MD Conservative helps us remember why the war is so important. Many Democrats believe they deserve to know why we went to war with Iraq. When I look at this picture I know. It's because we never want our citizens to suffer like this again, which required us to end Saddam's rule. Tell this child our war is wrong.Today, I watched the biography story about this evil dictator and they interview a man. This man was a nuclear scientist. Saddam had ordered him to build nuclear weapons and when he refused, he was taken and tortured. After they beat him on the soles of his feet, they hung him up on a fan and held his legs until they broke his back. Tell this man that Saddam did not want WMDs.
As scientist after scientist was interviewed and spoke about the mass graves they uncovered in Iraq, the people who were left alive after chemical warfare against them by Saddam, and the women, who were raped by Saddam's family and regime, I know exactly why Saddam had to be removed.
He was removed because Bush knew he had a history of creating safe harbor for terrorist in addition to funding the act. We should remind all those who spoke against our military yesterday.
Posts
29 comments:
How to silence a liberal who insists on not fighting terrorists: just repeat their sentence back to them with 'Nazi' substituted for 'Muslim', e.g.
"Why can't be just negotitate with the Muslims and see what they want?" -> "Why can't we just negotiate with the Nazi's and see what they want?"
It works...
Hi Anonymous,
I would love to see you expand on your well-considered policy idea; I think you should dig a little deeper and state the historical context behind what you are advocating. Perhaps you could also recomend what the USA ought to do instead?
So if you dont negotiate with them, what do you do?
* Ignore them and say "Na Na Na, Were not listining"
* Build a massive wall around America to stop people getting in or out
* Kill them all.
Are you advocating that we should have no diplomatic relations with moslems or just that we shouldnt talk to people like Osama Bin Laden (with whom we have never negotiated). What about Islamic countries that we do negotiate with all the time (Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates) - should we break off diplomatic relations with them?
It works...
State your evidence. In what sense has the policy you advocate been shown to work?
:-)
Shelley; Perhaps you could prode some context for the photo. It's unclear from your write-up where this photo was taken and on what occasion.
A photograph of a crying child does not nececarily prove that a war is justified. I assume that the child is related to one of the people who died in a terrorist attack or perhaps died fighting the war. I also assume that the occasion is a funeral somewhere in America.
If you were to introduce this photo as genuine evidence for the justification of war you need to make your case fully. Please state how a war in the middle east will put an end to children suffering, or spesefically the kind of suffering depicted in this photograph?
For example will fighting a war reduce the possiblity that our servicemen will die in combat?
Will an occupation that helps terrorist organisations recruit willing martyrs reduce the possiblity of suicide bombings?
This man was a nuclear scientist. Saddam had ordered him to build nuclear weapons and when he refused, he was taken and tortured.
So what you are saying, Saddam tortured a man because he failed to make nuclear weapons. Saddam clearly wanted to make nuclear weapons but at the unspecified time he did not have them, and instead of motivating his scientists he was busy torturing and crippling them.
He was removed because Bush knew he had a history of creating safe harbor for terrorist in addition to funding the act.
Once again, it's time to cut the emotion and state hard uncontrovercial evidence. Last time I looked, there was no evidence of a tie between Al-Queda and Saddam-Hussein.
Al-Queda did not have bases in Iraq. Osama Bin-Laden regarded as a corrupt and evil dictator because he wasnt islamic enough.
Saddam may have been funding terrorist organisations (but so were Syria, Pakistan and Iran).
If the WMDs did exist, then the war in Iraq has effectivly transferred control over them fromt he Iraqui government to the terrorist insurents. So in a sense, you might argue that Saddam armed the terrorists; only because when we took apart his army they took Saddam's weapons.
Where do you think the insurgents got rocket-launchers and military grade explosive? We effectivly put WMDs into the hands of our enemy.
Sal, your questions have been answered on countless websites, Government agency reports, blogs, etc. It's the same tired old liberal blah blah. You seem intelligent enough to be able to look up the information and read with your own two eyes, however I doubt, with your mind set on the same liberal talking points, that you'll believe anything you read or have enough of an open mind to be able to see any other side of the issue than the one you have your mind set on. Lets just say this, you have your opinion and your entitled, even if it is wrong.
rwdowr3:
Two reasons, and two reasons only can justify this war:
1. An imminent threat from Iraq, i.e. (WMD).
Now, I second Sal here: Nothing has been found. Nada. You have been there for over two years now, have had complete access to most, if not all, of Iraq and have come up with nothing.
I believe Shelley had a theory about the WMD being buried in the 'sand somewhere'. Maybe, but have a look at Iraq with Google Earth. Notice the level of detail you have. That is nothing compared to the tools the various intelligence agencies have. Still, with all that technology at their disposal, they couldn't be sure then, and haven't been able to produce any evidence so far.
So I think we can say with 99.99% certainty, what there were no WMD's. And they knew to begin with, that the chances of finding anything were very slim. (That Saddam may have thought he had WMD's, because people told him what he wanted to hear, is a different story).
2.The Iraq administration being responsible for 9/11.
Look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
No official link to al-qaeda, according to the findings of the 9/11 commision.
End of discussion.
(And please don't give me any bullshit about 'injecting democracy', ok? If that is the case, we all expect you (and us, as we are part of the coalition), to move on to Libya, Iran, Burma and about 100 other contries).
Now, if you extreme right-wingers could at least have the decency to admit you were mistaking, then the discussion could get back on track. (i.e. how to end this without throwing Iraq into a full-blown civil-war.).
If you think I'm wrong, then please give me some links to real independent medias, with real journalists, that has verified stories that prove the above as being wrong.
Martin, Copenhagen.
A "Few" examples of why we need to stay in Iraq and fight the enemies of the west.(Muslim terrorists)
In July 1968, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked Israeli El Al Airplanes.
In 1970, Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) killers attacked bus in West Bank, killing Barbara Ertle of Michigan and wounding two others from the US.
In March 1970, PFLP lodged rockets at US Embassy, Beirut, as well as the American Insurance Company, Bank of America and John F. Kennedy library.
In September 1970, PFLP murderers took hold of four airliners, three of which were blown up.
In March 1972, PFLP engaged the Japanese Red Army to machine-gun and grenade attack Israel's main airport. Twenty-six were slain, 78 wounded, many from the US.
In September 1972, Arab killers attacked Olympic Village, Munich, Germany, kidnapping nine Israelis and slaying two others. .A grenade slaughtered athletes while others were trying to rescue them. A German policeman is slain. Jews killed totaled eleven.
In 1973, Back September Muslim killers slew US ambassador, Cleo A. Noel, and charge d'affaires and a Belgian diplomat.
In June 1976, Arab killers hijacked an Air France flight from Tel Aviv.
In August 1976, PFLP attacked Israel's main airline, El Al. Four were slain, 20 injured.
In March 1977, Muslim murderers took 134 hostages near the White House. One is slain, 12 wounded, in the seizing of the Islamic Center, the international headquarters of B'nai Brith and Washington's City Hall.
In February 1979, the US ambassador to Afghanistan is slain by Afghan militia.
In November 1979, Muslims take over US Embassy in Tehran, Iran; 66 diplomats are held hostage. Also, in that month the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, is taken by Muslim murderers. The building is set ablaze, killing four.
In June 1981, Muslim killers slay Coptics in their burnt out homes in Egypt. Eighty-one Coptics died with more than a hundred gravely wounded. Eighty houses were destroyed and looted.
In the same month, Anwar Sadat, Egyptian President, was slain by members of the Takfir Wal-Hajira sect. Eight others were murdered at Sadat's reviewing stand.
In January 1982, Lebanese killers murder American military attache Lt. Col. Charles R. Ray as he leaves his apartment.
In August 1982, PLO killers slay two from the US who were eating out at a Jewish restaurant in Paris.
In the same month, Lebanese murderers slew an American embassy employee by releasing a bomb under his car.
In September 1982, Muslim killers slew Lebanese Prime Minister Bashir Gemayel via a car bomb in Beirut.
In March 1983, five Marines are slain by Islamic Jihad and Al-Amal militia.
In April 1983, an Islamic suicide car-bomber kills 63 at the US Embassy in Beirut. Inured: 120. Islamic Jihad claimed planners of the attack.
In October 1983, 241 US Marines were slain by Islamic Jihad. They were killed in their Beirut barracks. Also, 50 UN peacekeepers were slain at the French military barracks.
In December 1983, Five were killed, 86, wounded, in Kuwait City, when Islamic killers set off car bombs in front of the US and French embassies.
In January 1984, American University of Beirut Prescient Malcolm Kerr was slain by Islamic Jihad.
In April 1984, eighteen American service personnel were slain by Islamic killers in Torrejon, Spain.
>
>
> In September 1984, Islamic Jihad damaged the US Embassy in Lebanon, killing two Americans, twenty Americans wounded.
>
>
> In April 1985, American service personnel were slain by Muslims in Madrid, Spain.
>
>
> In June 1985, Lebanese Shiite murderers threatened Captain John Testrake in his cockpit of hijacked TWA Flight 847. Muslims kill US Navy diver Robert Stethem, tossing his body around carelessly.
>
>
> In August 1985, a US soldier is slain by Muslims in Frankfurt.
>
>
> In October 1985, PLO killers hijack Italian cruise liner. A 69-year-old man is shot in his wheelchair, then thrown overboard in his wheelchair.
>
>
> In November 1985, EgyptAir Flight 648 is hijacked by Muslim killers. Fifty-eight were slain or burnt alive.
>
>
> In December 1985, Muslim slayers killed 20 at US and Israeli check-in desks in Rome and Vienna international airports.
>
>
> In that same month, Abu Nidal's group seized El Al offices in Rome. Thirteen were slain, five being from the US, 74 wounded.
>
>
> In Mary 1986, TWA Flight 840 was shot through, leaving a hole in its side. A bomb explosion was set loose by Arab Revolutionary Cells. Also, four from the US were slain when a bomb exploded on a TWA jet going from Rome to Athens. The ARC claimed responsibility.
>
>
> In April 1986 Americans were bombed in a West Berlin restaurant.
>
>
> In September 1986, Muslim killers hijacked Pan Am 747, leaving 20 slain.
>
>
> In October 1986, an American was murdered by a grenade leveled by Fatah at the Western Wall, Jerusalem.
>
>
> In February 1989, bookstores in Berkeley, CA were bombed by Muslims in protest of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses."
>
>
> In March 1989, US Navy Captain Will C. Rogers' wife is attacked by a car bomb.
>
>
> In October 1991, Ankara, Turkey, a US soldier is slain and his wife wounded by Turkish Islamic Jihad.
>
>
> In the same month, a US Air Force sergeant is slain via car bombing with Turkish Islamic Jihad claiming responsibility.
>
>
> In November 1991, American University, Beirut, administration building is bombed, killing one and wounding over 12 more.
>
>
> In March 1992, Muslims attack and kill an Archpriest, a Monk, and three laypersons at the St. Mary's Monastery, El-Mouharak, Asyut.
>
>
> In that same month, Hizbullah said it blasted the Israli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argenina, killing 29, wounding 242.
>
>
> In October 1992, Islamics attack, destroy and loot homes in El-Qousya, Asyut.
>
>
> In January 1993, a Palestinian shoots two CIA employees, wounding three others near CIA headquarters, Langley, VA.
>
>
> In that same month, Ramzi Yousef was judged as heading up the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as the 1994 explosion on Philippine Airlines Flight 434.
>
>
> In February 1993, six were killed by Islamic murderers. They set loose explosives in the World trade Center.
>
>
> In the same month, a Cairo café attack slew three via bomb.
>
>
> In April 1993, former US President George Bush was under assassination attack while in Kuwait.
>
>
> In June 1993, Islamics ambush UN peacekeeping personnel, killing 23.
>
>
> In August 1993, Islamics kill 4 from US in Somalia.
>
>
> In September 1993, Muslim murderers shot down US UH-60 blackhawk over Mogadishu. Servicemen's bodies were strewn in the streets. In October, American service personnel's bodies were dragged through the avenues of Mogadishu.
>
>
> In July 1994, a bomb explosion set by Islamics in Buenos Aires, laid low Jewish organization headquarters, killing over 85, wounding over 200.
>
>
> In December 1994, an Islamic bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 killed Haruki Ikegami, Japanese businessman.
>
> In that same month, Armed Islamic Group took hold of Air France Flight to Algeria.
>
>
> In March 1995, Islamics opened fire on US Consulate van in Karachi, slaying two US diplomats and wounding a third.
>
>
> In September 1995, a grenade was thrown through the US Embassy window, Moscow.
>
>
> In November 1995, a car bomb at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, US military location slew seven, wounding 60. Islamist Movement for Change and Fighting Advocates of God took responsibility.
>
>
> In that same month, a suicide bomber killed 16 at the Egyptian Embassy, Islamabad, Pakistan.
>
>
> In February 1996, Muslims in Egypt took a Coptic village, leveling homes, animal, crops and fields.
>
>
> In June 1996, a fuel truck exploded near Dharan, Saudi Arabia with 19 Americans slain by Husbollah.
>
>
> In August 1996, French Archbishop of Oran's home was bombed, slaying him and his chauffeur. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group did it.
>
>
> In December 1996, a Paris subway train was exploded, killing four, wounding 86.
>
>
> In February 1997, a dozen Coptic Christians are killed while worship in their Abu Quorcas church.
>
>
> In the same month, an Islamic teacher fired at tourists at the Empire State Building New York, NY. A Danish national was killed, visitors were wounded.
>
>
> In November 1997, Islamics slew four American auditors for Union Texas Petroleum Company and their Pakistani driver in Karachi. The Islamic Inqilabi Council and the Aimal Secret Committee said they did it.
>
>
> In the same month, 58 were slain by murderers at the Hatshepsut's Temple, Egypt.
>
>
> In August 1998, bombs bases the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tenzania. Blasts slew 247 in Nairobi and 10 in Dar es Salaam, more then 5000 wounded.
>
>
> In November 1999, rockets fired at US Information Services cultural center and UN offices in Islamabad, Pakistan, wounded Pakistani guard.
>
>
> In January 2000, Coptic Christians' funeral in El-Kosheh, Egypt, due to Muslim murderers' attack.
>
>
> In October 2000, USS Cole's port side view shows damage via Muslim attack via bomb explosion during refueling in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were slain, 30 wounded. Bin Laden: the ship sailed "to its doom. . .(along a course of ) "false arrogance, self-conceit, and strength."
>
>
> In December 2000, Muslim on his way to bomb Los Angeles Airport is arrested at US / Canadian border. He has over 100 pounds of explosives in his vehicle. Algerian Ahmed Ressam informs authorities that he was schooled in a camp in Afghanistan, the latter overseen by fin Laden.
>
>
> On September 11, 2001, Islamic killers international highjack planes, then crash into the World Trade Center, New York, killing more than 5000. Soon thereafter another hijacked plane smashes into the Pentagon. Sixty-four passengers and crew as well as 125 military and civilian personnel were slain with 80 wounded. Another hijacked plane with 44 onboard crashed into Shanksville PA field. All were slain by Arab Islamic zealots.
>
>
> In October 2001, Muslim murderers slay worshipers in Tomata Indonesian church.
>
>
> In the same month, Muslim killers shoot into church, slaying 18, in Bahawalpur, Model Town, Pakistan.
>
>
> In December 2001, Muslim murderers slay Christian community, killing five, in Vwang, Nigeria.
>
>
> In January 2002, Daniel Pearl, Wall Street Journal reporter, was kidnapped by Muslim murderers in Karachi. He was later slain.
>
>
> In February 2002, worshipers in a Coptic Church in Egypt were set afire.
>
>
> In that same month, three Christians were murdered by Islamics in Ilorin, Nigeria.
>
>
> In that same month in Amman, Jordan, a vehicle was blown apart via car bomb, slaying an Egyptian and Iraqi laborer. The car was owned by the wife of the head of the Jordanian Anti-Terrorism Unit.
>
>
> In March 2002 in Islamabad Pakistan, five are slain via grenade in a church. Forty-seven are wounded.
>
>
> In April 2002 in Tunisia, Islamic suicide bombers kills 26 in historic synagogue. Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites says they did it.
>
>
> In the same month, Muslim killers kill twelve worshipers in a Christian village, leaving six wounded.
>
>
> In May 2002 in Pakistan, a bus exploded, murdering 12 and wounding 19. Al-Qaida was suspected.
>
>
> In the same month in Kapiisk, Russia, Muslim murderers set loose a bomb in the bushes that slew 42, wounding 150 others. Islamic al-Qaida suspected.
>
>
> In May 2002, car bombs explode near US Consulate and Marriott Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan with eleven dead and 51 wounded. Al-Qaida suspected.
>
>
> In June 2002, Islamic killers fired into a Neelum Valley, Pakistani bus, forcing it over a cliff, killing 10 persons, injuring 12 others.
>
>
> In July 2002, grenades thrown into tourists in Mansebra.
>
>
> In August 2002, six missionaries taken, two beheaded, in the Philippines. In Jhika Gali, Murree, Pakistan, at a Christian missionary school six are slain and four wounded in Islamic murdering attack against believers.
>
>
> In August 2002, Kabul Afghanistan witnesses bomb explosion outside UN guesthouse, two wounded. Muslim killers suspected.
>
>
> In September 2002 in Ahmedabad India, Muslims attack and slay Hindu monks and dozens of worshipers in a temple. Lashkar-e-Toiba takes responsibility.
>
>
> In October 2002 in Dhabbah, Yemen, explosives kill one and wound four on French oil tanker Limburg.
>
>
> In October 2002 in Kuwait, Muslims kill one US Marine and wound another as the latter are conducting a non-live-fire exercise.
>
>
> In the same month in Bali, 187 tourists are slain by Muslim murderers at San Club on Legian Street. Al-Qaida told press they did it.
>
>
> In November 2002 in Mombaasa Kenya, 15 killed by suicide bomber, 40 wounded. Al-Ittihad suspected.
>
>
> In the same month in Mombasa Kenya, two SA-7 Strela antiaircraft missiles were launched but missed downing a Arkia Boeing 757. Al-Qaida, the Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, and the Army of Palestine claimed they did it.
>
>
> In December 2002 in Makassar Indonesia, McDonald's restaurant is exploded via bomb, 3 killed, 11 wounded. Laskar Jundullah did it.
>
>
> In December 2002, three worshipers are slain and fourteen wounded in church in Daska Pakistan. Muslims are suspected.
>
>
> In February 2003, Muslims kill fourteen and wound 8 worshipers in Christian village in Philippines.
>
>
> In March 2003 in Mindanao, Philippines, a bus is attacked by Moro Islamic Liberation Front, killing nine and injuring four.
>
> In April 2003 in Davao Philippines, a bomb kills 15 and wounds 55. Jemaah Islamiyah is responsible.
>
> In May 2003, suicide bombers storm a residential complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, leaving 35 dead, wounding 200. Al-Qaeda suspected.
>
> In May 2003, bomb attacks in Casablanca fly into restaurant, hotel, Jewish cemetery, Jewish Community Center and Belgian Consulate, leaving 33 dead and 101 wounded. Salfiya Jihadiya suspected.
>
> In July 2003, a Catholic priest in Ranala Kot, Pakistan, was shot and slain in his home. Muslim "fundamentalists" are said to have done it.
>
> In August 2003, Jakarta, Indonesia, Marriott hotel is bombed, killing 10, wounding 150. Jemaah Islamiyah suspected.
>
> In the same month, a truck exploded in Baghdad, Iraq, killing 23, wounding 100.
>
> In September 2003, a car bomb exploded near UN headquarters, killing a guard and wounding 18 in Baghdad, Iraq.
>
> In October 2003, a car bomb exploded at Baghdad Hotel housing US and Iraqi officials, leaving 38 dead and 45 wounded.
>
> In November 2003, a rocket was set loose in Kabul, Afghanistan. Taliban and al-Qaida suspected.
>
> In December 2003, Kerbala government and foreign troops' buildings were attacked by Muslim suicide squads, killing 19, wounding 120.
>
> In the same month, in Baghdad, Iraq, car bombs exploded outside Nabil Restaurant, eight killed, 35 wounded.
>
> In January 2004 in Marathiwat, Thailand, Islamic killers stormed an armory, setting it on fire as well as burning 18 schools, leaving four dead and an unknown number wounded.
>
> In the same month, suicide car bombs strike US-led coalition's offices in Baghdad, Iraq, killing 31.
>
> In February 2004, Islamic killers blow up an automobile packed with explosives in a crowd of Iraqis lined up outside an army recruiting building in Baghdad.
>
>
> In the same month, Muslim murderers slay 49 farming community laborers in Nigeria. They had taken refuge in a church.
>
>
> In the same month in Manveles, Philippines, Abu Sayyaf's group bombed a ferry, killing 200.
>
>
> In March 2004, Muslim attackers killed 185 Iraqis in Baghdad and Karbala, Iraq, as they attended shrines.
>
>
> In the same month, Muslim bombs attacked a commuter train complex in Madrid, Spain, killing 191, wounding 1,800. It was the deadliest attack since Lockerbie bombing in 1988 in Europe.
>
>
> In the same month, nine from US were slain by Islamics via bomb explosion near Fallujah.
>
>
> In April 2004, five suicide bombs exploded near police headquarters and academy with 74 slain and l160 wounded.
>
>
> In the same month, Islamic killers via suicide car bomb slew 5 and wounded 150 in Riyadh.
>
>
> In the same month, 24 were slain via roadside bomb hitting bus in Baghdad, Iraq.
>
>
> In May 2004 in Saudi Arabia, Muslims slew six in attack on Western oil company offices in Red Sea city of Yanbu. The slain were then dragged through the streets.
>
>
> In the same month in Fallujah, Iraq, four were slain via grenade. Mobs dragged the corpses through the streets.
>
>
> In the same month, Islamics show video of beheading a man who was identified as Nick Berg from Philadelphia.
>
>
> In the same month, 11 Christians were burnt alive by Islamics in two churches in Nigeria.
>
>
> In the same month, President of Iraqi Governing Council Izzadine Saleem is slain by Islamic murderers.
>
>
> In the same month, two are slain by a bomb at a shrine. Fifty others were wounded.
>
>
> In the same month, in Ambon, Indonesia, bombs kill one and injure 13 in a Christian neighborhood. Another bomb goes off near a church.
>
>
> In the same month in Barentu Nrritrea, seven are slain and 80 wounded by bomb blast.
>
>
> In the same month in Pattani Thailand, Islamics kidnap Buddhist civilian, then behead him.
>
>
> In the same month in Turbat Pakistan, Islamics kill a 14-year-old boy and dozens are injured in a rocket attack against the Minister of Education.
>
>
> In June 2004, bombs explode close to US base in Beiji, slaying 11 and wounding 22.
>
>
> In the same month in Rihadh, Frank Gardner, BBC's security correspondent, was critically injured and his cameraman Simon Cumbers was slain.
>
>
> In the same month, car bombs exploded near American base in Taji, killing nine, wounding 30.
>
>
> In the same month, car bomb explodes, killing US solider and five Iraqis with 15 others wounded.
>
>
> In the same month, Muslims down Robert Jacob, American working for vinnell Corp, Riyadh.
>
>
> In the same month, suicide car bomb kills 12 in Baghdad, Iraq.
>
>
> In the same month, car bombs explode in Baghdad, slaying 13. Crowd dances in the streets, showing "Down with the USA!"
>
>
> In the same month, artillery shells slay 35, wound 138 in Baghdad, Iraq.
>
>
> In the same month, US hostage Paul Marshal Johnson, American engineer for Lockheed Martin, is beheaded by Al-Qaeda.
>
>
> In the same month in Zainapora India, Lashkar-e-Toiba murders kidnap two, later slitting their throats.
>
>
> In July 2004 in Jakarta Indonesia, a priest was slain and four wounded when gunmen attacked their church. It was near the site where over 2000 Christians have been slain by Muslims.
>
>
> Source: Obsession. Vist: http://www.honestreporting.com/obsession/timeline.htm
Sal: The picture was taken at the 9/11 Memorial in New York. An act of terrorism by that "small few of extremist Muslim population." Don't you worry your pretty little head about the 3,000 Americans and others killed by this small facist group - they are a peaceful religon and the reason why the Mayor rejected a check from the Saudi government for assistance.
Next, for all you "There is no reason for us to be in Iraq" people. One question: Why shouldn't we be there?
Saddam ignored several demands passed by the U.N. Security Council. Is it now the policy of the U.N. not to hold its members accountable for rules of membership?
Saddam had tortured several nuclear scientists because of their failure to create nuclear missles. The people now have asylum here in the United States. Are you prepared to tell them that after they were paralyzed for months following their tortured in Saddam's torture chambers it was all made up and their experiences are not real?
We have uncovered mass graves throughout Kurdish regions where he praticed genocide. This is the same type of genocide practiced by Hitler and Milosevic. Was Clinton wrong to topple Milosevic because he was getting rid of Muslims? Of course, now I find myself wondering if this is what he was against if he was not a man ahead of his time (sarcasm, here... try to contain yourself). Either you support genocide or you don't. Liberals, please decide.
Saddam also had attempted to assasinate your 41st President. Is this a policy you usually let foreign countries engage in without retribution? Do you hate America so much that you are willing to allow a man who engages in such behavior not to be called to the mat by the United States?
Saddam's sons had pictures of the Bush girls pinned in their homes. What exactly do you think was the purpose of such an action since Muslim men typically only marry Muslim women? Do you think they were just jacking off to them on a daily basis while they were raping the girls in Iraq? I suppose this should not have been a concern, either, especially after an attempt to kill their grandfather.
Clinton in 1998 said that Saddam needs to go. Now, in an act of treason in Dubai, he says he does not support the war. This is what makes me crazy about liberalism. Do you or do you not support a regime change and did you think it was just going to happen in a Christmas Miracle? Clinton's policy is why several Iraqis were killed because Clinton didn't finish the job of regime change. He was so scared to have a backbone he ended up having thousands tortured and killed because he cut and run.
Every single action by Saddam was to dominate the Persian Gulf. Please tell me why Saudi Arabia was so scared that they allowed the U.S. to set up camp if this was not evident? Please tell me why his troops had not taken over Kuwait if this was not his intention. It is also evidenced by his actions as a result for hate for Iran.
So tell me, liberals, which item would you like to forego:
Door number 1: I am a liberal and I shun the recommendations by every human rights organization to remove Saddam from power because I endorse torture, crusifiction of people without justice, and public hangings of Iraqi Jews.
Door number 2: I am a liberal and do not believe that the intelligence and recommendations by my beloved, cigar-penetrating Clinton is right. Clinton was wrong. Also, I do not believe the endorsement by his wife to be in this war is right. He was an idiot to believe Saddam should be removed.
Door number 3: I am a liberal and I think the U.N. should be dismantled. We should not hold members accountable for peace and the collective decisions by the U.N.
Door number 4: I am a liberal and do not believe we should help our allies like Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other country, who felt that Saddam Hussein's policy to hang Jews, pay suicide bomber families a cash reward for successful bombings, or the effort to topple the Al 'Saud family should be recognized. I am an isolationist and do not believe we have a responsibility to help those who help the U.S.
Finally, Door # 5: I am a liberal and I think it is perfectly o.k. to make assasination attempts against the leader of our country. After all, he was a Republican and does not deserve our concern.
So, just let me know which of these are the reason you do not think we should have gone to war. I'll be curious what the liberal mind thinks.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Jeff, I know that - but the question was:
"...give me some links to real independent medias, with real journalists, that has verified stories that prove Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and that Saddam had WMD's..."
(sligthly edited paragraph from my previous post)
I know many muslims hate our guts. What else is new. Now even more muslims hate us.
But we are talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place.
Martin
That just about the most insulting thing to say: I assure you, these are my own opinions not "same liberal talking points".
Why dont you point out the errors in what I am saying rather than merely dismiss my entire message off-hand? Surely Shelly's blog is a good as place as any for you to set the record right?
I'm waiting for you to tell me why I am wrong. I am genuinely interested in your position. None of us are politicians, so it hardly matters if I say something stupid... just say what you really mean. Please!
Like I said, I've give you 5 choices to select, although a few you will eliminate immediately because you are from Copenhagen.
I've grown tired of the WMD argument. There are 5 other reasons for going to war and quite frankly, I completely support the fact we should to to Iran, Syria, North Korea and any other country that threatens peace in civilization all Cesear-style.
Like IMAO, I wouldn't mind just dropping a nuke on the entire region and ending thousands of years of hate. The policy worked well in Japan and we haven't heard a peep out of them since the 40s. Somehow, they figured out that our bombs were bigger and if they left us the f*ck alone, we would let them live in peace.
If they all hate us in this region, why are we preserving our enemy? Seems pointless. We can just end their misery of living with us and let them get on to their virgins. I know I'd rather be having sex than dealing with liberals who still don't get it.
Shelley for President - the one candidate who isn't afraid to use a nuclear weapon to discipline out of control, weaker governments who call for our death.
I'm willing to stake my reputation that the U.S. Colony of Iran could be a great tourist destination. I won't even bother to set up a Constitution. We'll just handle it the way we do Puerto Rico. They have no voting rights in the Congress but also don't have to pay the IRS - seems fair, don't you think?
Sorrry Shelley, I accidentally read past your kind reply. it deserves a response! In return for responsing to my doors puzzle, I would request that you address the WMD scenarios I posted somewhat earlier.
I think Jeff's posting was very timeley because it illustrates my answer to your doors conundrum. This is what I noticed from Jeff's list: Prior to the escalaton in Iraq (2003 onwards) the islamic militant activity was mainly focused around Israel, and Lebanon. After 2003 the mitancy problem explodes; The terrorist attacks become more freqent and the scope of operations enlarges.
With the very notable exception of 911, the gravity and frequency of terrorism has increased and not decreased. We might conclude from this that the war on terror is failing, assuming of course that the purpose of the "war on terror" is to reduce the number of victims of terrorism.
Door number 1: I am a liberal and I shun the recommendations by every human rights organization to remove Saddam from power because I endorse torture, crusifiction of people without justice, and public hangings of Iraqi Jews.
Nope, this door isnt for me. Knowing the reputation of the American and British armies overseas, we have brought far worse human rights abuses than we sought to replace. I'm sure that you've heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - people like you want the whole word to be civilised and are prepared to put up with very uncivil methods to achieve it.
Door one is also the way of the hypocrite; There have been so many conflicts with far worse abuses of human rights. Consider the massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia. None of these bloody conflicts caused the USA and britian to intervene with 100th as much firepower as we brought to bear on Iraq. The fact is that our nations do not generally undertake $200Bn operations on purely humanitarian grounds.
Door number 2: I am a liberal and do not believe that the intelligence and recommendations by my beloved, cigar-penetrating Clinton is right. Clinton was wrong. Also, I do not believe the endorsement by his wife to be in this war is right. He was an idiot to believe Saddam should be removed.
Well I never voted for Clinton, and his sexual habits were none of my business. I would personally rather a president who works out his energy in harmless sexuality rather than one who vents his frustration through war. Still shelly, he was your president not mine!
The sad fact is that many wars have been started based on bogus inteligence; There is a great deal of skepticism concerning the attacks on battleships that lead to the start of the vietnam war. There are some historical revisonists who believe that Perl Harbour was not an unprovoked attack. Lets not dwell on these controvocies...
My point is that Intelligence as reported to citizens is often highly selectivly disclosed - governments of all colours will generally leak evidence that supports the actions they have already decided to take. The inteligence agencies of Germany and France did not believe the American evidence for WMDs. The British government claimed to believe WMD evidence, but was privately skeptical.
I think it's our duty as citizens to be skeptical of how government reports inteligence. I am sure MD will confirm that these are complex issues that can almost never be taken of face value.
Door number 3: I am a liberal and I think the U.N. should be dismantled. We should not hold members accountable for peace and the collective decisions by the U.N.
I never said that at all; infact I believe the UN is the lesser of many evils. If you truly believed that UN member states should be accountable then you would deplore the number of occasions when the USA or the UK has used it's veto to prevent accountability. The UN can only be an instrument of justice if we apply the same standards to ourselves as we do others; unfortunatley the veto power allows us to excempt ourselves from any criticism.
Door number 4: I am a liberal and do not believe we should help our allies like Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other country, who felt that Saddam Hussein's policy to hang Jews, pay suicide bomber families a cash reward for successful bombings, or the effort to topple the Al 'Saud family should be recognized. I am an isolationist and do not believe we have a responsibility to help those who help the U.S.
The conflct you are refering to ended in the 90's. Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait long before George Bush 2 was even elected. By the time of Bush II's presidency Saddam was stripped of much of his wealth and military power. On the threat scale he ranked far lower than South Korea who almost certainly still have an active nuclear weapons program.
It's true that Saddam was responsible for aiding the palastinians; spesifically funding families of suicide bombers. Its also true that this practice continues (but with funding from other corrupt leaders) long after Saddam has been locked away. America also provides an enormous quantity of aid to Israel for the spesific purpose of defending themselves against exactly this kind of threat. Ironically, the threat to israel has gone up and not down following the 2nd gulf war, so we might argue that we have harmed the interests of our allies by starting a needless and expensive war.
Finally, Door # 5: I am a liberal and I think it is perfectly o.k. to make assasination attempts against the leader of our country. After all, he was a Republican and does not deserve our concern.
Of course, thats something we would never do right? Britian and America had many operatives whose sole purpose was to create and take advantage of an assassination opportunity. It's a shame they didnt get him, because it might have saved an awful lot of bloodshed, but then agian maybe not.
There is of course one missing door; that of justice. The door leads to a future where we use our armies only in defence and we do not send people to iraq who feel that the whole place might be better off being nuked. Soldiers who think the only good moslem is a dead moslem are not the right people to restore peace to a war-torn region. We could also try applying the same standards we expect from our enemies to ourselves and our allies. For example, we might ask Israel (who owns WMDs and has defied many UN resolutions) to release it's occipied territories - that would be a good start.
One question: Why shouldn't we be there?
You've answered your own question:
Shelley for President - the one candidate who isn't afraid to use a nuclear weapon to discipline out of control, weaker governments who call for our death. I'm willing to stake my reputation that the U.S. Colony of Iran could be a great tourist destination. I won't even bother to set up a Constitution.
This is a pretty good reason why American troops should never have been sent into Iraq. For all your noble words about how bad Saddam was, you've boasted about how you would love to do far worse. You are advocating the most outrageous war-crime of the milenium; President Shelley would commit war-crimes that Hitler could never even dream of.
*sigh* ok here goes....
1. Sadaam "might not" have had anything to do directly with 9/11, However, I think we can all agree that he was a vicious dictator capable of anything given the means. Agreed??
2. Sadaam DID in fact pursue WMD at least prior to 1998. Agreed? At least that's what Clinton said or did he lie too?
3. It was stated in the 9/11 commission report that Al Qaeda did have meetings with Iraqi officials.
Ok Given those three facts alone....Follow me close here....
After 9/11 and seeing the capabilities of terrorists could we afford to wait and see what happens IF Sadaam did manage to reconstitute his WMD program(again going back to the 9/11 commission report you so dearly love-yes I've read it)?
I suppose if someone were squaring off to you and balling up their fist getting ready to punch you, you would let them get in the first punch because it's the noble thing to do. Me, I think I'd hit first to protect myself.
We know Sadaam "had" WMD. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC could not confirm the destruction of ALL of his stockpiles. Where are they? We can't find that answer out in Detroit. We have to be there.
Many of the points I would have taken up, have been responded to. The one thing was the comment about using Google to look at maps of the desert.
I just don't know what to say, I mean honestly. It is a huge desert, and bunkers are able to go floors upon floors below the desert.
To whom ever said that I have a little project for you. Without using any other source than your Google map please send me the location of ONE (out of hundreds) ICBM silo in the US west.
Hi Anonymous, I would love to see you expand on your well-considered policy idea; I think you should dig a little deeper and state the historical context behind what you are advocating.
The reason you can substitute 'Nazi' for 'Muslim' is because these guys are not some poor little freedom fighters fighters standing up against the big old nasty U.S, they are extremist radicals trying to create a new Muslim empire.
Sure the U.S. is bigger and the extemists are smaller - but that is a definition by inessentials. The essential difference is that they stand for religious intolerance and the U.S. stands for freedom. Just like the U.S. stood for freedom against the Nazis.
Don't let the fact that they only use Guerilla tactics fool you. These guys are deadly serious about a new Muslim empire, and they will do what it takes to win.
So, are we supposed to lay down and die so they can have their Muslim dream planet? No way (unless you're French).
MD: I made the Google Earth remark - meaning that if we can see this level of detail with a public available tool, you can get an idea about what the various agencies can see. (i.e. to make it totally clear to you: No, I don't think the CIA uses Google Earth :-)
And...
Anonymous responding to anonymous: Keep in mind, that the French (whom you call spineless, just because they don't agree with you guys) are the only western country this far who had banned headscarves and other religious symbols from their state schools. So when two French journalist were taken hostage in Iraq about a year ago, and the kidnappers required the Frensh administration to drop the headscarves ban, the French just said "well, too bad about the hostages, but it's not going to happen. Period!".
Not like the Philippine government, who chickened, and pulled their troops out when some of their citizens was taken hostage. That was a great victory for the kidnappers: "Hey! This kidnapping stuff really works!!!" Thanks a lot, guys!
Martin
I almost forgot to comment on this:
I completely support the fact we should to to Iran, Syria, North Korea and any other country that threatens peace in civilization all Cesear-style.
Just to refresh your history; Julius Cesar was not a democratically elected politician; he came to power through violence; a voilent takeover of government. We might call it a coup, however the word did not exist back then.
Ceasar was a particularly able military leader; He managed to annex what is modern-day France and began the conquest of Britian. His political strength came from his control of military power and willingness to serve the business interests of powerful roman merchants.
He was not a compassionate man of the people, nor was he trying to fight a war to end all wars: Ceasar invaded these countries not for humanitarian reasons or because they were any significant threat. He ran wars because they were profitable.
He selected the countries that he would invade based on which countries could bring the greatest profit. Conquest of a new land would bring plunder, mineral resources and that greatest of all aincient comodities, slaves.
Rome had elections, but it was not a deomcracy as you or I know; For example the only people who were permitted to vote were the landed aristocrats. Most people in Rome were the underclass; citizens who can no more affect those who govern them than the average Purto Rican.
Ceasar often used very similar justifications for war that the republicans do; For example his propogandists would mention that the celts followed barbarous pracitces; the worshiped the wrong gods; they resisted the roman army with stones and arson and therefore they are bad people who must be subjugated. A British of Gaulish life was worth less to him than a roman life; If roman profit demanded a massacre on forign soils, then so be it. That was just aincient statecraft.
I wouldnt have dared compare Bush & Co to Julius Caesar in this forum; I would have epxected a mountain of contradiction from conservatives eager to deny that America had any Imperialist agenda. Most Americans I know would be horified by the notion that their country aspires to the same kind of colonial cexpansion the founding fathers once fought against.
Incidentally, Mousolini, the founder of modern Fascism also looked to Julius Cesar for inspiration; They were both from the same part of the world. Mousolini fancied himself as a modern day cesear, and aspired to rebuild italian society along the principles of aincient rome. Roman civilisation was the archetypal fascist society.
But in a sense I think you have perfectly summed up what the world finds so distressing about American foreign policy; America's leaders do actually think like that famous dictator and like you, they dont see whats wrong with occupying Afgahanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and then who knows what?
I suspect that America's reasons for wanting to invade the middle-east are somewhat similar to Ceasar's!
Sal
Sorry, I forgot to add a bit to my last comment about the Phillipine reaction to their hostage-situation.
I'm against this war. It makes no sense, it just cost lives and resources for no other reason than to fill some guys pockets (where at least one of them won't live long enough to enjoy it - his names rhymes with prick), but since the harm has been done, the least thing we can, and should do, is to minimize the damage.
But I'm against pulling out now. It's irresponsible.
The right thing to do it to ask the UN for peace-keeping troops, preferably from arab nations. I'm not sure if it will help anything, but I see no other way.
Martin
(And the U.S. voters have been had. Imagine the level of internal security the cost of this war could buy you ... And, no, I don't hate the U.S. at all. Far from it. I've lived there, been there several times afterwards, worked for American companies, would consider to live there, if I could have the same quality of life as I can here - it's just that I think you are f***king up a great country, that's all.)
But I'm against pulling out now. It's irresponsible. The right thing to do it to ask the UN for peace-keeping troops, preferably from arab nations. I'm not sure if it will help anything, but I see no other way.
The problem is we (the citizens) are in a loose / loose situation. The longer our governments remain at occupation the more arabs get upset and want to give us bombs for Xmas.
An occupation of Iraq is a gift for terrorists. Until the insurgency began there was no such organisation as "Al-Queda in Iraq". Our war has not only given them a reason to exist, but we bolster their numbers with every human rights abuse reported.
Of course, we havent helped ourselves: We claimed to be fighting a war on humantarian basis (to stop Saddam's killing and torture) and then our governments use torture themselves. We flattened and burnt the city of fellujah because some of it's citizens opposed us... not all that different to what Saddam did to protect his power base.
As you correctly say $200bn could have bought an awful lot of security. Who knows what could have been invented for that much money. Who knows what profitable inventions might have been generated for a tenth as much funding.
The irony is, there is a much cheaper and more effective way to crush opposition than firing mortars and dropping nukes. Theres nothing more persuasive than money and culture. Even the most anti-american nations love American food, music and films. Everybody loves dollars.
We could be seducing the youth of Iraq, but instead we are driving them to become our opponents. Really, what incentive exists for the average Iraqui to sign-on with the Allied vision for their nation.
The right thing to do it to ask the UN for peace-keeping troops, preferably from arab nations. I'm not sure if it will help anything, but I see no other way.
I would put my vote behind that. They may not be as tough and as ass-kicking as the US marines, but at least they speak the same language as the people they would be trying to police.
I would hope that a mainly Arab peacekeeping force would not despise the people they are supposed to be protecting as much as our soldiers allegedly do.
Imagine if all the police in Texas only spoke Arabic; do you expect they would be an effective means of law enforcement? It's as absurd a notion to think that an English-speaking army can keep the peace in Iraq.
But we all know that the USA would never hand-over control of Iraq to rival Arab nations. As Shelley pointed out, this is Cesar-style imperialsm. You dont invest $200bn in a war to just give up your prize because most Arabs want their country back... who cares what they think!
Sal, I disagree. We are not a terrorist gift unless you behave like France does. Accept no compromise and tighten the grip. If they are just a small population, they are no concern. That is, unless you are admitting, that the Muslims with terrorist attacks are actually more than a small population.
I also think that Arab nations have proven they are corruptable and lack any ability to control a situation even if the have the U.N. patch. I do not trust the boys of the U.N. to go in and do a man's job.
In my opinion, that $200 billion was money well invested to a) prove that we mean what we say and that we are not a nation of idle threats and b) to ensure we end the bullshit they've been feeding us for decades. I think we'll get more out of that $200 billion that we would have from an investment in 200 nuclear warheads.
Sorry, liberals - not only do I not want to cut an run but I say turn it up!
That is, unless you are admitting, that the Muslims with terrorist attacks are actually more than a small population.
I'm saying that the proportion of Muslims willing to commit acts of terrorism is increasing. My evidence is the list that Jeff provided (which I assume we all accept is an accurate, if one-sided list of atrocities committed in the war on terror). We know that suicide bombers can only commit suicide once, and therefore if there are more attacks there must be more bombers.
Looking at Jeff's list, we know that the frequency of attacks has gone up. The intensity of each attack has gone up. The attacks have spread out from Palestine and Lebannon and increasingly threaten Europe and America directly. We do not appear to be winning the "War on Terror".
What I am admitting is that our actions are helping recruitment for Al-Queda. We know this because Al-Queda cells now exist in countries where they previously had no ability to operate. Iraq used to be a secular (meaning non-religious) state until the insurgency began. There is now an organisation that calls itself "Al-Queda in Iraq" which is every bit as dangerous as the organisation that attacked the WTC on 911. The Iraqui constiution now enshrines Sharia (medieval Islamic) law. We have increased the ammount of radical Islam in Iraq.
Unless you think that Jeff's list is a fraud, then you must conclude that the effects of the war on terrorism are the opposite of their stated goals. We were told that the world would be a safer place once Saddam hussein was locked up and his WMDs disabled. We were told that the insurgency would fade away without it's leader. These statements have been exposed as lies.
In my opinion, that $200 billion was money well invested to a) prove that we mean what we say and that we are not a nation of idle threats and b) to ensure we end the bullshit they've been feeding us for decades. I think we'll get more out of that $200 billion that we would have from an investment in 200 nuclear warheads.
Thanks for your honesty; In your opinion, the the war in Iraq is justified because it's a big warning to the other Arab. Unless they do whats best for America's interests they will suffer like Iraq suffered.
Our activities in Iraq are not humanitarian (so lets not even pretend about torture scientists when we torture and kill prisoners ourselves) nor are they about orphaned children ( because many more will die as this war continues to escalate ). WMDs were irrelivant because if they did exist they are now under control of religuous nut-cases. Peace is irrelivant because the longer we stay there the more bloody the inurgency grows.
I think we can infer from your posts that the real reasons why conservatives justify war in Iraq are:
* "Cesar-Style" empire building; We are over there because we can make a profit.
* Because we have to show 'em whos boss so the other arab nations will dare "bullshit" us again.
The other reasons are just make-believe, they have to be make believe because by every other benchmark you care to mention the war is a failure.
Sal
This is where the Left, does not get it. The Muslim terrorist hate us for one reason and one reason only. Not becuase of Iraq or Israel, or American foreign policy.They hate us because that is what Mohammed taught them to do. Hate us and kill us. Keep drinking the coolaid, and keep blaming America for "making" terrorists. Keep feeding the alligator hopeing not to be eaten last....
Ok, Sal.. if the intensity of attacks are up and they are a threat to the U.S. and the only people, who are members of Al Queda are Muslims, then Muslims are a threat to Americans and Europeans. Thus, there is no war on terror without a war on Islam. So, let's just stop calling it a war on terror and seek to end the rights of all Islam countries.
I mean, if the more these animals continue to kill children, women and others not in the military, then let's end it.
After all, no one likes us anyway, let's give them exactly what they want, which is a total domination of the world. Let's squash the Muslim desire for intolerance while we still have in check. If we kill all the Muslims then this will end Al Queda and thus the threat of any more recruitment activities.
I can make it really simple, really fast. You're right, it is about American interests and keeping our citizens safe around the world. I do not care about the French - I did, saved their ass from the Nazis and they spit in our face. I do not care about the Muslims- I did, we saved them in Bosnia, and they have spit in my face. I do not care about Russia - I did, we provided support and they sold missles to our enemies. I do not care about Muslim African countries - I did, I provided my tax dollars in the form of aid and medication and they took our soldiers, drug them through the street and killed them.
So you got it. I'm done giving. It doesn't matter how good we are to anyone, they forget and never repay their debts. Its time Americans start thinking about Americans and do what's best for our citizens.
You want to call that imperialistic? Good. You want to call the fact we have turned over another Democratic area to Iraq that we helped secure, good, you're on your own like when Clinton did it and they were all killed and tortured.
You want to rock the World economy? How much do you think China is contributing to the world in the form of aid? If the only thing Americans did was pull our troops along with our money, the Islamic nations would never know such poverty. So, call it what you want, but if you take my money, you also get my "involvement."
You can solve it easily by Muslims countries not being corrupt and taking care of their own citizens and not exporting to Americans.
Until then, these third century tribes can shut up and take it from the Americans and be thankful we care anything at all about their damn dessert.
Who do you think builds all those pipelines? I can tell you who its not since my father's company (an American company, I might add) has designed and built it for almost everyone of those countries.
If Kerr McGee, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Unocal and others pulled the plug on their exploration and development, their poverty would make Ethopia look like the Garden of Eden.
Thus, there is no war on terror without a war on Islam.
Yes, exactly. As many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic like flanking maneuvers are a tactic. You don't declare war on terror any more than you declare war on flanking maneuvers.
What you declare war on, is whomever is using that tactic against you, namely Muslim Jihadists. Or, if you are so inclined, you skip the whole "declaring war" part and simply get busy seeing how much Christmas tree you can cram up the typical Jihadist's ar*e.
You cannot shoot an idea, You can kill a bad idea with a better idea:
Yes, exactly. As many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic like flanking maneuvers are a tactic. You don't declare war on terror any more than you declare war on flanking maneuvers.
Yes, Terror and Terrorism are abstract concepts; We cannot fight terrorism with conventional warfare, torture or even an atom bomb. You cannot shoot a concept. Even if we nuked the last living terrorist, there would allways be more willing to continue the fight.
if the intensity of attacks are up and they are a threat to the U.S. and the only people, who are members of Al Queda are Muslims, then Muslims are a threat to Americans and Europeans.
Insert the word "radical".
This conflict from the very start was against radical fascist medievalist islam. Very few Muslims are any threat to anybody - the difference between ourselves is that you would be happy to put them all in the "radical" category, and in doing so turn them all against us, wheras I advocate reducing the factors that lead to people becoming radicals.
If we started calling the "War on Terror" the "War on Radical Islam", then we might make some progress because at least we would realize that we were fighting against not an army or even a population but an idea. Once you realize that your enemy is not Muslims (the people) but radical Islam (the belief) then we realise that our strategies need to be revised.
If you know anything about early Christian history, you will know that the christians were an oppressed group. The Roman Empire persecuted christianity in order to wipe it out. As you no doubt are aware, they didnt manage, infact they only made the belief stronger. The emperor thaught that a few roman legions could turn up the hurt on the Christian rebellion, perhaps crucify (how they misunderstood the christian mind) a few people here and there and the movement would end.
Thats some evidence that fighting a war against an idea requires different strategies to fighting an army or a rival superpower. Of course for the early christian martyrs, crucification meant dying like Jesus and acted as an inspiration to others to become christians. I think we are in danger of copying the strategies of the Romans rather than the early Christians.
If you need more evidence, consider that Santa Claus, Reindeer and Xmas trees do not appear in the biblical myth of the birth of Christ. When most people in the world think of Chrismas time they think of presents, shopping, snow, tinsel and the whole commercial culture of the "Holiday Season" which has largely displaced the original religious meaning. Most British families do not attend church once.
What this shows is that even a poweful idea (such as the myth of a Messiah being born), can be displaced by more powerful idea. Children perfer chocolate to Christ. The dollar is more powerful than Jesus, Mohammed and the Kalashnikov. If you still want to debate this, just go to Wall-Mart and tell me how much Jesus you see there?
Thus, there is no war on terror without a war on Islam. So, let's just stop calling it a war on terror and seek to end the rights of all Islam countries....
If Kerr McGee, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Unocal and others pulled the plug on their exploration and development, their poverty would make Ethopia look like the Garden of Eden.
Thats a real "passive agressive" approach to foreign policy. One minute you proclaim your happiness to destroy them all, and the next moment you declare America to be their savior.
I found this comment from Colonel Larwence Wilkinson, a former chief of staff to Colin Powell:
"This [Iraq] is not a conflict of bombs, bullets and bayonets. This is not a conflict where the military should be the leading instrument. Yes, we had to go to Afghanistan because we had no choice. Al-Qaeda was resident there. The people who actually plotted and the people who planned the 9/11 tragedy were resident there. We had to go after them. The Taliban would not give them up. We had to go after them. The military instrument was appropriate there.
But the military instrument is not appropriate to this wider conflict, because this wider conflict is a conflict of ideas. It is our ideas, which are the political values upon which America is based, indeed, upon western liberalism is based, and the ideas of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other evil people like those. And if we think that this conflict can be won with bombs, bullets and bayonets, we are sadly mistaken. I was a soldier for 31 years. You do not fight ideas with bombs, bullets and bayonets. You fight them with your ideas, because your ideas are better. And so, when you detract from the better of your ideas, when you give people in the world, especially the millions of moderate Muslims who might be sitting on the fence right now in this conflict, when you give them reason to doubt your credibility, to doubt your ideas, give them reason to criticize you, you're actually defeating yourself. And we just can’t continue to do that sort of thing, because this is a war of ideas, and we're going to win it with our ideas, triumphant over the ideas of people like bin Laden and Zarqawi."
I think this illustrates the devide here; One one side we have the few who believe that the abstract concept of "terrorism" can be defeated mearly by "turning it up". The notion advocated by Shelley and a few others is that if we keep raising the pain-threshold eventually the terrorists will chicken out and finally get with the program.
The irony here is that the ideas of Bin-Laden and Zarqawi are so easily defeated. They are afteral advocating a medieval, fascist version of Islam which the vast majority of the Islamic world has discredited. Bin-Laded is widely believed (by Muslims) to be an extremist nut-case. As we can see in countries like Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, when allowed to propsper Arabs buy into western culture.
The problem is, our politicians and our armies are busy discrediting our culture. They are squandering the most valuable weapon we have, whilst arming and driving fresh recruits to our enemies.
Here's the problem: No one can tell who the radicals are and who are just your every day peace loving Muslims since everything they do teaches the hate for infidels.
Find me one Muslim, who believes a Jew has the right to live in the Middle East. Are you saying that a report that 95% of Jordanians believe a suicide bomber has a role in achieving political change means that the majority of Jordanians are radical? How about most of the young people in Tehran, who believe the U.S. should be destroyed? How about a Palenstenian who realizes that killing an Israeli child is radical? They see it as an ends to a mean.
I'm sorry, but the majority of the religion is radical. It is the minority that is peaceful and those are probably European or American converts not traditional Muslim families.
Finally, you make several references to what Christians have done 700 years ago. Ok, we are done discussing it because at the same time we had the Spanish Inquisition and Crusaders, the Muslims were killing then, too. The problem is that Muslims have failed to lift themselves out of the dark ages. They are still practicing the lack of tolerance they were doing centuries ago.
The funny thing is that Hindus, Christians, Jews and Catholics can all live on the same block and mingle. You would never (I am sure there is an exception) see a Muslim go to a Jewish person's house.
Finally, during our Christmas holiday a couple of years ago, my children wanted to give their two Muslim friends a Christmas gift. My boys picked out something that boys would like from Target (I think a Hot Wheel set and something else). Their father, who will not allow his American wife to go shopping without an escort, rejected our gift because they do not celebrate Christmas. WTF?! I wanted to say take the damn gift and tell your boys it was a Romadon present for all I care but don't be so rude. But, being a good Texas girl I apologized and said that it was not our intention to offend them and I would keep it in mind in the future and help our children better understand their family's religion.
The next time their kids were over (and they are over often because they have no supervision), I crumbled up some bacon in a turkey sandwich just for good measure. Ironically, the Muslim kids didn't fall over and die and I'm willing to bet they'll still go to heaven just like they would have if they had taken my children's damn gift.
I can't wait for them to move. I don't want them to have to live among us infidels. You know, our block parties are really a disquise to make them Christians. (as I roll my eyes)
With respect to telling the radicals apart from the rest, the key point is that there is always a passive majority who just follow, or at least do nothing about it.
Do you think the majority of Germans in 1939 were full on radical Nazis or were they more like the Muslim majority today (that is, passive supporters who don't really approve but don't exactly disapprove either) ?
Should we have said, back then: "Oh we musn't fight back, it is just a few radicals" ? It is always just a few radicals and the majority seal their own fate by not standing up to them.
Sal, I believe that our reasons for being involved in this "War On Terror" in Iraq are several but here are just two.
1. removing a brutal dictator that murdered innocent people from his own country and to keep him from spreading his murerous reign to other countries or to the terrorists(Radicals of ALL shapes, sizes, or creed).
2. We are attempting to inject a little democracy. We are doing this by attempting to make Iraq safe for it's people to be able to vote (they did it whether it was safe or not).
So whether you believe it or not we ARE attempting to replace the idea of Radicalism that advocates death and destruction with the idea of Democratic Freedom.
Shelly, perhaps we need an open thread on this discussion?
Their father, who will not allow his American wife to go shopping without an escort, rejected our gift because they do not celebrate Christmas. WTF?
Yep, it's true - most Moslem families do not celebrate Christmas. To a strict Moslem family, celebrating a chritian festival would be as odd as for you to celebrate a Hindu festival. Of course, were you really as surprised by this as you claim to have been?
I crumbled up some bacon in a turkey sandwich just for good measure.
Where I come from, Bacon does not crumble. Good bacon forms tender juicy rashers, and should be served slightly crisp but never so dry that it could ever be crumbled. It could possibly be torn, shredded or cut but NEVER crumbled. May I suggest buying a higher quality brand next time? I usually get organic as I think the extra cost is justified. If your bacon crumbles, it is either too thin, desicated or overcooked. I am profoundly concerned about your cooking standards. Pray tell, what else do you eat with your "Freedom Fries"?
Incidentally, Moslems do not eat Bacon for the same reason that Jews do not eat bacon. If you ever stopped to look at a Koran, you would notice that it's first section is incredibly similar to your Bible's old testament. The question is, would it be as funny to play your little practical joke on a Jewish family as you found it to trick an Islamic neighbour?
I'm sorry, but the majority of the religion is radical. It is the minority that is peaceful and those are probably European or American converts not traditional Muslim families.
This of course is an opinion without any foundation in evidence. Two notable arrested/suspected terrorists were converts; In the UK we had Richard Reid (a.k.a. the Shoe Bomber), and in America you have Jose Padilla (a.k.a. the Dirty Bomber). There is no evidence to show that converts are less likely to become militants than traditionally islamic families. I would love you to point out some statistics that justify this opinion!
Finally, you make several references to what Christians have done 700 years ago. Ok, we are done discussing it because at the same time we had the Spanish Inquisition and Crusaders, the Muslims were killing then, too. The problem is that Muslims have failed to lift themselves out of the dark ages. They are still practicing the lack of tolerance they were doing centuries ago.
No, you misread my comments. I was refering to what the christians did approximately 2000 years ago - the early christians who resisted Roman oppression and eventually converted the Roman Empire to christianity. I was trying to point out that the Christians won (in part) because the Romans (like the Americans today), figured that all they needed to do was supress a people and then the idea they represented would just fade away. The Roman repression made the christian movement stronger in the same way that the American occupation of Iraq is a gift to the Islamic militants who have flodded into Iraq.
The point I was trying to make was to agree with Colonel Larwence Wilkinson. In the quote above he is saying that you cannot supress an idea with bombs and guns. He is saying that it's a big mistake to think that you can end our terrorist problems by "turning up the pain" because that is not how you discredit an idea. If anything we have fallen into the role of "evil oppressor".
When we flatten a city like Fellujah to make an example of them, do you think it will frighten people from taking up arms against an occuper, or will it make them even more determined to fight back? Military victory in Iraq will not be worth a thing if we dont win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis. The problem is we are loosing herts and minds with every stray bullet, torture victom and misunderstanding.
No one can tell who the radicals are and who are just your every day peace loving Muslims
And if you have difficulty on the streets of urban Dallas, imagine how much difficulty Private Gomer Pile from a farming community near Texas has telling the good Arabs from the Bad ones. After a few weeks of service he has probably learnt that it's safer just to shoot anything with a beard.
It's precisely because people like you cannot tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys that you are absolutely the worst people to be attempting to do it. I dont doubt that it's a hard thing for anybody to do, but sending a regiment of armed non-arabic speakers into an arab town is a recipe for trouble.
Imagine if the LAPD couldnt tell the difference between bankers and gangsters, do you think they would be an effective police force?
Find me one Muslim, who believes a Jew has the right to live in the Middle East.
I suspect it would be quite hard to find a pro-zionist Arab right now. I expect that most arabs feel that western powers did not have the right to drive Palastinians from their vilages in order to set up a new Jewish homeland based largely on the myth of historical Israel. Most arabs I know grudgingly accept the right for Israelis to live within the borders of Israel because what is done cannot be reversed. On the other hand, most Arabs would strongly object to Israel's practice of annexing and colonizing parts of neigboring countries (perhaps you have heard of the "occpied territories" and the "settlments"). Israel was not colonising the moon, these were moderatly populated Arab lands.
So I would agree - It would be difficult to find anybody who has paid the scantest attention to the history of how Israel was formed, and how it continues to behave who feels they have the right to carry on.
If we really wanted to reduce terrorism, I've often suggested we might start by trying to restore justice to Isreal and Palestine. It would be cheaper than another war, plus it would probably prevent another war.
Post a Comment