Fanaticism

Madeline Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resented the Crusades.

Speaking of rightwing fanatics, foxfyre is working overtime today.

The current situation in Iraq cannot be placed at Albright's feet anymore than it can be placed at Bush I, Clinton's, or Bush II's feet.

Saddam Hussein and his followers were on the CIA payroll back in the 1970's and really came into power during Reagan's reign. In fact, it was none other than Reagan who sold Saddam his military arsenal in a deal brokered by Donald Rumsfeld.

0 Replies

Then enlighten us Deecups. How is the writer wrong?

0 Replies

Some fanatic Muslims do indeed still resent the Crusades, not to mention the ousting of Hagar and Ismael from Abraham's household. Rolling Eyes

However, Deecups, for once, makes a somewhat valid point (if you could find a link to the Iran-Iraq war, and how the US backed Saddam at the time, feel free to post it). Iraq really is an American-made mess that they are trying to 'clean up' now. So, don't believe the hype, but don't buy into conspiracy theory either.

0 Replies

I just explained it to you, hon.

But you do play the drums well. :wink:

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

I just explained it to you, hon.

But you do play the drums well. :wink:

Yep, you explained it with no backup. I'm not really diagreeing with anyone here, but at least get a link posted, however dubious.

0 Replies

Happy now cav????

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7577

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/ridgewar3.php

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north170.html

http://www.indiejournal.com/indiejournal/columns/omarbinladenhussein.htm

http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2003-April/002664.html

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

:wink:

0 Replies

I don't think Madeline can be blamed more than the others as the cause either, but she did have a role to play re our policy toward Iraq and al Qaida in the previous administration. And her quote was instructive to the thesis of the article. She, among others, has been beating the drum of understanding and sensitivity and appeasement; in other words seems to be not at all angry at the terrorists who have done such terrible thngs, but is highly critical of the ones who oppose the terrorists.

0 Replies

Thanks Deecups. Yes, satisfied now.

0 Replies

I didn't realize Madeline Albright was the Secretary of State when the Twin Towers were destroyed.

I thought this horrible event happened on Bush's watch.

0 Replies

Deecups you're missing the point altogether. I would like to focus on the thesis of the thread.....which is....the terrorists are our enemy. Not the people who oppose them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
Being critical of an administration for invading Iraq is NOT the same thing as being critical of those opposing terrorists. Why is it so difficult to see that Iraq is diverting our military resources abroad and our financial resources at home. The cat is out of the bag and we are now stuck with it, but please do not confuse the reason for the fury. It is NOT for opposing terrorism.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Focus away hon. Deecups isn't stopping you.

However, the article you chose for your so-called "thesis" opens with a paragraph that disses former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and implies she in some way coddled terrorists.

This is a lie.

If you really want to focus on terrorists and the war in Iraq which Bush keeps saying is about stopping terrorists, then I suggest you look at how Saddam Hussein and his Baath party was created and by whom.

If you bother to, you will make a startling discovery. The deal with the devil was made by the USA a generation before Madeline Albright or Bill Clinton were in office.

That's all I'm saying.

0 Replies

Then why Mesquite am I seeing a plethora of posts on A2K describing the president as the 'killer of the innocent' and describing war crimes committed by the enemy, and blaming the coalition, mostly the U.S. for Iraqi deaths. You don't see much angst directed at the terrorists who are blowing up innocent men, women and children.

0 Replies

Maybe foxfyre, it has just a bit to do with the fact your leader announced an end to major combat more than a year ago, Saddam's in prison, yet the military presence in Iraq keeps escalating and civilian casualties (Iraqi men, women and yes -- children) are dying and being maimed, losing eyes, limbs, and arms.

It's a carnage, hon.

0 Replies

Quite simply because the president put us in that situation. Without our invasion, all of what is happening would not be happening. We destroyed the security of Iraq.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Then why Mesquite am I seeing a plethora of posts on A2K describing the president as the 'killer of the innocent' and describing war crimes committed by the enemy, and blaming the coalition, mostly the U.S. for Iraqi deaths. You don't see much angst directed at the terrorists who are blowing up innocent men, women and children.

Because just as you are morally responsible for your own actions before those of others, you are responsible for your own government's actions more than you are for the actions of a government which isn't your own, or a group of which you aren't a member. That's a basic and simple moral point.

0 Replies

Maybe that's it. So you three are saying it is morally wrong to oppose the terrorists and that we should pull in our horns, close down the war on terrorism, and all will be well? Or at least we'll be doing the right thing?

0 Replies

I don't think anyone here is opposed to fighting terrorism. However, the invasion of Iraq is a different issue.

0 Replies

No, Foxfyre, I am saying throw the bums out of office, put some respect back in the whitehouse.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know