Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-19-2004, 09:29 AM   #451
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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.
 
Old 10-19-2004, 06:06 PM   #452
deepsoup
Dojo: Sheffield Shodokan Dojo
Location: Sheffield, UK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 524
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Tim Gerrard wrote:
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, again. Hard to believe I know, could be another embarassing bout of electile dysfunction for Uncle Sam.

Sean
x
 
Old 10-19-2004, 07:52 PM   #453
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
David Chalk wrote:
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.

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" 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

Quote:
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


Quote:
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....

Quote:
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.
 
Old 10-20-2004, 02:51 AM   #454
Paul.H
Location: Australia
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 0
Australia
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
"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
 
Old 10-20-2004, 04:35 AM   #455
deepsoup
Dojo: Sheffield Shodokan Dojo
Location: Sheffield, UK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 524
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Paul Harvey wrote:
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
 
Old 10-20-2004, 05:15 PM   #456
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Paul Harvey wrote:
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

while on the other hand, he's representing the Saudi gov't in US families of 9-11 victims' legal claims!

Quote:
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!
 
Old 10-20-2004, 08:47 PM   #457
George S. Ledyard
 
George S. Ledyard's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Eastside
Location: Bellevue, WA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,670
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
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.

Last edited by George S. Ledyard : 10-20-2004 at 08:57 PM.

George S. Ledyard
Aikido Eastside
Bellevue, WA
Aikido Eastside
AikidoDvds.Com
 
Old 10-21-2004, 04:10 AM   #458
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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'
 
Old 10-21-2004, 05:28 PM   #459
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
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.

Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
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.
 
Old 10-21-2004, 09:16 PM   #460
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 08:53 AM   #461
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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
 
Old 10-22-2004, 09:48 AM   #462
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 02:34 PM   #463
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Gregory Makuch wrote:
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.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 03:29 PM   #464
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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?
 
Old 10-22-2004, 03:35 PM   #465
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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!
 
Old 10-22-2004, 05:17 PM   #466
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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.

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 05:34 PM   #467
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 05:47 PM   #468
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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"?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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.

Last edited by James Giles : 10-22-2004 at 05:53 PM.
 
Old 10-22-2004, 07:08 PM   #469
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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!
 
Old 10-22-2004, 09:00 PM   #470
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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.


Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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!



Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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...

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
What would happen if we reduced our foreign dependency on oil by getting our big cars off the road?
Amen!

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
What would happen if we actually took a leadership role in the western world??
What if the western world doesn't want our leadership?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
What would happen if we really did care about erradicating AIDS in Africa?
What would happen if Africans cared about erradicating AIDS in Africa?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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.


Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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!).

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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 (??).


Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:

I think we are very lucky that we are safer now than anytime in history!
I really hope you are right.......????


Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
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 (???)

Last edited by James Giles : 10-22-2004 at 09:07 PM.
 
Old 10-24-2004, 09:38 PM   #471
Huker
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
Canada
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

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.
 
Old 10-26-2004, 01:52 AM   #472
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
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
 
Old 10-26-2004, 08:25 AM   #473
DanielR
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Neil wrote:
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.

Daniel
 
Old 10-26-2004, 01:54 PM   #474
James Giles
Dojo: North Florida Aikikai
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:

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

Last edited by James Giles : 10-26-2004 at 01:59 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2004, 04:11 PM   #475
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Anti-Americanism

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
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.
 

Please visit our sponsor:

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



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate