and i want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.

Our noble dream , peace for all humankind
regards
Horst

John Boswell
07-22-2004, 08:51 AM
I am listening to a radio host reading over the latest releases about the authorization of torture, by the President.

Who said it?
What is their source?

You know me, Neil. I don't believe it for one second. A) What "President" (pick one) in his right mind is going to "authorize torture"... and in an election year??? B) What President in his right mind is gonna let that get out in the public?

If Bush is so dang covert and secretive and has hidden prisons around the world and all the other mumbo jumbo that CNN is spouting off.... then how the heck did it get found out to the point of being talked about on INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION???

Walk a mile in the man's shoes, Mick. For crying out loud...

Dyusan
07-23-2004, 07:05 AM
:D Hi John,
There is only one way to resolve the problems. Don't spend any money in the places that cause problems. no foreign aid, no loans, no military help,and no tourist dollars. If we are so bad then no money, no help of any kind. It may be a cruel way of looking at things but we have helped pull these people out of the fire only to have them play with matches again. Defend our borders and when the rest of the world attacks show no mercy and give no quarter. Harmony will then be restored.

vanstretch
07-23-2004, 09:58 AM
Neil thats the luxury you have living in the USA. Leftwing namby-pamby crybabys like yourself have rights too. And guys like me fight for them. Oh, hold on, I'm heatin' up the milk for your bottle.

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 03:36 PM
I am from Iraq - and have lost a number of relatives over the last few wars as well as under Saddam. To put it into context despite these deaths, despite the terrorism, power outages and sad losses of life, Iraq has become finally bearable for many Iraqis. Not so under Saddam - 35 years, over 2 million Iraqis slaughtered - over 500,000 bodies in mass graves, and actions that make AG prison look like a benevelont charity. Thank you - for giving me the possibility of a future Iraq where children can be brought up in dignity and security. My dear friends, if you knew what life was like under Saddam, if you had some insight into the genocide and fear, I do not think you would speak so strongly against the war. I never thought I could speak of a war that has killed my own family as a good war, but in this case I can. My heart goes out to all soldiers that have lost their lives - all I can say is their actions have changed my future, and those of thousands of people for the better, they have saved many thousands of lives, and their sacrifice has not been in vain.

With respect to your heritage, and your losses in your family: you might be FROM Iraq, but you are not IN Iraq. Just going by what you wrote, you have not heard some of the atrocities going on, in Fallujah...even now.

And, what makes you think that Iraq will not get a new "Hussein," now that Iraq has a US-selected gov't? Oh yes, now that Hussein is gone, Iraq will "ring with freedom."

And, bridges are now for sale in the Sahara, courtesy of US land-grants...cheap!

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 04:00 PM
Who said it?
What is their source?

You know me, Neil. I don't believe it for one second.

Exactly. If it doesn't fit your mindset: it's got to be a falsification. Generally, John- your MO is to cut and run, at the first siting of a source. Bust since you asked, I'll dig a few sources up in a bit, that you can dutifully pooh-pooh, as Leftist propaganda.

A) What "President" (pick one) in his right mind is going to "authorize torture"... and in an election year??? B) What President in his right mind is gonna let that get out in the public?

Believe it or not: we DON'T yet live in a totalitarian society...yet. The President can't control everything printed in the media...even tho they, and he...would like that.

If Bush is so dang covert and secretive and has hidden prisons around the world and all the other mumbo jumbo that CNN is spouting off.... then how the heck did it get found out to the point of being talked about on INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION???

Some secrets are too big to hush up.

Walk a mile in the man's shoes, Mick. For crying out loud...

OK, here I am walking in the President's shoes, regarding Iraq. Let's see: HOURS after the 9-11 attacks, who am I blaming? That's right: Saddam, in spite of a dearth of evidence. During the 9-11 attacks, what was I doing? Reading "My Pet Goat," going on for SEVEN MINUTES after I was officially notified of the attack. If I were a Democrat, John: would you be so charitable of my record?

In the run-up to the war, who am I giving the contracts to, sole-source? That's right, all of my bud's (and daddie's stocks) in Haliburton, and KBR.

In my VP's Energy Task Force, what map of what country was on the wall? That's right....got it in one>>Iraq.

What segment of the population am I attempting to cut benefits, pay increases, etc? That's right, the veterans you so loudly claim to worry about.

Whose VP--TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ALL past Administrations--paid nearly DAILY visits to the CIA to massage the intel to conform with the "invade Iraq" line...?

When I (as Bush) lied (yes, LIED) more than 200x about Iraq's wmd's, how am I just "doing a tough job," again? Especially when I campaigned as a "peace President," a "uniter, not a divider;" but now...when it suits me...I'm a "war President," and I blockaded and stalled the 9-11 Commission as best as I could, refusing to release many of the important docs?

When I illegally invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council (and yes, we DO need their consent to carry out their mandates), did I remember to bring along needed supplies? Did I coordinate with nonprofits to ensure a smooth coordination of resources? Have I instigated a coherent investigation into alleged systemic abuses for detainee's, to back up my words that I care about the "liberty and freedom" (http://www.bushflash.com/quicktime/hypo.mov) for all people's? Have I done everything in my power to ensure that Iraqi's have security, clean water, electricity, hospital supplies?

Have I done anything other than prance around in uniforms for photo-op's?

Sure, you'll call all this partisan polemic: but it is all true, and I can document all of it. The way I see it, BushCo is going away from this with a lot of filthy lucre, a lot of poor Americans will die, and a lot of Iraqi's will also die, lose limbs, homes and family. For what? So we could "get" Hussein, Iraq can become the next Vietnam, and we could "get" a military base in the MidEast...ALWAYS a sure bet to bring peace, to a war-torn world....seems to work every time. :disgust: :uch:

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 04:06 PM
Neil thats the luxury you have living in the USA. Leftwing namby-pamby crybabys like yourself have rights too. And guys like me fight for them. Oh, hold on, I'm heatin' up the milk for your bottle.

Typical macho name-calling. I for one am unimpressed.

Do you have anything else substantive to offer, or is it simply knee-jerk name-calling with you? :rolleyes:

"Leftwing crybaby's" like me ARE fighting for our rights, too. Haven't you heard? There's a new law out: it's called the "Patriot Act." Perhaps you've heard of it? Mayhap, a trip to the library is in store for the van-ster. :P

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 04:19 PM
:D Hi John,
There is only one way to resolve the problems. Don't spend any money in the places that cause problems. no foreign aid, no loans, no military help,and no tourist dollars. If we are so bad then no money, no help of any kind. It may be a cruel way of looking at things but we have helped pull these people out of the fire only to have them play with matches again. Defend our borders and when the rest of the world attacks show no mercy and give no quarter. Harmony will then be restored.

No, it won't. And, I find it a scream that ppl suggest that "they" are playing with "matches again."

Who helped install Hussein? (hint: begins with a "C"...ends in an "A"...)

Who helped train OBL? (hint: see above)

Call me a "crybaby Liberal (nee the vanmeister)" if you like, but it seems to me that if "they" ARE playing with matches: perhaps "we" should stop handing out match-boxes and providing them with all the training (a la School of the Americas, etc). But, there's too much of the baby going out with that bathwater to take on a policy of total isolationism. How does that jive with NAFTA, and other globalist organizations?

Short answer: it doesn't, and the US is in too deep now to cede its superpower role, to become an isolationist island. Like it or not: we are in, and of, the world.

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 04:46 PM
You quote: __________________
Current Civilian Casualties, in Iraq
MIN: 9148 MAX: 11005
I quote:--------------------------------------
IRAQI CIVILIAN CASUALTIES UNDER SADDAM OVER AV. 12 MONTHS
MIN: 37,000 MAX 59,685
HUGE casualties have been known to us Iraqis for over 3 decades under Saddam - so if you MUST quote the figure of those the US-led war has killed, surely it gives a very misleading picture not to quote the number killed under Saddam. The reality of the situation is that those marching against the war were marching for the perpetuation of massive killing of Iraqis, yet they use these figures to justfy their arguments - I find such argumentation bizarre - america produced a cure for the worst cancer to blight iraq - saddam - the war produced a cure to the cancer that in the very first year will have saved many thousands of people from being slain by Saddam. Shocking - but true. Just a thought when you quote figures like that - relatives are saying all over Iraq, "we lost so and so" but for most their only comfort is to see a future iraq free from the horror and misery of saddam. Think twice, please before you deny them this comfort...
As for : "THE PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT IRAQ" - if he did and it saved the perpetuation of massive murder on the scale of millions, I for one would say it was a white lie.
As for the free media - you're quoting 34 is hilarious. Thousands of media covered Iraq over war time - if the same number of media had gone in under saddam, how many do you think would have come out alive.
Just a few thoughts from an Iraqi perspective!!

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 09:13 PM
With respect to your heritage, and your losses in your family: you might be FROM Iraq, but you are not IN Iraq. Just going by what you wrote, you have not heard some of the atrocities going on, in Fallujah...even now.

No I'm not in iraq currently, and neither are you I gather, but I have been there and much of my close family - including my father - are there now - I have a very good idea what's going on, and I'd certainly not defend all of it - nor do I think it is a rosy picture by any means - but I'm quite serious when I say it was definitely worth it - saddam did make Abu G look quite benevolent - seriously.

And, what makes you think that Iraq will not get a new "Hussein," now that Iraq has a US-selected gov't? Oh yes, now that Hussein is gone, Iraq will "ring with freedom."

Like I said it's not a rosy picture by any means - but I think you fail to appreciate - just how difficult a task it would be to replace saddam with something worse - I cannot think of anyone or anything that is worse and I am sure you would agree if you had lived any part of your life under that regime. Hitler was not replaced by someone worse in Germany, it's really not a formality when you're talking about evil like that.

And, bridges are now for sale in the Sahara, courtesy of US land-grants...cheap!

I don't doubt that oil was a consideration in the invasion - but that does not make the invasion and displacement of saddam wrong - you see - imagine a drowning man, and there's someone ashore who can help him - the Iraqi is the drowning man and the american is on the shore. He reaches out his hand to save the Iraqi. Now the Iraqi knows that the american is only interested in his wallet - what does he do, refuse the hand? No - he takes it, and worries about his wallet later when he's safely on the ground. And is the american wrong in extending his hand and saving the Iraqi? His intentions (of stealing the wallet) may be wrong, but that does not make his action of saving the Iraqi wrong.Does it? Better let the Iraqi drown?

I respectfully suggest that you consider revising your strongly held views - I don't see any Iraqi's here agreeing with you, that the invasion was unfortunate or saying that they would "be better off under saddam." Iraq may not be perfect yet but it sure as hell has a better chance!

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 09:45 PM
You quote: __________________
Current Civilian Casualties, in Iraq
MIN: 9148 MAX: 11005
I quote:--------------------------------------
IRAQI CIVILIAN CASUALTIES UNDER SADDAM OVER AV. 12 MONTHS
MIN: 37,000 MAX 59,685
HUGE casualties have been known to us Iraqis for over 3 decades under Saddam - so if you MUST quote the figure of those the US-led war has killed, surely it gives a very misleading picture not to quote the number killed under Saddam.

No, it does not. The murders committed under Saddam's regime, as tragic as they are, are in need of investigating, right now...not in need of a military occupation (I cannot think of many things, solved by military occupation, except for maybe an ongoing genocide, and Darfur is the only place I know of, fitting that description. Certainly, Baghdad was not.

The numbers I quote are the direct result of an illegal occupation.

The reality of the situation is that those marching against the war were marching for the perpetuation of massive killing of Iraqis,

With respect: garbage. The murder of Iraqi's during Hussein demanded international outcry and action, not unilateral US intervention. But, we got neither, for 13 years, except 500,000 children dead from the US-instigated Sanctions (since you like numbers). Those deaths were preventable and sorry: NOT solely blame-able on Hussein. When the Iraqi ppl were suffering, Hussein was not the one denying them agricultural equipment, yogurt-making machines, and surplus electrical power-plant parts.

yet they use these figures to justfy their arguments - I find such argumentation bizarre - america produced a cure for the worst cancer to blight iraq - saddam -

(psst: that the US helped to install, and the US encouraged an 8-year war, with Iran...the Iranian's are STILL pretty peeved at that one, BTW...yes, Hussein was largely at fault there. But, shouldn't some of the responsibility for giving Hussein aid and weapons (even, the beginnings of his much touted bacteriological and chemical weaponry) be laid at the feet of the US?)

Look, I'll put it to you plainly: Sure, Hussein is an evil man who it is lucky for all that he's gone. But, not one word of your "viewpoint from an Iraqi" says much about the poor treatment of Iraq in the hands of the US occupation. Mighty suspicious, if you ask me...

the war produced a cure to the cancer that in the very first year will have saved many thousands of people from being slain by Saddam. Shocking - but true. Just a thought when you quote figures like that - relatives are saying all over Iraq, "we lost so and so" but for most their only comfort is to see a future iraq free from the horror and misery of saddam. Think twice, please before you deny them this comfort...
As for : "THE PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT IRAQ" - if he did and it saved the perpetuation of massive murder on the scale of millions, I for one would say it was a white lie.

Sorry, but Hussein was not in the process of "mass-murdering" ppl, when we invaded. You sure you're an Iraqi? Besides, you know as well as I that Bush didn't invade because of human rights. If so, then why aren't the troops rushing out to Darfur? Why the sudden concern for Iraqi's?

As for the free media - you're quoting 34 is hilarious. Thousands of media covered Iraq over war time - if the same number of media had gone in under saddam, how many do you think would have come out alive.

Gosh, I had no idea that we were in a "race to the bottom" with Hussein! :D I can imagine using this nonlogic at a murder-trial:

"Gee, your honor--I only killed 60 ppl, and that's NOTHING compared to Hussein's record!" :D

Some of those media were intentionally fired upon, some of them were detained and tortured. I don't WANT to have to compare my country on a yardstick with Hussein on it, thank you very much!

Just a few thoughts from an Iraqi perspective!!

No...since we're being particular, here: "just a few thoughts from an Iraqi expatriate perspective! I think if you were living in Iraq now: you'd feel differently. But then again: maybe not.

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 10:03 PM
I don't doubt that oil was a consideration in the invasion - but that does not make the invasion and displacement of saddam wrong - you see - imagine a drowning man, and there's someone ashore who can help him - the Iraqi is the drowning man and the american is on the shore. He reaches out his hand to save the Iraqi. Now the Iraqi knows that the american is only interested in his wallet - what does he do, refuse the hand? No - he takes it, and worries about his wallet later when he's safely on the ground. And is the american wrong in extending his hand and saving the Iraqi? His intentions (of stealing the wallet) may be wrong, but that does not make his action of saving the Iraqi wrong.Does it? Better let the Iraqi drown?

Oh, please: what if the man offering a hand were an organ-hunter, interested in selling your body on the black market? Now THAT's an appropriate metaphor for the current situation! So, which is it: take your chances with the sea, or take your chances overpowering your "savior?"

It is beyond naive to suggest that the US is occupying Iraq solely for their benefit. Perhaps you also believe that the Iraqi's are "not yet ready" to govern themselves? :hypno: If this is your belief, trust me: we'll be saying this to ourselves for a LONG time--"Iraqi's are not ready to govern themselves." History bears me out on this.

I respectfully suggest that you consider revising your strongly held views - I don't see any Iraqi's here agreeing with you,

Lol, too funny. How many Iraqi Aikidoists who read internet posts do you know, exactly? Truly, if you ARE an Iraqi Aikidoist (and I am still keeping an open mind), you're the first. But, I have corresponded, and spoken, with many Aikidoists from other countries in the MidEast, and I find my opinions not at odds with the majority of them...or, even here in the States, for that matter.

that the invasion was unfortunate or saying that they would "be better off under saddam."

I never said they'd "be better off, under Saddam." That would be dishornoring the memory of the victims of Hussein.

Iraq may not be perfect yet but it sure as hell has a better chance!

Than what? Than self-governance? Than anarchy? Than oil magnates running the show?

Stop it, OK? Stop pretending that everything's hunky-dory over there. The mainstream media isn't covering the worst of the atrocities, because they aren't seeing it, being embedded and all.

Sure, it's not as "bad as Hussein" at the height of his atrocities, but be realistic. I don't want my country to be on any yardstick with Hussein on it.

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 10:05 PM
Yes - I am most definitely a genuine Iraqi - and no you're not speaking very respectfully ... calling it "suspicious" !!! - of all the ridiculous things - my family - and I, have suffered greatly under saddam, and beyond - but we all supported the invasion and continue to support it. Incidentally, please consider that a lot of Iraqi expatriates have suffered greatly - losses of relatives in Iraq, persistant worry and fear of what would happen to their loved ones if they were heard to say one word out of place, even in a foreign country. Noone spoke, and for the time I've been away from Iraq it has been because entering the country would have instantly resulted in my execution - and if you think it's Ok and easy when you can't see your grandparents or brothers again because the borders close after you leave and a maniac is running your country - I can tell you it's not. Now that I finally have a voice I will use it to say very loudly - Thank you America.

I'm sorry, but I do speak from an Iraqi perspective, I will not rise to criticism of my being an "expatriate" - either to confirm or contradict whether this gives me the right to hold opinions - I feel I have experienced enough suffering within my family to perfectly justify my having an opinion whether or not I lived in Iraq all my personal life. As I said, half my family, including my father are there now, and we keep in touch on a regular basis - and we share exactly the same view on the US-led invasion. Thank you.

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 10:23 PM
Who said it?
What is their source?

...

Ask, and ye shall receive. And please: look CAREFULLY at the sources.

The Torture Memos: Putting the President Above the Law (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2004-06-15.htm)

Most breathtaking is the claim made on pp. 20-21 of a leaked, 56-page section of a March 6, 2003, draft "Working Group Report" prepared for Rumsfeld by Pentagon lawyers and others:

"In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, ... the prohibition against torture [in the 1994 criminal statute] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

Law Bypassed to Justify Torture (http://www.eagleherald.com/ohen0621.asp)

"Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his directions couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department."

Letter from Amnesty Int'l (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa01282003.html)

(this one, from a news-source that SUPPORTED the invasions)

Torture Policy (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Opinion&OID=53631) (ABS-CBN op-ed response to Rumsfeld)

What might lead us to describe Mr. Rumsfeld or some other “senior civilian or military official” as “ordering or authorizing or permitting” torture or violation of international treaties and U.S. law? We could start with Mr. Rumsfeld’s own admission during the same news conference that he had personally approved the detention of several prisoners in Iraq without registering them with the International Committee of the Red Cross. This creation of “ghost prisoners” was described by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, as “deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine and in violation of international law.” Failure to promptly register detainees with the Red Cross is an unambiguous breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Mr. Rumsfeld said that he approved such action on several occasions, at the request of another senior official, CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rums­ feld’s December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, “fear of dogs” and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture.

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 10:24 PM
Unfortunately Saddam was our yardstick and it is difficult to see beyond that in the immediate aftermath. I'm glad you appreciate sensitivity to the victims of saddam.

I know a lot of people from the middleast and US will agree with you - but you all have one thing in common in that you never had to live under saddam.

I am glad you are raising the yardstick for Iraq - I would like to see it raised as well and I am sure that your heart is in the right place and you are doing very valuable work - for my part it could simply be a "victim" reaction in that while I do try to encourage such campaigns as Jubilee Iraq, and have campaigned myself on a number of areas (eg CASI, and women's rights) - it's still relatively hard for anything to much taper the overwhelming sense of relief - and frankly with that - gratefulness to see an end to the saddam dynasty in my lifetime - and to feel that I finally have a voice, which as you can see I am using quite boldly. It may be easier for someone not as emotionally involved, and so I commend you and your work in raising the yardstick - I just cannot get much beyond relief for now, perhaps I am still in shock but life under saddam was really no life at all...

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 10:34 PM
Yes - I am most definitely a genuine Iraqi - and no you're not speaking very respectfully ... calling it "suspicious" !!! - of all the ridiculous things - my family - and I, have suffered greatly under saddam, and beyond - but we all supported the invasion and continue to support it. Incidentally, please consider that a lot of Iraqi expatriates have suffered greatly - losses of relatives in Iraq, persistant worry and fear of what would happen to their loved ones if they were heard to say one word out of place, even in a foreign country. Noone spoke, and for the time I've been away from Iraq it has been because entering the country would have instantly resulted in my execution - and if you think it's Ok and easy when you can't see your grandparents or brothers again because the borders close after you leave and a maniac is running your country - I can tell you it's not. Now that I finally have a voice I will use it to say very loudly - Thank you America.

The internet is a tricky thing, anyone can log on and pretend to be anyone they please. Just a few months ago: a fellow posted, saying that he was a guard in Abu Ghraib. Is he really? I (and Jaime McGrath, a former poster with opposite views to me) gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Which is exactly what I give to you. I assume that you are, as you say. But, I always keep a sliver of doubt...it would be foolish to do otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I do speak from an Iraqi perspective, I will not rise to criticism of my being an "expatriate"

I wasn't being "critical:" I was pointing out the differences.

- either to confirm or contradict whether this gives me the right to hold opinions - I feel I have experienced enough suffering within my family to perfectly justify my having an opinion whether or not I lived in Iraq all my personal life. As I said, half my family, including my father are there now, and we keep in touch on a regular basis - and we share exactly the same view on the US-led invasion. Thank you.

Thank the US (which, IMO, is not "America") all you want. You are entitled to your opinion, and I for one am not interested in trying to squelch it. I just debate your views, and I walk away from this, more as a test to my own communication-abilities, than anything else.

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 10:36 PM
But look I agree that - the world is not a perfect world after the invasion - but for me, it has become a hopeful world, and definitely a better world - that's all I really wanted to say... :-)

Neil Mick
07-26-2004, 10:44 PM
It may be easier for someone not as emotionally involved, and so I commend you and your work in raising the yardstick - I just cannot get much beyond relief for now, perhaps I am still in shock but life under saddam was really no life at all...

Hopefully, I will never completely understand some of the horror of your life, under Hussein. And, I am glad that your life is so much better. I can understand your feelings of shock, at your new-found freedoms.

And no, I am not emotionally involved...not the same way that you are.

rendshakir
07-26-2004, 10:57 PM
:-) - pretty good stuff that going from a completely opposing view you've managed to debate the topic without getting the thread closed! Hope it stays that way! I just thought I would add that with all these emotionally involved people around you might consider revising your signature - as it stands, it looks as though you are against the US invasion, and if there wasn't a US invasion, there would still be Saddam - many Iraqis, both from within and outside of Iraq will find this offensive. Perhaps you might moderate that by perhaps a line saying you're campaigning for a responsible occupation, for true democracy, economic freedom or whatever - putting the figures like that is pretty misleading - you said the US were involved in supporting Saddam, dont you think this gave them some responsibility to remove him?

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 02:36 AM
:-) - pretty good stuff that going from a completely opposing view you've managed to debate the topic without getting the thread closed! Hope it stays that way!

Lol, thank you.

I just thought I would add that with all these emotionally involved people around you might consider revising your signature - as it stands, it looks as though you are against the US invasion,

I am against the invasion.

and if there wasn't a US invasion, there would still be Saddam - many Iraqis, both from within and outside of Iraq will find this offensive.

I am also not a supporter of Hussein. I think everyone's better off without him.

Perhaps you might moderate that by perhaps a line saying you're campaigning for a responsible occupation,

A "responsible occupation??" Is that possible?

for true democracy, economic freedom or whatever - putting the figures like that is pretty misleading

I am not "campaigning" for anything. I have a strong opinion about it, perhaps. But, I am happy to "agree to disagree."

- you said the US were involved in supporting Saddam, dont you think this gave them some responsibility to remove him?

No, I do not. I think that it gave them the responsibility to stop giving him aid, demand an accounting for human rights, MAYBE even urge a multi-coalitional invasion (which it was not), if he were engaged in another ethnic cleansing (the worst of his atrocities occurred in the late '80's).

But, no: installing him does NOT mean that we have the "responsibility" to remove him. This is the same slippery slope we engendered, in removing Aristede.

Hogan
07-27-2004, 07:02 AM
HA ! Neil, you think THIS is torture !?

"Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rums­ feld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture."

This is not torture - try throwing people off of bldgs, ctting their heads off, cutting their toungues off, raping them, breaking bones, AND filmimg all of the above, itself a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Hmmmm, I wonder what dictator did all those things..... some of them even to prisoners of war....

Give up ?

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 02:45 PM
HA ! Neil, you think THIS is torture !?

"Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rums­ feld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture."

This is not torture - try throwing people off of bldgs, ctting their heads off, cutting their toungues off, raping them, breaking bones, AND filmimg all of the above, itself a violation of the Geneva Convention. (Neil: so, I assume that you're pressing for the soldiers who filmed the abuses to be charged for Geneva violations, right? :p )

Hmmmm, I wonder what dictator did all those things..... some of them even to prisoners of war....

Give up ?

Not even close. In fact, consider yourself verbally koshi'd.

Read my last half-dozen responses to rendshakir, about putting ourselves on the same yardstick, with Hussein, for starters. You KNOW that the path you're on is tilting downward, with the sign reading "slippery slope," when you're constantly apologizing for your leaders' behavior, when you're announcing that "well, at LEAST we're better than Hussein!"

We are DEFINITELY on the wrong side of the law if this is our primary defence.

Further, your apology for torture excludes the 25 or so deaths in Abu Ghraib, from this simple "abuse." Gosh, I guess the surviving members of the victims' families (most of these victims swept up in mass-arrests) will be VASTLY comforted to know that their departed-ones died under "abuse," instead of "torture."

A less-compassionate observer might suggest that the difference between death by "abuse," and death by "torture" is...semantic? Apologizing?

Finally, the tortures PUBLICLY displayed and photographed are merely the tip of the iceberg. The problem is systemic, still ongoing (yes, ppl are STILL being tortured), and some methods being used are far worse, than the few you mentioned (one example: having your head and face smothered with a bag full of feces until you are nearly dead, before the bag is removed. Oh yeah: we sure are the "messengers of freedom," all right :disgust: ).

Hogan
07-27-2004, 03:00 PM
Not even close. In fact, consider yourself verbally koshi'd.

Read my last half-dozen responses to rendshakir, about putting ourselves on the same yardstick, with Hussein, for starters. You KNOW that the path you're on is tilting downward, with the sign reading "slippery slope," when you're constantly apologizing for your leaders' behavior, when you're announcing that "well, at LEAST we're better than Hussein!"

We are DEFINITELY on the wrong side of the law if this is our primary defence.

Further, your apology for torture excludes the 25 or so deaths in Abu Ghraib, from this simple "abuse." Gosh, I guess the surviving members of the victims' families (most of these victims swept up in mass-arrests) will be VASTLY comforted to know that their departed-ones died under "abuse," instead of "torture."

A less-compassionate observer might suggest that the difference between death by "abuse," and death by "torture" is...semantic? Apologizing?

Finally, the tortures PUBLICLY displayed and photographed are merely the tip of the iceberg. The problem is systemic, still ongoing (yes, ppl are STILL being tortured), and some methods being used are far worse, than the few you mentioned (one example: having your head and face smothered with a bag full of feces until you are nearly dead, before the bag is removed. Oh yeah: we sure are the "messengers of freedom," all right :disgust: ).

Nooooo, the "give up?" question was whether you gave up trying to guess the dictator ! Not whether you gave up about Bush being the cause of all evil !

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 03:02 PM
P.S. I also suspect that you didn't read the full text of the op-ed piece. No matter: but the last paragraph:

The damage caused by the prisoner abuse cases is already enormous, and it is not over. We believe there is a way to mitigate and eventually overcome the debacle, but it is not by asking newspapers to go mute. What is needed is a full and independent investigation of the matter, including the decisions made by Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior officials, and a forthright and unambiguous commitment by President Bush to strictly observe US and international law in the future. That pledge should be accompanied by a return to the public disclosure of U.S. interrogation policies.

is a call for the Pres to return to observe int'l law. Don't you think that this is the best course of action for the Pres? Doesn't it embarrass you to consider that Our Illustrious Leader is spending his time with his lawyers to see how far he can push the line of defining torture, instead of standing up to uphold international law?

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 03:04 PM
Not whether you gave up about Bush being the cause of all evil !

Great. Yeah, I got it. But you're wrong: Bush is NOT the "cause of all evil:" just the evil HE engendered (the same evil you so carefully sidestepped in examining, above)

Hogan
07-27-2004, 04:10 PM
P.S. I also suspect that you didn't read the full text of the op-ed piece. No matter: but the last paragraph:



is a call for the Pres to return to observe int'l law. Don't you think that this is the best course of action for the Pres? Doesn't it embarrass you to consider that Our Illustrious Leader is spending his time with his lawyers to see how far he can push the line of defining torture, instead of standing up to uphold international law?


Yes, yes, I was sidestepping because I didn't want to continue. I had stopped before and this thread seemed to have stopped, but then people spoke again, and now you're at it again.

But, as to your question - I do not think the methods that I BOLDED in the previous post is torture. If you are asking me if it is, then NO it is not, to me. If this is all we are doing to the bastard terrorists and "evil doeers", then more power to Uncle Sam. If it goes beyond, then, yes, a discussion is warranted. Now Niel, if it is discovered after an investigation that NO torture was allowed / approved, etc, and that Bush is in the clear and did no wrong, will you then accept it ?

NOW, I am done. Later.... and god speed in your crusade....

vanstretch
07-27-2004, 05:40 PM
John, this clown won't accept anything from you or anyone else that has posted thus far. It's clear that this pious know-it-all is the master of all knowledge and in his quick-witted little pea-brain, he is right, we are not. I could care less about his lefty dribble. He's been shrieking like a banshee and hasn't really said anything(kinda like his hero Billary).
.

rendshakir
07-27-2004, 08:15 PM
Whooaa Daniel ... let's try not to say anything here we wouldn't say at the Dojo - there are strong opinions and extreme emotions about the war on Iraq, and that's understandable, but as other (now closed!) forums show - it really is a test for our Aikido... I'm sorry Neil! He was just kidding about the pea brain, I am sure! I think Daniel was just trying to say that it is easy to come across a bit fixed in your views and, personally I've felt that it has been tough getting any input into the beliefs that you hold. He was criticising the entrenchment and rigidity in the communication over this thread. Are there any aspects of your views over Iraq and the US that you would be willing to change following input from others? What, positively, would you have liked to have seen happen in this case? What would you like to see happen now - if you were in a position to decide? I am very interested in your views, as they are so at odds with my position - and let's embrace that as a challenge for our Ki folks! :-)

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 08:52 PM
John, this clown

this pious know-it-all is the master of all knowledge

quick-witted little pea-brain,

shrieking like a banshee

The ends do not justify the means. You only belittle yourself, in insulting me (and, not bothering to engage in debate, going instead for the lowbrow smear).

Your reasons? Well, at least you make it plain...

I could care less about his lefty dribble.

So, the only reason for your being here is to lob insults, if you're not interested in exchanging viewpoints? You're trying for threadlock?

Well, whatever. If you haven't the maturity, and courtesy, to talk to me as a human being, I'll just put you on "ignore" and that will be it, for you, AFAIC.

He's been and hasn't really said anything(kinda like his hero Billary).

It astounds me how often Conservatives get me wrong.

So, since you have nothing positive to offer...here's MY momentary hijack of this thread:

I've been listening very carefully to the news of the DNC, in Boston. Not because I think anything substantive will come out of the Convention except pricey gladhandling, more mindless cheerleading, and a lot of ppl all saying the same thing...most of it myth. But still...

I listened to a little of Clinton's speech, considered the Dem platform and its urge to send more troops into the quagmire. I think of John Kerry as the next President, and ut doesn't fill me with a sense of confidence for the future (of course, if W is elected: that will be very, very bad for all concerned). I reminisce on how badly Clinton let us down.

Still, he DOES make a far superior orator to W...his voice makes my head ache. :dead:

But, all this reminiscing is not about my feelings for the failures of the Democrats. Its about how they treat the protestors.

Do you know what the Democratic party has so kindly built for those of us who wish to express our dissent, of this travesty? A cage, made of fencing and barbed wire, that even a judge has said looks like a detainment camp. Maximum allowed in the Free Speech Zone, is 1,000.

A Detainment Camp. For Free Speech. In the City known for its free speech.

Please...someone tell me that they see all the irony in this.
But maybe irony truly IS dead, once Kissinger was awarded the Nobel. :uch:

Neil Mick
07-27-2004, 09:29 PM
Thank you for the courteous response, Rend (is that your first name?) I shall respond more fully, tomorrow. :dead: :circle:

vanstretch
07-27-2004, 10:14 PM
Debate? You are merely seeking to capitalize on others views Neil, and then stand and shout -"aha, I have won,"/nothing more. Thats what you sound like anyway. Didn't mommy give you enough milk as an infant? You and your long winded replies are moot,pious,pompous,and elitist. Did you serve? Do you have any friends? You don't appear to know how to make any with your diatribe and elitist bs. You are an armchair quarterback and I am sick your left-wing crybaby namby-pamby know-it-all tude and your useless list of stats, acting as a paragon of virtue. I am speaking to you Neil. I am certain that you will be the next recipient for the nobel peace prize-I am voting for you, I want to be just like you neil. You are the hero of the public servant and a great american. Thank you

Erik
07-27-2004, 10:46 PM
Whooaa Daniel ... let's try not to say anything here we wouldn't say at the Dojo - there are strong opinions and extreme emotions about the war on Iraq, and that's understandable, but as other (now closed!) forums show - it really is a test for our Aikido... I'm sorry Neil! He was just kidding about the pea brain, I am sure!

No he wasn't and I AM SURE OF THAT! :)

Actually, if Neil were to say this stuff in a dojo during a class, which I really doubt he does, I know I'd provide a unharmonious response were I around. Note I said during class.

But then were we in the "City Which Is Against Everything Resembling Progress Unless It Involves Handouts To The Homeless, Building Dumps In Someone Else's Backyard, Bad Teeth, Bad Health, And Increased Taxation" I'd likely be the only guy who felt that way. :D

rendshakir
07-28-2004, 12:21 PM
Thank you for the courteous response, Rend (is that your first name?) I shall respond more fully, tomorrow. :dead: :circle:

Yes Rend is my first name.

Looking forward to hearing more in this discussion...

Daniel, I don't blame you for strongly attacking the "peace" position - especially if you or people you know have served. I feel the same sense of despair when confronted with anti-war campaigners. I agonise over these people - but a lot of our differences are because we come from different perspectives, rather than having different values. We share a lot of common ground underneath it all.

We all want to fight for human dignity and liberty - but the difference is in the weapons we choose, our tactics, what we think will be most effective. We have whole lives, literally invested in particular standpoints so it is hardly surprising it is a test for our Ki. What we know from Aikido is that the attacker can sometimes put themselves at a disadvantage, and the force of their attack can be used against them - it can take them off balance and throw them to the ground - the same thing for verbal, non-verbal and any other kind of conflict. I have to keep reminding myself of this everyday and I find it very hard sometimes when overcome with emotion not to attack in such a way that I can be taken off balance. I've already been taken off balance once by my emotion in this thread!

Responding with anger will always give your opponent an opening. Respond with too much emotion, and your opponent gets the raised credibility of a more "objective" standpoint in a discussion. All I'm saying here is - let's "practice" together please rather than "fight" - otherwise there is a danger of emotional injuries occurring in just the same way as a similar style of fighting in the Dojo would cause an unacceptable level of physical injuries.

We may see things very differently but if this world isn't big enough for the both of us, we need to make it a bigger world! If those who practice Aikido can't have confrontations without causing serious emotional or bodily harm - then what chance is there for the rest of the world?!!!

Thanks to you all, I am learning a lot in this thread!

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 03:28 AM
Debate? You are merely seeking to capitalize on others views Neil, and then stand and shout -"aha, I have won,"/nothing more.

You had me reading along, up to about here. I was even considering what you were trying to say...maybe (as someone often does) I should consider.

But then...blammo!

Didn't mommy give you enough milk as an infant?

moot,pious,pompous,and elitist.


Did you serve? Do you have any friends?

I don't have to explain myself to you. I don't need to be insulted. Remember, the next stranger entering your dojo COULD well be me. That's a nice thought to consider, isn't it? Insulting someone before you have even made an opening bow?

Tsk. Ignore-land, for you.

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 03:34 AM
No he wasn't and I AM SURE OF THAT! :)

Actually, if Neil were to say this stuff in a dojo during a class, which I really doubt he does, I know I'd provide a unharmonious response were I around. Note I said during class.

I managed to sneak one in, during the Summer Seminar, but it was part of a class on nonviolent communication, so it was appropriate. But no: I would never express a political view during a class. How weird THAT would be.

But then were we in the "City Which Is Against Everything Resembling Progress Unless It Involves Handouts To The Homeless, Building Dumps In Someone Else's Backyard, Bad Teeth, Bad Health, And Increased Taxation" I'd likely be the only guy who felt that way. :D

:hypno: My head is spinning. :hypno:

Please, dude, like: don't mock us 'Cruzian's, man! We mean you no harm! :cool:

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 03:40 AM
Yes, yes, I was sidestepping because I didn't want to continue. I had stopped before and this thread seemed to have stopped, but then people spoke again, and now you're at it again.


"At it??" Oh, whatever.

If this is all we are doing to the bastard terrorists and "evil doeers", then more power to Uncle Sam.

60% of these ppl were arrested in MASS ARRESTS. That means, a good chunk of them are innocent. 10%? 20%? No way to tell.

So, the US Army (and private contractors) are torturing INNOCENT PEOPLE.

if it is discovered after an investigation that NO torture was allowed / approved, etc, and that Bush is in the clear and did no wrong, will you then accept it ?

What investigation? Authored by whom? Bush? Kissinger? Poindexter?

Depends upon the source. But, such a scenario is unlikely. I imagine that W isn't getting much sleep, at night.

NOW, I am done. Later.... and god speed in your crusade....

I don't have a "crusade:" I have an "opinion"

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 04:10 AM
I've felt that it has been tough getting any input into the beliefs that you hold.

Actually, I thought I was pretty clear about my beliefs. Sorry if they seem unclear.

Are there any aspects of your views over Iraq and the US that you would be willing to change following input from others?

My views are constantly changing. Some incrementally, many not so. If you mean my views over the war: um, no. I doubt I could change YOUR mind on this point, either.

But, debate and exchanges like this DO give a better insight over why ppl view a political events, a certain way.

What, positively, would you have liked to have seen happen in this case? What would you like to see happen now - if you were in a position to decide?

It depends upon what point in history you're referring. Hussein's growth of power is an example of the US propping up violent dictators to extend its power. So, I wouldn't use this militaristic method of world hegemony. But, this sort of thing goes back in use to the Roman Empire (and, look what happened to them).

But, in disarming Hussein? I thought about your question. Bush actually had a narrow window of opportunity to settle all this nonviolently, when he had all of the armies ready, the Air Force ready to go. At that moment, Hussein was throwing up the white flag and agreed to near-total compliance, for IAEA inspections. He was cooked, and he knew it. He had no actual wmd's to ward off Bush's invasion-plans.

At that moment (were I Bush): I'd have demanded an immediate, full investigation of possible wmd's and allowed the UN inspectors to finish their report (which, they were never allowed). Then: I'd have worked within the UN to stop the embargo.

With 1/3 of the US Army poised to strike, and Hussein holding a dud poker-hand for wmd's, I'd have forced Hussein to comply with an awful lot of concessions to send the US military beast home again. But then again: hindsight is 20/20.
Still, I remember thinking this just before the invasion: Bush lost an opportunity to squeeze out a lot of concessions from Hussein, and end it all peacefully.

But, Hussein was the US lapdog once, and I'm sure that if the priority of US foreign policy WERE actually human rights--I'm certain that Hussein could be reined in, without an invasion. He thought he could get away with invading Kuwait, after all. Many of his atrocities were committed while he was a US ally.

Hogan
07-29-2004, 07:14 AM
...60% of these ppl were arrested in MASS ARRESTS. That means, a good chunk of them are innocent. 10%? 20%? No way to tell.

So, the US Army (and private contractors) are torturing INNOCENT PEOPLE. ...


NOW you're comparing "mass arrests" to torture !?

Sheez.....

vanstretch
07-29-2004, 12:52 PM
Its absolutely guaranteed Mr. know-it-all will respond to spin everything to his liking. That's a given. And yknow what? To control the cow, ya gotta give him his pasture! Let us kneel.amen.

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 01:18 PM
Neil - Your ideal scenario in all cases seems to involve "controlling" Saddam - "disarming" him, making him "comply" with UN requirements... This was a very evil dictatorship that ruined the lives of everyone Iraqi, whether inside or outside of Iraq - yet in your ideal scenario - HE STAYS "as long as he behaves like a good boy." The killings that he ordered of innocent Iraqis and visiting civilians were not ALL televised - yet you act as if Hussain did nothing wrong after the chemical attacks in the 1980s. Let's clarify for you that he killed over 50,000 people the year before he was invaded, including over 450 kuwaiti prisoners of war... Not your problem? Maybe not. But if you are going to quote civilian casualties in your arguments - at least think about this point - oh and I'd just LOVE to meet the Iraqi who agrees with you... but I think there's a very good chance he's in a cell awaiting his trial now...

Hogan
07-29-2004, 01:42 PM
Neil - Your ideal scenario in all cases seems to involve "controlling" Saddam - "disarming" him, making him "comply" with UN requirements... This was a very evil dictatorship that ruined the lives of everyone Iraqi, whether inside or outside of Iraq - yet in your ideal scenario - HE STAYS "as long as he behaves like a good boy." The killings that he ordered of innocent Iraqis and visiting civilians were not ALL televised - yet you act as if Hussain did nothing wrong after the chemical attacks in the 1980s. Let's clarify for you that he killed over 50,000 people the year before he was invaded, including over 450 kuwaiti prisoners of war... Not your problem? Maybe not. But if you are going to quote civilian casualties in your arguments - at least think about this point - oh and I'd just LOVE to meet the Iraqi who agrees with you... but I think there's a very good chance he's in a cell awaiting his trial now...

Neil doesn't care about what Saddamy has done, as long as we don't waste his taxpayer money on it. He's more concerned about that - he said so in a post.

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 03:08 PM
NOW you're comparing "mass arrests" to torture !?

Sheez.....

No. You missed the boat. Let me try again.

1. The army (and private contractors) use methods of abuse that easily quantify as torture.

2. YOU said that
If this is all we are doing to the bastard terrorists and "evil doeers", then more power to Uncle Sam.

3. I pointed out that many of these "bastard terrorists" and "evil doers" were swept up in mass arrests.

4. In his report, Gen. Taguba states that at least 60% of the ppl in the Iraqi prison were arrested in "mass arrests."

5. Its not a big leap to fugure out that a certain portion of these ppl in jail are guilty ONLY of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

6. This means that some of the "bastard terrorists" and "evildoers" that the US Army are torturing ("abusing," if it makes you feel better) are, in reality, innocent.

You understand my point, now? Innocent ppl are getting torutred/abused. A good number of them are women. :disgust:

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 03:15 PM
Anyway Neil - I request that you amend your figures on your offensive signature to remove 3 that I can speak for, who would have been horrified to see their lives being used by someone who argues for actions that result in any kind of outcomes that involve keeping Saddam in power....

Hogan
07-29-2004, 03:26 PM
No. You missed the boat. Let me try again.

1. The army (and private contractors) use methods of abuse that easily quantify as torture.

2. YOU said that


3. I pointed out that many of these "bastard terrorists" and "evil doers" were swept up in mass arrests.

4. In his report, Gen. Taguba states that at least 60% of the ppl in the Iraqi prison were arrested in "mass arrests."

5. Its not a big leap to fugure out that a certain portion of these ppl in jail are guilty ONLY of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

6. This means that some of the "bastard terrorists" and "evildoers" that the US Army are torturing ("abusing," if it makes you feel better) are, in reality, innocent.

You understand my point, now? Innocent ppl are getting torutred/abused. A good number of them are women. :disgust:

Well, now that is a complete, logical statement, compared to what you wrote before. Your welcome for me forcing you to write more clearly and to make your case more definitive.

And of course, I don't agreee with ANYTHING you say.

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 03:56 PM
I don't agree with you either Neil - you had my ear until you indicated several ideal scenarios involving Saddam remaining in power - now your position is quite offensive - I would very much like to see you try to explain to the relatives of those who were killed by Saddam that you would have been happier with an outcome keeping him in power as long as he behaves. Actually it's a lot easier to explain to the relatives of the victims of the war that at least their lives have not gone in vain, but were part of the course of removing Saddam - I am happy with that explanation for my relatives. No it is not ideal - and there were casualties on BOTH sides - painting coalition forces all as evil torturers simply does not reflect the good work that has been done, the bravery that has been shown by many, as well as the sacrifice of life --- in an effort that was NOT in vain. Don't flippantly ask me the question of "how do you know the new guys won't be worse than Saddam?" - that is a ridiculous statement - trust me the Abu Ghraib photos look like holiday snaps to someone who has actually experienced 24 hours in a Saddam jail... It is YOU who are missing the facts Neil...

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 04:04 PM
But then it is very clear that you have no idea as to the majority Iraqi perspective either within or outside Iraq... I find it amazing that you quote the lives of people - none of whom were consulted about the matter by you before their deaths (unless I am wrong?), to justify argumentation that the vast majority of them would find highly offensive - if you are saying that Saddam would have been the lesser of two evils for the Iraqi people than you truly challenge my comprehension of what evil is.You should have at least some respect for the names behind the numbers you quote - and you should meet more Iraqis too... before you start throwing the weight of their relatives bodies behind your high spurious and objectionable line of argumentation.

vanstretch
07-29-2004, 05:03 PM
Rend, hi, and i appreciate the way you are handling yourself thru this thread,and thank you for articulating your points(better than i have been doing apparently) I just about lose it with these armchair know-it-all types(who have not served>neil)and their cavalier attitudes. I could care less about the opinions of the left, I am numb to their twisted whiny nonsense. I served my country(us army+pd=10yrs),support Bush, supported Reagan,G.Gordon Liddy,Oliver North,Gov.Schwarzenegger, Ted Nugent, Richard Marcincko, and Eric Haney.This list of great american patriots all are an ideal mixture of the type of leader we need in USA. Why? They speak their minds ,are un-apologetic, and are forward moving leaders, they are trailblazers.

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 05:15 PM
Hi - Bush has my support too - although I cannot vote for him as I'm not a US citizen. Blair has my vote here in the UK. Thanks for your message - it's very heartening - the world IS a better place thanks to the work of good servicemen like yourself - and thank you for ousting Saddam!

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 06:47 PM
Neil - Your ideal scenario in all cases seems to involve "controlling" Saddam - "disarming" him, making him "comply" with UN requirements... This was a very evil dictatorship that ruined the lives of everyone Iraqi, whether inside or outside of Iraq - yet in your ideal scenario - HE STAYS "as long as he behaves like a good boy."

Sorry, but the US, as much as it pretends to be, is not the policeman of the world. Yes, I agree, Hussein ran an evil dictatorship. Would you like a complete list of the other evil dictators in the world? Where should we invade next...Cuba? N. Korea? Libya? Sudan? Where do we start?

More importantly: who decides when, and where, to invade? Should we wait to invade AS the crimes are committed, or should we wait 20 years, as we did with Hussein?

The killings that he ordered of innocent Iraqis and visiting civilians were not ALL televised -

No, I realize that. I had the questionable privilege of seeing a video of Hussein's thugs beating some prisoners who were captured after the '91 Shi'ite uprising. I guarantee you, this didn't make it on CNN.

yet you act as if Hussain did nothing wrong after the chemical attacks in the 1980s. Let's clarify for you that he killed over 50,000 people the year before he was invaded, including over 450 kuwaiti prisoners of war... Not your problem? Maybe not.

It's not MY problem: it's the world's problem. And, I never said he was guiltless after '89. But don't make it sound as if he was an insane killer who killed millions a year, in the other end. This isn't about qpologizing for Hussein: it's about getting the record straight.

Again, the US did not invade Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi's. That was ex-post facto humanist reasoning to justify an illegal invasion and cover for the expansionist/materialist motives.

If you think that this is all going to turn out well for Iraq...the notion of "breaking some eggs, to make an omelette," well, perhaps. I'm not a soothsayer. But what I DO know is that this tactic has been done countless times in the past, and it never works. Never. Look at Grenada, if you don't believe me. Or, Nicaragua.

But if you are going to quote civilian casualties in your arguments - at least think about this point - oh and I'd just LOVE to meet the Iraqi who agrees with you...

You lost me, here.


but I think there's a very good chance he's in a cell awaiting his trial now...

Still, your point is unclear.

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 07:02 PM
I don't agree with you either Neil - you had my ear until you indicated several ideal scenarios involving Saddam remaining in power - now your position is quite offensive - I would very much like to see you try to explain to the relatives of those who were killed by Saddam that you would have been happier with an outcome keeping him in power as long as he behaves.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I "would have been happier," with Hussein in power. I feel that you're trying to box me into a position, you expect of me.

Best option of all? The Shi'ite uprising succeeds, with Pappy Bush's help, in '92. The Iraqi's start self-governance on their own, after overthrowing Hussein. But, we didn't do that, did we? It surprises me, how noble you think the US's sentiments, after they knowingly bombed Iraq's infrastructure, and then starved them for 13 years, to force Hussein to negotiate. Yet, 20 years later...we decide to invade "for the liberation of Iraqi's" (more or less, the same thing that the British said in 1917, and what Napoleon said, when HE invaded the region), and its all good, for you.

Don't you find it a little "odd," that the US waits 20 years to stop an atrocity?

Governments must be ruled by fiat of law, not by men. By the same token, if Hussein WERE to obey the law, he should eventually have to answer for his crimes. But, you don't invade a country "just to get rid" of someone. Respectfully, this is a ridiculously naive notion.

As a country, you only can invade another country IF you are in danger of being invaded yourself; or IF a genocide is ongoing.

But, to suggest that I support Hussein staying in power because I oppose the invasion is misrepresentation.

Actually it's a lot easier to explain to the relatives of the victims of the war that at least their lives have not gone in vain, but were part of the course of removing Saddam - I am happy with that explanation for my relatives.

I'd be really curious as to your relatives' situation....where do they live?? Inside the Green Zone? The situation as I've heard it, is not so rosy, at all.

No it is not ideal - and there were casualties on BOTH sides - painting coalition forces all as evil torturers simply does not reflect the good work that has been done, the bravery that has been shown by many, as well as the sacrifice of life --- in an effort that was NOT in vain.

You're going to have to explain to me, how torture is a "good thing." It doesn't even bring in good intel.

Don't flippantly ask me the question of "how do you know the new guys won't be worse than Saddam?" - that is a ridiculous statement - trust me the Abu Ghraib photos look like holiday snaps to someone who has actually experienced 24 hours in a Saddam jail... It is YOU who are missing the facts Neil...

Wrong again. And, you're posing a question I'd never ask. Why must you always try to weasel in Hussein, on that yardstick? I DON'T WANT HIM THERE, thank you very much! The US is not in the business of invading other countries, if their leader is "evil."

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 07:27 PM
But then it is very clear that you have no idea as to the majority Iraqi perspective either within or outside Iraq...

Um...no disrespect to the views of your family, but surveys disagree with you:

Iraqi public wants US out (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3AA19C1A-57F8-4716-B9B1-894AACE46614.htm)

A team of 46 researchers interviewed 3244 Iraqis across the country over the age of 15, the overwhelming majority of whom said they were happy Saddam Hussein had been removed, but not in the way that he was removed.

Among those Iraqis surveyed 73% said they lacked trust in the US occupiers, and 73% had a similar lack of trust in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), led by Paul Bremer.

More than half of those surveyed said there was no room for the CPA in any future Iraqi government and the establishment of security in the country was their main concern.

Poll: Iraqi's out of Patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)
— Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

I find it amazing that you quote the lives of people - none of whom were consulted about the matter by you before their deaths (am I am wrong?),

I find it amazing that you justify the invasion of these people, who died under horrible circumstances--none of whom were consulted about the matter by you before their deaths (am I wrong?).

to justify argumentation that the vast majority of them would find highly offensive

And you know this...how?

- if you are saying that Saddam would have been the lesser of two evils for the Iraqi people than you truly challenge my comprehension of what evil is.

It's not about "lesser of two evil's:" it's about what the US is legally entitled to do, or not. And again: you're fooling yourself, if you think this occupation will turn out OK, for the Iraqi's.

You should have at least some respect for the names behind the numbers you quote - and you should meet more Iraqis too...

Please, stop with the misguided guilt-tripping. YOU can speak for the dead about as well as I. "Respect" for the names? They shouldn't even be DEAD!! If there were no invasion, it's likely that they wouldn't!

You talk about respect! :eek:

before you start throwing the weight of their relatives bodies behind your high spurious and objectionable line of argumentation.

If you find it so "objectionable and spurious," perhaps you could kindly consider attempting to understand it first, instead of blocking me off into your notion, of what it is I mean, before you tear into them.

Just a thought.

P.S. And while I welcome conversation with everyone involved who can be respectful: I admit, I haven't spoken with as many Iraqi's as I'd like.

I'm guessing, tho: that you haven't seen the photos of sniper-bullets through the windows of ambulances that tried to get past the US checkpoints, in Fallujah. Or listened to the US news correspondents to took the photos, and managed to get into Fallujah, as the US Army shut down the hospital there.

Or seen the photos of the cheering Fallujah militia (even, the police! :O ) as they ran the US out of their city.

I have. And, the picture you paint, of Iraqi's who "love" the occupation, is not in tune with what I see and hear, from witnesses outside of the mainstream media. I'm sure SOMEONE is benefitting from the occupation...someone always does...but it deosn't seem to be the Iraqi's, that's for sure.

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 07:37 PM
Your welcome for me forcing you to write more clearly and to make your case more definitive.

Lol, do you say "you're welcome for helping you pass the test," when you're uke for an exam, too? :p

And, you don't "agree with a word I say??" Oh GOD, no, no!!! :eek: :crazy: :eek:

Neil Mick
07-29-2004, 07:47 PM
Hi - Bush has my support too -

It takes all kinds, I suppose.

One thing for sure: one day you'll find out "the other side" of the story, and you'll see my points. Unlike some post-ers in the US, who will never see "the other side," because they only follow the media-outlets, with which they agree. Some of them have served in the military and equate "US," with us.

Some of them listen to shock-jocks and think their poison-pens are actually pearls.

Whatever they do: they aren't likely to talk to someone over there, who has seen the results of war. Likely, you will. And, I suspect: you'll have a change of heart.

But, who knows? (*shrug*)

vanstretch
07-29-2004, 08:07 PM
I will never understand "your"putdown and posturing side neil, It's really hard to imagine that u are a us citizen? Is there anything u like about living here? .Nothing suits u here,you are a very whiny ungrateful sort of fella. maybe u and alec baldwin can be bunkmates in bangkok.

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 09:13 PM
Neil - your postings are highly offensive - yes I did speak to three of them before they died, yes I am blatently more of an authority than you on the Iraqi perspective - and yes I have seen the pictures you are talking about - I am amazed you have the nerve of accusing me of being disrespectful - you are not speaking for Iraqis - meet a few and please have a more open mind when you do. You will be shocked! As for the polls - Gallup polls revealed that over 75% of Iraqis living in Iraq felt that the invasion was "worth it"...

As for removing evil dictators the US did it once when it DID work - unless you think of course Hitler should also still be around? As for North Korea - that should be sorted out as well, and it would have my blessing. Oh yes - it may be "illegal" to remove dictators but I don't think it's morally wrong, and if you had lived under Saddam you would agree with that.

Like I said, my point remains valid that you should speak to more Iraqis before throwing the weight of their bodies around behind your arguments... You will be AMAZED!!!

vanstretch
07-29-2004, 09:31 PM
Rend, I'll chip in for his ticket over there!!! Maybe in his rush to be hypercritical, neil forgot about those two tall towers that got hit? and all of his dead countrymen!

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 09:41 PM
NEIL,

I'd like the EMPHASISE that I have LIVED in Iraq - I have spoken to hundreds of Iraqis and YES the US invasion of Iraq in my mind was right - despite everything - it has already made Iraq (and I believe the world) an improved safer place.

Before this war we would never have had this conversation because I would have been too terrified to say anything. I don't need patronising put-downs about my IGNORANCE! If you had a glimpse into my life I feel fairly confident you would not express your views with such arrogance!

Don't question my integrity, my origin, or what I know - you are in *pretend land*... My aunt was recently kidnapped and killed by terrorists, my uncle machine gunned down and so on and so forth... was it horrific and sad? Yes. Would they have lived under Saddam? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it - My family lost more people under Saddam. Get your facts right - he was killing thousands of people before the war even started - it is estimated he killed some 2,000,000 Iraqis over the course of his regime, over half a million people have already been dug out of mass graves. The "identification process" of these bodies - just logging names into a computer for enquiring relatives is expected to take years. Was the invasion worth it? A million times over YES. YOU cannot understand this because YOU have not experienced Saddam or had an open conversation with someone who has.

I hope you finally get this straight Neil - I am well qualified indeed to speak for the war, and may God bless the souls of all those who have sacrificed their lives. Their actions are appreciated. They will never be forgotten. These soldiers and their families have every honour in my mind. Of course noone likes to be occupied, but I am grateful that the coalition did not just go into Iraq, remove the government and leave it in anarchy. Do they want to stay in Iraq forever? I doubt it, I know a couple of people in the US military and I think they're really looking forward to going home!!!

rendshakir
07-29-2004, 10:11 PM
Daniel,

Thanks for your comments. You are right. Of course Neil will point out statistics and articles that "prove" Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 bombing of the WTC... And that the security of US citizens has no relationship to dictatorships around the world that support and fund terrorism, and breed terror in their own citizens - I have no doubt he will argue that those bombers developed their depraved tactics, having all their lives been raised in a democratic nation in security and with dignity. But he is wrong. You fight terrorism by not tolerating terror states. Oil can buy a lot of support. There are already enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world - the difference is in who is in power, in who can potentially press the button. If the likes of Hitler and Saddam have control of resources like that it is just a matter of time before they are in the position to press a button. New rules now apply to international security. Terrorism has to be fought and peace and security have to be fought for.

And Neil - why don't you actually GO to Iraq and find out for yourself? Until you do speak to some Iraqis you should amend the dodgy signature that they may find offensive...

Neil Mick
07-30-2004, 02:28 AM
Neil - your postings are highly offensive - yes I did speak to three of them before they died,

I'm sorry you find my posts offensive. They are not intended as such. I respect that you spoke to 3 ppl who later died in the invasion. But, no one can speak for them. Or, for the 13,000 others. To say that you can, is simply folly.

The facts speak for themselves. The polls are ample, that show the Iraqi's are not happy with the occupation.

yes I am blatently more of an authority than you on the Iraqi perspective

I didn't realize, this was a contest.

- and yes I have seen the pictures you are talking about - I am amazed you have the nerve of accusing me of being disrespectful - you are not speaking for Iraqis - meet a few and please have a more open mind when you do. You will be shocked! As for the polls - Gallup polls revealed that over 75% of Iraqis living in Iraq felt that the invasion was "worth it"...

You think this was all worth it? The outbreaks of cholera, the lack of electricity...? 13,000 people who would still be alive...?

Well, we'll have to agree, to disagree, here.

Again, sorry if my opinions offend, but you ARE the first, to offer this view. But, sorry: I listen to a NUMBER of sources, and the "Iraq is doing swell" music, seems to emanate mostly from BushCo. I for one, don't buy it.

As for removing evil dictators the US did it once when it DID work - unless you think of course Hitler should also still be around?

If this is a "contest:" I just won. I invoke Godfrey's Rule...! :hypno:

As for North Korea - that should be sorted out as well, and it would have my blessing. Oh yes - it may be "illegal" to remove dictators but I don't think it's morally wrong, and if you had lived under Saddam you would agree with that.

You're just not getting my point. Can you show me any law, anywhere, that states that the US is mandated to overthrow evil men?

Like I said, my point remains valid that you should speak to more Iraqis before throwing the weight of their bodies around behind your arguments...

Once again, you missed the boat.

With respect, you're one person, with one view. It differs from mine. Isn't it great, that the world is big enough for more than a few opinions?

You feel that you can speak for all who died during the invasion, when you state that their deaths were worth the price they paid, to overthrow Hussein.

Very convenient, as they're no longer alive to speak for themselves.

I do not use the numbers to speak "for them." These numbers are a benchmark for how deeply this folly is taking us. Does a water-mark speak for the whole ocean?

Throughout your continual (and incorrect) attempts to box me into a narrow argument, you neglected to mention one thing, in your rosy assessment of the occupation...few of the insurgents are from outside Iraq.

And again, what about the parade the Fallujan's gave, to the fleeing American's, eh? No doubt: they were sorrowfully wringing their hands, wishing for the occupier's speedy return. :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
07-30-2004, 02:44 AM
NEIL,

I'd like the EMPHASISE that I have LIVED in Iraq - I have spoken to hundreds of Iraqis and YES the US invasion of Iraq in my mind was right - despite everything - it has already made Iraq (and I believe the world) an improved safer place.

Excellent, that you keep up with affairs in Iraq. However, your views may not be in the majority, of Iraqi opinion.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that they aren't.

Before this war we would never have had this conversation because I would have been too terrified to say anything. I don't need patronising put-downs about my IGNORANCE! If you had a glimpse into my life I feel fairly confident you would not express your views with such arrogance!

:freaky:

I hope you finally get this straight Neil - I am well qualified indeed to speak for the war,

We all are. This war affects us all.

and may God bless the souls of all those who have sacrificed their lives. Their actions are appreciated. They will never be forgotten. These soldiers and their families have every honour in my mind. Of course noone likes to be occupied, but I am grateful that the coalition did not just go into Iraq, remove the government and leave it in anarchy. Do they want to stay in Iraq forever? I doubt it, I know a couple of people in the US military and I think they're really looking forward to going home!!!

Again, we'll just have to agree, to disagree.

rendshakir
07-30-2004, 07:25 AM
[QUOTE=Neil Mick]
>You think this was all worth it? The outbreaks of cholera, >the lack of electricity...? 13,000 people who would still be >alive...?

Definitely - like I said, on Saddam's rate of murder at least 5 times the number of people would have been killed over the same period in "business as usual" Iraq. Besides - more facts speak for themselves - what of the 100s of thousands of Iraqi exiles that are for the first time after over 30 years returning to Iraq even though they know there are crap energy supplies, lack of security, cholera etc.. but even under these conditions every one of them that I have spoken to has said that Iraq has become finally "bearable" - not so under Saddam.

>Well, we'll have to agree, to disagree, here.
>Again, sorry if my opinions offend, but you ARE the first, to >offer this view.

Presumably, then, I am the first Iraqi you have spoken to in depth about the matter....

>You're just not getting my point. Can you show me any law, >anywhere, that states that the US is mandated to overthrow >evil men?

No - and because they were not OBLIGED to under any law, makes me very grateful for the action, which in human terms was right.

>With respect, you're one person, with one view.

I'm suggesting that I'm rather more than that - I am the very first Iraqi you have spoken to about this...

>I do not use the numbers to speak "for them." These >numbers are a benchmark for how deeply this folly is taking >us. Does a water-mark speak for the whole ocean?

Neil - you can't benchmark without bringing into the equation the other side - namely the impact on Iraqi lives had Saddam stayed. There is a lot of evidence of mass murder with a minimum estimate of one million and maximum of 2 million Iraqi's killed under Saddam... You have to compare action with non action. In this case it's like finding a cure that is 75% successful for something that kills 25% - and then quoting that 25% to argue the cure is not worth administering - you HAVE to factor out ongoing losses of life under Saddam, and these were not trivial.

>...few of the insurgents are from outside Iraq.

Not true - of 12 organisations operating in Baghdad nine of these were found to be from outside of Iraq - the famous suicide bombings are mainly masterminded by Musab al Zarqawi, a non Iraqi arab terrorist, and the beheadings are largely being carried out by The Green Battalian, an Algerian terrorist group with french organisational roots.

Of course some Iraqis have been caught up in anti-american protests. Noone likes to be occupied (but 75% say the invasion was worth it). No most people don't support the occupation remaining beyond 2005 - I doubt even the occupation. And I don't think the picture is rosy at all. I think it will take years of deliberate and determined effort to even improve the situation slightly. But you talk about cholera and electricity problems frightening people who have lived with far greater terrors and you always skim over the scenario of Saddam remaining in power and what a nightmare it would have been for all of us ...

frivolouspig
07-30-2004, 11:34 AM
First I'd like to say I have traveled the states many times, the people are nice, and the country is beautiful and vast. However I don't like the current government and I am tired of people with tunnel vision (which I might be guilty of as well but I try to keep an open mind) so I'm going to wade into this despite the fact that I'll likely be flamed and what I say probably wont make any difference anyway but here it goes.

I always like to come to a flame war well prepared so I have included plenty of sources.
The links I post are lengthy articles but I think just skimming them you will get the point.

On 02-03-2003, 01:06 PM (yes a long, long time ago but it's still current) Michael Neal quoted and responded to ahmad abas after he had written:

"Compounded with your ridiculous notion that I'm not free to voice my concerns out loud in Malaysia gives me a brief idea on your close mindedness and inability to learn beyond what the mass media has force fed you. Malaysia is a free country and a very peaceful one actually. Unlike some countries I know"

with the response of "Really" and two links:

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Recent/ASA280312001

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/malaysia.html

I guess Mr. Neal missed the sections on the USA, but I didn't:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

and a short quote from the second link "Police broke up peaceful rallies, arrested protestors, and beat some detainees in custody."

Of course that never happens in the USA does it?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/261103militarizationinmiami.html

that is of course if they are allowed to protest:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.protestzone.com

Funny thing is I thought the entire USA was a "free speech zone" but then again the things the USA was founded on seem to mean less and less each passing day.

Ahmad abas then unfortunately goes into a tirade about Israel showing he is also close-minded.

Moving on ----

I'm going to skip most the rest of the nonsense to more recent posts.

I have been looking for posts that try to back up their words with sources
Neil Mick does a pretty good job especially in his post on 07-27-2004, 12:23 AM
I'm hoping people will start backing up what they say with more links so we can see where they are getting their ideas from.

Within the last little while the conversation has been about abuse of prisoners in custody and Iraq, I have already covered this with my first link to amnesty.org so I'm not going to bother talking about it.

However I will mention that although poor treatment of prisoners can be found no matter what country you look at and if the US is going to improve their image of taking the high road and being in the right they should be the first ones to stop this treatment.

Now weather all the people in those prisons are terrorists or not will obviously be debated. But what about people who were treated like that before 9/11 what about the people that got screwed out of lawyers they should have had like Kevin Mitnick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick) (I'm sure there are others but for me he was he first on that came to mind)

Four years without bail, trial, or charges listed against him. If nothing else, Mitnick remains as one of the worst constitutional abuses by the prison system in modern times.
Not to mention also held in solitary confinement for eight months "in order to prevent a massive nuclear strike from being initiated by me via a prison payphone." BTW they said he could do the nuclear strike by whistling into the phone which is such a laughable lie it makes me want to hurt somebody.

You can also read this (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/kevin-mitnick/) (I use Rotton cause it's a nice summery rather then 5 or 6 links)

The war in Iraq was justified by saying that he was an immanent threat and he had nuclear weapons ECT. These were complete lies at worst and incomprehensibly bad intelligence at best. I'm betting somewhere in the middle.

A simplified version of my views:

Was Saddam a bad man? Yes. (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/saddamhussein/)

Should he have been left in power? No.

Is it the USA's job to remove him from power? No.

WMD was the main reason for the war. Did he have WMD? No

Does a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq exist? No. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

Did the US government help out OBL and Saddam? Yes, (http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1) and Yes. (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp) (but who cares about the whole "gassing his own people" thing as long as we get them damn Commies eh?)

Does the current government hold up the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) or the bill of rights (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm) the USA was founded on? No.

Should George Bush (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/) and co. (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/john-ashcroft/) be removed from power because they do not? Yes

This thread started out as a post about being Anti-American

Maybe so many people are Anti-American because they feel if the American government can't even hold up its OWN values who the hell are they to place them upon others?

I'll leave you a quote from a guy who knew how to control a nation and make them do the most evil things possible.

"What luck for rulers, that men do not think." ~Adolph Hitler

Try to think about it...

rendshakir
07-30-2004, 07:14 PM
No amount of reference based research is going to make up for the fact that Neil has never actually spoken to an Iraqi (until now - and boy has he NOT impressed me) - yet he signs off a signature using "number of Iraqis" killed to support his position against the war. I would never have the nerve to do that myself about another country when I have spoken to NOONE at all from that country - there are references and there is basic due dilligence - in this thread the use of sources as a confidence prop is something I have noticed as a theme in the people who have the least experience to base their views on. You say Saddam should not have been left in power and I agree with that. Any other position is highly offensive to me. The fact is if it wasn't for the US Saddam WOULD still be in power, but then maybe not if they hadn't supported him in the first place... As for who the hell are the US to impose on others? Well I take that point, but if it hadn't have been for their help in the second world war the life of everyone of my generation in the UK would have likely looked very different...

As an Iraqi Brit I see no conflict at all between the kind of Iraq I would like to see and the kind of Britain I would like to see

rendshakir
07-30-2004, 07:46 PM
We can probably all agree that human rights should be higher on the international agenda - had they been then the UN should have supported an invasion. Personally I don't care who'd have invaded Iraq, I'm just very glad someone did what was needed to oust Saddam, and nothing short of military intervention could have done this...

Neil Mick
07-30-2004, 10:04 PM
No amount of reference based research is going to make up for the fact that Neil has never actually spoken to an Iraqi (until now - and boy has he NOT impressed me)

With respect,

BFD.

Really, Rend: I'm about as interested in "impressing" you as I am in eating tomatoes...that is to say, not at all. YOU are not the "great source" of what's going on, simply by your heritage, I'm sorry to say (and since we're placing titles of ourselves such as "authority of All Iraq," which part of Iraq do you speak for, again? Was it the Sunni's, Shia, Kurds? When was the last time you actually were there?) After all, the place is changed a bit. Personally, I've gone to presentations of ppl who were literally just off the plane, and expecting to go back soon. One guy, Dar Jamail, was the reporter who broke the "ceasefire" myth, about Fallujah. The fact of whether or not he's Iraqi, means little to me, over what terrible things he had to present. All of the people I have listened and read about, were close to Iraqi's. Most of them were just over there: could you say the same? Were you just over there?

Sorry if you feel that a witness to war-crimes, needs to pass some sort of "Ethnicity Correctness Test" :( Obviously, I don't.

Neil Mick
07-30-2004, 10:37 PM
But you talk about cholera and electricity problems frightening people who have lived with far greater terrors and you always skim over the scenario of Saddam remaining in power and what a nightmare it would have been for all of us ...

So, Rend: when did you start hating the Sudanese?

OK, just kidding. But, there are reports now where the American and British forces are so taken up with Iraq, that it overwhelms the agenda, for discussing Darfur. In effect, the invasion is sucking up all of the resources.

And, corruption is rampant. Great, you've lost Hussein, but your country is a shambles, and in the hands of criminals.

Hussein was a terrible man. But, was he engaged in any pograms, when we invaded? You're so concerned as to whether or not I've spoken to an Iraqi: what do WE say, when the Sudanese ask the rest of the WORLD, why the invasion of Iraq, was more important than stopping the Janjaweed, huh?

Neil Mick
07-30-2004, 10:48 PM
I always like to come to a flame war well prepared so I have included plenty of sources.
The links I post are lengthy articles but I think just skimming them you will get the point.

Thanks, Ryan: good post! With this kind of discussion, I'm sure you'll need it. You start to see this drift towards non-reference posting, which is not good, IMO.

On 02-03-2003, 01:06 PM (yes a long, long time ago but it's still current) Michael Neal quoted and responded to ahmad abas after he had written:

Michael Neal's views tend toward the jaw-dropping. He sees nothing wrong with losing civil liberties, "if it takes care of the problem," for example.

Neil Mick does a pretty good job especially in his post on 07-27-2004, 12:23 AM

Thank you.

BTW they said he could do the nuclear strike by whistling into the phone which is such a laughable lie it makes me want to hurt somebody.

I know exactly how you feel.

Maybe so many people are Anti-American because they feel if the American government can't even hold up its OWN values who the hell are they to place them upon others?

touche.

vanstretch
07-30-2004, 11:41 PM
neil-douche.

rendshakir
07-31-2004, 04:32 AM
NO I'm just suggesting that as the first IRAQI you have spoken to - you could treat me with a little more respect - I am sick of your assumptions that I have not been there recently and have no knowledge of what is going on - how many times do I have to tell you? I'm not talking about ETHNICITY I'm talking about EXPERIENCE. You are quoting LIVES and you have NOT MET ONE OF THESE PEOPLE.

I am amazed at your so-called support - I am the first Iraqi who has lived under Saddam you have spoken to - and yes this should provide an opportunity for you to discover an Iraqi perspective. As for being a WITNESS to WAR CRIMES - you are not. You never witnessed the crimes under Saddam, and I don't think you need to pass an ethnicity test to make comments but I think that BEFORE YOU THROW THE WEIGHT OF A LOT OF DEAD PEOPLE'S BODIES BEHIND YOUR ARGUMENTS - it is WORTH FINDING ONE PERSON FROM THAT COUNTRY TO TALK TO!


With respect,

BFD.

Really, Rend: I'm about as interested in "impressing" you as I am in eating tomatoes...that is to say, not at all. YOU are not the "great source" of what's going on, simply by your heritage, I'm sorry to say (and since we're placing titles of ourselves such as "authority of All Iraq," which part of Iraq do you speak for, again? Was it the Sunni's, Shia, Kurds? When was the last time you actually were there?) After all, the place is changed a bit. Personally, I've gone to presentations of ppl who were literally just off the plane, and expecting to go back soon. One guy, Dar Jamail, was the reporter who broke the "ceasefire" myth, about Fallujah. The fact of whether or not he's Iraqi, means little to me, over what terrible things he had to present. All of the people I have listened and read about, were close to Iraqi's. Most of them were just over there: could you say the same? Were you just over there?

Sorry if you feel that a witness to war-crimes, needs to pass some sort of "Ethnicity Correctness Test" :( Obviously, I don't.

rendshakir
07-31-2004, 04:44 AM
And just as another pointer NEIL please don't speak to someone who has not only come from Iraq but lost people - how many people has your family lost in the past month? three months? thirty years? in Iraq. I have lost 5 people in the last month and I do not deserve the tone of voice with which you are addressing me. I REQUEST very strongly that you remove 3 numbers from your so-called tot up of figures in your signature because the 3 who would be OUTRAGED by the use of their lives in this way - they felt VERY strongly that an invasion was necessary. As for Sunni Shia etc- it may be news to you to know that these are largely YOUR divisions, not ours - as Iraqis we were never raised with these divisions, my grandmother refuses to even use these expressions in a casual conversation - we are first and foremost Iraqi.

Of course I don't represent all views but I can here represent my view and communicate the views of my over 50-strong extended family. We meet very regularly and have all gone back and forth to Iraq since the war.


With respect,

BFD.

Really, Rend: I'm about as interested in "impressing" you as I am in eating tomatoes...that is to say, not at all. YOU are not the "great source" of what's going on, simply by your heritage, I'm sorry to say (and since we're placing titles of ourselves such as "authority of All Iraq," which part of Iraq do you speak for, again? Was it the Sunni's, Shia, Kurds? When was the last time you actually were there?) After all, the place is changed a bit. Personally, I've gone to presentations of ppl who were literally just off the plane, and expecting to go back soon. One guy, Dar Jamail, was the reporter who broke the "ceasefire" myth, about Fallujah. The fact of whether or not he's Iraqi, means little to me, over what terrible things he had to present. All of the people I have listened and read about, were close to Iraqi's. Most of them were just over there: could you say the same? Were you just over there?

Sorry if you feel that a witness to war-crimes, needs to pass some sort of "Ethnicity Correctness Test" :( Obviously, I don't.

rendshakir
07-31-2004, 04:50 AM
Go there Neil - go there yourself and talk to the people - your eyes might open a bit - when you do though don't be so smarmy and opinionated - "After all, the place has changed a bit" - You think I don't KNOW that? You think I haven't SEEN that with my own eyes? you've personally Gone to PRESENTATIONS of people who have LITERALLY GOT OFF THE PLANE. You have no clue. The fact of whether he is an Iraqi or a pro-terrorist Al JAZEERA reporter makes a lot of difference to me AND other Iraqis. ALL THE PEOPLE I HAVE LISTENED TO AND READ ABOUT WERE CLOSE TO IRAQIs - who says????? YES I WAS JUST OVER THERE AND LAST WEEK SAW MY UNCLE GUNNED DOWN WITH A MACHINE GUN. Have some goddam respect Neil.

frivolouspig
07-31-2004, 06:23 AM
As for who the hell are the US to impose on others? Well I take that point, but if it hadn't have been for their help in the second world war the life of everyone of my generation in the UK would have likely looked very different...


Please understand, I don't question the act, I question the motives, while the end result was the removal of a dictator (which is always good) there are many, many more dictators and war lords all over killing, raping and pillaging. Why are there not soldiers there?

The thing that scares me the most is that the US government took an entire country over using lies and no one can do anything about it.

It kind of reminds me of something that happened in WW2 (that people are so happy to refer to.)

On Sep 1 1939 Hitler reluctantly invades Poland, but only after being provoked by warmongering Poles. The previous night, a Polish commando team shot their way into a German radio station in the border town of Gleiwitz, and broadcasted a radical call to arms against the peace-loving nation of Germany. Except that it was all an elaborate sham engineered by Nazi general Reinhard Heydrich, dubbed Operation Canned Goods.

Kind of like how the US invaded Iraq cause they had nuclear weapons and biological weapons (that Sadam kept invisible from the weapon inspectors using his super evil powers) and were about to attack, directly or indirectly using Al Qaeda. Oh wait that was all BS. (look at my first post for links to said BS)

As for people who try to justify new wars with old ones, I ask you:

If the US government and people were so concerned about Europe with Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and France surrendering on 22 Jun 1940 why did it take until December 11, 1941 to declare war on Germany? Oh yeah cause someone attacked the US on December 7th 1941.

The US may have cared about what was going on, but not enough to do anything about it, that is until someone punched them in the nose.

Again, I don't question the acts, the end result, the removal of a dictator is a good thing, but the motives, that's the question.

Perhaps if the people of Germany had been more questioning of their leaderships motives Hitler would not have gotten as far as he did.

Good thing the US has free speech. (well as long as it's positive towards the goverment, otherwise you better go to the "free speech zone") :confused:

Neil Mick
07-31-2004, 04:52 PM
NO I'm just suggesting that as the first IRAQI you have spoken to - you could treat me with a little more respect -

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

OK...let's get some terms straight.

re·spect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spkt)
tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
To relate or refer to; concern.

Now, WHERE, exactly: HAVEN'T I shown respect?? Have I insulted your heritage? Cast slurs on your (diverse) political view?? Shown unconcern for your perspective?? No: in most cases, I have given you the benefit of the doubt (you hammer on and on about how I "question your authenticity," but this is an aspect of the mode of communication...i.e., the internet...not, you).

You talked early on, about trying an "aiki-approach" to this discussion. Yet, I smelled something wrong with this picture, when your NEXT sentence was: "how can we get you to change your mind?"

Oh yeah, THIS sure is an "aiki" method, isn't it? I always try to "force uke to change his mind" tro see it my way. :rolleyes:

OK, so you're an Iraqi with an opinion...halleluiah. But, I guarantee that if I were an Iraqi: we'd STILL have major points of contention.

Look at this from my perspective: you come in, proclaim your heritage, proceed to try to wedge me into an erroneous thought-process, based upon what YOU think I believe, with facts and figures galore. Your sources?

1. The fact that you're an Iraqi;
2. Your relatives, of which you've carefully revealed very little, in their living circumstances and their politics;
3. Your belief that Iraq, should be more like Britain (good friggin' luck!)

Nary a source, to highlight your opinions. YOU claim that sources are used as a "confidence spin." How convenient, Rend. Again, I am not interested in submitting to your "ethnicity correctness tests," to get your stamp of approval.

I welcome, and respect, your views: but that respect cuts both ways. Most of what I hear from you is attempts to put me down, and so far: I am spectacularly unimpressed.

yes I am blatently more of an authority than you on the Iraqi perspective - and yes I have seen the pictures you are talking about

You claim, over and over, that my views lack authenticity because I haven't spoken to an Iraqi, and why don't I go over there (I AM curious, BTW: how DID you get into Iraq? It's not as if you can simply fly into Baghdad, after all). You know me very little about me, if you ask this of me. I'm the guy who DOES try to go to these places, that I read so much about. The Occupied Territories? Yep: I tried to get in there, too. Maybe, someday, I'll eventually succeed.

Funny, tho: I spoke to an arch-Conservative Israeli, about similar issues in Israel. HE also said that I "didn't know what I was talking about," that I was a "Jew-hater," and (my fave) that my posts were "torn from the pages of blood libel."

Funny, isn't it? How we cannot seem to be able to talk about situations that affect us, and we affect, outside of our country's borders, without having SOMEONE jump down our throats for not being the proper ethnicity...or, knowing, or talking to, the "right" people.

This "uninformed, unknowing" doka can guarantee at least one thing, Rend: that there are ppl in Iraq, who have differing opinions to the occupation, than you. Merely because you're the first that I have corresponded (and no: this doesn't count as actually speaking to an Iraqi, sorry to say. We aren't face to face), only means that you're one more person with Conservative views, that differ from mine.

But, let's put those logical boots that you keep stomping on the other feet, shall we? I could easily say that your PROFOUND ignorance of the US, makes you unqualified to speak of a US Occupation! You claimed to vote for Bush, "if you could," because he supported the invasion. Yet, you somehow ignore the fact that KERRY ALSO SUPPORTS THE INVASION, WITH GREATER TROOP LEVELS!

Did this little factoid escape that all-seeing Iraqi radar of yours? :hypno:

I am sick of your assumptions that I have not been there recently and have no knowledge of what is going on - how many times do I have to tell you?

[quote]I'm not talking about ETHNICITY I'm talking about EXPERIENCE.

Sorry, but this is EXACTLY what you're talking about.

I've spoken with ppl of many, many stripes, in the ME. Many of them work with Iraqi's (who are in total agreement, about the occupation), many have a great deal invested in Iraq. Yet, we should push all that aside, because ONE EX-PAT proclaims it's all hogwash.

Whew! Thank the gods the ex-pat's know where it's all at, huh? Us clueless (Liberal) rube's here in the sticks wouldn't be able to find our heads with our HANDS, without your knowledgable guidance. Just ask a Cuban ex-pat, in THIS country: Castro is evil, the next Hitler, and we must invade NOW NOW NOW!

As for being a WITNESS to WAR CRIMES - you are not.

The source of whom I speak, were.

You never witnessed the crimes under Saddam,

Yes, I did. It was a tape, but it spoke volumes. Does this make you MORE of an authority, because you might have seen it, firsthand? Sure, I'll go along with that (but I didn't realize, that this was some form of contest. What's the prize, since we're competing)?

Does this mean that

a. I haven't a clue about what I'm stating;
b. You have superior knowledge to ALL things Iraqi?

A story: when I was in S. Korea, I made a point of looking up the Aikido scene there. On the way, I met a woman who wanted to spruce up here English, and we chatted amiably for a few hours before class. I told her about Aikido, and understandably: she'd never heard of it. I took her to the local dojo which was in her own neighborhood. The last thing she said to me was (in a wondering voice) "you know something about Korea, that I didn't."

Funny, sometimes a stranger to a country can make an observation, that longtime residents never stopped to consider.

Neil Mick
07-31-2004, 05:01 PM
YES I WAS JUST OVER THERE AND LAST WEEK SAW MY UNCLE GUNNED DOWN WITH A MACHINE GUN

Now, onto other issues.

I'm not speaking to you as a debater, anymore. I'm not speaking to you, even as a fellow doka.

I'm speaking, as a fellow human.

If you just saw your relative die, what are you doing here?? Don't get me wrong: I'm actually GLAD to hear your perspective (even if, we do not agree); but a person in grief isn't up to a political debate.

If my relatives were just killed in front of my eyes: I wouldn't be here arguing politics. My emotions and feelings would interfere with rational discussion. Sometimes, political debates aren't good for the emotions: respectfully, maybe you should consider taking some time away from this, as it may not be a good outlet, for the way you feel (understand, these are just friendly suggestions, not attempts to shoo you off the thread).

My deepest condolences, and sympathies, for your loss.

:ai: :ki: :do:

frivolouspig
07-31-2004, 06:51 PM
This will be my last post in this thread. After reflecting on this subject I have come to the realization that there are some people will not change their minds or even open them to another possible concept other then their own no matter how much evidence points in the other direction.

There will always be the creationist's (http://www.creationism.org) :confused: (never mind that viri evolve constantly) the flat earth societies (http://www.flat-earth.org/society/about.html) :freaky: and the holocaust denier's (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html) :hypno: Nothing will change their minds because those minds and eyes are closed for whatever reason. After a certain age people's minds will begin to close (how much depends on the person) and they will believe what they were taught or choose to believe (for example there is no way that you could convince me the color red is actually the color blue). I would simply waist my time and give myself carpal tunnel if I were to continue.

I feel I have made my point and I wish you all well. :cool:

MitchMZ
08-01-2004, 12:12 PM
"Opinions are like @ssholes, everybody has one." I forget who said that, I think it was even someone on Aikiweb. I believe that there is an absolute truth, and you won't find it in politics or politician's statements. There will always be facts that argue both sides, maybe more on one side than the other...but, how does one weigh facts? Nothing is black and white, and neither is this war...or any war for that matter. So simply saying its right or wrong doesnt really work for me...because it isnt true. It is an opinion.

Just as in different martial arts, different people have different approaches to the same problem. Some styles stress hard linear counter attack, whereas others stress defensive circular motion that attempts to neutralize aggressive action. Some mix both. Some are better suited to certain situations than others; the basic principles of some much easier to grasp than others. Leaving out the politics of war, the Iraq conflict is using a very direct linear approach to acheive peace, instead of the circular approach... and no one will ever know which approach will have worked better for the people of the world.

Since I am taking Aikido, I probably would use a circular defensive strategy. But, I am not everyone. Besides, sometimes that strategy is far too complex.

Neil Mick
08-03-2004, 12:50 AM
"Opinions are like @ssholes, everybody has one." I forget who said that, I think it was even someone on Aikiweb.

Good post! I think I've said it a few times, but I'm definitely not the originator.

how does one weigh facts?

Personally, it all comes down to morality. I have a simple formula: the human rights rule. Whenever you consider a foreign policy (or, even, local policy): ask yourself these simple questions:

In the end, were more lives saved, by doing/not doing an action? Were ppl's homes/lives/peace of mind damaged the least?

If not, it fails the human rights test.

Now, Rend claims that Hussein killed 50,000 ppl, the year before the US invaded. Source, pls? I'm not an expert, but I don't remember hearing about this on the news.

But even so: you might say that, yes: lives WERE saved because of the invasion. But you also have to consider the wider issues: the destabilization of international law; the lives lost by the Sudanese because the world powers are taken up with Iraq; etc.

When you consider the wider picture: the invasion of Iraq fails the human rights test.

Nothing is black and white, and neither is this war...or any war for that matter. So simply saying its right or wrong doesnt really work for me...because it isnt true. It is an opinion.

That all depends upon your definition of "right and wrong," isn't it? If you feel that it's OK for the US to be a global empire, then no: nothing was wrong with this invasion. If you don't, well: then it was wrong.

Since I am taking Aikido, I probably would use a circular defensive strategy. But, I am not everyone. Besides, sometimes that strategy is far too complex.

Yes, the spiral gets 'em every time, doesn't it? :circle: :cool:

Neil Mick
08-03-2004, 01:30 AM
Since we're considering right-ness or wrong-ness of foreign policies, I just came across the latest, from Robert Fisk. (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles427.htm) He touches upon the subject:

I keep re-reading Tony Blair’s statement. "I remain convinced it was right to go to war. It was the most difficult decision of my life." And I cannot understand it. It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain thought that; but he didn’t find it a difficult decision - because, after the Nazi invasion of Poland, it was the right thing to do. And driving the streets of Baghdad now, watching the terrified American patrols, hearing yet another thunderous explosion shaking my windows and doors after dawn, I realise what all this means. Going to war in Iraq, invading Iraq last year, was the most difficult decision Blair had to take because he thought - correctly - that it might be the wrong decision. I will always remember his remark to British troops in Basra, that the sacrifice of British soldiers was not Hollywood but "real flesh and blood". Yes, it was real flesh and blood that was shed - but for weapons of mass destruction that weren’t real at all.

"Deadly force is authorised," it says on checkpoints all over Baghdad. Authorised by whom? There is no accountability. Repeatedly, on the great highways out of the city US soldiers shriek at motorists and open fire at the least suspicion. "We had some Navy Seals down at our checkpoint the other day," a 1st Cavalry sergeant says to me. "They asked if we were having any trouble. I said, yes, they’ve been shooting at us from a house over there. One of them asked: ’That house?’ We said yes. So they have these three SUVs and a lot of weapons made of titanium and they drive off towards the house. And later they come back and say ’We’ve taken care of that’. And we didn’t get shot at any more."

What does this mean? The Americans are now bragging about their siege of Najaf. Lieutenant Colonel Garry Bishop of the 37th Armoured Division’s 1st Battalion believes it was an "ideal" battle (even though he failed to kill or capture Muqtada Sadr whose "Mehdi army" were fighting the US forces). It was "ideal", Bishop explained, because the Americans avoided damaging the holy shrines of the Imams Ali and Hussein. What are Iraqis to make of this? What if a Muslim army occupied Kent and bombarded Canterbury and then bragged that they hadn’t damaged Canterbury Cathedral? Would we be grateful?

What, indeed, are we to make of a war which is turned into a fantasy by those who started it? As foreign workers pour out of Iraq for fear of their lives, US Secretary of State Colin Powell tells a press conference that hostage-taking is having an "effect" on reconstruction. Effect! Oil pipeline explosions are now as regular as power cuts. In parts of Baghdad now, they have only four hours of electricity a day; the streets swarm with foreign mercenaries, guns poking from windows, shouting abusively at Iraqis who don’t clear the way for them. This is the "safer" Iraq which Mr Blair was boasting of the other day. What world does the British Government exist in?

Take the Saddam trial. The entire Arab press - including the Baghdad papers - prints the judge’s name. Indeed, the same judge has given interviews about his charges of murder against Muqtada Sadr. He has posed for newspaper pictures. But when I mention his name in The Independent, I was solemnly censured by the British Government’s spokesman. Salem Chalabi threatened to prosecute me. So let me get this right. We illegally invade Iraq. We kill up to 11,000 Iraqis. And Mr Chalabi, appointed by the Americans, says I’m guilty of "incitement to murder". That just about says it all.

MitchMZ
08-03-2004, 08:50 AM
Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this war...and I have weighed the facts from both sides. Its important to keep an open mind.

Neil Mick
08-03-2004, 02:38 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this war...and I have weighed the facts from both sides. Its important to keep an open mind.

Yes, I agree. But, sometimes--things ARE pretty cut-n-dried, black and white. That is, if you agree that living a full and peaceful life is the desired end.

Consider WW1, for example. No one, to this day, can explain why this war was necessary. It served no purpose other than for expansionist gain. A lot of lives were lost for the materialistic aims, of a few.

Yet, an argument for this war COULD be put forth, if you feel that the most important things in life AREN'T freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, and fulfillment.

Just a thought.

Neil Mick
08-03-2004, 02:55 PM
Interesting, how much commentary, these little numbers in my sig generate. So much controversy, so much anger, over a simple recording of the cost of a foreign policy. If the war were so right and decent and all, these numbers wouldn't cause so many feathers to fly, now would they?

Yet, all too often, the mainstream wishes us to shut up and disregard, or downplay, the cost of war. They'd like us, as Gen. Miller wants the Iraqi's to do, when horrifying images of war flood their TV's, to "change the channel," to ignore the high costs and pretend that war, on foreign soil, is more like the movies, than anything else.

I got these numbers from www.iraqbodycount.net. Looking up their rationale for compiling these numbers, they state that

The Iraq Body Count project aims to promote public understanding, engagement and support for the human dimension in wars by providing a reliable and up-to-date documentation of civilian casualties in the event of a US-led war in 2003 in the country. The duty of ‘recorder’ falls particularly heavily on the ordinary citizens of those states whose military forces cause the deaths. In the current crisis, this responsibility must be borne predominantly by citizens of the USA and the UK.

It is accepted that war causes many dire consequences for the civilian population even if they are not directly killed or injured in military strikes. They may suffer long-term injury or illness (as a result, for instance of radiation, post-conflict contact with unexploded munitions, pollution due to spillage of toxic materials). UN estimates suggest that a war in Iraq would create starvation and homelessness for millions. A widely-leaked UN report on the humanitarian consequences of a US-led war in Iraq has estimated that the conflict would create two million refugees. (BBC News, 28 January, 2003, 07:38 GMT) People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term “on the ground” resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through military strikes can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury.

This project aims to record single-mindedly and on a virtually real-time basis one key and immutable index of the fruits of war: the death toll of innocents. The full extent of this has often gone unnoticed until long after a war has ended, if at all. One reason is that reports of incidents where civilians have been killed are scattered in different news sources and spread over time: one or two killed here, a few dozen there, with only major incidents (such as the attack on the Al-Amariyah bomb shelter where hundreds of women, children and elderly were incinerated alive) being guaranteed headline coverage. But the smaller numbers quickly add up: and however many civilians are killed in the onslaught on Iraq, their death toll should not go unnoticed by those who are paying — in taxes — for their slaughter. It is to these all too easily disregarded victims of violence that Iraq Body Count is dedicated, and we are resolute that they, too, shall have their memorials.

MitchMZ
08-03-2004, 04:59 PM
I feel that war is ALWAYS avoidable, but conflict is not. America obviously was itching to go to war...which is a terrible mindset. It is my belief that Saddam should have been taken out of power, but not in the manner America used...and so should all the dictators commiting genocide in Africa, etc...but to take someone out of power a full scale war is not required. Personally, hate me for this...but I also feel many leaders in our great nation should be taken out of power too.

rendshakir
08-04-2004, 06:06 AM
Yet, an argument for this war COULD be put forth, if you feel that the most important things in life AREN'T freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, and fulfillment.

Just a thought.

Another thought - the biggest things I have gained from this war are greater freedom (eg., to return to Iraq, previously I'd have been executed, not to mention the enormous freedom in the media there now), the opportunity to pursue happiness (impossible under Saddam - it's miserable under the US but not in the same ways), and increased fulfillment of seeing Iraqis actually express opinions for the first time in my life! Before, almost everyone was afraid to say almost anything.

I don't see how removing Saddam could have been achieved without a war - but obviously it would have been better if it could, the international law on this "leader immunity" issue should be revisited in my view. Yes, I wonder why you don't hear about 2 million Iraqis killed in the media? It's difficult to find credible sources on all these things. Over 400,000 bodies have been found in mass graves (this is difficult to lie about whatever the source) - Around 1 million Iraqis were killed in the Iran war (which was instigated by Saddam and supported by the US and UK, so there is blood on everyone's hands here - the soldiers were just conscripts). This gives a figure of 1.5 million. Of course not everyone was buried in a mass grave - many had the bodies sent to the parents' houses, where payment would have been demanded for the bullets that killed their child, you add then the chemical bombings of thousand of kurds, the wiping out of those who rose up against saddam in 1991, and those villages that were wiped out because someone who resided there made an attempt on Saddam's life, then there are the human shields that saddam used on his war vehicles to discourage shooting - women and children chained to tanks. This gives a range of estimates you can take from 1.5 million (which is only realistic if everyone was thrown into a mass grave - I can think of one or two people who weren't myself) to about 2.5/3 million.

In terms of who the credible source is we have a bit of a problem - noone disputes the 1 million Iraqi casualties over the Iran war period (this is generally reported), or 400,000 plus bodies so far found in mass graves. Noone disputes several thousand Kurdish casualties. That gives us the bottom estimates. As to whose making estimates - the bodies are being counted by the provisional government, they are entering names into a computer and it is a process expected to take many months - just the identification of bodies. However the count of bodies so far found in mass graves was on the CPA website and widely reported in the arab media. There is more to come as well.

Problem is - there are NO credible sources for anything of this kind - even yours Neil - I would not be surprised if they are all anti-war people - politicians against Saddam and the Iraqi government under Saddam did some counting - none of these sources are completely reliable.

But you have to use a bit of common sense - half a million bodies must mean a count of half a million at least - many died in the Iran war obviously (and military casualties DO count just like civilians in a country where soldiers are conscripted and their whole families are threatened if they do not fight. My two brothers were conscripts in the Iran Iraq war, and I for example would have got killed if they did not go to fight). So here the boundary between a soldier and a civilian is a bit more fuzzy isn't it? Not to mention the invasion of Kuwait. It's takes a lot of analysis to produce reliable figures and therefore my recommendation is to get estimates from various scholars of middle eastern/Iraqi politics and compare these with government estimates to arrive at a maximum and minimum approximation - this is what I have done to arrive at the estimate of 2 million. Many people suggest it is more and some suggest less but noone suggest less than 1.5 million because that would be physically impossible in the light of clearly documented evidence (such as body counts from mass graves).

Neil - I got into Iraq because I have an Iraqi passport. What can I say about my 50 plus family? We are Iraqi and accept no other divisions, but we are happy to say we are Muslim. As to Sunni and Shia it may surprise you to know that most of us had no idea what we were until the media started talking about it - and initially they actually got it wrong (referring to members of my family as one thing before switching to another). I had no idea what I was - we even had to do a little research to find out - this kind of categorisation and frankly imposition of these categories on our politics is one of our greatest challenges if we are to overcome racism and sectarianism and go forwards as Iraqi people.

I should correct my last posting on my uncle - I wrote it wrong - I meant to say he was shot down last week (ie., "last week saw him shot down") rather than the impression it gives that I personally saw him shot down - tried to go back and edit it to make it more clear but it was gone time.

Only 6 months ago Saddam was captured - it will be hard to find any non-emotional Iraqis therefore I expect that you can either be tolerant to the fact that we are emotional right now, but that doesn't mean that insights cannot be gleaned through our conversations, or not get any input from Iraqis at all - a shame with an anti-americanism thread where people are quoting Iraqi lives - I simply cannot stand by to see a quote for 11,000 of my people, regrettable as that has been to support an argument, that the war should never have happened (a consequence of which would have been a Saddam in power today), and therefore that the mass murders, and irrelevent wars (unlike US/UK Iraq had CONSCRIPTS) would have continued for the Iraqi people.

Thanks again to the US.

Rend

MitchMZ
08-04-2004, 08:18 AM
Can I qoute my friends that are serving over there? Have you ever heard of Uranium depleted shells before? Do you like the fact that the US government will be controlling your resources? Do you like that our government has given the new Iraqi leader the power to declare martial law at any time? Do you like that we destroyed many parts of the country only to rebuild it? Do you like that the first thing we secured are the oil fields? Foremost, I feel that civil liberties in the US are lacking as of late...as a liberal in america I can honestly say that I have been demonized and shunned. Not to mention physically threatened, etc.

MitchMZ
08-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Forgot to mention...what about the genocide being committed in Sudan right now? Why doesnt the US act?

Hogan
08-04-2004, 02:31 PM
Forgot to mention...what about the genocide being committed in Sudan right now? Why doesnt the US act?

Maybe it will if it doesn't straighten out -
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

Sudan
The United States and Sudan in mid-2000 entered into a dialogue to discuss US counterterrorism concerns. The talks, which were ongoing at the end of the year, were constructive and obtained some positive results. By the end of the year Sudan had signed all 12 international conventions for combating terrorism and had taken several other positive counterterrorism steps, including closing down the Popular Arab and Islamic Conference, which served as a forum for terrorists.

Sudan, however, continued to be used as a safehaven by members of various groups, including associates of Usama Bin Ladin's al-Qaida organization, Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and HAMAS. Most groups used Sudan primarily as a secure base for assisting compatriots elsewhere.

Khartoum also still had not complied fully with UN Security Council Resolutions 1044, 1054, and 1070, passed in 1996--which demand that Sudan end all support to terrorists. They also require Khartoum to hand over three Egyptian Gama'a fugitives linked to the assassination attempt in 1995 against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Ethiopia. Sudanese officials continued to deny that they had a role in the attack.

rendshakir
08-04-2004, 04:28 PM
Mitch - I really don't like any of these things but they're all just annoyances compared with life under Saddam. When people are not allowed to criticise anything and held in fear all their lives it hurts a lot. You didn't destroy our country in this war, you destroyed it in 1970 when you supported Saddam against the Communist Party of Iraq in a military coup - you went on to destroy it in arming Saddam over his war with Iran, then you destroyed it with sanctions which only hurt the poor people of Iraq, and when you encouraged us to rise up against Saddam but did not support us, and you destroyed it also when you carpet-bombed our cities with less than perfect military precision wiping out around thousands of innocent people. You even bombed a civilian shelter.

I can forgive you all of that now that you have helped to remove Saddam.Not only can I forgive but I would also extend my hand to shake the hand of any serving officer, and genuinely thank him or her, and you all.

No I couldn't have forgiven you if you had gone with the UN with France and Russia on Saddam's "payroll." But for my part - all is forgiven to the one who rids us of Saddam.

I could get hunted down and killed for saying this but I don't care, I'm already on the terrorist hit list, after campaigning for women's rights and against Sharia law in Iraq. I'm not scared anymore anyway - I have already had the chance to see - an Iraq rid of Saddam - an Iraq where people are no longer afraid to express how they feel and a media to report what they like.

Of course the thing that keeps people afraid is terrorism, but everyday more people risk their lives lining up to volunteer for the police force, and many have died in trajic car bomb attacks. They are not as afraid as they were under Saddam though - there is the largest of differences between a death of certainty, as under Saddam, and one of mere possibility.

All those things you mention are really terrible, and all of them should be worked on. There is an excellent campaign that addresses important issues concerning debt and the economy (www.jubileeiraq.org). But you can only work on things when you start being able to talk about them without fear and to criticise. Now we have that - the rebuilding will be a long struggle and we all have our work cut out. Now we have the ability to talk we have gained something that we did not have under Saddam - it is something that I think people don't appreciate in democratic and free states as much as they should - the right to speak - and the right to criticise.

I have seen Iraqis in this country struggle to swallow tears before speaking in public and saying things like "Thank you and thank your government for allowing me to speak freely."

Liberals in the US who were against the original invasion are in my mind misguided - misguided in human terms - though they may be perfectly right in legal terms, and if they are I would say the law needs to be changed.

The people in Sudan deserve their freedom too - everyone deserves their freedom to speak and challenge, to protest and to elect their government. We are a long way away from that all over the world. But it is not the US's responsibility.

I feel lucky we had enough oil in Iraq to have interested the US enough to get rid of Saddam, just as I would thank my lucky stars if a thief were to rescue me from drowning just because he happened to be interested in my wallet.

We all have to make compromises and sacrifices. The US needs to realise there are worse things than communism and should never support a totalitarian regime even against communism. The liberals need to realise that the choice between killing more people and killing fewer is not the same as the choice between waging and not waging war...



Can I qoute my friends that are serving over there? Have you ever heard of Uranium depleted shells before? Do you like the fact that the US government will be controlling your resources? Do you like that our government has given the new Iraqi leader the power to declare martial law at any time? Do you like that we destroyed many parts of the country only to rebuild it? Do you like that the first thing we secured are the oil fields? Foremost, I feel that civil liberties in the US are lacking as of late...as a liberal in america I can honestly say that I have been demonized and shunned. Not to mention physically threatened, etc.

rendshakir
08-04-2004, 04:48 PM
Mitch I really don't like any of these things but they are just annoyances compared with a life under Saddam. You see, when people are not allowed to criticise and held in fear all their lives it hurts a lot. You didn't destroy our country in this war, you destroyed it in 1970 when you supported Saddam against the Communist Party of Iraq in a military coup - you went on to destroy it in arming Saddam over his war with Iran. You destroyed it with sanctions which only hurt the poor people of Iraq, and even more when you encouraged us to rise up against Saddam but didn't support us. After Kuwait was invaded you destroyed it when you carpet-bombed our cities with less than perfect military precision, wiping out thousands of innocent people. You even bombed a civilian shelter!

I can forgive you all that now you have helped to remove Saddam.Not only can I forgive you but would also extend my hand and genuinely thank you. No I couldn't have forgiven you if you had sided with the UN "decision" with France and Russia on Saddam's "payroll." But for my part - all is forgiven to the one who rids us of Saddam.

I could get killed for saying this but I don't care, I'm already on the terrorist hit list after campaigning for women's rights and against Sharia Law in Iraq. I'm not scared anymore - I have already had the chance to see an Iraq rid of Saddam, in which people are no longer afraid to express how they feel.

Of course one thing that keeps people afraid is terrorism, but every day more Iraqis risk their lives lining up to volunteer for the police force, and many have died in car bomb attacks. They are not as afraid as they were under Saddam though - there is the largest of differences between a death of certainty and one of mere possibility.

All those things you mention are really terrible, and all of them should be worked on. There is an excellent campaign that addresses important issues concerning debt and the economy (www.jubileeiraq.org). But you can only work on things when you start being able to talk about them without fear and to criticise. Now we have that - the rebuilding will be a long struggle and we will have our work cut out. But we have the ability to talk - something we did not have under Saddam - something that I think people don't appreciate in democratic and free states as much as they should - the right to speak - and the right to criticise.

I have seen Iraqis in this country struggle to swallow tears before speaking in public, saying things like "Thank you and thank your government for allowing me to speak freely."

Liberals who were against the original invasion are in my mind misguided - in human terms - though they may be perfectly right in legal terms, and if they are I would say the law needs to be changed. People in Sudan deserve their freedom too.

If you think it's a bit much me sounding like I'm expecting you to take responsibility for your government's actions remind yourself that we, the Iraqi people, never elected Saddam, so why should we all have had to take responsibility for his actions? Why do you deserve better from your government just because you were born there and not in Iraq? And how can anyone begrudge me - like Neil with his "anti-war" figures - my newfound right to vote that I have waited all my life for, my new rights to speak and criticise.

Everyone deserves their freedom to speak and challenge, to protest and to elect their government. We are a long way away from that all over the world. But it is not your responsibility.

I feel lucky we had enough oil in Iraq to have interested the US enough to get rid of Saddam, just as I would thank my lucky stars if a thief were to rescue me from drowning just because he happened to be interested in my wallet.

We all have to make compromises and sacrifices. The US needs to realise there are worse things than communism and should never support a totalitarian regime even against it. The liberals need to realise that the choice between killing more people and killing fewer is not necessarily the same as the choice between waging and not waging war.



Can I qoute my friends that are serving over there? Have you ever heard of Uranium depleted shells before? Do you like the fact that the US government will be controlling your resources? Do you like that our government has given the new Iraqi leader the power to declare martial law at any time? Do you like that we destroyed many parts of the country only to rebuild it? Do you like that the first thing we secured are the oil fields? Foremost, I feel that civil liberties in the US are lacking as of late...as a liberal in america I can honestly say that I have been demonized and shunned. Not to mention physically threatened, etc.

MitchMZ
08-04-2004, 05:12 PM
Very good points. Like I said, I don't agree with war but military action I do. I agree with taking Saddam out of power; I don't agree with some of the weapons used and the governments real reasoning for being in Iraq. No, I didn't agree with the initial invasion. IMO, invading a country and counter terrorism are two different things. In Aikido do we teach advertising our intent in a tactical situation? TRaditional war is a thing of the past, yet we tried to fight this war in a very traditional manner. How does one weigh this, our government has done evil things, and the reasoning for our occupation of Iraq (in the highest levels of government) is anything but innocent. Many people in our government and country are making tons of money off this. But, there are people in our government that do care about the people here and around the world. For those people it is extremely hard to get anything done in their own good will, unless $$$$$ is involved for everyone. This is a complex war...you can't just say its right or wrong. One things for sure, our execution was a terribly sloppy display of our reliance on brute force; although its amazing we can topple a regime so fast...I would have much rather seen us dump the money we spent on bombs and cruise missles to give directly to the Iraqi people, and I think we should more extensively used ground troops and special forces teams as scouts and not bombs. I know we tried to bag Saddam many times with special forces teams...but why give up?

Also, John, words and action are two totally different things...I could talk about solving problems all day (something ALL policticians do) but if they never happen what does it matter? Hell, there are streets in America that are just as dangerous as those in Iraq. Nothing ever changes there.

Honestly, my biggest objection to our fine nation is no longer the war, and I'm thankful I havent been forced to kill...not that I ever would anyways. Unlike many of the people who live in countries around the world. Really, it is our raping of the enviroment and our nuclear and biological weapons programs that make me angry. There are people that can barely afford to eat in this country and can't get health care but yet we can spend billions on buuilding more nuclear weapons. Not to mention the horrible blows to civil liberties that have been dealt the past 10 years. I get especially nervous when the government here has total control of the media. Which becomes overly apparent when the truth gets chopped up. I think in 50 years military action (revolution) may quite possibly have to happen in this country again. People really need to stop fighting and realize that the earth is almost done for. But, thats about as realistic as me getting elected to be president some day. LOL. Good day to you both, I had a lot of stuff on my mind and it came out in a jabble, sorry.

Neil Mick
08-07-2004, 12:18 AM
You didn't destroy our country in this war, you destroyed it in 1970 when you supported Saddam against the Communist Party of Iraq in a military coup - you went on to destroy it in arming Saddam over his war with Iran. You destroyed it with sanctions which only hurt the poor people of Iraq, and even more when you encouraged us to rise up against Saddam but didn't support us. After Kuwait was invaded you destroyed it when you carpet-bombed our cities with less than perfect military precision, wiping out thousands of innocent people. You even bombed a civilian shelter!

I can forgive you all that now you have helped to remove Saddam.Not only can I forgive you but would also extend my hand and genuinely thank you.

At last, you admit some flaws, in the way the US has treated your country. This puts a more realistic view on things. Up til this point, you almost sounded like a Conservative living in Minnesota! :)

So, let's just all agree on a few things, OK?

1. Iraq (and, by extension, the world), is better off, without Hussein;

2. Hussein needed to be removed from power. Somehow. (EXACTLY how, is debatable);

3. Invasion and "regime change" are the most obvious (but not necessarily the best) methods;

4. The US has not had the welfare of the Iraqi citizenry as a priority, for some time now;

5. More to the point, the US has been complicit in some of Hussein's worst offenses.

(Still, I could imagine a "third way," in which the UN sets up "peaceful invasions" by shipping in supplies along with cadre's of blue-hats, to monitor the supply-distribution, and to monitor Hussein's abuses. Maybe it would work, maybe not).

I simply cannot stand by to see a quote for 11,000 of my people, regrettable as that has been to support an argument, that the war should never have happened (a consequence of which would have been a Saddam in power today), and therefore that the mass murders, and irrelevent wars (unlike US/UK Iraq had CONSCRIPTS) would have continued for the Iraqi people.

Thanks again to the US.

Rend

OK, now here we get to the "meat" of the matter. Pay close attention to point #5. You're all happy that Hussein is gone. Me too. You're thrilled that Hussein is being tried for his crimes.

Not so fast.

The people who ARE trying him, are CRIMINALS. Get it? They broke international law. They HELPED Hussein, during his worst offenses. The criminals are trying the criminal. Surely, they'll leave out a few salient names, in the upcoming list of defendants.

Remember when Hussein issued that 20,000 page report to the IAEA? What was the first thing the US did...? They excised 6,000 pages. And, remember the moral and just methods they used, to assemble their "coalition of the willing?"

Mighty fishy, isn't it? The former allies of a criminal, censoring his statements, staging his kangeroo-trial, carefully avoiding any mention of their involvement...?

Consider this article: (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles427.htm)

The Bush Admin LIED about WMD! Can anything positive, be ultimately spun, from such a lie?

More to the point, what makes you think that the "new democracy" won't spin out anything other than a new Hussein? All that money spent, all those troops semi-permenently stationed there; the re-routing of the oil pipeline to Haifa...no, it does not look good at all, for hopes of an Iraqi future.

As far as the numbers themselves: think what you like. Our army "doesn't do body counts." I for one, consider the media blackout of the cost of this invasion, an insult to the memory of these victims. Obviously, you see it differently.

Of course one thing that keeps people afraid is terrorism, but every day more Iraqis risk their lives lining up to volunteer for the police force

Sorry, that's not what I heard. I heard the opposite. Source?

Liberals who were against the original invasion are in my mind misguided - in human terms - though they may be perfectly right in legal terms, and if they are I would say the law needs to be changed. People in Sudan deserve their freedom too.

And, what if you couldn't have Iraqi freedom, without first sacrificing Sudanese relief, and vice versa? How do you choose between deposing an oil-rich tyrant that uses death squads and torture, starved by the UN, or stopping the genocide and starvation of an African nation?

Please, isn't the answer obvious? And, now that the US has gone down the rabbit hole, isn't it clear that the next Hussein is already being selected? Did you know, for instance, that the Iraqi "governing council" has guaranteed seats in the new Parliament, to be selected?

You don't create democracy and freedom, by invasions and extended occupations. How many times must we re-learn this lesson?

rendshakir
08-07-2004, 05:30 PM
We'll see! I think it's a great idea giving them seats - to be honest there are a lot of seats and these people - the 23 that are left of the 25 all risked their lives - many have been prominent campaigners against saddam for the last 30 years - they have some experience of gvernment now and put together a suggested constitution --- I have no problem with them serving in government - out of the 250+ seats available - it doesn't ruin the process at all and they deserve it!

Neil Mick
08-07-2004, 06:05 PM
...and, I suppose that it's also a "great idea" that women's rights aren't guaranteed in the new constitution, either??

Also, guaranteeing ANYONE a seat in gov't is not a democracy. That's the essence of a democratic gov't: a politician's career-future is subject to the will of the ppl.

rendshakir
08-08-2004, 03:30 AM
The constitution really isn't bad if you've read it? it's not perfect but it's quite an achievement. Britain doesn't even have a constitution... I suppose you think it's just a coincidence in the US that Bush and Bush both get into power... they must have just beat the odds that are there for everyone...?

Give us a break - women's rights aren't guaranteed anywhere...

rendshakir
08-08-2004, 03:33 AM
Neil I'm glad your constitution makes you feel better... but there is a long way to go before it results in any guarantees in the real world - also if you care about democracy - go sort out Britain which has become a worse offender than Iraq - even the head of state is not elected over here!!!!

vanstretch
08-08-2004, 09:11 PM
Rend , have you listened to the music of Nitin Swaney? He is a saudi living in london(i believe), not related to thread but curious. Its good worldly flow. later

Neil Mick
08-09-2004, 09:40 PM
The constitution really isn't bad if you've read it? it's not perfect but it's quite an achievement. Britain doesn't even have a constitution... I suppose you think it's just a coincidence in the US that Bush and Bush both get into power... they must have just beat the odds that are there for everyone...?

Yeah, like: being born in the same family...pals with the Saudi royalty...oil-barons, texas "tea"... ;)

Give us a break - women's rights aren't guaranteed anywhere...

Really? Funny, I thought you were for women's rights...doesn't sound much like the women-activists I've heard, from Iraq.... :confused:

Neil Mick
08-09-2004, 09:50 PM
But, more to the point: I find it weird that you have great confidence that Hussein is being tried, in the manner he is; that Iraqi workers have no rights to assemble or negotiate; that much of your natural resources and oil (the main product of Iraq, before dates) are being siphoned off.

And you feel "confident," about all this? Umm, I guess so... :freaky:

vanstretch
08-14-2004, 12:09 AM
Neil , have you considered pissing off and stop being such a little instigating prick? It is more than apparent through this thread that Rend speaks from experience and is directly related to these matters and that you are not. Have you ever heard of silence?- it's golden you know? No one is impressed with all your stats and psudo-intellectual nonsense and know-it-all stances. get a life dude. Do the right thing-assert your 5th ammendment priveledge.

Neil Mick
08-15-2004, 03:58 PM
Neil I'm glad your constitution makes you feel better... but there is a long way to go before it results in any guarantees in the real world - also if you care about democracy - go sort out Britain which has become a worse offender than Iraq - even the head of state is not elected over here!!!!

And, come ON...the "head of State" in Britain is purely a ceremonial title. Why hash on Britain being a "worse offender than Iraq...?" Britain has some problems, true (the Diplock Trials, for example): but I haven't heard much about charges of prisoner abuse, widespread unlawful detentions, declaring martial law from US-appointed figureheads (who have no military to back the martial declaration), or corporate corruption as the norm in Britain, have you?

rendshakir
08-27-2004, 08:45 AM
Hi,
I have a great deal of respect for the current royal family, and on the whole admiration for how they conduct themselves as individuals - but they do have powers by law which could potentially be abused - there is no guarantee that their successors will be equally benevolent, and this allocation of power cannot in any way be called democratic - this is the context in which I make this observation.
Now on to other things for me I think.
Rend

Neil Mick
08-27-2004, 10:47 PM
Hi,
I have a great deal of respect for the current royal family, and on the whole admiration for how they conduct themselves as individuals - but they do have powers by law which could potentially be abused - there is no guarantee that their successors will be equally benevolent, and this allocation of power cannot in any way be called democratic - this is the context in which I make this observation.
Now on to other things for me I think.
Rend

Too bad. You gave some much-needed life to this forum thread.

And yes, I completely agree with you: England is not a pure democracy. Neither is America.

Every democracy has its abuses of power. Gerorge W. Bush is not unusual, in Presidential abusers: they ALL have done it, one form or another.

The way I see the Royal House of England is sort of a balancing of several hats. My egalitarian hat says that they're a leeching of the general funds. My historian hat understands that the English (as, everyone else) need a certain element of pomp and ceremony, as part of their national identity (altho, personally: I'd like to see the office become TOTALLY ceremonial, with the Queen, et al, making all of their money from nonprofits soliciting donations from fundraisings, marathon's, and bake-sales :) ), a ceremonial figurehead family that roots their identity to the past.

But, you make some good points. Sorry to see you go, but onward and upward. :sorry:

Taliesin
09-13-2004, 09:07 AM
Rend

Just to clarify a few points. The ONLY powers the Queen now has are 1- To give Royal Assent to new Acts of Parliament and 2 - To invite the leader of the party/Alliance that has most MP's to form a Government.

It should also be pointed out that she has no choice but to gove Royal Assent - otherwise parliament will not approve the following years budget and all that security etc.

You really shouldn't worry about the 'abuse of powers of the Royal Family' - they are just figureheads.

is Britain a Democracy - No wer are an elective Dictatorship - the party that has most MP's rules even if a majority of people voted against that party (as per Wilsons Government of 1974).


It does appear that the United States is far more a Corporate Republic than a democracy with representatives far more beholden to those who provide funds rather than thase who have votes. (well that's how it looks from the outside).

Anyway how is the Presidential Auction going.

Neil Mick
09-14-2004, 01:45 PM
Anyway how is the Presidential Auction going.

Not bad: once the candidates get their heads out of what they did/didn't do, in Vietnam and talk about what's going on TODAY...we MIGHT actually be getting somewhere.

Until then: it's all pointless puffery and silly slur's, as more soldiers come home in unphotographical coffins.

Politics! :yuck:

Aikidoiain
09-30-2004, 05:28 PM
I like "native Americans" - afterall it is their country. I've nothing personal against any single American, but I do think the US has become the world's "Police Force" - in a bad way. Supporting Israel is disgusting.

That's all I'm saying.

As for US foreign policies - they are hypocritical. I still think 9/11 was a humanitarian disaster though. But, alas, it's Mans' nature to destroy each other and the planet.

The UK's not much better though. I'd rather live in Finland or Norway if I could.

Iain. :ki: :)

Neil Mick
09-30-2004, 06:30 PM
I like "native Americans" - afterall it is their country. I've nothing personal against any single American, but I do think the US has become the world's "Police Force" - in a bad way. Supporting Israel is disgusting.

That's all I'm saying.

As for US foreign policies - they are hypocritical. I still think 9/11 was a humanitarian disaster though. But, alas, it's Mans' nature to destroy each other and the planet. :)

I was right with you, until the last sentence. But, I'm an optimist: I think that it's man's nature to live in harmony.

Kevin Leavitt
10-04-2004, 01:31 PM
Neil, then you must believe that their is hope for George Bush! :) (Couldn't resist! have a nice day!)

JAHsattva
10-05-2004, 10:32 AM
i think there is a huge difference between "anti" and "non"

anti is agressivly against , non is passive.

it is possible for one to be non-american ,and not anti-american.
after all who can be proud of the united states' HISstory of brutal, divide and conquer?

terrorism is not a new concept, in fact its the effect of colonization .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Brief History of CIA Sponsored Terrorism 1953-2004

1953

The CIA is involved in a coup to overthrow nationalist Prime Minister Dr. Muhammed Mossadeq in Iran, after he threatened to nationalize Irans oil. Supports Iranian military in massacre of Mossadeq supporters and returns the Shah to power. In 1976, Amnesty concluded that the Shah's CIA-trained security force, the SAVAK, had the worst human rights record in the world, and that the number and variety of torture techniques the CIA had taught SAVAK were "beyond belief."

Operation MK-ULTRA — Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the nationalist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills an estimated 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959

Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961

The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro; which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 % of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

The Congo — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent nationalist policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down progressive Brazilians for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these people labeled as "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto and muslim militias will massacre over one million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects to be murdered.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece — With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreou as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966

The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students' Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967

Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When the Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cyprus, he tells him: "F**K your parliament and your constitution"

Vietnam - Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and assasinate alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation kills over 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA long been illegally spying on American citizens, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organisations protesting the Vietnam War.

Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The Bolivian military executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969

Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Gestapo'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970

Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sihanouk, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971

Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge and the assistance of the CIA.

1972

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Watergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973

Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million assistance for a coup . The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon's Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975

Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, centre left labor government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITA, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war still goes on and has to date killed over 1.5 million Angolans. Ironically because of the increase in Angola's Oil output (controlled by the MPLA and going mainly to the U.S) they no longer actively support UNITA.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite previously large election mandates, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organisation.

1979

Nicaragua - After Nicaraguan dictator Samosa is overthrown in 1979, the CIA s turns the old National Guard into death squads known as the Contras. The Contras are used to terrorise rural Nicaragua while the US military blockades Nicaragua's harbours with mines. In 1989, after 10,000 deaths, the US is successful in ousting the Sandanista government.

1980

El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981

Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assasination.

1983

Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual -- 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984

The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986

Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and murder.

1989

Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990

Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991

The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

1991-2002

Iraq: Severe economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. By UN estimates, the sanctions cost over a million lives, half of them children. About 5,000 children dying each month, mostly from malnutrition and treatable diseases. From the most economically advanced country in the region before the US attack, Iraq becomes the most destitute.

The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992

Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993

Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. military do not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the U.S.

1998

Iraq: Renewed US and British bombing campaign - called Operation Desert Fox - against Iraq after it exposes US spies among UN weapons inspectors (later admitted by US officials). The UN pulls out inspectors before bombings, which continue up utill the invasion on average every other day.

2002

In an attempt by the United States to control Venezuela's oil President Hugo Chavez is overthrown in a CIA supported military coup reminiscent of previous CIA-coups in Guatemala, Chile, Brazil etc. The US welcomes the coup and congratulates the military, while denying involvement. The coup collapses after two days, however, and Chavez returns to office.

2002

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez alleges that "a plane with US registration numbers was at an army airstrip on Venezuela's Orchila Island, one of five places he was held in captivity during his brief removal from power," reports the BBC.

2002

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claims to have foiled another coup plot to remove him from office.

2002

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claims to have escaped an assassination attempt while returning from a trip to Europe.

2004

VHeadline.com claims that the Bush administration is planning another coup in Venezuela.

2004

USA/CIA supported rebels take over cities in northern Haiti and move towards Haiti's capital, Port-au-Prince, overrunning Aristide's local police forces, killing hundreds of civillians and vowing to overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The rebels include various factions. The leading groups are led by Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a convicted murderer and former death squad leader under "Baby Doc" Duvalier, and Guy Philippe, also a known human rights violator. Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is then escorted on a US-charted jet to the Central African Republic after being forced to resign. According to Joseph Pierre, a concierge at Aristide's residence, whose account is reported in the French newspaper Libération, Aristide is taken away early Sunday morning by US soldiers. "White Americans came by helicopter to get him. They also took his bodyguards. It was around two o'clock in the morning. He didn't want to leave. The American soldiers forced him to. Because they were pointing guns at him, he had to follow them. The Americans are second only to God in terms of strength."

Aristide was then replaced with a US puppet.
__________________
"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US, 'military intervention' is necessary".

-Dick Cheney 2001


i dont really wish to argue with anyone, i understand people have tremendous pride in what they believe to be true.
i would be willing to reason with anyone ,but i try not to dwell on negativity.

Neil Mick
10-05-2004, 08:03 PM
Neil, then you must believe that their is hope for George Bush! :) (Couldn't resist! have a nice day!)

Doh!

Yes, there IS hope for W.

I have deep hope that W will one day face justice, see the error of his ways, and publicly renounce his previous, erroneous policies and become a TRUE practicing Christian. :freaky:

Until that day...I wait, and wait, and....

Neil Mick
10-05-2004, 08:06 PM
i think there is a huge difference between "anti" and "non"

anti is agressivly against , non is passive.

it is possible for one to be non-american ,and not anti-american.

Exactly. :cool:

HEY, John Hogan...are you paying attention?? ;)

Paul.H
10-05-2004, 09:10 PM
Jason, excellent post you rarely read these items together which gives a different perspective than one of these read in isolation.

To add to the above

1985 - Lebanon. The CIA plants a truck bomb outside a mosque in Beruit in an attempt to kill a muslim cleric. As the worshippers depart the mosque the bomb is detonated killing 80 and wounding 250 including many women and children. The target escaped unhurt.

1998 - Sudan (unsure of any involvement of the CIA but I wouldn't be suprised) US Tomahawk missiles flatten the Al Shifa Pharmacutical plant in Sudan claiming it was making chemical weapons. The plants owner Saleh Idris was accused of associating with terrorists and his bank account was frozen by Washington. The case was contested and the US back down from its claims.
Thousands have since died from otherwise treatable diseases such as malaria and TB including many children.

And after reading this I have to ask the question (ok two)
- Who has killed more civillians - US foreign policy or Saddam Hussien??
- Why are/do the terrorists want to attack/kill us?? (please spare me the "they are jealous of our democracy and freedom" line).

Untold cost of war - I note we are told about the one thousand plus soliders killed in Iraq but we rarely hear anything about the permanately injured. There are more than three thousand (US figures only) soilders who will not be able to return to duties or resume a normal family life because of their injuries. Now add to this the many who will have physcological problems, unexplainable diseases etc that will no doubt surface in the years to come.

Guess thats my two cents for now

Cheers
Paul

James Giles
10-06-2004, 11:56 AM
A big thanks to Jason and Paul for clarifying what I already suspected about U.S. foreign policy....and for a while there I was beginning to trust our leader(s). What a wake up call!

Kevin Leavitt
10-06-2004, 12:46 PM
I am going to Landsthul Hospital in Germany to visit many of those soldiers over Christmas. My soldiers and leadership go there regularly to visit them. There are many of them.

I am not so concerned about the terrorist and what they think of us. Heck, there will always be someone somewhere that doesn't like someone else because of ideology, materialistic wealth, whatever.

What concerns me is that if all of us in the modern western world are really taking the time and effort to be introspective and seeing if our own backyard is good. I mean are we doing all we can to be compassionate, to care for the planet, our fellow humans, or are we all living in fear of the next terrorist attack and in fear of loss of our prized materialistic possessions? If we allow fear to overtake us, it makes decisions for us that may not be rational or correct.

I think there is much we all can do to improve ourselves and be sociallly responsible. If we do these things and set a good example for others to follow, maybe eventually the world will be a better place. As long as we allow fear, greed, and materialism to control us, we will have personal conflict. That personal conflict spills over into others and you have things like war, terrorism etc.

Fighting wars may put out the fires temporarily, but does not eliminate the source that start them.

Oh well, enough free thought rambling for the day!

Hogan
10-06-2004, 02:33 PM
Jason Hackler wrote:
i think there is a huge difference between "anti" and "non"

anti is agressivly against , non is passive.

it is possible for one to be non-american ,and not anti-american.


Exactly.

HEY, John Hogan...are you paying attention??



Well, Micky Boy, I was afraid you forgot about me...

Jason's quote, as you clipped him above, really doesn't make sense if he is trying to say what I think he is.

"Non" american means you aren't american.

"Anti" american means you are against americans and what they represent, passively or agressively. (But it makes me wonder whether one is including all of north and south america when someone says thay are "anti" american).

But, unintentionally I am sure, Jason's quote does make sense and is true, but much like saying the sun is bright. In other words, so what ?
Yes, it is possible to not be an american and not against americans.
(translation of "it is possible for one to be non-american ,and not anti-american").

By Micky Boy ! See you crying the evening of Nov. 2, saying, "Whyyyyyyy, oh Whyyyyyy !"

George S. Ledyard
10-06-2004, 03:05 PM
1998 - Sudan (unsure of any involvement of the CIA but I wouldn't be suprised) US Tomahawk missiles flatten the Al Shifa Pharmacutical plant in Sudan claiming it was making chemical weapons. The plants owner Saleh Idris was accused of associating with terrorists and his bank account was frozen by Washington. The case was contested and the US back down from its claims.
Thousands have since died from otherwise treatable diseases such as malaria and TB including many children.


While not in any way disagreeing with your overall argument I must point out that the US backed down on trying to prove to the media, and by extension the world, that this was a chemical weapons plant because doing so would compromise our intelligence gathering.

Sudan, at that time, was a haven for Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. The Bin Ladin construction company was building all sorts of public works projects all over the country. Bin Ladin was trying very hard to establish the kind of control over the government which he had in Afghanistan. The government had become a virtual money laundering and banking center for Al Qaeda finances. Salej Idris turned out to have direct financial backing from Osama Bin Ladin who had a direct financial interest in the plant. The chemical which the special ops folks found on the grounds of the plant was a compound which is only found in the manufacture of serin. all of this is quite well documented in a number of books which are not written by Right Wing zealots at all.

In my opinion we called it right on that one. It is a well documented fact that Bin Ladin has been trying to get his hands on some sort of chemical weapon for some time. After we blew that plant they broke up a manufacturing plant in a residence in England where they were trying again to create an alternative source for serin. (Also, in our own defense we urposely blew the plant at night and the only fatality was a night watchman.)

I think it is very important that we remember that there really is a war out there. It is tragic that the duplicity of the administration has been so pronounced that many people think the government is lying about everything, which isn't the case. It doesn't do the progressive cause any good if we ignore the harsh reality that we are really at war. We're just putting most of our attention and resources in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and have made the enemy more powerful rather than less by our actions.

There will almost certainly be another terrorist attack on the US. It's just a matter of time. It is important that progressive folks be perceived as realistic and intelligent about this threat and the actions we need to take to counter it if we are to have chance turing things around politically in this country. If the public percieves the liberals / progressives as "soft" on defense they'll turn the whole country over to the fascists and not bat an eye.

Educating an unaware public about the past actions which our government has undertaken on their behalves is an important process. It will help them undertsand exactly why the various countries around the world don't exactly jump for joy when we propose some action or other on the world stage. But it is also crucial that we recognize that we do need to mount a strong defense against international Islamic Radical Fundamentalism. This the real threat and it is not going away. It is our challenge to see how we can act in the world to alleviate some of the great povertyand suffering that is out there and at the same time protect ourselves and the various other countries out there who are targets for these folks. The threat is very real and I am constantly frustrated by the current administration's attempts to get everone watching the wrong direction.

Kevin Leavitt
10-06-2004, 03:46 PM
great post George. it is easy to get caught up in the emotions of the issues! I too am frustrated,

Trying to maintain a sense of practicality and reality balanced with my personal belief system, sometimes hard to reconcile.

stuartjvnorton
10-06-2004, 07:23 PM
Seems strange then that Dubya's spending all of this time & money (unless it's just a brave face until the election's over) in Iraq when he could be kicking Al Qaeda in the nuts in Sudan.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wonder what his reasons are.

I'm also getting over the whole "Islamic radical fundamentalist" thing.
The problem is that everyone looks at the "Islamic", when they should be looking at the "radical fundamentalist".
You don't have to be a muslim to be a dangerous kook.

Neil Mick
10-06-2004, 08:11 PM
Well, Micky Boy, I was afraid you forgot about me...

Not at all. I just figured you were still researching the numerous fallacies and holes in your various strawman arguments, that I've managed to puncture (followed by your usual battle-cry: "I JUST DON'T BELIEVE YOU, so THERE!)

And, BTW: my name is "Neil Mick." I have no idea of our differences in ages, so calling me "boy" is simply condescending.

See you crying the evening of Nov. 2, saying, "Whyyyyyyy, oh Whyyyyyy !"

Since they are in a dead heat in the polls, I'd say that you're premature in your prediction.

But if Kerry DOES win, Nov 2nd, I'll be sure to send you a card of condolence. :p

Neil Mick
10-06-2004, 08:34 PM
While not in any way disagreeing with your overall argument I must point out that the US backed down on trying to prove to the media, and by extension the world, that this was a chemical weapons plant because doing so would compromise our intelligence gathering.

Uh huh..."compromise the intel," huh? Where have I heard that before?

in our own defense we urposely blew the plant at night and the only fatality was a night watchman.

Maybe. But it's a fact that the loss of that pharmaceutical plant caused a loss in lives of treatable diseases.

The US gov't never apologized for their actions, never offered to pay for any reparations. I'm guessing that it was Clinton's method of using the bomb, to boost his flagging support. He certainly did this with Iraq.

I think it is very important that we remember that there really is a war out there. We're just putting most of our attention and resources in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and have made the enemy more powerful rather than less by our actions.

Yes, and on this: we're agreed. Sure, I think it's necessary to do military actions, at times. But, we certainly should clean up our messes, afterward.

Good post, tho. I agreed with most of it.

Neil Mick
10-06-2004, 10:42 PM
Oh yeah, one more thing:

See you crying the evening of Nov. 2, saying, "Whyyyyyyy, oh Whyyyyyy !"

I'm not going to celebrate on Nov. 2nd, no matter what happens. If W loses (and for the sake of the US Constitution, and int'l law, I hope he does), I''ll breathe a sigh of relief, but Kerry's hardly "my" candidate: the pablum Edwards spewed last night about the poor Israeli's, IGNORING that 3 Palestinian children were shot in the HEAD, THAT VERY DAY..! :grr:

Outrageous. No,, "my" candidate was Kucinich, and the press decided that he was "un-electable." Maybe "my" candidate will be elected 3 or 4 terms later, well after Peak Oil becomes a daily fact, of life...who knows?

deepsoup
10-07-2004, 04:17 AM
Sure, I think it's necessary to do military actions, at times. But, we certainly should clean up our messes, afterward.
Absolutely right.
And we don't need to do it out of some liberal desire to "do the right thing" either. We can do it out of simple self interest (the motive we love best), because when we don't do it, it comes back and bites us in the backside later. (And who knows better about that than we Brits, I mean Winston Churchill was using chemical weapons to attack civilians in Iraq way back in the '20s. Lets not even mention Israel.)

Seems strange then that Dubya's spending all of this time & money (unless it's just a brave face until the election's over) in Iraq when he could be kicking Al Qaeda in the nuts in Sudan.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wonder what his reasons are.
Nah. If he wanted to go after Al Qaeda, particularly in the wake of 9/11, how about Saudi Arabia?
Out of interest, is anyone in the US talking about the whole "House of Saud/House of Bush" thing? Theres been a lot published about it, but it amazes me that noone really seems bothered.
What really surprised me was the revelation that, in the immediate aftermath, while nobody else could fly in the US, there was a plane flitting around the country picking up dozens of Bin Laden's relatives (Bush's friends) and spiriting them out of the country before they could be even politely questioned by the American authorities. (Let alone dumped into offshore dungeons and interrogated for years on end the way hundreds of less well connected individuals, US and UK citizens among them, have been ever since.)

Sean
x

Hogan
10-07-2004, 07:29 AM
..."my" candidate was Kucinich..

Well, that explains everything, Micky Boy. Much easier, now, to forgive your ignorance.


(p.s. - suggestion, DON"T VOTE if don't don't like either - why give someone a false sense of mandate ?)

Oh yeah, one more thing:
You have punctured nothing, my dear Micky - no need to flatter yourself.

JAHsattva
10-07-2004, 10:28 AM
"But of all of the rules of the debates, the one that bolsters the case that these events are more like a bipartisan press conference is the exclusion of third party candidates. "

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/07/1335240

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by saying non-american i mean that "i" for instance am a born citizen of the u.s.
i am striving to live simple and not be swayed by public opinion/living trends(laziness) that define western civilization.
(excessive living, wastefulness)
i try not to be dependent on corporations and oil (try it ..its hard) buy locally as much as you can.vote with your dollars.
see if you can shake the hand of the person whos pocket your money goes.

our ways of having anything we want, instantly. is effecting the world family,as well as the environment.(globalization)

sorry, but this way of life is ignorant.

i see allot of finger pointing, but no one wants to actually correct the problems .
_________________
a great nation is like a man:
when he makes a mistake,he realizes it.
having admitted it,he corrects it.
he considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
he thinks of his enemy
as theshadow that he himself casts
--lao tzu-

Neil Mick
10-07-2004, 05:04 PM
You have punctured nothing, my dear Micky - no need to flatter yourself.

Well, hogey-baby: the record speaks for itself. You've failed to answer even one TEENY little question that I have put to you, preferring instead to insult, to run and hide when faced with facts, to demean, instead of carry on a conversation with a modicum of respect.

But permit me to teach you a simple lesson of debate, that either your teachers failed to pass on, or (more likely) you just weren't interested in learning...you don't like the facts I present? Simple: refute them with OTHER facts. I fully invite you to prove me wrong...please! I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier.

But you cannot, and so you go for the low-blow.

Any reader can easily search your past nonresponses, to see my point.

Didn't they teach you better manners in your home? Guess not, as you poorly cover for your lack of understanding current issues, with insult.

Next time, I'll just put your cognitively-deprived self, on ignore.

Neil Mick
10-07-2004, 06:12 PM
Absolutely right.
Out of interest, is anyone in the US talking about the whole "House of Saud/House of Bush" thing? Theres been a lot published about it, but it amazes me that noone really seems bothered.

Michael Moore covers it pretty well in F9-11.

What really surprised me was the revelation that, in the immediate aftermath, while nobody else could fly in the US, there was a plane flitting around the country picking up dozens of Bin Laden's relatives (Bush's friends) and spiriting them out of the country before they could be even politely questioned by the American authorities.

I've thought about this a lot. The Bin Ladin's were given a cursory, 20-min interview with the FBI, before they were all carted out, September 17th.

The favoritism btw the Saudi's and the Bush's is really bad, and runs deep. Funny, how Saudi Arabia never seems to be a major "problem" we have to solve, doesn't it? Oh yeah: the Saudi Arab's need no regime-changing from us, the "champions 'o democracy!" We NEED the Saudi oil, and so their less savory gov't policies aren't so important as, say: a tinpot despot who got too big for himself, and invaded Kuwait.

And we'll spend many billions of dollars and lives, to maintain this relationship. Instead of, say: investing at least A QUARTER of that, in alternative energies.

Gods NO! :blush: What am I SAYING?? If we did THAT, we'd have a President that appears weak., and that just wouldn't do, now would it? But, he IS weak: he certainly is a piss-poor protector of this country, that's quite obvious.

But, there's a lot more around the circumstances of 9-11, that are far more disturbing. Consider:

1. Why, if 9-11 was such a major disaster, a failure to act, why was no one held responsible?
2. Why were 5 separate war-games ALL going on that day,,,all with similar names?
3. Why did the jets take so long to get up in the air, to intercept the planes? I can answer that one: because they had no clear idea where the planes WERE, because there were FIVE wargames going on, and the officer in charge of sending up those planes, simply didn't know where to send them...too many targets.
4. Someone, in the Pentagon: was aware of all those simulations going on, and was high-enough rank to be monitoring the hijacking.
5. The question is: who is this person, and why is he not brought forth to testify?
6. Why was the Commission headed by a man who had close ties to the Admin (once co-wrote a book with Condi)?
7. Why were much of the Commission's paltry recommendations swept up into a new law that is effectively a Patriot 2, bearing little rememblance to the Comm's findings?

(Let alone dumped into offshore dungeons and interrogated for years on end the way hundreds of less well connected individuals, US and UK citizens among them, have been ever since.)

Sean
x

You so got that right, Sean!

Neil Mick
10-07-2004, 09:38 PM
(p.s. - suggestion, DON"T VOTE if don't don't like either - why give someone a false sense of mandate ?)

John Hogan, anti-democracy advocate :p

Hogan
10-08-2004, 07:32 AM
Well, hogey-baby: the record speaks for itself. You've failed to answer even one TEENY little question that I have put to you, preferring instead to insult, to run and hide when faced with facts, to demean, instead of carry on a conversation with a modicum of respect.

But permit me to teach you a simple lesson of debate, that either your teachers failed to pass on, or (more likely) you just weren't interested in learning...you don't like the facts I present? Simple: refute them with OTHER facts. I fully invite you to prove me wrong...please! I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier.

But you cannot, and so you go for the low-blow.

Any reader can easily search your past nonresponses, to see my point.

Didn't they teach you better manners in your home? Guess not, as you poorly cover for your lack of understanding current issues, with insult.

Next time, I'll just put your cognitively-deprived self, on ignore.

hahah... 'hogey-baby' - I like that.

I have answered all of your questions, Micky Boy, and have never insulted you. But like the typical liberal, when confronted with someone who disagrees, you personally insult with a know-it-all attitude, seemingly unable to come to terms that there are people that just don't agree with you, and that you may be wrong. Permit ME to teach YOU about this debate: whatever 'facts' people show you to prove you wrong, you have ignored and refused to accept it. You believe your own facts, and are happy in your little anti-Bush world. Well enjoy it, Micky Boy.

Hogan
10-08-2004, 07:36 AM
John Hogan, anti-democracy advocate :p

Again, you fail to understand.

But you go ahead, you vote for someone you don't like just because you hate the other guy. Give that person a false sense of mandate to do what he wants. And then complain when he does something you hate and didn't want.


Neil Mick (i.e., Micky Boy) - the wasteful-voter advocate.
:p

JAHsattva
10-08-2004, 08:50 AM
you two should really consider agreeing to disagree.

instead of wasting eachothers time and energy. :D
:ai:
:ki:
:do:

Hogan
10-08-2004, 08:58 AM
you two should really consider agreeing to disagree.

instead of wasting eachothers time and energy. :D
:ai:
:ki:
:do:


I agree - and, in fact, I do accept that that we disagree. But Micky Boy apparently can't accept that people do disagree with him, as is demonstarted by the tremendous amount of posts by him in this topic, constantly blurting out lies and misstatements, and personal unsults to other posters when they are not in agreement with his view of the world. I started posting again a couple of days ago becuase he asked me a question only recently.

Neil Mick
10-08-2004, 02:57 PM
I agree - and, in fact, I do accept that that we disagree. But Micky Boy apparently can't accept that people do disagree with him, as is demonstarted by the tremendous amount of posts by him in this topic,

Wrong again.

I post a "tremendous amount" on the topic, because I am interested, in the topic. Actually, I find that most ppl actually AGREE with me, at least on several of the issues.

constantly blurting out lies and misstatements, and personal unsults to other posters when they are not in agreement with his view of the world.

Bollocks. I document everything I claim, and I take care to avoid direct insult (a silly belief, OTOH, is fair game).

But you must have missed this comment, I just made. Here: allow me to re-peat...

...you don't like the facts I present? Simple: refute them with OTHER facts. I fully invite you to prove me wrong...please! I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier.

But you cannot, and so you go for the low-blow.

And, just a cursory glance at John's record reveals a staggering avoidance of the issue, after even only a few posts:

6. This means that some of the "bastard terrorists" and "evildoers" that the US Army are torturing ("abusing," if it makes you feel better) are, in reality, innocent.

You understand my point, now? Innocent ppl are getting torutred/abused.

John’s respnse? And of course, I don't agreee with ANYTHING you say.

No rebuttal; no follow-up. Just: "you're wrong." Whoah.

Call Bush, John has a new debating technique at the ready...

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=76591#post76591

Common excuse is to “sidestep, because he does not ‘want to continue’” the debate. Oh yeah: THAT sure is answering all of my questions…

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=76376#post76376

My host of points where I provide documentation to rebut on post #249. Totally unanswered (John’s response: “RUN awaaaaayyy-yyy!)

Post #1220 in “Invasion of Iraq” thread. Failed to answer simple, one-sentence rebuttal

Avoids answering, in post #889 of “Invasion of Iraq” thread

And, on and on and...

Face it, John: your media-source, paltry and weakwater Fox :P doesn't give you enough information to carry on a simple debate, in a polite manner, with someone with whom you disagree. So, you cover for it by avoidance, blame-gaming, and put-down.

You want to debate? Step right up, put your ideas on the table and let's hash 'em out, with a dose of simple respect.

You want to root for your "home team," Team USA? The stadium's down the street...this is a virtual debate-hall.

You want to throw mud, smear, and muddy discussion? The sandbox and playground are out back. :P

But, there's GOOD news for your "narrow-cast" affliction, John! Yes: watch this show on the link below, to help inoculate you against the FoxNews virus of misinformation!

Or better still: live down to my expectations of you, "sidestep" the issues, "run away" from the point, refuse to listen...

Go on, watch this, unless, of course...you're "scared...?"

"Outfoxed" (http://bushlies2.us/bltv/bltv_chan4.html)

Neil Mick
10-08-2004, 03:04 PM
have never insulted you.

Wrong again. You have suggested that I lie, and insult. Irritating, annoying nicknames are silly, and are meant only to demean.

and that you may be wrong.

See above post. If I'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise, sit down (or run, as usual).

Permit ME to teach YOU about this debate: whatever 'facts' people show you to prove you wrong, you have ignored and refused to accept it.

Prove it: you can't. Anyone who wants me to debate an issue, PM me or drop me a post, and I will not shirk. Unlike, certain ppl's proven track-records,,,ahem.

You believe your own facts, and are happy in your little anti-Bush world. Well enjoy it, Micky Boy.

I believe in them, because I can cross-reference them.

How about you? Do you cross reference, or is it all out of Murdoch's mouth, into your ear? "THEY report, and YOU agree..." etc, ad nauseum.

Neil Mick
10-08-2004, 03:17 PM
Again, you fail to understand.

But you go ahead, you vote for someone you don't like just because you hate the other guy. Give that person a false sense of mandate to do what he wants. And then complain when he does something you hate and didn't want.


Neil Mick (i.e., Micky Boy) - the wasteful-voter advocate.
:p

I know, I know...you like long-winded explanations. So, let's try this again, shall we:

1. Every vote is important. How many votes did Bush win by, in Fla, 2000? That's right: 500 or so.
2. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does not = hating the other 2 guys.
2a. It COULD mean, that the 3rd Party candidate actually SPEAKS, for my issues.
2b. Or, it could mean that the 2 major parties stand for issues that I do not support.
2c. I hate no one, so that blows THAT statement, off the charts.
3. And so, the 3rd party candidate who gets my vote actually IS getting the mandate that he deserves....duh.
4. Now, if I choose not to vote for Kerry, and you think that I am, in effect supporting Bush: well, that's less a reflection of my disaffection of Kerry, and more a reflection of how narrow a choice we have, in electoral politics, now isn't it?
5. Edwards' statements about Israel the other night prove that his party is far removed, from my beliefs. Bush's inaction and approval of Sharon has also shown that Bush isn't my choice, either.
6. So, you castigate me, for a failure of the electoral system: because I choose to vote with my head, rather than "because the system is limited...?" :D :D :D
7. Your "great" suggestion?? Don't vote :crazy:

Really, John: if you thought about it, instead of simple nyah-nah-so-are-you'ing, you'd see how anti-democratic, this idea truly is. But don't mind me: you're probably busy watching "Outfoxed," as I type...good for you! :p

Hogan
10-08-2004, 03:35 PM
...I take care to avoid direct insult (a silly belief, OTOH, is fair game).

Ummm, just read your posts to me above and you will find nothing but insults.

Oh Micky - l do like your selective edits. My comment of not believing you doesn't mean, "You're wrong". I just don't believe your opinions. There IS a difference. But you insist on wanting to debate them, when others just don't want to. When someone doesn't want to debate you on your terms, well, then it's, "Oh, c'mon ! Yo HAVE to debate me !!! If you don't then your a child, go run and hide... ! Blah, Blah, Blah." Who the *bleep* cares. I don't.

Common excuse is to "sidestep, because he does not ‘want to continue'" the debate. Oh yeah: THAT sure is answering all of my questions…

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=76376#post76376

Ummm - yes I admitted I sidestepped - but then I answered your question.

Face it, John: your media-source, paltry and weakwater Fox :P doesn't give you enough information to carry on a simple debate, in a polite manner, with someone with whom you disagree. So, you cover for it by avoidance, blame-gaming, and put-down.

You want to debate? Step right up, put your ideas on the table and let's hash 'em out, with a dose of simple respect.


Oh Micky Boy - I have said time and time again, that FOX news is not only my source. I think I even said I didn't watch it once, but really do on occasion now, just to see what fair and balanced is really like. But like a typical left wing nut that you and Denny Kucinich strive to be, you insist on maintaining that people who don't agree with you must all somehow get their info from FOX news and that, for some reason, is bad. Okay, I guess I will switch to that model of even handedness Dan Rather and CBS news.

Hogan
10-08-2004, 03:38 PM
Wrong again. You have suggested that I lie, and insult. Irritating, annoying nicknames are silly, and are meant only to demean.



See above post. If I'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise, sit down (or run, as usual).



Prove it: you can't. Anyone who wants me to debate an issue, PM me or drop me a post, and I will not shirk. Unlike, certain ppl's proven track-records,,,ahem.



I believe in them, because I can cross-reference them.

How about you? Do you cross reference, or is it all out of Murdoch's mouth, into your ear? "THEY report, and YOU agree..." etc, ad nauseum.

God, you are beginning to make me tired all over. Go outside and fly in a balloon.

Hogan
10-08-2004, 03:54 PM
I know, I know...you like long-winded explanations. So, let's try this again, shall we:

Ohhhh THANK you, yes.... please try again !!!!


...2. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does not = hating the other 2 guys.
Never said it did. Like I said, you seem to not understand.

And so, the 3rd party candidate who gets my vote actually IS getting the mandate that he deserves....duh.
So, you are NOT voting for Kerry ????

4. Now, if I choose not to vote for Kerry, and you think that I am, in effect supporting Bush: well, that's less a reflection of my disaffection of Kerry, and more a reflection of how narrow a choice we have, in electoral politics, now isn't it?
Not supporting Kerry doesn't mean you are supporting Bush. I never said that and have no idea where that came from. I wrongly, it appears, assumed you were supporting Kerry because you don't like Bush, but that you don't like Kerry either. I then thoght you would be voting for Kerry anyway. And I said don't vote for someone you hate/don't agree with, because you give them a false sense of mandate. You follow, now ?


6. So, you castigate me, for a failure of the electoral system: because I choose to vote with my head, rather than "because the system is limited...?" :D :D :D .
What the HELL are you talking about ? Yes, I blamed you for the failure of the electoral system.

7. Your "great" suggestion?? Don't vote :crazy:
My suggestion is to not waste your vote. That's crazy ? Wow. People have died trying to secure our right to and to maintain or choice of voting. Don't waste it. Use it wisely. Don't just throw it away. If you don't like someone, don't vote for them. It's simple, really.

Really, John: if you thought about it, instead of simple nyah-nah-so-are-you'ing, you'd see how anti-democratic, this idea truly is. But don't mind me: you're probably busy watching "Outfoxed," as I type...good for you! :p
Saying not voting is anti-democractic !?!?!? Wow again. Democracy is all about choice. If someone CHOOSES not to vote, isn't he exercising his democratic right to NOT vote ? You would probably like voting to be mandated, don't you ?


You amaze me.

Neil Mick
10-08-2004, 05:13 PM
Ummm, just read your posts to me above and you will find nothing but insults

How about you post a few of them? Unless, as I suspect: they emerge only in your own mind...?

I never said that and have no idea where that came from. I wrongly, it appears, assumed you were supporting Kerry because you don't like Bush, but that you don't like Kerry either. I then thoght you would be voting for Kerry anyway. And I said don't vote for someone you hate/don't agree with, because you give them a false sense of mandate. You follow, now ?

It's all that "with us, or with the terrorists," thinking that gets you locked into a box-mode of thought...very dangerous, John. And, I far support David Cobb, over Kerry; and I'll probably vote for him, as I live in a non-swing state.

You amaze me.

Wish I could say: "feelings mutual," but your typical blend of slander, cut-and-run, and simple vituperance (I know, big word: look it up), is all too familiar.

Now that I've well made my case, I rest it. If you wish to debate in a polite format, fine. Otherwise, simply say so, and I'll just put you on ignore.

Hogan
10-09-2004, 08:26 AM
How about you post a few of them? Unless, as I suspect: they emerge only in your own mind...?


There are insults in this post by you ! If you can't see them, then you are beyond hope.

It's all that "with us, or with the terrorists," thinking that gets you locked into a box-mode of thought...very dangerous, John. And, I far support David Cobb, over Kerry; and I'll probably vote for him, as I live in a non-swing state.

How does saying to not vote if you don't like someone a "box-mode" of thought ? I would think that saying 'vote for ANYONE, just vote' is not thinking outsode the box. Saying we should vote, or making it mandatory, is no better than what the Soviets did. You want to make it mandatory, Micky ? (You haven't answered my question, Micky, twice now). And saying I said with us or with the terrorists when we are talking about not voting is quite far reaching. And besides, I never said that anyway. Bush did.


...(I know, big word: look it up).
Okay - I broke down, here is an insult by you in this post.

Now that I've well made my case...
AHAHAHH !!! Man, you just keep doing what you do, Micky Boy, keep living in your own world; that's what you do best.


....simply say so, and I'll just put you on ignore.
You said that before. Promises, promises.

Neil Mick
10-09-2004, 08:52 PM
You said that before. Promises, promises.

You're right, John: I have been unfair to you. Your silly banter has derailed me, from this opriginal promise. And so, after I type this, I'll make good on my promise. Ignore-ville, for you.

And, let me just say that yes, I admit I got a little into insult territory. It's another good reason to simply ignore you, as you've said very little of substance (certainly, you've left behind CHAPTERS of points I made, in your attempt to "side-step" the issues).

But let's be clear:

Unless, as I suspect: they emerge only in your own mind...?

is not an insult, as it is not personally attacking you. I counted one instance of condescension, to your numerous claims that I lie, fabricate, KNOWINGLY mislead, insult EVERYONE who disagrees with me, over SEVERAL posts.

As another post-er puts it: hate the game, not the player.
It's one thing to say that a statement is "wrong," or "misleading;" quite another to call a person a liar.

Respectfully, you seem to have a habit of confusing the two.

Enjoy Ignore, and say hi to the other rude post-ers for me.

Hogan
10-10-2004, 02:38 PM
But let's be clear:

"Unless, as I suspect: they emerge only in your own mind...?


is not an insult, as it is not personally attacking you.

Do you even read my posts completely ? I didn't say that line was an insult.


It's one thing to say that a statement is "wrong," or "misleading;" quite another to call a person a liar.

Respectfully, you seem to have a habit of confusing the two.



Never called you a liar. But you said it not me.



Enjoy Ignore, and say hi to the other rude post-ers for me.

HI !!!

MitchMZ
10-11-2004, 10:45 PM
Everyone should just look at their previous posts and laugh. Maybe the world wouldn't be at such a boiling point if people took the time to laugh about their disagreements. Maybe the world would be better if people weren't labeled based upon their views or beliefs.

What I'm saying is, leave this thread be...you all have been arguing too long. Keep this saying in mind, "Opinions are like @ssholes, Everybody has one. You don't go around showing your @sshole do you?" No, you don't (at least I hope you don't)...so maybe it is better you guys talk about training rather than politics. :D

Taliesin
10-12-2004, 09:30 AM
If the world hates America why isn't it supporting Bush - that is the most certain way to make the American people suffer.

deepsoup
10-12-2004, 01:09 PM
If the world hates America why isn't it supporting Bush - that is the most certain way to make the American people suffer.
Because the world doesn't hate the American people, even where it hates America. Because when America sneezes the rest of us catch a cold, and if the American economy finally does implode we in the rest of the western world are also going to be feeling the pinch in a bad way.
And because having a stupid, lying, corrupt, chimp-faced lunatic in charge of most of the worlds serious WMD's is pretty damn scary.

Sean
x

Neil Mick
10-12-2004, 01:56 PM
And because having a...lunatic in charge of most of the worlds serious WMD's is pretty damn scary.

Sean
x

You got THAT right.

But sadly, he's not a lunatic. Would that he were: you can argue for impeachment based upon grounds of insanity.

No, Bush isn't even "stupid," in the traditional sense. He's a CEO President--he runs the country as if he's running a Board of Directors. He makes commands and dictates, but he never listens.

Note, during the last debate: he evaded the question of naming his own mistakes. This pattern of avoiding acknowledging his mistakes runs throughout his Admin--it's likely why he'll never attend a US soldier's funeral.

He was recently asked in an interview what were his major gaff's; and he couldn't give a straight answer, either.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --GWB, 9/17/02 (http://media.brainthink.com/video_temp/bushfool-low.mpeg) Even when he's speechifying, W cannot admit that he makes mistakes.

James Giles
10-12-2004, 06:17 PM
If the world hates America why isn't it supporting Bush - that is the most certain way to make the American people suffer.

That's the damned truth. Good point.

James Giles
10-12-2004, 06:32 PM
What I'm saying is, leave this thread be...you all have been arguing too long. Keep this saying in mind, "Opinions are like @ssholes, Everybody has one. You don't go around showing your @sshole do you?" No, you don't (at least I hope you don't)...so maybe it is better you guys talk about training rather than politics. :D

I must say that I disagree with this angle. I have been reading these posts, and a lot of articles that Neil Mick posts are indeed facts and not just his opinions.

I suppose it is human nature to label a fact as an opinion if it is a truth that one is not willing to accept. I respect Neil Mick for searching for the truth and discussing these matters. I don't believe in blind patriotism. I am not a true believer. Keep up the good work Neil.

Michael Cangemi
10-12-2004, 10:09 PM
This is my first post to this forum, so before I pile on with more opinions, hello to everyone.

Defending oneself against maniacs intent on wiping out any opposition to their agenda is one thing. That's justifiable. Going to war with a country who, depending on who you believe, didn't have any explicit involvement in attacking you is something else entirely. To me, that seems more like trying to make "an example" of Iraq to whoever might try and attack us than anything else. The fact that nobody can seemingly agree on what they did or didn't have as far as WMDs are concerned seems to suggest, at least to me, that perhaps we may have been a little rash in jumping on the "shoot first, ask questions later" bandwagon. Before anyone lobs flames my way, I actually was all for the war -- at first. When I found out that my government, for all intents and purposes lied to me though, my opinions changed drastically.

Our president wants to be the classic Texas cowboy. He wants to kick ass, take names and handle anybody who dares defy his law. I can't get behind that. Whether we as individuals want to admit it or not, the President of the United States is, ideally anyway, supposed to represent us, the American People, to the rest of the world. At least that's how it's supposed to be. I remember that type of logic being used to try and get the last guy who held the job run out of office. The difference this time, though, is that what the last guy did behind closed doors didn't result in over a thousand young men and women going overseas and not coming back. Where is all the moral indignation now? What's the difference? Hell, they both lied to the people, didn't they?

I guess I can understand anti American sentiment these days. If Bush is allegedly representative of the ideals America stands for, then it is a sad state of affairs. The only thing that I can do is go pull a lever in a couple of weeks and hope that more people feel the way I do than don't. That alone, though, is enough to remind me of what makes this a better place to live than some other places -- the fact that I at least get a chance to dictate who I want to represent me to the rest of the world.

<the above statements were strictly opinions with little or no facts to support them>

MitchMZ
10-12-2004, 11:48 PM
Yeah, although I disagree with Bush on almost every issue...I repsect that there are many good people in America that support him. I personally feel that common sense argues that the war was wrong. While Kerry flip flops on his position on the war in Iraq; Bush flip flops on the reasons why we are there. Which is worse; and which undermines our efforts more? ;) Honestly, flip flopping is the nature of politicians; not just Kerry. I think a lot of the labeling of people that has occured is ridiculous. I'm an American that was partiotic before 9/11 and I bleed red blood...and I don't like Bush. But, apparently wanting to preserve my civil liberties is destructive to the fabric of God and country.

Hogan
10-13-2004, 07:13 AM
I must say that I disagree with this angle. I have been reading these posts, and a lot of articles that Neil Mick posts are indeed facts and not just his opinions. ....


He has opinions, and searches for links that suport his claims, and calls 'em facts. I can find the exact opposite of his view, and that people will also call facts. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Taliesin
10-13-2004, 08:07 AM
To echo what Michael has stated. The American people should by now be aware that they are Judged by their President. This whole 'why does everyone hate America? Why does everyone thing we are stupid?' etc only occurs when you have a President who represents the worst characteristics of America.

In George W Bush's case he has managed to transform universal support to near universal condemnation, by invading a country that was no threat and had no connection with Osama Bin Laden (who apparently has nothing to do with the war on terror any more). he also took the view that International law was an irrelevance to what he wanted to do - not just in invading Iraq, but also in detaining people in violation of the 2nd Geneva Convention.

Please remember you didn't get this problem with Bill Clinton.

MitchMZ
10-13-2004, 10:14 AM
One of my biggest problems with good old W is his intolerance of gay people. He is actually opposed to categorizing hate crimes towards gays as hate crimes. :confused: Not to mention, his support of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is an absolute joke. It is rediculous that some of our service men and women have to live seperate lives. The military and our government should feel proud to have diversity. I can't imagine Dick Cheney's daughter repsects him or the president much...considering she is gay. I know I sure as hell don't.

James Giles
10-13-2004, 10:56 AM
He has opinions, and searches for links that suport his claims, and calls 'em facts. I can find the exact opposite of his view, and that people will also call facts. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Isn't it a fact that George Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were because he was certain they had WMDs? Isn't it a fact that since no WMDs have showed up, he now makes it look like the reason for our invasion was to get Saddam out of power since he had murdered so many Iraqis. GWB changes his position to whatever conveniently makes him look blameless and this is a FACT.

You say truth lies in the eye of the beholder, I disagree with you. Consider this, I cut down a tree in the forest, and five men are standing there and watch it fall. Wouldn't it be ludicrous for one of the five men to say that I did not cut down the tree and that it is just my opinion that I cut the tree down? Truth is an absolute. Truths relating to historical events do not change. Either something happened or it didn't.

James Giles
10-13-2004, 11:27 AM
One of my biggest problems with good old W is his intolerance of gay people. He is actually opposed to categorizing hate crimes towards gays as hate crimes. :confused:

I don't like GWB myself, and I sure don't like John Kerry since both of these men just use the philosophy of telling the American people what they want to hear, not to mention they are just puppets for the CIA (who by the way are running not only this country, but trying to run the entire globe)

However, as far as hate crimes go, all violent crimes are hate crimes. Why should gays, blacks, etc. get special treatment when it comes to justice? Anyone that truly believes in equality should shun hate crimes legislation. Just my opinion.

Hogan
10-13-2004, 11:35 AM
Isn't it a fact that George Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were because he was certain they had WMDs? Isn't it a fact that since no WMDs have showed up, he now makes it look like the reason for our invasion was to get Saddam out of power since he had murdered so many Iraqis. GWB changes his position to whatever conveniently makes him look blameless and this is a FACT.

You say truth lies in the eye of the beholder, I disagree with you. Consider this, I cut down a tree in the forest, and five men are standing there and watch it fall. Wouldn't it be ludicrous for one of the five men to say that I did not cut down the tree and that it is just my opinion that I cut the tree down? Truth is an absolute. Truths relating to historical events do not change. Either something happened or it didn't.


No - what people leave out, conveniently, is that the WMD reason was one of many reasons. He believed, AND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVED AT THE TIME, including Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, UN, and the rest of the world, was that he STILL had 'em. Since one particular reason may or may not be true when history finally decides, it doesn't mean that the others aren't valid. Do you wish Saddam to be still in power ? Tell that to all the muslims, his own people included, he has killed, raped and tortured. If you are against the invasion of Iraq for the other reasons, then you are against the war in Kosovo (which we are STILL there, as opposed to supposedly getting out in a yrs time, as Clinton said we would), Somolia, and all the other countries we have invaded for "humitarian" reasons throughout the years.

Re your 2nd pt - this is not so black and white, as some of you say Bush is. I can find you opposing views, with documentation, of the events of Iraq; i.e., whether Saddam had 'em, and when he got rid of 'em, why France, Germany and Russia REALLY opposed us, etc. (And no, I will not waste time looking and "proving" by posting on Aikiweb - we all know they are there). My point is not whether you and I IN THE SAME ROOM WATCHING THE SAME TREE FALL actually saw it happen, but whether through 2nd hand info and docs that have appeared and have yet to appear are the correct ones, or whether they are indeed not forgeries (CBS memo, anyone ?). If I can find a doc that is the direct oppoosite of your, who is to say which one is correct ? What I mean is that we all have prejudgments and biases, and that you will tend to believe docs that support you and I the opposite. THAT is fact. How many times have you seen studies where people have described a person that has commited a crime, and ALL the descriptions are different ? Truth is different for everyone. (Even colors - talk to a color blind person).

Hogan
10-13-2004, 11:37 AM
..However, as far as hate crimes go, all violent crimes are hate crimes. Why should gays, blacks, etc. get special treatment when it comes to justice? Anyone that truly believes in equality should shun hate crimes legislation. Just my opinion.

Hear, hear....

James Giles
10-13-2004, 11:51 AM
What I mean is that we all have prejudgments and biases, and that you will tend to believe docs that support you and I the opposite.).

No sir. I do not really believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes. I have seen with my own eyes GWB get on TV and tell the American people that we must invade Iraq because of WMDs. If he had other reasons, he should have shared them with the taxpayers. I know as a taxpayer, if I had known that his reasons were otherwise, I would not have supported him. I don't think American taxpayers can afford to go around the world building democracies...it will break us. Just look what the war in Iraq is doing to our economy now.

How many times have you seen studies where people have described a person that has commited a crime, and ALL the descriptions are different ? Truth is different for everyone. (Even colors - talk to a color blind person).

But sir, only one description for the criminal is the right one, so that one is the TRUTH! So somewhere among all these opinions, there is an absolute truth, it is just a matter of determining what the truth is. And sir, when a politician or anyone else for that matter tells a lie, it is hard to trust them again. Such is the case for both George Bush and John Kerry. They are both liars!

Hogan
10-13-2004, 12:08 PM
No sir. I do not really believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes. I have seen with my own eyes GWB get on TV and tell the American people that we must invade Iraq because of WMDs. If he had other reasons, he should have shared them with the taxpayers. I know as a taxpayer, if I had known that his reasons were otherwise, I would not have supported him.

Well, then, we disagree. But of you want to know the other reasons, just read his speech to congress, as well as his year long effort in the UN (which resulted in a unanamous resolution to comply or else).



... when a politician or anyone else for that matter tells a lie, it is hard to trust them again. Such is the case for both George Bush and John Kerry. They are both liars!

Then I hope you don't vote for either.

Neil Mick
10-13-2004, 12:28 PM
I suppose it is human nature to label a fact as an opinion if it is a truth that one is not willing to accept. I respect Neil Mick for searching for the truth and discussing these matters. I don't believe in blind patriotism. I am not a true believer. Keep up the good work Neil.

It's always good to get positive feedback.

Thanks for the kudos, James.

James Giles
10-13-2004, 01:27 PM
Then I hope you don't vote for either.

Sir, I would be doing myself a great disservice if I vote for either of these two charlatans.

James Giles
10-13-2004, 01:40 PM
It's always good to get positive feedback.

Thanks for the kudos, James.

No problem Neil, I appreciate you sharing your research with all of us. Keep up the good work!

Hogan
10-13-2004, 03:06 PM
...But sir, only one description for the criminal is the right one, so that one is the TRUTH! So somewhere among all these opinions, there is an absolute truth, it is just a matter of determining what the truth is....

Agreed; however, in this instance there is a criminal that will be caught and the "truth" of how he looked will come out, because we will "see" him/her. In the instance of WMD's, however, we know they were there - we saw them and he used them; BUT, where are they now ? Have you seen them ? Are they hidden ? Did he indeed destroy them ? We will never know .... And THAT is where everyone version of the "truth" comes in, because there may or may not exist, and just because they haven't found them yet, doesn't mean they were destroyed - because we didn't SEE them destroyed. There will be no "absolute truth" as you like to call it, about WMD's.

MitchMZ
10-13-2004, 09:09 PM
What better to motivate a madman to use his weapons than to invade his country? Just food for thought.

If you were a successful small business owner in Baghdad and your shop was destroyed by US bombs and your uncle was a civilian killed by US bombs; I can't imagine you would be too thrilled to lose everything you worked for, or like the US much for that matter. Def food for thought.

Personally, I never expect a country to just hand over itself to another...I know Americans are too proud to do that, and it seems a lot of Iraqis are as well. In many senses...those people in Iraq are fighting against the American ideals that are trying to be imposed upon them. In theory I see no problem with defending your culture. Since obviously they can't go toe to toe with US forces, they have had to adopt unethical techniques of confronting a superior force. This is why our conventional forces are essentially obsolete when it comes to counter-terrorism. Really, terrorism could be compared to self defense in martial arts...using everything and anything at your disposal to succeed in your objectives. Even the guns we are using for urban warfare (m16a2s) are way too big and hard to manuever in CQB...that is probably why I have heard many troops are requesting shotguns and m4a1s (more compact versions of the m16a2.)

George S. Ledyard
10-14-2004, 01:48 AM
Such is the case for both George Bush and John Kerry. They are both liars!
But who created that state of affairs? I can't remember when someone running for office got elected by being straight with the American people. It's our own damned fault we get these clowns running for office because we won't elect anyone who isn't. And if by accident we do, we throw them out as soon as we can, Jimmy Carter being a good example. Regardless of what you think of his politics, Jimmy Carter was easily the straightest shooter we've had in the Presidency. Gerald Ford was too but he got in by accident.

Face it. We want somene who will lie through his teeth, tell us what we want to hear, and look good on TV. Doesn't matter which Party. Don't exepect the truth and don't expect anyhting really substantive.

Hogan
10-14-2004, 07:06 AM
What better to motivate a madman to use his weapons than to invade his country? Just food for thought.

If you were a successful small business owner in Baghdad ...

So, we aren't to fight a country just 'cuz he has weapons, too ?

And you'd be hard pressed to find a successful business owner in Baghdad under Saddammy. Perhaps Saddammy's cronies were successful business owners, as the Oil-For-Food boondagle is showing, but not the avg. citizen (or, I mean, Saddamy's slaves) under Saddamy.

Taliesin
10-14-2004, 09:01 AM
These arguments go in circles go fast I'm getting dizzy. Speaking for myself i believe the decision to go to war was based on a certain belief that Saddam didn't have any WMD and that the allies would have a walk over allowing GWB to look good and gather support as 'leader for justice'. Besides do you really thing a politician (albeit an unelected one) would honestly risk the sort of popular backlash that would have occurred if WMD were used against American troops - I certainly don't.

Then it was his connection with Osama Bin Laden - here I don't know whether he believed that or was just lying.

Then came 'upholding international law' - Full marks for hypocrisy there George

lastly came the human rights of the Iraqi people - which explains why American troops were first committed to securing oil wells whist there was upheaval in the streets, followed by that fine example of Western and acceptable law enforcement and treatment of prisoners in American Detention.

And the Iraq war supposed to be his strong point in the election??????

MitchMZ
10-14-2004, 05:04 PM
In which country does the war on terror stop? IMO, this is the equivalent to creating a war to end crime, because thats what terrorism is. You can try and prevent something, but we will NEVER end terror. Good and evil are a part of everyday life. Iraq isnt even a hot spot when it comes to terrorism. I know of a few streets in our own country that are in desperate need of the "armies of compassion." (Did u guys like that quote? LOL) The military is meant to kill, not touch enemies with a magic wand and heal them of all evil. Anywho, isnt it a fundamental Christian belief that anyone can be saved? In Aikido and small squad based tactics, I have learned that force is not met directly with force. If we are going to pursue the oppression of every culture in the world...we will need the support of other countries. Not to mention some reform in the policies in our own country. Remember what happened to Germany and Japan when they tried to fight a war with multiple adversaries at once? One simple quote to all those American religious fanatics out there...."Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord." I personally don't want to fight in a war and I don't want my kids to have to pay for it. At this rate, my kids may have to be fighting it.

Neil Mick
10-14-2004, 07:18 PM
These arguments go in circles go fast I'm getting dizzy. Speaking for myself i believe the decision to go to war was based on a certain belief that Saddam didn't have any WMD and that the allies would have a walk over allowing GWB to look good and gather support as 'leader for justice'.

That's right. We weren't interested in the plight of the Iraqi's. We let Hussein have his way upon his ppl during the worst of his crimes, and we sat by and did nothing.

Next, we knowingly (yes, I can document this) targeted Iraqi infrastructure during the Gulf War, to force Hussein to the bargaining table.

Next, we STARVED and BOMBED the Iraqi ppl for 13 years, all over weapons that Saddam disarmed, near the end of the Gulf War. Did he cheat? Was he caught? Yeah, he did and he was.

Were the Sanctions actually working? Right before the invasion: Hussein was ready for unrestricted inspections.

Would he have tried to cheat again? No doubt. But, it's likely we'd have caught him at it, again.

As well as 13,000-30,000 (unknown exact number, as the US Army "doesn't do body-counts") Iraqi's, and 1,000 US Soldiers still breathing, with 8,000 other American's, still with their bodies and minds, intact.


Then it was his connection with Osama Bin Laden - here I don't know whether he believed that or was just lying.

The desperate grasping, of a politician who cannot seem to avoid lying.

that fine example of Western and acceptable law enforcement and treatment of prisoners in American Detention.

Funny, how the words "Abu Ghraib" or "Mosul," never came up in the debates, isn't it?

And the Iraq war supposed to be his strong point in the election??????

Yes, we live in very strange times.

Neil Mick
10-14-2004, 07:33 PM
This is my first post to this forum, so before I pile on with more opinions, hello to everyone.

Welcome, Michael.

Our president wants to be the classic Texas cowboy. He wants to kick ass, take names and handle anybody who dares defy his law.

I used to think that Bush is just a cowboy, too. But, he' s not, really. There's a phrase in Texas that fits him: "all hat, no cattle," meaning that he walks the walk, but it's all show.

Bush uses costumes as a blind, as part of his propaganda. Flight suits, cowboy casual (http://www.kaicurryservices.com/peacecandy/gwbush/dishonestdubya/)...the only real outfit that shows the real Bush, is basic uniform CEO grey. He is a CEO President who directs, is not interested in listening. I believe that he is truly deluded about the effects of his policies, or that he truly doesn't care. Too bad, we can't all be money'd blue-blood's.

I guess I can understand anti American sentiment these days. If Bush is allegedly representative of the ideals America stands for, then it is a sad state of affairs.

Sadly, he is. He represents the value of style over substance, of touting democracy and exporting "full-spectrum dominance" (meaning, US hegemony), of short-sheeting the rights and liberties of American's, over protecting their rights, environment, and security.


The only thing that I can do is go pull a lever in a couple of weeks and hope that more people feel the way I do than don't.

Kerry is not the answer, either. But, IMO: he's several rungs up from the hellhole, we're in. Maybe: hell see reason, faster than Bush.

Maybe.

James Giles
10-15-2004, 03:40 AM
I can't remember when someone running for office got elected by being straight with the American people. It's our own damned fault we get these clowns running for office because we won't elect anyone who isn't..

I think it might be more of a case of the American voter not really having a say in the matter. It seems to me that the super-elite have control over who will be nominated and even who will ultimately be elected for President. The average taxpayer's voice is never heard.

James Giles
10-15-2004, 04:11 AM
And THAT is where everyone version of the "truth" comes in, because there may or may not exist, and just because they haven't found them yet, doesn't mean they were destroyed - because we didn't SEE them destroyed. There will be no "absolute truth" as you like to call it, about WMD's.

Yes, I can see your point, and I think it is possible, or even likely that Saddam had WMDs and just moved them across the border into Iran or Syria or somewhere, and I can understand Bush attacking for the purposes of disarming Saddam of WMDs. But, I do not support the U.S. building democracies around the world. Frankly, I just do not believe that should be the taxpayer's responsibility. We need to reinvest that money back into America.

Hogan
10-15-2004, 07:49 AM
... But, I do not support the U.S. building democracies around the world. Frankly, I just do not believe that should be the taxpayer's responsibility. We need to reinvest that money back into America.

Oh, oh...

The don't look at this site:

http://www.ned.org/ (created & pd for by us)

No ! Don't do it ! Don't you do it !

;)

deepsoup
10-15-2004, 09:45 AM
I read an interesting article in the paper today, about attitudes towards Bush and America around the world. (From a survey conducted by 11 newspapers in 10 countries.)
The gist of it seems to be, we mostly quite like Americans, we mostly dont like what the US has been doing lately, and we mostly really dont like Bush.
Details here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica

Sean
x
ps: This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1325238,00.html) and this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1328195,00.html) have nothing to do with it, funny though.

kironin
10-15-2004, 10:13 AM
No - what people leave out, conveniently, is that the WMD reason was one of many reasons. He believed, AND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVED AT THE TIME, including Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, UN, and the rest of the world, was that he STILL had 'em.


This is simply not true. There were plenty of public statements to the contrary including ones made by GWB and Condoleeza Rice before 9/11 that are on videotape. There were reports and studies also before 9/11 that came to the conclusion that Saddam had pretty much dismantled his program. Now that U.S. teams have come to the same conclusions and agree with the conclusions of the U.N. team in the days building up to the invasion of a country that was no threat to us whatsoever, history will probably be a pretty harsh judge of the whole affair in Iraq.

Meanwhile, W continues to say he made no mistakes while commiting billions of dollars of deficit spending and commiting poor families sons and daughters lives in Iraq to a plan the neocons in his goverment cooked up in the early 90's and his father had said no to for just the reasons we are unfortunately seeing being played out now.

Hogan
10-15-2004, 10:55 AM
This is simply not true. There were plenty of public statements to the contrary including ones made by GWB and Condoleeza Rice before 9/11 that are on videotape. There were reports and studies also before 9/11 that came to the conclusion that Saddam had pretty much dismantled his program.

See James, an example of different truths for different people. I saw the complete opposite. There are plenty of public statements that confirm what I said.

that was no threat to us whatsoever,

aha... haaaaa.ahahh... ahahHAHAH BUWHAHAH !

....commiting billions of dollars of deficit spending
What, deficit spending is new ?

... his father had said no to for just the reasons we are unfortunately seeing being played out now.

Not true - Bush I didn't go all the way because of it wasn't the goal. The goal was to kick Saddammy Dictator out of Kuwait - Period. (And yes, I know that they said to go all the way would have been costly, but, like I said, that wasn't the goal. If it was, we would have).

James Giles
10-15-2004, 12:54 PM
See James, an example of different truths for different people. I saw the complete opposite. There are plenty of public statements that confirm what I said.


I think it would be more accurate to say that different people have different opinions about what the truth is. For there is only one truth about this matter, and many lies and half-truths, "public statements" if you will.

But one thing is for sure, we have invested 200 billion plus dollars into this Iraq thing, and inflation and low wages are rampant throughout the U.S. I cannot help but see this whole Iraq situation as just another underhanded way to transfer the wealth of the middle class into the pockets of the filthy rich and to developing nations.

Bush's high deficit spending will haunt us for years to come. All this does is to weaken the dollar, cause inflation, and bring poverty to thousands here in the U.S.

Kerry will do the same thing if he is elected by spending billions on domestic social programs which will also rob the middle class. I think it is time for the middle class to stand up and start kicking some of these politician's in the ass, for they are supposed to be working for us and not the other way around, right?

kironin
10-15-2004, 01:17 PM
aha... haaaaa.ahahh... ahahHAHAH BUWHAHAH !




you can laugh all you want, that hardly negates the military and intelligence expertise of those who have said it.

Hogan
10-15-2004, 01:45 PM
you can laugh all you want, that hardly negates the military and intelligence expertise of those who have said it.

you can laugh all you want, that hardly negates the military and intelligence expertise of those who have the exact opposite.

Hogan
10-15-2004, 01:55 PM
...But one thing is for sure, we have invested 200 billion plus dollars into this Iraq thing, and inflation and low wages are rampant throughout the U.S.

It's "only" 120 billion, not 200 !!!!

But seriously, I am under the impression, as is about every person in the financial world, that sinflation is not a problem and is low. That's not to say, of course, that various aspects of the economy experience high inflation rates, for example, college tuition - which has outpaced general inflation by leaps and bound just about my entire lifetime.

Inflation rates now are generally low compared to other years, and especially during the Carter years:

Year Inflation Rate
1900 1.00
1901 0.99
1902 0.98
1903 2.91
1904 0.94
1905 -0.93
1906 1.89
1907 4.63
1908 -1.77
1909 -1.80
1910 4.59
1911 0.00
1912 2.63
1913 1.71
1914 0.84
1915 0.83
1916 7.44
1917 17.69
1918 17.65
1919 15.00
1920 15.94
1921 -10.83
1922 -6.54
1923 2.00
1924 0.00
1925 2.94
1926 0.48
1927 -1.42
1928 -1.44
1929 0.00
1930 -2.44
1931 -9.00
1932 -10.44
1933 -4.91
1934 3.23
1935 2.50
1936 1.22
1937 3.61
1938 -1.74
1939 -1.78
1940 1.20
1941 4.76
1942 10.80
1943 6.15
1944 1.45
1945 2.38
1946 8.37
1947 14.59
1948 7.87
1949 -1.04
1950 1.05
1951 7.64
1952 2.26
1953 0.95
1954 0.31
1955 -0.31
1956 1.56
1957 3.38
1958 2.98
1959 0.58
1960 1.72
1961 1.13
1962 1.12
1963 1.10
1964 1.37
1965 1.62
1966 2.92
1967 2.84
1968 4.26
1969 5.29
1970 5.94
1971 4.31
1972 3.31
1973 6.20
1974 11.11
1975 8.98
1976 5.75
1977 6.62
1978 7.59
1979 11.28
1980 13.48
1981 10.36
1982 6.16
1983 3.21
1984 4.37
1985 3.54
1986 1.86
1987 3.66
1988 4.12
1989 4.81
1990 5.39
1991 4.22
1992 3.01
1993 2.98
1994 2.60
1995 2.76
1996 2.96
1997 2.35
1998 1.51
1999 2.21
2000 3.38
2001 2.86

2002 1.59
2003 2.27

AAAAAnd enough of that....

Neil Mick
10-15-2004, 02:13 PM
No - what people leave out, conveniently, is that the WMD reason was one of many reasons. He believed, AND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVED AT THE TIME, including Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, UN, and the rest of the world, was that he STILL had 'em.

This is simply not true. There were plenty of public statements to the contrary including ones made by GWB and Condoleeza Rice before 9/11 that are on videotape. There were reports and studies also before 9/11 that came to the conclusion that Saddam had pretty much dismantled his program. Now that U.S. teams have come to the same conclusions and agree with the conclusions of the U.N. team in the days building up to the invasion of a country that was no threat to us whatsoever, history will probably be a pretty harsh judge of the whole affair in Iraq.

Partly right, Craig. There were some surveys at the time that put for the view that Iraq was a threat to world peace in 2003, but as the invasion looked imminent, the mantle of "greatest threat" was passed over to the US.

Some ppl armor themselves by taking the first source they believe, at face-value. Simply saying "I don't believe you," and then stopping to explore the issue any further is putting blinders on, while justifying these blinders by stating that the truth is relative. Of course, ask for sources to justify their assertions, and you get a blank stare. The blinders work far better when memory serves as a substitute to sources.

U.K. Poll: Bush A Threat To World Peace (on 3/3/03, just before the invasion) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/03/uttm/main542472.shtml)

Consider this: an opinion poll, taken a few days ago, asked people in Britain: who is the greatest threat to world peace: George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? 45 percent said Saddam Hussein. No surprise there. But, get this, another 45 percent said George W. Bush.

Bush, an equal threat to world peace, as Hussein, from our greatest ally, just before the invasion...?? Hmm.

But, certainly: "everyone else at the time" did NOT believe that Hussein had wmd's. The worldwide protests of the invasion in March, 2003, are ample indication that many did not buy BushCo's numerous lies, on the subject.

Hans Blix gave his report just before the invasion, that stated

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Months. We would have known for sure, within months. courtesy of a program that costs $80M/year, and costs no lives, involves no invasions.

Instead, we had Bush touting (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000635.html) that "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Not just once, but 200x.

But, then: of course, Bush flouted int'l law by invading without UN approval. Of course, some ppl will claim that Iraq was subject to "serious consequences" for not fully complying with 1441, but they always seem to exclude the fact that one SC member cannot decide what those "consequences" will be--it has to be decided by the full Council.

War, and invasion, is only usable, in self-defence, and since the US was in no immediate threat, the US violated the UN Charter, and broke int'l law.

Everyone knows this, and everyone who watches for these things can see the results: more justifications for "pre-emptive strikes," to protect themselves, from other countries; more "Patriot Act" style legislation (India's Protection of Terrorism Act--or PoTA (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_100104I.shtml)--is an example), that on the surface, looks to be a measure to increase security, but in practice is an excuse to remove civil liberties, and to persecute minorities.

The 30 terrorist organizations listed in the POTA included 11 Muslim and four Sikh bodies, but none of the outfits of anti-minority terrorism. Like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), spearhead of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 that claimed nearly 3,000 Muslim lives. And, the POTA was not invoked against members of the non-minority organizations that did figure in the list.

Thankfully, PoTA is now dead, but the far Right (the BJP) party of India has not thrown in the towel, yet.

The devil is in the details, and the supporters of this war, and the Patriot Act, etc, prefer to leave the details to someone else. Memory and style is a far better substitute, to documentation.

"Facts are stupid things"

kironin
10-15-2004, 06:08 PM
Partly right, Craig. There were some surveys at the time that put for the view that Iraq was a threat to world peace in 2003, but as the invasion looked imminent, the mantle of "greatest threat" was passed over to the US.


I have no doubt Saddam was a threat in the region. He already attacked two of his neighbors. Iran with the backing of the U.S. in the 1980's and Kuwait when the Bush senior administration lacked the attention, will, or communication skills to contain his delusions. But it's quite clear from the reports preceding 9/11 that a careful educated analysis not driven by the distortions of other agenda after 9/11 would not have concluded that such a rush to war was even remotely necessary for our immediate security interests. Invading Iraq was a huge go-it-alone gamble. An expensive and costly roll of the dice destabilizing the region for years to come. And the administration didn't even attempt to hedge their whopping bet by having a very well-designed out post invasion plan. Yeah, really, they will love us for liberators after a shock and awe romp across their country followed by moves that cause total disintegration of security in the country and then building bases to hunker down while handpicking their leaders. See how fun freedom is ? You too can be just like the homeless wondering the streets in the US except a hundred times worse.

kironin
10-15-2004, 06:18 PM
you can laugh all you want, that hardly negates the military and intelligence expertise of those who have the exact opposite.

name one.

outside the usual gang of lying neo-con politicos

James Giles
10-15-2004, 06:43 PM
But seriously, I am under the impression, as is about every person in the financial world, that inflation is not a problem and is low.
Inflation rates now are generally low compared to other years, and especially during the Carter years:

But inflation is a problem when wages are going down and at best staying where they have been for the past 10 - 15 years. Salaries are being cut, people are working longer hours and prices are going up. One has to consider all variables to get an accurate picture of how Americans are losing their buying power.

Hogan
10-16-2004, 07:53 AM
name one.

outside the usual gang of lying neo-con politicos

What, is this a pissing contest ?

YOU name one of yours, outside of the usual gang of the lying liberal politicos (and remember, I get to decide if they are lyig liberal or not, just as you would have decided if they are lyig neo-cons).

kironin
10-16-2004, 10:40 PM
What, is this a pissing contest ?


obviously it's your pissing contest.

Neil Mick
10-16-2004, 11:27 PM
Yeah, really, they will love us for liberators after a shock and awe romp across their country followed by moves that cause total disintegration of security in the country and then building bases to hunker down while handpicking their leaders. See how fun freedom is ? You too can be just like the homeless wondering the streets in the US except a hundred times worse.

Greg:

Worse, we repeat the same mistake as the British, in 1917, as well as Napoleon. Each imperial power invaded the region, spouting almost exactly the same nonsense about being "liberators." You'd think that someone in the top brass would have studied their history (actually, they did. There are ppl on every level of gov't and intel that were/are opposed to this war).

Neil Mick
10-16-2004, 11:38 PM
obviously it's your pissing contest.

Yeah, he likes to do the pissing-contest thing, I've noticed.

I'm reading the "Big Bush Lies" book, right now. You realize all of the lies he's committed, but when you read about them all at once, you realize the scope of his mendacity.

"Clear Skies Initiative?" Written by the power companies.

"Healthy Forests?" Open season, on old-growth timber (Of course, John will say that "there are more truths, to this," but a clearcut forest, is still without trees, no matter what he says).

"No Child Left Behind?" A series of narrower hoops for schools to jump through, in a program left unfunded (talk about ironic names! :hypno: )

Throwing out "junk science," over "sound science?" This was his stated aim in 2000, and he did exactly the opposite, in his (non)dealings in greenhouse gases, stacking the juried panels for scientific peer review boards, and his "secret" energy policy--dug up from the bowels of the various participating energy companies.

Bush isn't really running against Kerry...he's running against his own record.

Hogan
10-17-2004, 01:05 PM
obviously it's your pissing contest.


Ow. You told me.

Hogan
10-17-2004, 01:08 PM
Yeah, he likes to do the pissing-contest thing, I've noticed. ...

"Healthy Forests?" Open season, on old-growth timber (Of course, John will say that "there are more truths, to this," but a clearcut forest, is still without trees, no matter what he says)...

You said you were going to ignore me, but I guess I keep bRINging you baCK IN !

And I like how you have an imaginary response form me and then a reponse form you to my imaginary response.

Taliesin
10-19-2004, 03:15 AM
I notice that once again with an election looming GWB has 'requested' that British troops move into that area of Iraq which is under American responsibility. (The word control seems inappropriate for some reason). The last time that happened was when Royal Marines were needed to enter OBL's cave complex in Afghanistan. (There were elections looming then as well)

Given we are talking about GWB can anybody out there escape the conclusion that this is a political maneuver to minimize American casualties in the run up to the US election. (Which hopefully will actually be an election).

Just curious

deepsoup
10-19-2004, 03:44 AM
Given we are talking about GWB can anybody out there escape the conclusion that this is a political maneuver to minimize American casualties in the run up to the US election.
I share your misgivings. I definitely get the feeling that the Black Watch are being asked to free up American troops to go off and make a contribution to Bush's election campaign. (He wants to sink the Belgrano. :)) Maybe he should try holding another rally in front of a "job done" banner - after all if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, no one knows that better than GWB.

Sean
x

Taliesin
10-19-2004, 06:08 AM
What frightens me is that he appears to be portraying himself as a man who will not deviate from the "War on Terror" - an people believe him!!! This is a guy who invaded Afghanistan because OSB and Al-Quida (please forgive my spelling) were the primary focus - then when they couldn't find him they concentrated all their resources on invading Iraq. And that's before you take into account that he had intelligence that Al-Quida was planning to hijack airlines for a terrorist assault prior to September 11.

And people think that is is the guy to protect them.?

His campaign on this topic appears to be - I took no steps to prevent September 11th. I got bored trying to hunt down those responsible, so i invaded the Iraqi oil wells instead. I have allowed troops to commit torture, left Iraq in total upheaval. But i think you're all morons , please vote for me!

Tim Gerrard
10-19-2004, 07:39 AM
Spoken like a true terrorist sympathizer. That is a very creepy statement.



Careful there, as they said in Northern Ireland, one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

Funny how America, once again falls victim to it's own foreign policy.

I agree with others on the fact that British troops are being requested for political reasons in the run up to the elections. But, British troops without doubt are the best in the world at dealing with areas such as Baghdad, we've had over thirty years of very real operations in Northern Ireland to hone our skills and we are very good at it. Just look at the News to determine different approaches, Americans are interested in 'force protection' body armour, helmets, MBTs in an urban environment. Wheras the British, soft headdress, no body armour, foot patrols in low risk areas.

They call southern Iraq the so called 'safe zone' is that not because the resident units have made it that way and the north is under predominantly American occupation?

:confused:

Taliesin
10-19-2004, 08:29 AM
Tim

That could very well be the case. However I'm still waiting to hear what our American brethren make of this particular development. it could be very interesting.

deepsoup
10-19-2004, 05:06 PM
They call southern Iraq the so called 'safe zone' is that not because the resident units have made it that way and the north is under predominantly American occupation?
I think thats overstating the case quite a bit.
Its undoubtedly true that the British military are rather better at the whole "hearts and minds" thing than the Americans, but not to such a vast extent as all that, surely.
Anyhow, it looks pretty inevitable that the Black Watch will be heading north, and no doubt we'll all be reading about how they're getting on soon enough.

Meanwhile, back to that election, I was reading today about a bit of gerrymandering going on in Florida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1330495,00.html), again. Hard to believe I know, could be another embarassing bout of electile dysfunction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/graphic/0,5543,397276,00.html) for Uncle Sam.

Sean
x

Neil Mick
10-19-2004, 06:52 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what our American brethren make of this particular development. it could be very interesting.

Speaking for one American (me): I'd say that you're probably right, but it could also be a sound decision based upon military re-deployment.

And, pigs could really fly...they just keep the wings a secret. :)

The other, disturbing aspect of this new move is a freeing-up of US troops for a major offensive against Fallujah: the US-selected Iraqi PM Allowi has given the Fallujan's an ultimatum--turn over al-Zarqawi, or else face "consequences."

Oh sure! All the Fallujan's have to do is form a posse and head 'em off at the pass. :rolleyes:

Everything Bush does right now is geared toward winning the election. Unfortunately, tho: the news over in Iraq is heavily censored on this side of the Atlantic. We hear about "terrorist hideways" (http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=355798&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59) being targeted, and nothing about how these "targetings" affect the Iraqi's. Unsurprising, since journalists are no longer "embedded:" they're entombed, in the green zone, well away from the frontlines. So, all the news comes filtered through the Pentagon press corps.

Other news about the military, and Iraq: a new poll states that the US soldiers in Iraq (and their families) believe that Bush committed too few troops and relied too much on inadequately prepared Nat'l Guard, and reservists.

Poll: Troops, Families Question Iraq Strategy (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/military.poll2.ap/)

Members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq and put too much pressure on inadequately trained National Guard and reserve forces

Even more interesting, is the story of the 17 reservists who refused to go on a mission because they were poorly armor'd, didn't have proper support, and the fuel they were supposed to transport was contaminated, and unusable.

Families defend reservists who refused order--
Relatives await word on 343rd members who called trucks unsafe (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/9955192.htm?1c)

The soldiers have told family members they refused because the trucks were not fitted with armor plating and several of the trucks were "deadlined," which means they were unsafe and likely to break down. The convoy was completed later that day with other crews without incident.

Oh yeah: "Freedom is on the March!" (one of Bush's sillier babblings during the debate)

But, in the REAL world.... (http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=502&fArticleId=2261251)

The Associated Press re-viewed a dozen such status reports against the backdrop of nonstop violence in Baghdad and sharpening rhetoric in Washington. The studies were conducted by US government agencies and private international and US research organisations, in some cases drawn from months of work and hundreds of interviews inside Iraq.

Again and again, their focus falls on what the authoritative International Crisis Group calls Iraq's "vicious circle".

"Lack of security leads to lack of reconstruction, which leads to lack of jobs, which leads back to lack of security," the European-based ICG finds.

Paul.H
10-20-2004, 01:51 AM
"Lack of security leads to lack of reconstruction, which leads to lack of jobs, which leads back to lack of security," the European-based ICG finds.

Nice catch-22,
thats a bit like invading another country to fight terrorism which just really makes more people want to bomb/kill us and we then have to invade more countries (to fight terrorism) but then we never really seem to learn do we........

I guess thats also similar to going into Iraq the first time (giving Osama his reason to want to destroy the USA/West for going into Iraqs and Saudi Arabia's Holy Lands) and then going back a doing the same thing again (to fight terrorism of all things- go figure) but then we never really seem to learn do we........

Neil - I heard a large portion of the money allocated to rebuild Iraq has now been reallocated to the fighting due to the unexpected higher cost, I'm interested to know if there are plans to replace to money for the rebuilding, have you heard anything re this (replacing the money). Are they waiting till after the election to tell us or just not going to replace it??

Enough from me for now

Cheers Paul.H

deepsoup
10-20-2004, 03:35 AM
I'm interested to know if there are plans to replace to money for the rebuilding, have you heard anything re this (replacing the money). Are they waiting till after the election to tell us or just not going to replace it??
Maybe you could get some idea about that by looking at how the reconstruction is going in Afghanistan.

Sean
x

Neil Mick
10-20-2004, 04:15 PM
Neil - I heard a large portion of the money allocated to rebuild Iraq has now been reallocated to the fighting due to the unexpected higher cost, I'm interested to know if there are plans to replace to money for the rebuilding, have you heard anything re this (replacing the money). Are they waiting till after the election to tell us or just not going to replace it??


Hey there Paul:

Yes: most of the money allocated (far more than what Bush initially projected that reconstruction would cost, BEFORE the invasion), has been reallocated to the military effort. Only a portion has been spent upon reconstruction.

Rebuilding Costs Soar in Iraq -Iraqi Officials (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YOO4CUBT0VFGUCRBAE0CFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=6546770&pageNumber=1)

Of the more than $18.4 billion appropriated by the U.S. Congress, just over $1.5 billion has been spent so far and more than $7 billion has been obligated in future work.

And regarding the US paying back its debt to Iraq for Reconstruction, as required by int'l law...well, Sean's right: don't hold your breath.

Costs for reconstruction have bolted far away from initial projections by the Bush Administration. There are several reasons for this--one of them is the sheer corruption of the oil industry in Iraq, among other businesses, over there:

Oil Industry Plagued by Corruption (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9072-1319977,00.html)

Halliburton, the logistics and oil company formerly headed by the US Vice- President Dick Cheney, was accused by the Pentagon of overcharging the US Government tens of millions of dollars.

A US Government report last year found "systemic" and "significant" difficiencies in the way Halliburton estimated and validated costs.

"Without strict anti-bribery measures, the reconstruction of Iraq will be wrecked by a wasteful diversion of resources to corrupt elites," said Mr Eigen.

With bribery and sleeze the status quo of doing business in Iraq: can you expect that the US will honor their legal responsibilities?

And then, there's the machinations spearheaded by James Baker, special "envoy" to the President. Talk about conflict of interest! On the one hand: he's

asking countries to forgive Iraq's debts even as he tries to recover $27 billion from Iraq on behalf of the Carlyle Group;

James Baker's Double Life (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20160/)

while on the other hand, he's representing the Saudi gov't in US families of 9-11 victims' legal claims! :freaky:

The Carlyle Group does extensive business with the Saudi royal family, as does Baker's law firm, Baker Botts (which is currently defending them in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by the families of Sept. 11 victims).

Oh what a tangled web we weave...!

But it wasn't about the oil at ALL: no, we did it to "liberate" the Iraqi's. Hey look! A pig just flew by my window! :crazy: ;)

George S. Ledyard
10-20-2004, 07:47 PM
This article and my reply were part of a correspondence which appeared elsewhere. I just thought I'd post it here.

October 14, 2004
COMMENTARY

Have War Critics Even Read the Duelfer Report?

By RICHARD SPERTZEL


After the release of the Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report, the headlines blazed "No WMD Found." Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim "Iraq was not an imminent threat" was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?

* * *

While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define "threat."

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, just returned from Iraq, where he has been a member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).


In reply to the article above:

Doesn't anyone pay attention?


a) no one has said that Saddam wasn't an enemy.

b) It would surprise me if just about every major power in the world didn't have facilities for the research and production of small amount of all sorts of toxins to be used by their special operations people; we certainly do. Could he have at some point mounted a terrorist operation against the US? Of course, but this totally ignores historical factors. George Tenet told Bush before the war, that he thought Saddam had the weapons but that he wouldn't use them in an attack against us unless we invaded and he felt pushed up against a wall. After that interview (which I heard) he was locked away from the media because this didn't fit what the administration was trying to sell the world and congress. Virtually every country in the middle east and many others around the world have these programs. We don't invade them. No, it wasn't about the WMD's, there or not there, it was about a lot of other issues none of which were stated to the public or Congress. There are lots of countries which pose a risk to us, are we going to invade them all. Now that we are stuck in Iraq we can't even threaten to do so because everyone knows we're stretched too thin as it is. We have lost leverage against both Iran and Korea who were probably bigger threats than Iraq before we invaded.

c) Saddam is / was not Al Qaeda; Iraq was ruled by a secular dictator, precisely the kind of government which it has targeted repeatedly in Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries. Al Qaeda is absolutely devoted to replacing these governments with Islamist regimes on the model of Afghanistan's Taliban. These people were enemies and not allies.

We keep trying to generalize the enemy to monolithic "Terrorism". This is no more a unified threat than was monolithic Communism was. Saddam was trying to ingratiate himself with Islamic peoples around the world by overtly supporting the Palestinian terrorists but this is not the same as performing terrorist acts using his own people. In a public relations sense he was in competition with Bin Laden. Most of the foreign terrorists the Iraqis were training were meant to go up against Israel. These were not Al Qaeda's personnel. The few Al Qaeda folks in the country were under Al Zarqawi in the North, away from where they could cause Saddam any trouble. We were supporting the Kurds in a running battle against these guys and could have easily wiped them out immediately after 911 rather than invade the country. Now they have spread throughout the country and are very difficult to dislodge. How did this improve our situation?

We were in complete control of his country from a realistic military standpoint. If we even suspected he had staged a terrorist act we could have bombed him into the stone-age at any time and he knew it. The inspections showed conclusively that he had gotten rid of the remaining WMD's BECAUSE he was scared that they would be found by the inspectors. So it is clear that he was quite worried about the consequences of being found in violation.

So what have we done? We invaded and took Saddam out without a plan for how to implement the peace. So instead of having this most central of Islamic countries pretty much unavailable to Al Qaeda because Saddam knew he couldn't trust them, and visa versa, now we have destroyed the stability of the country and civil war is a very real possibility. We could end up with an Iranian allied one third of the country (a disaster for us as Iran is high on our list of enemies); an Islamist third of the country populated by hardened combat veterans who hate our guts (sort of like Afghanistan which is its own disaster), and a Kurdish third which is in conflict with the strongest ally we have in the middle east, namely Turkey.

d) Al Qaeda is the enemy; they are stateless, international, de-centralized, have no army, no extensive infrastructure; fighting them requires extensive cooperation of the covert operations communities of every country in the world. Do your reading… you can't find anyone from the community of people who are directly responsible for fighting this battle around the world who thinks it was anything other than a disastrous mistake to go into Iraq. You can trot out the few people who are ideological supporters of the Neo Conservative world view and they will make the case for the President. But in the military / intelligence community as a whole, in which people see themselves as professional and not Democrat or Republican this war is seen as a disaster. Our allies think we have totally blown it.

Our enemies are ecstatic! The main Islamist websites which post the official Al Qaeda analysis of what is happening is devastating in its analysis of how we have done exactly what they wanted us to do and that they are gaining in strength around the world because of our actions. We have acted just as they have attempted to portray us and it has further alienated moderate Islamic peoples all over the world.

e) The government position is that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't fight them here. While that sounds great in a sound bite but makes no sense at all. The folks who are flocking to Iraq to fight aren't the so-called "foreign fighters", the veterans of the Afghan war who make up the hard core of Al Qaeda, these are largely new recruits being spirited into the country by Al Qaeda to help fight and gain combat experience. Just as in Afghanistan in which we are up against a whole country of hardened veterans of the anti Russian insurgency, we will find the same thing in Iraq. Things will not get better in time. They will only get worse.

The Russians are far more brutal about these things than we are. They killed over a million in Afghanistan and created 3 million refugees and the mujahideen never even considered giving up… I certainly hope we don't go that far in Iraq. They have decimated Chechnya, raped and pillaged, assassinated and tortured, and they still have an insurgency which won't give up. These people we are fighting in the middle east see no real difference between us and the Russians. We are simply occupying foreigners and unless we are willing to kill virtually everyone in the country we cannot win there.

f) The official government position is that we've captured or killed most of the Al Qaeda leadership and that they are on the run. Actually, intelligence estimates say exactly the opposite. 90 % of the Al Qaeda and Taliban folks we were after in Afghanistan got away and are gathering the opposition against us as we speak.

This idea that we've got them on the run is just the kind of political BS we were hearing in Viet Nam just before the Viet Cong did the unthinkable and launched the Tet Offensive. We were totally shocked as a nation because we were being told that victory was just around the corner. Looking back now we can see clearly that this was propaganda meant to shore up support at home and keep troop morale high. We are getting the same propaganda right now. But there is no excuse for us to be caught napping this time because there is plenty of factual evidence available which shows this point of view to be a fabrication. It's just that the public in general doesn't read.

g) Look at history… the US has been victorious in every war it has engaged in as long as there was some underlying sense that we were acting in our own defense. Korea was a disaster because we didn't have that sense of a direct attack. Instead we were fighting Communist aggression. Well, the troops have to have a better sense of a tangible enemy than that if they are expected to stay the course over the long run. We failed miserably in Viet Nam because we went into someone else's country with the intention of "helping them" and after killing the good part of a million (mostly killed in air strikes) it became impossible to maintain that we were there for the good of the country. As "We had to destroy the village to save it" became the whole country, the impossibility of the task became apparent.

We went in and took on a group of folks who had already spent twenty years fighting the Japanese, then the French, and we thought for some reason they'd treat us differently? This is our own naiveté at work. We always impute good motives to ourselves and then are surprised when people don't see us as we see ourselves.

We have stepped into a country which was in opposition to the Turkish rulers under the Ottomans, resisted the European colonials, has largely been opposed to and unsuccessfully fought the rule of Saddam Hussein, who represented a minority oppressing a majority population. Now we had the nerve to think that they would welcome us?

What would have made us think that except willful ignoring of history and self fulfilling selective analysis of intelligence collected by people who had a financial interest in telling us what we wanted to hear would have a positive result. We paid Challabi, a convicted embezzler (in absentia in Jordan), $300,000 per month for intelligence. Not only did he tell us what we wanted to hear but he turned out to be an Iranian spy!!! Who takes the responsibility for this idiocy? Where does the buck stop? Why doesn't anyone at the top pay for this type of mismanagement?

Didn't it occur to someone that using the same infamous jail that Saddam had used to incarcerate and torture his enemies might make for a public relations disaster? We are in a fight that can not be won militarily, no one disputes that. We absolutely have to win over at least some "hearts and minds" and yet we play right into the hands of the enemy with this type of stupidity. Since I don't think we are stupid, in general, it must be because we didn't adequately plan what we were doing. Doesn't someone pay for this? Do you really think rewarding the folks who have done this with a second term makes any sense???

I find it hard to believe that people are still trying to argue this case. There is absolutely nothing happening in either Afghanistan or Iraq would lead one to be the least optimistic. Whatever victories we have achieved, i.e. an Al Qaeda free Afghanistan and a Saddam free Iraq will mean nothing if we don't succeed in setting up stable, pro-US governments in these countries. Is there any information to which people are privy which would indicate that this likely in the least? What I see is quite to the contrary. Karzai is man who, if left to his own devices without US protection, would have no political base in Afghanistan whatever. The various warlords who compete against each other for influence in the country have no respect for him except that he is backed by foreign military which they are wary of. Our people only control Kabul. The rest of the country is controlled by leaders, most of whom are veterans of the insurgency against the Russians. They view Karzai as just another foreign puppet like Najibullah, the Russian backed puppet who is reviled by almost everyone in the country. He may not be the butcher Najibullah was but he clearly is foreign backed and controlled. The Afghanis have a several hundred years history of not accepting foreign influence in their country. What would make us think this had changed?

No, in Iraq and Afghanistan I find nothing but trouble for us. Trouble of a mgnitude that it will certainly detract from our ability to devote the attention and resources we should be devoting to the real war against the Islamist movement of Al Qaeda and their allies.

Taliesin
10-21-2004, 03:10 AM
It's unfortunate that in the US you definitely will not get to see a programme called the Power of Nightmares' -see separate thread. before the election. the basis of last nights programme was how a philosophy of a 'moral' war against a declared evil would rally the people to support 'common values'

James Giles
10-21-2004, 04:28 PM
The Afghanis have a several hundred years history of not accepting foreign influence in their country. What would make us think this had changed?


Probably the absurd and naive U.S. belief that there is "strength in diversity", that we can somehow make peoples with different cultures and religions accept our hedonist, immoral lifestyles.


No, in Iraq and Afghanistan I find nothing but trouble for us. Trouble of a mgnitude that it will certainly detract from our ability to devote the attention and resources we should be devoting to the real war against the Islamist movement of Al Qaeda and their allies.

One question that keeps coming to my mind about this whole Islamic terrorist/Al Qaeda ordeal is what actually motivates these terrorists? What is it about the U.S. that makes these people so mad at us?

My suspicions are that our government/CIA/corporations etc. are nosing around in the interests and affairs of these people and they don't want us around. I can't help feeling that it is just another situation where the U.S. should keep its big nose out of other people's business.

I really believe that if we just arm ourselves to the teeth, protect our borders, pull out of Islamic countries and go about our own affairs, things will go much smoother. If we don't give these people a reason to attack us, I do not believe they will. In fact, I do not believe Al Qaida or any other terrorist group has it out for U.S. citizens in general; I just think they are angry with our government/leaders and they strike out at the populace to try to get a message across.

This is similar to when we flew over and bombed and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis because we were trying to get to their leader, Saddam Hussein (and his cronies). It is a damned shame that innocent people have to be killed on either side of this conflict because of the greedy nature of our leaders

People reading this will probably say that such an approach would be "pandering" to the terrorists. I disagree. I think the U.S. should quit playing the part of the world imperialist bully. I wouldn't doubt it if we started this war and Al Qaida is just stepping up to the plate to defend their own interests.

James Giles
10-21-2004, 08:16 PM
After reading my last post, I think I may have come across a little too harshly. I was really just trying to express my opinion that I think there can be a peaceful solution to this terrorism situation, but corporate greed and tyrannical leaders will probably keep it from happening.

makuchg
10-22-2004, 07:53 AM
The Islamic extremist movement is rooted in religious beliefs that non-Muslims are infidels and must be exterminated before God. They believe that the Jihad (holy war) is the will of God and to die in that cause is the greatest honor. You cannot reason with people like this. These people will not listen to man when they believe their directions are from God. You must understand that these people are not looking to influence a political ideal on others, they are looking to kill-period. For thousands of years, holy wars have existed. When religious ideals are embattled, you cannot resolve these disputes peacefully-history is proof of that fact.

Greg Makuch
Camp Slayer, Iraq

Taliesin
10-22-2004, 08:48 AM
George

The problem with that sort of view is that you end up reacting in a way that causes a great deal of 'collateral damage' (or if they were American 'innocent victims'). Which leads to greater hatred, the belief that the West is anti-Islam and results in far more support and fanatics of the whole. "I'm holier than you so whatever i do to anyone in my cause is totally justified' philosophy which you mentioned. .

Unfortunately it is exactly the same philosophy being spouted by GWB (AKA the Corpses for Votes President).

The only difference is the use of suicide bombers rather than conventional military forces.

I distrust everyone!!! who supports those philosophies and would deny them all any support. I should also point out that if it is you, your wife, your children, your loved ones that are killed, maimed or crippled it devalues, dehumanizes and insults them to describe them as 'collateral damage' and again promotes hatred.

I would say that if you want to tackle terrorists tackle terrorists. don't go for the if we bomb everything we might get them approach. It doesn't make you safer.

James Giles
10-22-2004, 01:34 PM
The Islamic extremist movement is rooted in religious beliefs that non-Muslims are infidels and must be exterminated before God. They believe that the Jihad (holy war) is the will of God and to die in that cause is the greatest honor. You cannot reason with people like this. These people will not listen to man when they believe their directions are from God. You must understand that these people are not looking to influence a political ideal on others, they are looking to kill-period. For thousands of years, holy wars have existed. When religious ideals are embattled, you cannot resolve these disputes peacefully-history is proof of that fact.

Greg Makuch
Camp Slayer, Iraq

Then, perhaps the U.S. should wake up, take a long hard look at Islam and determine if it is even safe to let these people in to our borders. Maybe the 200 billion we spent on Iraq could have been spent building colleges in Saudi Arabia, Syria etc. so that Muslim fanatics will not find it necessary to fly over here and go to school. Or better yet, a huge wall around the U.S. laced with razor wire.

If the Islam religion has such potential to turn a man or woman into a ruthless murderer, perhaps the U.S. should take a hard look at Islam and religious freedoms in general in this country. Perhaps a little ethnic cleansing/ deportation at the domestic level may be preferable to bombing every Islamic nation into submission.

Like you said, you can't reason with these fanatics, so why bother spending billions on building them a democracy? It might be more practical to just close our borders to them.

Kevin Leavitt
10-22-2004, 02:29 PM
I agree. I really support keeping people in Alabama out of the rest of the U.S since they are all rednecks!

Come on...you can't generalize everyone based on their religion. Some of "These" people are trying to do the right things and are as peace loving, compassionant, and tolerant as you are...or maybe you aren't?

Kevin Leavitt
10-22-2004, 02:35 PM
James,

went back and read some of your post...I am hoping that after reading your comments that you are being facetious in your reply! Sorry to you if you were!!

I just can't stand to see people get lumped into one big "these people"...that is probably your point as well!!!! Maybe I need to practice a little "seek to understand first" as well.

Have a nice day!

James Giles
10-22-2004, 04:17 PM
James,

went back and read some of your post...I am hoping that after reading your comments that you are being facetious in your reply! Sorry to you if you were!!

I just can't stand to see people get lumped into one big "these people"...that is probably your point as well!!!! Maybe I need to practice a little "seek to understand first" as well.

Have a nice day!

I believe that if there is another major terrorist attack in the U.S, you will see that very thing happen. If the terrorist don't want that to happen to their relatives over here, maybe they will think twice about it.

I for one don't want to have to live my life like the Israelis do; in fear of going to a concert or the mall without being blown up. If the Israelis built a wall around Israel to keep the Palestinians out, I believe suicide bombings would be diminished. It is political correctness run amok that keeps this from happening. When it comes down to a choice between being PC and survival, I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.


IMaybe I need to practice a little "seek to understand first" as well.


I don't know, maybe consider that not all Americans are as politically correct as you are, and they have the right to think of alternative solutions.

Kevin Leavitt
10-22-2004, 04:34 PM
you have to be careful about corealations. Walls are great at problem avoidance.

I had a police statistician ask me if I thought was the best way to statistically reduce crime was to put more cops on the street.

I thought the answer was yes.

No he said...take them off the street. Less crime is statistically reported if you have less cops available.

Walls may deter the problem, but they don't solve it. eventually it breaks down and you have to deal with the real problem. Maybe a good temporary measure, but not a long term solution.

James Giles
10-22-2004, 04:47 PM
Walls may deter the problem, but they don't solve it. eventually it breaks down and you have to deal with the real problem. Maybe a good temporary measure, but not a long term solution.

Okay, let me ask you this: if you were in charge, how would you "deal with the real problem"?

Walls may deter the problem, but they don't solve it.

Wars don't solve the problem either. I was just thinking along the lines, that instead of wasting billions of dollars and countless American lives, it would be better not to let the terrorists into our country, and the ones that are here, get them out. I don't mean for any killing to be done here, just give them all a healthy check and a plane ticket to the Middle East and seal our borders. I believe in the long run this would be far cheaper than the Bush Administration's approach, and both American and Muslim casualties could be greatly reduced.

Kevin Leavitt
10-22-2004, 06:08 PM
Not sure how I would deal the the "problem". I don't profess to be an expert on political problems. If you are talking israel I certainly won't even begin to arm chair quarterback that one! Sorry for avoiding the question. Walls might be a good temporary measure while you figure out what to do permanently. How long should that wall last??? Don't know 6 months or 20 years. I never said it was the wrong thing to do, just not the permanent solution.

I also won't enter the argument about reasoning with terrorist, you simply cannot reason with someone who desparately wants to kill you for sure! I am a realist really!

I don't think wars solve problems. They are temporary measures much like walls. I suspose they could be better deterents and prevention mechanisms than war in some cases.

I also wouldn't argue that we shouldn't let terrorist into the country and I would agree that we should kick them out if they are here. I sincerely hope that no one equates terrorist with muslim though.

I don't really think their are any short term solutions that are perfect. If you really want to know my opinion, then I believe that most Americans want freedoms and liberties, but are not wililng to truley stop "wasting billions of dollars".

We have actually bigger threats than terrorist in the long run. More people die of from cancer and poor health each year then from terrorist attacks, but I don't really see the majority us doing anything to clean up our own houses to rid us of our own self imposed "terrorist".

I think strategically there is much we can do to turn things around in the next 100 years, but that requires us to give up the "what's in it for me" immediate gratifcation attitude.

What would happen if we reduced our foreign dependency on oil by getting our big cars off the road?

What would happen if we reduced emissions and started recyciling?

What would happen if we actually took a leadership role in the western world?

What would happen if we really did care about erradicating AIDS in Africa?

What would happen if we stopped the stupid blockcade on Cuba?

Heck I don't know the answers...maybe nothing good would come out of it.

You really believe we can grow as a country by isolating our borders???

If you truely believe in Democracy...and I don't mean in the I what my goods cheap from Wal-Mart with the fake "Buy america" marketing spin put on it, but Real Democracy...then you absolutely IMHO cannot practice isolationism.

What would happen if your Dojo stopped accepting new ideas, or new students, or working with other systems and exploring new paradiqms and just sayed "no thanks" we have enough!! It would die eventually.

No one ever said democracy would be easy or free! I think we are very lucky that we are safer now than anytime in history! The only difference is that the ignorant bliss we lived in for the past Generation of TV land is gone and we are now facing the reality that we are a part of and that we as american's created.

Again, I don't think there are many good short term solutions to the problems we face today. Heck I am just trying to do my part as best I can by being a responsible American and world citizen. I try to tread lightly on the planet, smile at everyone I can, and let them know that all americans don't drive huge gas guzzler SUVs and eat at McDonalds 7 days a week and burn dollar bills in the fireplace to keep warm while watching "Reality" shows on TV.

If we can show the world that we are at least trying to do the right things and be the leader in preserving peace and the planet then we will win in the long run.

Sorry for the rambling guys!

James Giles
10-22-2004, 08:00 PM
Walls might be a good temporary measure while you figure out what to do permanently. How long should that wall last??? Don't know 6 months or 20 years. I never said it was the wrong thing to do, just not the permanent solution.

But there may not be a permanent solution. If a wall will keep myself, family and friends safe for the next 20 years, I am all for it. A temporary solution that works (saves lives) is better than a solution that does not work or just no solution at all.



I sincerely hope that no one equates terrorist with muslim though..

I realize that probably only a very small percentage of American Muslims either support or take part in terrorist activities. But I also have not forgotten that the terrorists that struck on 9-11 were Muslims, nor have I forgotten some of the celebrating that was going on by a number of Muslims when they heard that the towers had fallen.

I also question any religion whose book (like the Koran ??), makes it seem okay to go out and kill people that don't want to accept Islam; you know the whole jihad thing. That is nuts!




We have actually bigger threats than terrorist in the long run.


I don't know if we will always be able to say this. What happens if they get there hands on a nuclear warhead and lob it over here. I think that might wipe out a lot more people than cancer...


What would happen if we reduced our foreign dependency on oil by getting our big cars off the road?

Amen!


What would happen if we actually took a leadership role in the western world??

What if the western world doesn't want our leadership?


What would happen if we really did care about erradicating AIDS in Africa?

What would happen if Africans cared about erradicating AIDS in Africa?


You really believe we can grow as a country by isolating our borders

Maybe not. But I believe that we can survive as a country by isolating our borders. Yes I do believe that.



If you truely believe in Democracy...and I don't mean in the I what my goods cheap from Wal-Mart with the fake "Buy america" marketing spin put on it, but Real Democracy...then you absolutely IMHO cannot practice isolationism.


No, I don't believe in democracy really; I believe in a Republic. America is a Republic, not a Democracy. There is a big difference. I think it was Plato that said something to the effect that a Democracy is absolutely the worse form of government to have because it leads to tyranny or monarchy. A Republic is based on a Constitution and leaders are elected to protect that Constitution (supposedly!).


What would happen if your Dojo stopped accepting new ideas, or new students, or working with other systems and exploring new paradiqms and just sayed "no thanks" we have enough!! It would die eventually.

It depends on if those new students are packing explosives under their obi's! No, I see your point really. I don't want to see the U.S resort to massive deportation and sealing the borders and all that. But, I think when two groups of people clash, maybe sometimes it is more healthy for them to go there separate ways.

I have no problem with Islam, as long as its believers have no problem with my way of life. But, I don't think Americans are going to put up with Islamic terrorism the way that Israel has done in the past. I believe that we will do what is necessary to sustain our way of life here, even if it means changing immigration policies (??).




I think we are very lucky that we are safer now than anytime in history!


I really hope you are right.......????



If we can show the world that we are at least trying to do the right things and be the leader in preserving peace and the planet then we will win in the long run.

It just seems like the more we give, and the more we sacrifice by "doing the right things" around the world, the more that the rest of the world hates and disrespects us.

Maybe the rest of the world does not want us to preserve the peace and be the leader of the planet. Maybe we should humble ourselves and allow other countries to decide for themselves which direction they wish to go (???)

Huker
10-24-2004, 08:38 PM
What America does, what Canada does, what Afgnaistan, Iraq, or anybody does or does not do. Who cares. War, terrorism, retaliation-- Two wrongs do not make a right, nor does three, or four, etc...

The world is a fragile place right now and it is shameful to see people killing each other, regardless of motive. Every country on this planet has something to be ashamed about. Until we realize that we can't fix things by blaming and killing each other things will only continue to fall apart.

Quit it with the backpacking. Stop trying to decide who causes the biggest problems, and start thinking of solutions.

Neil Mick
10-26-2004, 12:52 AM
What America does, what Canada does, what Afgnaistan, Iraq, or anybody does or does not do. Who cares. War, terrorism, retaliation-- Two wrongs do not make a right, nor does three, or four, etc...

The world is a fragile place right now and it is shameful to see people killing each other, regardless of motive. Every country on this planet has something to be ashamed about. Until we realize that we can't fix things by blaming and killing each other things will only continue to fall apart.

Quit it with the backpacking. Stop trying to decide who causes the biggest problems, and start thinking of solutions.

OK, here goes:

Problem #1:
Insecurity in Iraq

Solution? US, OUT OF IRAQ

Problem #1A:
The imminent collapse of order in Iraq, leading to civil war

Solution? Turn over ALL authority, to the UN. Re-open the bidding process for contractors, and establish an account so that all proceeds go to the Iraqi's

(BTW: neither of these solutions are foolproof, of course)

Problem #2:
(as the Knesset put it) The "Palestinian Problem"

Solution? Stop with the illegal occupation of Palestine; close down all ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

Problem #3:
The hijacking of the US gov't, by extremists

Solution? VOTE (but, this is only for starters)

Problem #4:
World Hunger

Solution? Massive re-working of food distribution systems

It's easy to figure out the solutions: it takes much more work, manifesting them into a reality

DanielR
10-26-2004, 07:25 AM
Problem: The "Palestinian Problem" Solution: Stop with the illegal occupation. ...
It's easy to figure our the solutions
It's truly amazing, how hordes of statesmen, politicians, diplomats, military experts and such have been trying to come up with a solution for decades, without much success. And whaddaya know - it's easy to figure out the solutions! Yup, piece of cake. ;)

James Giles
10-26-2004, 12:54 PM
Problem #2:
(as the Knesset put it) The "Palestinian Problem"

Solution? Stop with the illegal occupation of Palestine; close down all ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS


I would like to know the truth about who really owns the land or has rights to it. I have heard two different sides on this issue:

1) The Palestinians don't have the rights to the land, and so it is not an illegal occupation.

2) Israel is illegally occupying the land.

If # 2) is TRUE, then Israel should indeed pull out of there....I mean, "illegal occupation" means exactly what is says.

If # 1) is TRUE, then the Palestinians, at least the radicals, suicide bombers etc. of that people should quit blowing innocent people up and face the fact that it is not their land, and just move on with life.

The question is, what is the truth? I am not well read on matters of the Middle East and Israel, and the American media puts a biased slant on all of its reporting, so it is hard to discern fact from fiction on this matter.

Who really owns the land? Are there any reliable sources out there: books, websources etc. from which this information can be retrieved?

Thanks, James

Neil Mick
10-26-2004, 03:11 PM
It's truly amazing, how hordes of statesmen, politicians, diplomats, military experts and such have been trying to come up with a solution for decades, without much success. And whaddaya know - it's easy to figure out the solutions! Yup, piece of cake. ;)

Oh please: Daniel--methinks thou doth protest, too much.

Let's just take Oslo I, for starters...Clinton and the Israeli delegation were pushing for argeements to carve up the Territories into gerrymandering sections, WITHOUT EVEN BRINGING ALONG A MAP, TO SHOW THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSALS. In effect, they were asking the Palestinian's to agree to a proposal of which they couldn't know the effects.

Let me just shoot a few terms, in which you might be familiar: "involuntary transferral;" "Greater Israel;" "water distribution;" "'Security' Wall;" "Violation of international law."

Yes: the solutions ARE quite easy: it's the implementation of them, that's so difficult. It's one thing to agree to them: quite another when one side is gridlocked by an extremist religious bloc (and no: I am not referring to the Palestinian's), calling the shots, yet blissfully free of conscription. They get to make their ideas into reality, yet they don't have to "pay the piper," when the debt comes due.

A really sweet deal, if you ask me.

Neil Mick
10-26-2004, 03:23 PM
Who really owns the land? Are there any reliable sources out there: books, websources etc. from which this information can be retrieved?

Thanks, James

A long and complicated question, involving the Balfour Declaration from WW1, and on and on, back into biblical times.

The quick answer, tho: is to ask yourself--if Israel OWNS the land, then why are they "occupying" it? How can you "invade, and occupy" your own territory?

Not that I'm an expert, mind. I'm sure that there are points on this (on both sides) that I could well use more education, as Daniel has pointed out to me, in the past.

DanielR
10-26-2004, 03:46 PM
Oh please: Daniel--methinks thou doth protest, too much.
C'mon, Neil, this is my first "protest" in months! Too little, I'd say...

I don't have much new to add to what's already been said in our discussions. This, however one side is gridlocked by an extremist religious bloc (and no: I am not referring to the Palestinian's), calling the shots, yet blissfully free of conscription. is new to me: what are you referring to?

Neil Mick
10-26-2004, 07:57 PM
C'mon, Neil, this is my first "protest" in months! Too little, I'd say...

OK, OK: ya got me there. ;)

This, however is new to me: what are you referring to?

The Far-right Orthodox, is exempt from military service...correct? At least: AFAIK.

And yet: they are the most virulent advocates for a "Greater Israel."

They push the envelope: yet they don't have to "foot the bill."

DanielR
10-26-2004, 09:30 PM
The Far-right Orthodox, is exempt from military service...correct? At least: AFAIK.
And yet: they are the most virulent advocates for a "Greater Israel."
They push the envelope: yet they don't have to "foot the bill."I'm not so sure the ultra-orthodox parties dictate the policy of the current Israeli government towards Palestine. Parties that can be considered ultra-orthodox have 16 seats out of 120 in the current Knesset. Historically, some religious parties were members of Labor-led left to center governments, led by pragmatic rather than nationalistic principles. In the currnet Knesset there is a nationalistic religious party that is among the most vociferous objectors to the pullout, but its base is army-serving and tax-paying.

Btw, the vote for the disengagement plan passed in Knesset today, 67 to 45.

Are there any reliable sources out there: books, websources etc. from which this information can be retrieved? The book I thought to be rather objective and to the point was Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312208286/qid=1098847510/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2773757-4509725?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Its last edition is 2000, so it doesn't cover developments after that, but I think it gives a good review of the history of the conflict.

George S. Ledyard
10-27-2004, 06:50 PM
1) The Palestinians don't have the rights to the land, and so it is not an illegal occupation.

This is a perfect example of how old karma plays out hundreds of years into the future. The Palestinian claims to this land are far less clear than those of the Native Americans are to the land that was ripped off from them.

In the case of the Native Americans, there are actual treaties which were signed by native peoples with whom those treaties were negotiated by the government of the United States. It is easy to document how we abrogated those treaties or forcibly made the native leaders sign new treaties which were more to our liking. But essentially the parties are clear. Native Americans vs. the US government.

With the Palestinians it is nothing but a mish mash. No amount of legal back and forth between the great experts can possibly unravel the "ownership" of Palestine. The state of Israel is just as much a creation of colonialism as were the British and French "Mandates". I don't think that anyone really thinks that the British had a real RIGHT to give away what wasn't really theirs but had been won for them through military conquest. How far back to you go before you find a government authority in Palestine which actually was made up of the local people and not an invader of some sort?

The only legitimate thing to do is to look at who was living there, not who claimed ownership in the larger sense. It is quite evident that most of the Palestinians who have been displaced were resident on that land for many generations. They can sit on their old properties and point to where their grandfather did this or their great grandfather did that. This is their homeland in every real sense. Forget the legalese.

But realistically no one rationally believes that at this point anyone can just give back Palestine to the Palestinians any more than the Han Chinese will give back Taiwan to the aborigines or the Australians will give back Australia to their Native population. We won't be giving back the Dakotas to the Sioux or Central New York to the Mohawk despite quite legal claims with treaties that never were officially rescinded.

The British, who had no right to do so, gave a big hunk of Palestine to the Jews for their homeland. This was based on the Jewish belief that this land was given to them by God several thousand years ago. Their claim is a bit less immediate than what the Mohawks can show... But it's a done deal so to speak. It isn't going to get undone any more than any other nation in the world is just going to give back whatever territory they stole from someone else in the not too distant past.

The issue now is to simply understand that, if you take everything from one people just to make things right for another you have simply moved the Bad Karma from one place to another. Nothing has been made right. Until the Palestinians have their own land and a stake in their own lives there will be no end to this conflict. How can anyone think differently? Just look at how long the Irish Catholics have kept it up with the British and the Irish Protestants. The difference is that their conflict mostly hurts them. This conflict could spill out to engulf the world.

Neil Mick
10-27-2004, 10:17 PM
I'm not so sure the ultra-orthodox parties dictate the policy of the current Israeli government towards Palestine.

Not "dictate:" but they certainly hold a power-base.

The religious Right in this country, in similar fashion: hold a strong influence over the Bush Admin...far more than their numbers might suggest.

But, I fully acknowledge my ignorance in the current political balance of the Knesset.

BTW: the recent vote of the pullout of Gaza is hardly a ringing endorsement for peace, as you well know. At best: it's a strategic withdrawal, the better to defend Israeli positions. The Palestinian's had no say in the matter, and the resolution is hardly resolved. There have been massive demonstrations by the settlers and the Right, opposing the resolution, and there are more promised, to follow.

James Giles
10-28-2004, 01:19 AM
With the Palestinians it is nothing but a mish mash. No amount of legal back and forth between the great experts can possibly unravel the "ownership" of Palestine. The state of Israel is just as much a creation of colonialism as were the British and French "Mandates". I don't think that anyone really thinks that the British had a real RIGHT to give away what wasn't really theirs but had been won for them through military conquest. How far back to you go before you find a government authority in Palestine which actually was made up of the local people and not an invader of some sort?

.....The British, who had no right to do so, gave a big hunk of Palestine to the Jews for their homeland. This was based on the Jewish belief that this land was given to them by God several thousand years ago. Their claim is a bit less immediate than what the Mohawks can show...



But one question that keeps popping up in my mind George, is where did the Jews come from? I mean, there had to be an Israel at one time, somewhere....isn't Jerusalem an ancient Jewish city that was established thousands of years before the British even conquered those lands?

If it can be determined that the Jews were the original inhabitants of the land, and it is indeed their ancestors who built their holy temples in Jerusalem, Bethelehem, and what-not, then perhaps they do have a right to it (????)

On the other hand, I am finally understanding how complex this matter is, especially considering that the Palestinians had been inhabiting the area up to the time the Brits gave Israel (back?) to the Jews; and I can understand the Palestinian's outrage.

But killing innocent Jews isn't going to make matters better. That just brings certain retaliation, and to the rest of the world, the Palestinians appear to be senseless murderers.

If the killing would stop, I believe that an agreement could be reached that both sides could be happy with.

deepsoup
10-28-2004, 06:21 AM
Just look at how long the Irish Catholics have kept it up with the British and the Irish Protestants.
Also a good example of how its possible for an American administration to contribute to a (hopefully) lasting peace, rather than perpetuating grisly conflict.

Sean
x

DanielR
10-28-2004, 09:39 AM
Not "dictate:" but they certainly hold a power-base... There have been massive demonstrations by the settlers and the Right, opposing the resolution, and there are more promised, to follow. Well, Israel being a democratic state, I don't see anything wrong with that, do you? The important thing is whether the rule of law is enforced. In Israel, it is, at least as far as evacuation of settlements is concerned.

BTW: the recent vote of the pullout of Gaza is hardly a ringing endorsement for peace, as you well know. At best: it's a strategic withdrawal, the better to defend Israeli positions. The Palestinian's had no say in the matter, and the resolution is hardly resolved. You gotta start somewhere, don't you? I don't think anybody is naive enough these days to expect a "ringing endorsement for peace" from either side.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 12:20 PM
Well, Israel being a democratic state, I don't see anything wrong with that, do you? The important thing is whether the rule of law is enforced.

Again, as far as being "wrong" or not is concerned: I do not know enough about the political underpinnings of Israeli politics, to say. But, yes: I'd say that a bloc of ppl who push for a "Greater Israel," while not having to supply the manpower from their own ranks for the frequent incursions into the Occupied Territories, IS wrong.

In Israel, it is, at least as far as evacuation of settlements is concerned.

Just not, the very existence of the settlements themselves, being in violation of international law...not to mention the "Security Wall."

You gotta start somewhere, don't you? I don't think anybody is naive enough these days to expect a "ringing endorsement for peace" from either side.

Gosh, how about we start with giving the Palestinian's the right, and the ability, to vote, and to ratify their own constitution...? How about we allow the Palestinian's to have some voice in what is going on within their own borders, instead of all this unilateral decision-making? Wouldn't THAT be a novel idea...

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 12:34 PM
But killing innocent Jews isn't going to make matters better. That just brings certain retaliation, and to the rest of the world, the Palestinians appear to be senseless murderers.

If the killing would stop, I believe that an agreement could be reached that both sides could be happy with.

The metaphor of Amerindians to Palestinians is particularly apt. Was Geronimo a "senseless murderer?" Or, was he responding to a violent military invasion against his people, and his home?

Sure, we can tsk the methods of suicide bombings, but aren't they simply using all available methods to fight a violent and senselessly brutal Occupation? And, look at how long they've fought: after enough time and so little accomplished, can you hardly blame some of them for going overboard?

Personally, I think suicide bombing is a strategy that hurts the Palestinian's, in the end. If they are going to use a strategy that will end up killing themselves, then they should try directing their efforts against the Apartheid Wall, or the illegal settlements (which in themselves, are a misnomer. They aren't really "settlements" at all: more like armed fortresses). Sure, lots of Palestinian's would still die, but at least innocent Israeli's wouldn't be caught in the crossfire.

And yes, you're right: the solution IS easy (I think even Daniel would agree, all glibness aside)--a two-state solution, or some form of it. As Daniel correctly states: it's the implementation of it, that's so difficult...both sides simply do not trust each other.

But, the US support and funding of the Occupation does not help matters, at all. We give oceans of support for Israel; and drips of help, to Palestine. If we simply said to Israel: go clean house and end the Occupation (or else, no aid): we'd go a long way to ending the deadlock. But we won't: partly because our pol's are so in bed with Israeli interests. Wolfewitz, Perle, et al: are particularly close to Israel, and have even directly worked for them, on occasion.

DanielR
10-28-2004, 01:20 PM
I'd say that a bloc of ppl who push for a "Greater Israel," while not having to supply the manpower from their own ranks for the frequent incursions into the Occupied Territories, IS wrong.
Would you say that having non-military-serving Americans advocating for, say, sending American troops for a peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, is also wrong?

Gosh, how about we start with giving the Palestinian's the right, and the ability, to vote, and to ratify their own constitution...? How about we allow the Palestinian's to have some voice in what is going on within their own borders, instead of all this unilateral decision-making?You got my vote, as long as this doesn't involve rocket attacks on Southern Israel and suicide bombings.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 04:32 PM
Would you say that having non-military-serving Americans advocating for, say, sending American troops for a peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, is also wrong?

That's what I've always liked about you, Daniel: you pose the tough questions...I never get off easy. ;)

But, there's the element of "duration of duty," to consider. Sending American troops to a peace-keeping mission in Rwanda would NOT generally last 35+ years, AFAIK.

And then there are the considerations of doctrine. I WOULD oppose sending peace-keeping troops to Rwanda, if it were, say: a component of the Strategy for a New American Century.

You got my vote, as long as this doesn't involve rocket attacks on Southern Israel and suicide bombings.

Well on this: we are in complete agreement. :ai: :ki:

James Giles
10-28-2004, 04:36 PM
The metaphor of Amerindians to Palestinians is particularly apt. Was Geronimo a "senseless murderer?" Or, was he responding to a violent military invasion against his people, and his home?

I believe Geronimo had a good excuse to kill. I am not proud of what my forefathers did when they came over here and slaughtered the Indians and stole their land. Like George Ledyard wrote, I think we are dealing with a lot of bad karma that has been stirred up from the past and I believe our government is still stirring up hornet's nests around the globe. That is the nature of world capitalism and greed I suppose.

But, I am not sure about the Palestinian/Israeli issue; I just haven't read up enough on the situation over there. I am going to purchase a book that Daniel gave me a link to (thanks Daniel) and do some other research as well on the subject.


Sure, we can tsk the methods of suicide bombings, but aren't they simply using all available methods to fight a violent and senselessly brutal Occupation?

I am not sure of the facts of what is really going on over there, but have the Palestinians tried diplomacy? As far back as I can recollect, everytime some sort of peaceful agreement is about to become a reality, a Palestinian suicide bomber strikes and ruins everything...at least that is the way the U.S. media makes it appear (???)

DanielR
10-28-2004, 08:39 PM
You're welcome, James - I don't know why it's so pricey from Amazon, but other sellers via Amazon have it for as low as $10.

DanielR
10-28-2004, 09:50 PM
Sure, we can tsk the methods of suicide bombings, but aren't they simply using all available methods to fight a violent and senselessly brutal Occupation? And, look at how long they've fought: after enough time and so little accomplished, can you hardly blame some of them for going overboard?Neil, I love your choice of words: "violent and senselessly brutal occupation" vs. "tsk the methods" and "can you hardly blame them". Violent and senselessly brutal terrorist acts didn't get them where they wanted to after so many years, so can you really blame them?

Personally, I think suicide bombing is a strategy that hurts the Palestinian's, in the end. If they are going to use a strategy that will end up killing themselves, then they should try directing their efforts against the Apartheid Wall, or the illegal settlements (which in themselves, are a misnomer. They aren't really "settlements" at all: more like armed fortresses). Sure, lots of Palestinian's would still die, but at least innocent Israeli's wouldn't be caught in the crossfire.Neil, the settlers are civilians. Population of Ariel, AFAIK the biggest town beyond the green line, is 18000, almost half of which are mostly secular immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and only 10% are orthodox. The majority of settlers, excluding a relatively small bunch of hard-core fanatics, is there for purely pragmatic reasons - the land is cheaper, some are close to major cities, jobs, etc.

PeterR
10-28-2004, 10:28 PM
And taking it back to Iraq.

The Lancet estimates that post-war 100,000 Iraqi civilians died beyond the level that would have done so if the invasion had not occured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

So much for saving the Iraqi people from brutallity.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 10:35 PM
Neil, I love your choice of words: "violent and senselessly brutal occupation" vs. "tsk the methods" and "can you hardly blame them". Violent and senselessly brutal terrorist acts didn't get them where they wanted to after so many years, so can you really blame them?

And, I suppose you call emptying a case of bullets into a little girl (well after she is dead)...sensible? :disgust: Or, perhaps you're putting this more recent crime under the heading of "regrettable, yet necessary for the safety of Israel."

Let me know when you make up your mind.

And yeah: when a bunch of trigger-happy soldiers armed to the teeth make murder so commonplace that the world simply shrugs its collective shoulders when still MORE deaths are touted off, when homelessness, death and misery become the way of life as the dividend of the Occupation: yes, I ask, in all honesty...

Can you blame them? (well, SOME of them, anyway. Not all Palestinian's are in agreement on the best course of action).

Neil, the settlers are civilians.

"Civilians," which carry guns, shoot and abuse Palestinian's, as they choose, and are free to roam wherever they please, on ALL roads...which the Palestinian's are not, and have first rights to water (many of which, fill their nice swimming pools, with it), while nearby Palestinian villages suffer from water-shortages and diseases from poorly treated water.

Maybe I should go back to "methinks thou doth protest too much," after all...

The majority of settlers, excluding a relatively small bunch of hard-core fanatics, is there for purely pragmatic reasons

Pragmatic or no: they are occupying the land, illegally, as in...violating international law.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 10:58 PM
I am not sure of the facts of what is really going on over there, but have the Palestinians tried diplomacy? As far back as I can recollect, everytime some sort of peaceful agreement is about to become a reality, a Palestinian suicide bomber strikes and ruins everything...at least that is the way the U.S. media makes it appear (???)

To try "diplomacy," you must have a commonly aggred-upon rep to speak for the Palestinian's. Since the IDF does a good job at squelching elections, this becomes very difficult. Basically, the task of Palestinian diplomat falls to Arafat. You also have to have some sense of societal order for a course of diplomatic action to be determined. The daily reality of the Occupation makes this difficult, at best.

It's also hard to negotiate with a group of ppl fed healthy and regular doses of fear, led by a man (i.e., Sharon) likely guilty of war-crimes (i.e., Sabra and Shatilla)...not that Palestinian's are all singing praises of Israel, EITHER: mind.

But yes, there have been some sporadic attempts in the past at diplomacy.

Understand, James: that the IDF is regularly engaging in criminal acts, roundly condemned by the world. The ONLY reason that they get away with it is their good buddies in the US, who supply the needed UN veto whenever a measure to condemn an IDF atrocity reaches the Sec Council.

P.S. I found an interesting website you might check out, for background. It seems pretty balanced, at a glance. It's geared for HS studies, but still...I like the even-handed approach.

Tell me what you think!

Teaching the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentindex.html)

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 11:07 PM
And taking it back to Iraq.

The Lancet estimates that post-war 100,000 Iraqi civilians died beyond the level that would have done so if the invasion had not occured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

So much for saving the Iraqi people from brutallity.

Maybe we should ask the Iraqi's for help on how to conduct a fair election? :freaky:

Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 12:18 AM
Neil, I love your choice of words: "violent and senselessly brutal occupation" vs. "tsk the methods" and "can you hardly blame them". Violent and senselessly brutal terrorist acts didn't get them where they wanted to after so many years, so can you really blame them?

But, to respond to your initial point:

That all depends upon who you mean by "they."

Israel commands an army. "They" can cease their violence, tomorrow.

Palestine has militants. Groups of different factions, with different methods, and goals. If Arafat were to make a pronouncement to stop all violence tomorrow, who would listen?

So I ask you: IDF violent and senseless acts never seemed to bring about much of anything, but ever-expanding and uncontrolled brutality. But, THEY can stop it, tomorrow.

Who's going to say cease-fire for Palestine, at this point? The Wall has them caged up in ever-increasing attempts to force them to move out. Settlements and limited-access roads divide up the Territories into patchwork no-man's lands. Different parts of the Territories are subjected to varying degrees of brutality, to further divide the populace amongst each other.

And with Arafat ill: who will listen to him at this point? No, IMO: the ball is all in the Knesset's court, and they won't budge, because they're the ones, applying the screws.

Sure, the suicide bombings are senseless, vicious, and ultimately self-defeating: but I don't know how I'd start acting, if I had an army camped out in my neighborhood, taking pot-shots at the neighborhood kids, or if said army hunted down its human targets with missiles.

I certainly wouldn't just go about my day without a thought to it.

Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 01:47 AM
Woah!!!

You go, Congressman Ryan!!! (http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr100504_116.wmv,80_hflr100504_117.wmv&sTime=00:04:38.0&eTime=00:01:22.0&duration=00:01:44.0&UserName=ryan%252Ekeating%2540mail%252Ehouse%252Egov&sExpire=1)

(video. If the link above fails, go here (http://timryan.house.gov/HoR/OH17/Hidden+Content/Floor+Speeches.htm) and click on his October 5th speech.

DanielR
10-29-2004, 06:24 AM
Pragmatic or no: they are occupying the land, illegally, as in...violating international law.So let's blow them up. Terrific.
Apologies to all for contributing to thread hijacking.

MitchMZ
10-29-2004, 02:18 PM
I find it funny that many people that claim to "support our troops," yet only listen to the troops that have the same positive perspective of the war as they do. The truth is, there are quite a large number of veterans and current members of the military that are opposed to this war. In fact, they even have anti-war GI news letters. There always have been. They are a quite an interesting read, and probably one of the best sources as to whats really going on in Iraq. So, if you support the war, you are not necessarily supporting the troops. Same thing goes for not supporting the war.

In the own words of an Air Force Academy grad and veteran; Cliff Volpe:

"From February to April of this year, I backpacked around Iraq - mingling with the locals, traveling by public transportation, and exploring the country by myself. I found that Iraqis of all ethnicities - Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen - routinely invited me to stay in their homes, fed me lavish meals, and went out of their way to show me around and make sure I stayed safe.

Without a doubt, Iraqis were the most hospitable, friendly people I have ever met."

-Cliff also touches upon how most Iraqis are much too proud to have a democracy pushed on them. They didn't like Saddam, but they don't like the Americans occupying their country either.

Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 04:47 PM
So let's blow them up. Terrific.
Apologies to all for contributing to thread hijacking.

No, now you're putting words in my mouth.

I never said this, nor do I advocate violence, on any level.

AND, you ducked out of my question...

So I ask you: IDF violent and senseless acts never seemed to bring about much of anything, but ever-expanding and uncontrolled brutality. But, THEY can stop it, tomorrow.

Who's going to say cease-fire for Palestine, at this point?

Come on, step up to the plate. I am curious as to your perspective on this issue...even if we do not agree.