US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Steppenwolf, if you are putting The Great Game in quotation marks because you think i manufactured it, you are profoundly ignorant of a large segment of English imperial history. It was the English who provided the name. I did not claim that Al Qaeda and bin Laden were a part of the Great Game--the Great Game concerns itself with the control of central asia initially, and then, after the discovery of petroleum in Persia and then the middle east, it becomes concerned with the control of petroleum producing regions. Afghanistan, before the Taliban took over, was simply a side show in the cold war against the Soviet Union. However, that does not lessen that the West has created the conditions in which islamic fundamentalist crackpots have been able to thrive. Those jokers are nothing new--the Wahabbis have been intriguing for power in Arabia for centuries. But they only become effective when a great many Muslims have a greivance--we have provided that greivance.

If you are gullible enough to think that the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy is an objective, disinterested source for such information, help yourself. I have a bridge in New York you might be interested in purchasing . . .

Information can easily be found to refute your contentions. The Member of Parliament, Robin Cook, quoted in the Guardian happens to disagree with you. Historians have a question they ask when examining evidence--cui bono?--who benefits? Given that the Department of Energy is an executive branch agency controlled by the administration being criticized in this thread, you might well imagine (if you possess an active and effective imagination) that they are a suspect source to those asking the question cui bono?

0 Replies

I just heard Little Boot on the radio as he spoke in Pennsylvania. The Shrub says that the invasion of Iraq "seems to have angered radicals" (well, duh-uh) and then says that he would "remind them that we weren't in Iraq on September 11, 2001."

The goofy sumbytch has gone so far off the deep end, he now believes his own propaganda BS. It is disgusting enough that he has so cynically exploited the September 11th tragedy, now he wants to shove another big lie down peoples' throats, and he has no shame.

Help! I'm slipping into the Twilight Zone.
The place is a madhouse,
It feels like being cloned.
My beacon's been moved under moon and star.
Where do i go now that i've gone too far?

0 Replies

Oh jesus!

STILL the great lie?

This idiot has learned nothing from his own investigators.

This is scary. This is really getting to sound like the "stab in the back" lie in Germany that assisted that nation to surrender to insanity.

I can only be glad that his approval numbers are low at present, and that 21 st century America has access to an enormous flow of information and is not in the economic straits of pre war Germany.

The persistence of this lie makes me begin to believe those who say he is no longer rational.

0 Replies

The only problem i have with that scenario is the implicit assumption that he once was rational.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Steppenwolf, if you are putting The Great Game in quotation marks because you think i manufactured it, you are profoundly ignorant of a large segment of English imperial history. It was the English who provided the name. I did not claim that Al Qaeda and bin Laden were a part of the Great Game--the Great Game concerns itself with the control of central asia initially, and then, after the discovery of petroleum in Persia and then the middle east, it becomes concerned with the control of petroleum producing regions. Afghanistan, before the Taliban took over, was simply a side show in the cold war against the Soviet Union. However, that does not lessen that the West has created the conditions in which islamic fundamentalist crackpots have been able to thrive. Those jokers are nothing new--the Wahabbis have been intriguing for power in Arabia for centuries. But they only become effective when a great many Muslims have a greivance--we have provided that greivance.

If you are gullible enough to think that the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy is an objective, disinterested source for such information, help yourself. I have a bridge in New York you might be interested in purchasing . . .

Information can easily be found to refute your contentions. The Member of Parliament, Robin Cook, quoted in the Guardian happens to disagree with you. Historians have a question they ask when examining evidence--cui bono?--who benefits? Given that the Department of Energy is an executive branch agency controlled by the administration being criticized in this thread, you might well imagine (if you possess an active and effective imagination) that they are a suspect source to those asking the question cui bono?

You've read way too much (and too little) into my quotation marks. We both agree that you didn't coin the term. Normally, I employ quotes when using the language of others. So should you, particularly if you wish to reference my knowledge of the British Empire or my rationale for using punctuation. I would have used scare quotes if I intended the message you so gratuitously ascribed to my above post. Regarding your repeated arguments about punctuation in this thread, here are two pointers on using raw condescension as a rhetorical technique: make sure you're actually right, and make sure you're being relevant.

Regarding the merits of your argument, I don't consider Robin Cook an expert on the CIA, nor is he any less biased than U.S. government sources. By the way, the EIA source merely shows oil reserves in Afghanistan. Refer to the original post (source: State Dept.) for my argument about the involvement of the U.S. in al Qaeda. You'll note that I prefaced that post with a statement about the potential bias of official government sources, so your accusation of bias is nothing new here. Between our two suspect sources, we have mere speculation, no? And that was precisely my point.

0 Replies

From Bush's speech:

Quote:

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

LINK TO SPEECH

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Ican

Quote:
In brief, I think we have to first regain control of Iraq in order to subsequently exterminate worldwide terrorism.

Regain control? When did we ever have control ... unless you are referring to the carrier landing stunt ...

That question is better directed at Revel. Revel posted:

Quote:

Ican I think the threat from Iraqi AQ would have been less had we not invaded and lost control of Iraq as there was hardly any AQ of any consequence before we invaded.

I chose not to debate with Revel whether the USA lost control or never had control. If the USA never had control, the USA must nonetheless get control. If the USA had control and lost it, the USA must regain control.

Speaking of the "carrier landing stunt." The MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the bridge of the carrier referred to the fact that the mission of that carrier and its crew was accomplished. The TOMNOM (i.e., The Oxy-Moron News-Opinion Media) in its usual fashion distorted the true meaning of that banner on the carrier's bridge, and made it appear as if Bush were saying his mission was accomplished, which of course it was not. Nor was Bush claiming his mission in Iraq was accomplished. Bush stated in his speeches multiple times, both before and after that carrier landing stunt (I enjoyed it Smile

), that converting Iraq from a tyranny to a working democracy would take a great deal of time and resources.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You never consider, do you, or you conveniently ignore the fact, that "terrorist" attacks on the west are the RESULT of what the west is doing in the ME, and has been doing for 100 years or more, and not the CAUSE of it.

What is it that the West has done in the last 100 years that justifies the terrorists mass murdering civilians in the ME, and in the West, and in the East?

I for one have considered this excuse you allege and have not ignored it, many times, and I have rejected it many times. This is another one of those times.

I have also considered the evidence that the terrorists--a tiny minority of Middle Easterners--believe that Allah would prefer them to be in charge of everything. I've concluded from what the terrorists themselves have declared, that their terrorist attacks on the West and East--and on the Middle East--are the RESULT of their belief that Allah would prefer them to be in charge of everything in the ME and subsequently elsewhere. That's one of the reasons why the terrorists in the 20th and in this century have murdered at least 100 times as many Middle Eastern people who do not agree with them as they have Western and Eastern people who do not agree with them.

The terrorist's forefathers conquered the ME and subsequently were themselves conquered repeatedly. It goes back at least 13 hundred years. For example:

Quote:

638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.

1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.

1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded
1929 AD:116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1944 AD:Jews murdered Lord Moyne.
1947 AD:UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.

0 Replies

I think it is telling that you refer to Arabs as terrorist merely for fighting for their own land for all those years. They were no more terrorist than their counterparts.

Personally I don't know why everybody can't just get along and quit using violence as a means to an end, but that is too simplistic.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote : "This is scary. This is really getting to sound like the "stab in the back" lie in Germany that assisted that nation to surrender to insanity."

perhaps i should better be quiet, but having grown up in germany (until leaving for canada in 1956), i have to admit that there were still plenty of people in germany that in the early '50's believed "the stab in the back" theory. (would not surprise me if some would still believe it !)
once people have accepted a myth, their belief in it will often only grow the more they are being faced with contradictory facts (i'm sure you have heard : "don't confusse me with the facts, i've already made up my mind" - sad but true). hbg

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I think it is telling that you refer to Arabs as terrorist merely for fighting for their own land for all those years. They were no more terrorist than their counterparts. ...

Revel, you wrote: "I think it is telling that Question

you

refer to Arabs as terrorist merely for fighting for their own land for all those years. They were no more terrorist than their counterparts."

Who is you?

I infer this post is not directed to me, since I did not "refer to Arabs as terrorists."

I did write:

Quote:

I have also considered the evidence that the terrorists--a tiny minority of Middle Easterners--believe that Allah would prefer them to be in charge of everything.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I havent read all of Podhoretz's piece McG but its the ususal neocon story. It doesnt change much. The US is in a global struggle against evil. Evil this time round being comm...no sorry nazism no Islamism.

Yeah thats right the US has to go around the world fighting the Islamists who are determined on world domination. This is no time for the faint hearted, its a noble struggle and will unite America in its determination to .......... continued p94

yawn

Been away for awhile, but I see little has changed ... same apologists apologizing. Yawn, Pt. II.

Okay ... just once for old time's sake ... the U.S. doesn't always have to "go around the world fighting the Islamists." Sometimes they deliver fast & free to our homes ... Kenya, NYC, Spain, Jordan and last summer ... London.

Maybe the telly was off that day?

No Whooda the tv was on. But the lights went out for a woman who lived not far from me, blown to pieces as she went to work at the Boy Scouts Association. Wasn't it you Whooda who some while back castigated us Europeans for living our cozy comfortable little lives, whilst you yourself live within 50 miles of a nuclear power station? What have you been doing when not on a2k recently, moving away from the front line?

I didn't castigate Europeans. I castigated you.

You were pontificating on the suspension of civil liberties in the U.S. I said it was a necessary evil in the face of terrorist threats and suggested you might feel differently if the threat were closer to you. You had a melt down and lectured me about the horrors of U.S.-backed IRA terrorism.

The nuclear power plant reference was merely a reference to how porous our borders really are for those bent on harming us. Trivialize all you like.

I'm sorry your neighbor died in the London bombings. One would think that might make you less flippant about global struggles past or present.

0 Replies

and this is when atlas shrugs.

0 Replies

Good morning everybody.

I was going to answer McGentrix's sneering but dim question of a few pages back, but I see in the intervening period it has been answered by better pens than mine.

(I did answer it once before, but my answer was swallowed up in the move and now drifts in cyberspace)

0 Replies

Perhaps the perceived dimness is the product of those tightly-fitting blinders.

0 Replies

Ican, sometimes when I don't really have anything to say, I should know better than to get into inane arguments.

Nevertheless, you did say that the ones who were fighting for Palestine were the terrorist forefathers. I merely pointed out that people have been fighting for land for centuries but that does not in itself make them terrorist.

But perhaps I misunderstood you, in any event the argument is not really worth going on about.

0 Replies

It's no good using sweet reason with Ican, he's impervious.
(I think actually he's a machine, but a badly programmed one)

0 Replies

In the ilk of Hal 9000 of 2001 fame

http://www.mactechnews.de/user_images/galery/damian_2_hal-9000_focus_jpg.jpg

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...
Nevertheless, you did say that the ones who were fighting for Palestine were the terrorist forefathers. I merely pointed out that people have been fighting for land for centuries but that does not in itself make them terrorist.

But perhaps I misunderstood you, in any event the argument is not really worth going on about.

OK, now I understand! I wrote:

Quote:

The terrorist's forefathers conquered the ME and subsequently were themselves conquered repeatedly. It goes back at least 13 hundred years.

To make it clear, I should have written:

Quote:

The forefathers of both the arab terrorists and the arab non-terrorist's conquered the ME and subsequently were themselves conquered repeatedly. It goes back at least 13 hundred years.

My point is that none of the land in the ME was arab land before the arabs first conquered it starting in 638 AD, and none of it was arab land after 1099 AD after the crusaders conquered it.

Here's an abbreviated history of the conquering of Palestine.

Quote:

7800 BC:First building structures.
7000 BC:First Jerico fortifications.
2000 BC:First Canaanite Culture.

1400 BC:Eqypt conquers Palestine

Egyptians start ruling part of Palestine

1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.
1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).
1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).

Jews start ruling part of Palestine

950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continued.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.

Greeks start ruling Palestine.

161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.

Jews start ruling Palestine.

135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.

The Romans start ruling part of Palestine

73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.

Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.

638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.

Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.

Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine.

1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded
1929 AD:116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.

1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
1936,38,39 AD:135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.

1944 AD:Jews murdered Lord Moyne.
1947 AD:UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.

Jews start ruling part of Palestine; and, Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

0 Replies

Ican, your time line skips over the Cyrus the Persian and the Assyrians, neither of whom were technically Arab. They both held all or parts of Canaan for a time. That of course does not change the overall premise of your argument.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know