TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It's a Clash of Ideas.
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Fighting for Hearts, Minds, and Souls The unseen impact of Petraeus�s strategy. By Clifford D. May The first concept to grasp is that the global conflict now underway involves both a clash of arms and a clash of ideas. To succeed in this war will require effective combat on both fronts. The second concept is this: The clash of arms and the clash of ideas influence one other, often in peculiar and even counterintuitive ways. One example: Al Qaeda in Iraq could not challenge American troops directly. Their solution has been to target innocent Iraqis instead, to slaughter innocent Muslim men, women, and children by the hundreds. Why wouldn�t this cause outrage around the world? It did � but al Qaeda calculated that in much of the West, the outrage would be directed less at them than at Americans for �stirring up a hornet�s nest.� And, as they also expected, images of death and destruction, coupled with reports of soldiers killed by roadside bombs, soon would erode the will of many Americans to continue the fight. Now, however, a new phase in the clash of arms may be having an unanticipated impact on a different audience. A shift in strategy initiated by the new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is changing ideas about both al Qaeda and the U.S. in Muslim societies � and on the theological plane. I learned this from Hassan Mneimneh, a scholar and director of the Iraq Memory Foundation, a research institution with offices in Baghdad and Washington. Mneimneh also served, as I did, as an advisor to the Baker/Hamilton commission on Iraq. And we were recently on a panel exploring U.S. interests in Iraq at the United States Institute for Peace. This time last year, even most military people concluded that Anbar Province was irretrievably lost to al Qaeda. But General Petreaus was not ready to give up: A few short months ago, he told Anbar�s traditional leaders, the tribal sheiks, that if they�d ally with the U.S., their people and their lands would be liberated from al Qaeda�s �occupation.� They agreed. Since then al Qaeda terrorists by the score have been killed, captured, and driven out of Anbar. Mneimneh wondered: How would the sheiks and religious scholars justify this alliance to themselves and their people? To put it bluntly, how would they explain partnering with infidels against fellow Muslims? He found the answer in numerous sermons and publications � everything from books to blogs and websites. The truth, he discovered is that most Iraqis, unlike so many Westerners, do blame al Qaeda for the carnage al Qaeda has carried out. And most Iraqis have not embraced al Qaeda�s brand of Islam, with its barbarism � e.g. the murder of children to teach their parents obedience � and ultra-fundamentalism. What�s more, Iraqis were deeply offended by al Qaeda leaders � almost all of them foreigners � saying their interpretation of Islam is flawed and inadequate, as has been that of their families and clans for generations. Mneimneh reports that Iraqi clerics have responded by calling al Qaeda�s version of Islam �excessive and unfair.� To express such views while al Qaeda militants were walking the streets would have brought severe reprisals. But over the past few months, as the surge has been making progress, and as more Iraqis have felt more secure, they have been articulating these views loudly and clearly. Mneimneh believes they are being heard beyond Anbar, beyond Iraq and even beyond the Middle East. �This is coming out,� he emphasized. At the same time, because Petraeus has moved his troops from cloistered bases into Iraqi communities, more Iraqis are coming into contact with Americans and learning that � frightening though they may look with their body armor and big guns � they aren�t quite as satanic as advertised. They don�t ask for bribes. They like kids. They show respect. And they have been providing security while training Iraqis to protect themselves. They are willing to stay and assist but they would prefer to go home as soon as conditions permit � not quite the dictionary definition of a foreign occupier. �Note that the troops taking part in the surge have not been attacked by the Iraqis who live in the neighborhoods where they are now posted,� Mneinmeh said. �On the contrary, those Iraqis have been bringing the troops the intelligence they need to succeed.� Accepting a tactical alliance with such people does not violate Islamic doctrine, Iraqi religious scholars are daring to assert. �The longer this persists,� Mneinmeh said, �the more Iraqis� views will be changed. As these new views are expressed, disseminated and reinforced, it becomes less likely that they will be abandoned later.� In other words, every day the surge continues, every day American soldiers continue to wage the clash of arms in Iraq, they also are fighting � and perhaps winning � a consequential clash of ideas. � Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

i believe something very profound is happening in the Middle East. it's not happening overnight and it's in the subtleties of what the media presents but i do believe it's happening.

Re: It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i believe something very profound is happening in the Middle East. it's not happening overnight and it's in the subtleties of what the media presents but i do believe it's happening.

Let's continue to be frank. This SURGE! was nothing more than a smokescreen. A complete delay tactic created by Fred Kagan of AEI and installed by this Administration who've continually failed to pull their collective heads out of their asses throughout this entire debacle. The whole fucking point of the SURGE! was NOT to instill peace throughout the land IN OF ITSELF. You yourself agreed in a prior thread that such troop levels cannot be sustained for obvious reasons. And the Army today admits the patently obvious:

quote:

Army Secretary Pete Geren on Thursday ruled out extending troop deployments beyond the current 15 months, saying that longer tours in Iraq put stress on soldiers and their families, and have contributed to an increase in suicides. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...es_N.htm?csp=34

So by April, whatever "peace" we are seeing with such tremendous "progress" created by the SURGE! will inevitably be quelled by our troop withdrawal to which we will have no choice but to do.

So then what? We are right back to where we started before.

In the meantime, the whole entire point of the SURGE! idea was to clear the road for a political solution to take place. Yet your National Review author Clifford May and the rest of your Conservative mouthpieces continually AND WILLINGLY ignore that idea completely. And why? Because THE FUCKING POLITICAL PROCESS IS MOVING BACKWARDS, NOT FORWARDS. Christ, half the fucking government has already walked out on al Maliki, while the rest are on vacation because, well, it's too hot right now (funny how we can't have our soldiers take a vacation for the weather).

So the entire point of the SURGE! is being completely undermined by the backwards movement of the political process taking place. Ain't that fucking swell, Q? So you can clear the streets and decrease the bloody violence to live long day, but in the end the means meet absolutely no ends, and we have to fucking leave eventually anyway. Nice, ain't it?

And let's talk about that decrease in violence thingy. As you're fully aware by now, the latest NIE called "Prospects for Iraq's Stability" is out. And what's our government analysts attribute to the decrease in violence?

Uhhh, sectarian cleansing:

quote:

The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves

Now where was that ever written in the whole rationale for the SURGE!? For some reason, I just don't think our Administration had that in mind when sending in more troops, did you?

Nevertheless, violence will still be quite up over the next 6-12 months (long past our SURGE! troop levels drop):

quote:

[L]evels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high [over next six to 12 months] and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

Oh, and that whole sectarian cleansing thingy really doesn't help out much with the growing refugee crisis either:

quote:

Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq�s borders over the next six to 12 months.

And you'll also note in the report how the Iraqi military STILL cannot sustain themselves at all. But then again, we steadily decreased the focus on their training ever since the SURGE! started, so what can we truly expect out of that anyway?

But hey, I think like our dear Clifford that we should all just keep clapping, only LOUDER this time. And for those who don't clap, well they need to shut their pieholes and be kicked out of our God-fearin' country! Not that any of Clifford's or any other neocon's predictions about this war have EVER come to fruition so far, mind you, and that we should continue on all fronts to trust these Very Serious neocon warmongering analysts when they make such dire future predictions.

Oh, incidentally, last I remember, any Democratic plan for a PHASED redeployment plan always entailed keeping task forces in Iraq to battle al Qaeda, did it not?

Re: Re: It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh, incidentally, last I remember, any Democratic plan for a PHASED redeployment plan always entailed keeping task forces in Iraq to battle al Qaeda, did it not?

maybe one Democratic Senator's or Congressman's plan or group did at some time but it's kinda moot your party has been so fractured on that subject all year.

why do you ask? is it part of some "new" Democrat strategy?

Re: Re: Re: It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo maybe one Democratic Senator's or Congressman's plan or group did at some time but it's kinda moot your party has been so fractured on that subject all year.

You needn't remind me of their sheer incompetence. It's definitely frustrating as hell, but that's attributed in large part to the dumbshit Blue Dogs and Serious beltway consultants who've done nothing but hurt and lose elections for the Dem. party.

quote:

why do you ask? is it part of some "new" Democrat strategy?

Uhh, no. Nearly all plans I have come across by the Dems. in the past are fairly aligned with the recommendations of the Bush appointed Iraqi Survey Group, which called for a phased withdrawal of most troops with the exception of a task force to remain and fight al Qaeda.

While we're on a thread from an editorial,
this one has a nice ring to it:

quote:

Bush correctly recognizes that the price of failure in Iraq will be high. And yet, at the same time, he has been categorically unwilling to do what is necessary to actually win. A supposed "surge" of 30,000 more troops cannot quell the unrest: perhaps a quarter million could provide the necessary stability and security. But to do that, he would have had to engage in either international diplomacy or an intranational military draft, and neither of those two steps, even though they would have helped win what the president sees as the defining world struggle of our times, were considered politically palatable. The White House chose to staff the Baghdad-based government with hundreds of inexperienced die-hard conservatives with no actual knowledge of the country or infrastructures they were governing, even though it presumably knew a rapid and competent rebuilding of the Iraqi nation was absolutely vital for any chance of stability. But instead the White House chose years of cronyism and partisan loyalty over nonpartisan expertise and experience, because critical efforts to win the defining world struggle of our times were considered less important than promoting those partisan ideological economic experiments and fiefdoms. The White House chose at the beginning of the war to move troops from Afghanistan into Iraq, launching a second supposed front to their anti-terrorism efforts while the bin Laden trail was still fresh. Bush is insistent that the only way to lose a war is to leave, and yet he managed to apply exactly that strategy to the actual war on terrorists themselves: attack with vigor, maintain the ongoing effort with insufficient forces, then leave. The special forces actively hunting bin Laden were needed elsewhere because a war with Iraq could not wait even another six meager months: winning Bush's defining world struggle of our times was indeed more important than winning the war with the people who attacked our nation. Abstract ideological goals took center stage -- and the lion's share of presidential attention and of troops on the ground -- over the more concrete military and security needs of the actual fight against actual terrorists. In short, Bush correctly recognizes the price of failure, but that has not stopped him from, at every turn, playing politics with his own chosen war. The military has done what the military was tasked to do -- remove Hussein from power, and remove Iraq's military capabilities. Everything else has been on the administration to do, and that "everything else" has turned out to be a partisan fiasco wrapped in a ideological quagmire and sculpted into an incompetent clusterf*ck. There is apparently not one major neoconservative within the wide span of Bush's ideological wings, not one within an entire movement dedicated to the premise that they know how the world works and how nations should be run that can accomplish, on the real world stage, one damn thing of note.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You needn't remind me of their sheer incompetence.

incompetence, realism, whatever floats yours. Reid has been pretty quiet lately.

quote:

Uhh, no. Nearly all plans I have come across by the Dems. in the past are fairly aligned with the recommendations of the Bush appointed Iraqi Survey Group, which called for a phased withdrawal of most troops with the exception of a task force to remain and fight al Qaeda.

the Pentagon has supported a phased withdrawal since Mar 2003.

it's those conditions conducive to a phased withdrawal that they sweat. this is nothing new.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a Clash of Ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo incompetence, realism, whatever floats yours. Reid has been pretty quiet lately.

Vacation does that to a man.

And yes, I've got plenty to gripe about with Reid's party, but I'll save that for another day.

quote:

the Pentagon has supported a phased withdrawal since Mar 2003. it's those conditions conducive to a phased withdrawal that they sweat. this is nothing new.

I agree this is a major point of contention, but my point was more of a focus on the fact that no one is saying we shouldn't continue to fight al Qaeda in Iraq even when there is a phased withdrawal under any given circumstances. Yet this is what Cliff May is indirectly implying (and often times what Conservative pundits incorrectly and directly imply), that anyone who wants out of Iraq are also advocating to divert attention away from al Qaeda in Iraq. That is simply not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I agree this is a major point of contention, but my point was more of a focus on the fact that no one is saying we shouldn't continue to fight al Qaeda in Iraq even when there is a phased withdrawal under any given circumstances. Yet this is what Cliff May is indirectly implying (and often times what Conservative pundits incorrectly and directly imply), that anyone who wants out of Iraq are also advocating to divert attention away from al Qaeda in Iraq. That is simply not the case.

i don't know, maybe it's just you. to me he doesn't imply any such thing.

i get it he's a Conservative but to me his article is illustrating the fact that our own troops are exposing the utter fraudulence <--spelling? and duplicity that is at the core of the fundamentalism and sectarianism struggle in , not just Iraq, but a ripple effect across the Middle East.

Al Queera created a hell of a thing to pit Muslim against Muslim. pure hell, but a very flawed strategy.

once you get to a point looking and listening about innocent women and children being literally slaughtered by other Muslims, any Muslim or Arab can instantly see how fraudulent and duplicitous these murderers, all of them including Saddam, are. it brings a sort of clarity to the idea that maybe America isn't the enemy. maybe the enemy is within. if America is going to stay here and fight it, maybe we should lend a hand so we not lose more innocent. surely the politcs would follow the lead on the street.

to understand his suggestion one doesn't need to be a conservative or a liberal.

This war's foundation is based on already proved lies and therefore the entire structure will come falling down. No country has the right to destory another country's sovereignty unless provoked by attack. Bush wants to compare Iraq to 1970's Indochina and what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq....


My honest opinion is that if the US did pull out, yea, really bad things are going to happen, like the Khmer Rouge or the scary socialist arabs, but that is the fault of the Bush Administration who went into Iraq again based on falsehoods. The Iraqis will sort it out just like the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Loations did. 32 years after the Vietnam War ended, Vietnam is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and has joined the international diplomacy/economy. Occupation is only going to delay the inevitable.

Al-Qaida will still not win against the Iraqi people who are wholesale turning against Al-Qaida. The US needs to withdraw, and let them fight for their own sovereignty. The US can't do it for them. Iraq is not Japan, SOuth Korea, or Germany. Iraq is Iraq, and the situation is much more volatile than simple us against them.

No wonder the paranoid Iranian elite are so eager to have nuclear weapons. They're surrounded by their ideological enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton This war's foundation is based on already proved lies and therefore the entire structure will come falling down. No country has the right to destory another country's sovereignty unless provoked by attack.

what lies?

the Iraqis will prove you wrong. they are doing it as we speak.

quote:

My honest opinion is that if the US did pull out, yea, really bad things are going to happen, like the Khmer Rouge or the scary socialist arabs, but that is the fault of the Bush Administration who went into Iraq again based on falsehoods. The Iraqis will sort it out just like the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Loations did.

jeez how astonishingly insensitive to actually endorse genocide for the mere satifaction of holding someone accountable for something you can't even begin to prove. wtf is wrong with you dude?

you sit here and aggrandize about one nation's soveriegnty, indignant that this once proud nation was somehow violated by another for duplicitous reasons yet you haven't the slightest problem casting them off as lambs to a slaughter so you can be proven right at some point down the road.

you are paleo-con. i'm convinced now.

quote:

No wonder the paranoid Iranian elite are so eager to have nuclear weapons. They're surrounded by their ideological enemy.

if you'd do a little research you'd find out Iran wanted nukes a long time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No wonder the paranoid Iranian elite are so eager to have nuclear weapons. They're surrounded by their ideological enemy.

Am I hearing this right?you are actually begining to see why a country like Iran would ever want to have nuclear weapons?

I ve noticed that your opinion has changed alot toward this administration for a while,but what I want to know is that lets say things were going well in Iraq right now,would still have been against the occupation?or are you against it now because things arent going the way that Bush wanted to?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the Iraqis will prove you wrong. they are doing it as we speak.

what in the next 200 years maybe?

what would it take for a guy like you to admit that this whole thing is a mess and this admin is to blame.I know you dont give rats ass about Iraqis well maybe their oil but thats about it.

the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis.

they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.

quote:

'To Old Times' A toast to American troops, then and now. Peggy Noonan Friday, August 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT Once I went hot-air ballooning in Normandy. It was the summer of 1991. It was exciting to float over the beautiful French hills and the farms with crisp crops in the fields. It was dusk, and we amused ourselves calling out "Bonsoir!" to cows and people in little cars. We had been up for an hour or so when we had a problem and had to land. We looked for an open field, aimed toward it, and came down a little hard. The gondola dragged, tipped and spilled us out. A half dozen of us emerged scrambling and laughing with relief. Suddenly before us stood an old man with a cracked and weathered face. He was about 80, in rough work clothes. He was like a Life magazine photo from 1938: "French farmer hoes his field." He'd seen us coming from his farmhouse and stood before us with a look of astonishment as the huge bright balloon deflated and tumbled about. One of us spoke French and explained our situation. The farmer said, or asked, "You are American." We nodded, and he made a gesture--I'll be back!--and ran to the house. He came back with an ancient bottle of Calvados, the local brandy. It was literally covered in dust and dry dirt, as if someone had saved it a long time. He told us--this will seem unlikely, and it amazed us--that he had not seen an American in many, many years, and we asked when. "The invasion," he said. The Normandy invasion. Then he poured the Calvados and made a toast. I wish I had notes on what he said. Our French speaker translated it into something like, "To old times." And we raised our glasses knowing we were having a moment of unearned tenderness. Lucky Yanks, that a wind had blown us to it. That was 16 years ago, and I haven't seen some of the people with me since that day, but I know every one of us remembers it and keeps it in his good-memory horde. He didn't welcome us because he knew us. He didn't treat us like royalty because we had done anything for him. He honored us because we were related to, were the sons and daughters of, the men of the Normandy Invasion. The men who had fought their way through France hedgerow by hedgerow, who'd jumped from planes in the dark and climbed the cliffs and given France back to the French. He thought we were of their sort. And he knew they were good. He'd seen them, when he was young. I've been thinking of the old man because of Iraq and the coming debate on our future there. Whatever we do or should do, there is one fact that is going to be left on the ground there when we're gone. That is the impression made by, and the future memories left by, American troops in their dealings with the Iraqi people. I don't mean the impression left by the power and strength of our military. I mean the impression left by the character of our troops-- by their nature and generosity, by their kindness. By their tradition of these things. The American troops in Iraq, our men and women, are inspiring, and we all know it. But whenever you say it, you sound like a greasy pol: "I support our valiant troops, though I oppose the war," or "If you oppose the war, you are ignoring the safety and imperiling the sacrifice of our gallant troops." I suspect that in their sophistication--and they are sophisticated--our troops are grimly amused by this. Soldiers are used to being used. They just do their job. We know of the broad humanitarian aspects of the occupation--the hospitals being built, the schools restored, the services administered, the kids treated by armed forces doctors. But then there are all the stories that don't quite make it to the top of the heap, and that in a way tell you more. The lieutenant in the First Cavalry who was concerned about Iraqi kids in the countryside who didn't have shoes, so he wrote home, started a drive, and got 3,000 pairs sent over. The lieutenant colonel from California who spent his off-hours emailing hospitals back home to get a wheelchair for a girl with cerebral palsy. The Internet is littered with these stories. So is Iraq. I always notice the pictures from the wire services, pictures that have nothing to do with government propaganda. The Marine on patrol laughing with the local street kids; the nurse treating the sick mother. A funny thing. We're so used to thinking of American troops as good guys that we forget: They're good guys! They have American class. And it is not possible that the good people of Iraq are not noticing, and that in some way down the road the sum of these acts will not come to have some special meaning, some special weight of its own. The actor Gary Sinise helps run Operation Iraqi Children, which delivers school supplies with the help of U.S. forces. When he visits Baghdad grade schools, the kids yell, "Lieutenant Dan!"--his role in "Forrest Gump," the story of another good man. Some say we're the Roman Empire, but I don't think the soldiers of Rome were known for their kindness, nor the people of Rome for their decency. Some speak of Abu Ghraib, but the humiliation of prisoners there was news because it was American troops acting in a way that was out of the order of things, and apart from tradition. It was weird. And they were busted by other American troops. You could say soldiers of every country do some good in war beyond fighting, and that is true enough. But this makes me think of the statue I saw once in Vienna, a heroic casting of a Red Army soldier. Quite stirring. The man who showed it to me pleasantly said it had a local nickname, "The Unknown Rapist." There are similar memorials in Estonia and Berlin; they all have the same nickname. My point is not to insult Russian soldiers, who had been born into a world of communism, atheism, and Stalin's institutionalization of brutish ways of being. I only mean to note the stellar reputation of American troops in the same war at the same time. They were good guys. They're still good. We should ponder, some day when this is over, what it is we do to grow such men, and women, what exactly goes into the making of them. Whatever is decided in Washington I hope our soldiers know what we really think of them, and what millions in Iraq must, also. I hope some day they get some earned tenderness, and wind up over the hills of Iraq, and land, and an old guy comes out and says, "Are you an American?" And they say yes and he says, "A toast, to old times." Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis. they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.

Or because they invaded a country in a brazen act of unfounded aggression which undermines the a notion of peace and soverign self determination that has been a pillar of global security for the last 50 years.

Careing about Iraqis is one thing. Caring about the precedent being set by the worlds largest military is quite another.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 32 years after the Vietnam War ended, Vietnam is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and has joined the international diplomacy/economy.

Geeee, I wonder which side the of Vietnam border THAT could be happening on....hmmmm....

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis. they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.

YOU CARE ABOUT IRAQIS???? SINCE WHEN? AND HOW?

quote:

what lies? the Iraqis will prove you wrong. they are doing it as we speak.

Some falsities...

1. Iraq had a secret arsenal of wmd's.
2. Iraq was colluding with Al-Qaida.
3. Iraq was trying to get nuclear materials from Nigeria.

I provide some in depth research on these lies HERE...

or here..



What will the Iraqis prove me wrong about? That we invaded their country illegally and unjustifiably? Iraq violated no other country's sovereignty, and was not guilty in any of the proganda used to justify the invasion. If the Iraqi people truelly did not want Saddam as their leader, it would not be so. And what gives the US or any other country for that matter the right to force any brand of law and order on another country even for such great forms like democracy? Notice how close we are being pushed to attack the next "axis of evil" country Iran?

quote:

jeez how astonishingly insensitive to actually endorse genocide for the mere satifaction of holding someone accountable for something you can't even begin to prove. wtf is wrong with you dude? you sit here and aggrandize about one nation's soveriegnty, indignant that this once proud nation was somehow violated by another for duplicitous reasons yet you haven't the slightest problem casting them off as lambs to a slaughter so you can be proven right at some point down the road. you are paleo-con. i'm convinced now.

Prove? What proof? You prove to me Iraq had WMDs, connections to Al-Qaida to attack foreign targets, nuclear weapons program... Can't you see the the very reasons we went to war are the very reasons this war is so wrong. All these reasons have been debunked and the Bush Administration is now a lame duck presedency.

Paleo-con? Huh? I'm a realist. I'm calling it like it is. I'm not staying loyal to the conservative-liberal lines as many blindly do. I've seen the war for what it is. A fraud. Yes, sovereignty. Iraq never violated US sovereignty nor planning to.

Listen, there would be no sectarian strife, waves of suicide bombers, and destruction if the US hadn't gone to invade Iraq in the first place. Qecho don't you understand that? There would be no debate here today, but guess what there is. And you need to think about why we're even having to debate this right now.

quote:

if you'd do a little research you'd find out Iran wanted nukes a long time ago.

Oh, I've done my research. Have you researched into the US support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? Here's your friend Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam in the 1983...



The reason Iran restarted the nuclear enrichment program (started by the Shah with help from the West), was because of Saddam's own arsenal of WMDs and his known nuclear weapons program at the time then underway.

Iran views us as their worst enemy alongside Israel. Having two US military expeditions on two sides of their border, including 2 super-carriers out in the Persian Gulf doesn't help either. You don't see an already paranoid regime getting even more paranoid by these threatening acts (at least viewed as threatening by Iran)?

quote:

Am I hearing this right?you are actually begining to see why a country like Iran would ever want to have nuclear weapons? I ve noticed that your opinion has changed alot toward this administration for a while,but what I want to know is that lets say things were going well in Iraq right now,would still have been against the occupation?or are you against it now because things arent going the way that Bush wanted to?

I think this war may have been an experiment. Can democracy really be exported by force worldwide? Can tyrants be 'policed' by regime change? These hopes may have blinded many from having an open mind and not taking everything the government says as the holy truth, because it isn't. If the US withdraws from Iraq to correct this nasty situation, Iran should then have further incentive stop uranium enrichment. They would face more pressure to stop it.

quote:

Geeee, I wonder which side the of Vietnam border THAT could be happening on....hmmmm....

What side of the Vietnam border? The side that's Vietnam...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What side of the Vietnam border? The side that's Vietnam...

LOL ... I was thinking about posting a response to that, too, but I figured that Firestarter is smart enough to know that the reference is to Vietnam. I don't think he was thinking about the Cambodian side of Vietnamese border? Or the Chinese side of Vietnamese border ... or whatever

I guess Q5echo has nothing more to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess Q5echo has nothing more to say.

this has all been done before.

i watched your video. now you watch mine. again



like i told u and others. the "lie" is that Bush lied.

Krypton endorses genocide. remember that.

Who do you blame then for providing such faulty intelligence that duped republicans AND democrats? The fact is, we should have never even gone to Iraq. The First Gulf War had total justification because Kuwait's sovereignty was violated by Iraq.

But what pisses me off, and what is documented in the Rumsfeld video I posted was that when Iraq invaded Iran, nobody did anything. In fact, Saddam had the blessing of the USA. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to foreign intervention. For decades before 1979, foreigners controlled Iran. The CIA ousted a democratically elected leader in 50's or 60's! WTF happened to democracy!? Then they supported the Shah with help starting their nuclear program, and the Shah went on a shopping spree of western weapons including fighter jets, tanks, and guns. In the meantime, the SHah's secret police had the Iranian people living in fear of their lives. All with American blessing. Then the Iranians do something about it, and strike back at the very power behind the Shah, the US.

So, the US gets angry with Iran, they the people fucked the embassy over just like they themselves had been fucked over for decades. So the US supports Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War.

Then after Saddam gets his ass handed to him, he needs some way to pay his debts, so he invades Kuwait. Now, after thinking long and hard, I honestly don't really think the US got so involved in liberating Kuwait because its sovereignty was infringed upon, but because the US oil supply was threatened. I'm not saying that's the reason we got involved in the First Gulf War, but I'm saying it might have been a HUGE motivational factor for changing previous support for Saddam and becoming so anti-Baathist afterwards.

Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to shit.

gee, let me think. perhaps because it is a democracy with changing leadership? who said a country's policies have to remain static? do you care that the US government isn't still maintaining a hard line against the germans? how can you blame anyone in the current administration for what previous admins did 50 years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who do you blame then for providing such faulty intelligence that duped republicans AND democrats? The fact is, we should have never even gone to Iraq. The First Gulf War had total justification because Kuwait's sovereignty was violated by Iraq. But what pisses me off, and what is documented in the Rumsfeld video I posted was that when Iraq invaded Iran, nobody did anything. In fact, Saddam had the blessing of the USA. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to foreign intervention. For decades before 1979, foreigners controlled Iran. The CIA ousted a democratically elected leader in 50's or 60's! WTF happened to democracy!? Then they supported the Shah with help starting their nuclear program, and the Shah went on a shopping spree of western weapons including fighter jets, tanks, and guns. In the meantime, the SHah's secret police had the Iranian people living in fear of their lives. All with American blessing. Then the Iranians do something about it, and strike back at the very power behind the Shah, the US. So, the US gets angry with Iran, they the people fucked the embassy over just like they themselves had been fucked over for decades. So the US supports Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War. Then after Saddam gets his ass handed to him, he needs some way to pay his debts, so he invades Kuwait. Now, after thinking long and hard, I honestly don't really think the US got so involved in liberating Kuwait because its sovereignty was infringed upon, but because the US oil supply was threatened. I'm not saying that's the reason we got involved in the First Gulf War, but I'm saying it might have been a HUGE motivational factor for changing previous support for Saddam and becoming so anti-Baathist afterwards. Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to shit.

IN OTHER WORDS BUSH DIDN'T LIE.

you found out about all this crap about the Shah and the CIA back in the 50's now your'e an apologist for the Mullahs. brilliant.

Saddam started his own war with Iran. for his own damn reasons. we've seen the mullachracy as a threat from day one of the Revolution and guess what genius? they still are.

...but because the Mullahs were the victims right?

got it. anything else?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo IN OTHER WORDS BUSH DIDN'T LIE. you found out about all this crap about the Shah and the CIA back in the 50's now your'e an apologist for the Mullahs. brilliant. because the Mullahs were the victims right? got it. anything else?

Perhaps saying they lied is a little too far, but when are you going to accept that there was a major intelligence failure that sent everyone into a war frenzy? The lie comes in when we commoners speculate the motives for such a failure. Some people think it was all a flat out deception, and other just an intelligence failure. But I honestly don't think our government is THAT stupid. Which is why me and many others don't trust what information they release to us for shit.

I'm an apologist for the mullahs? What a shitty ass argument. No point made, nothing to argue against. My argument stands to be corrected. And if you missed the point... There is a reason why there is a proliferation of this radical islamism in the Middle East. You honestly think Osama or these radicals just think up their philosophies for fun? They send people to blow themselves up, and to do that, they must have a grave grievance that convinced them this method is the way to fight back what they view as oppression. There is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. That problem is foreign intervention, throughout the 20th century.

I've stated many times that I totally dispise the current Iranian elite. I am not making excuses for them. What I'm trying to make clear to you and others is that this radicalism is a reaction to what they view as oppression from foreigners. No one flys a plane into a building, or blows themself up, or fights to the death for nothing.

quote:

gee, let me think. perhaps because it is a democracy with changing leadership? who said a country's policies have to remain static? do you care that the US government isn't still maintaining a hard line against the germans? how can you blame anyone in the current administration for what previous admins did 50 years ago?

Where in my statement did I even mention Bush? Please don't take me out of context. I blame western and US meddling in Iranian affairs, and for support for the Shah for the coming of the Iranian Revolution. I see it as their independence day and it was. Iran finally became Iran instead of a puppeted regime supported by the west. Additionally, the US claims to be a champion of freedom, but does not obey the UN charter, specifically, sovereignty which grants the right of a nation to develop its own customs, government, and social order.
------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody should be taking me or my opinions as anti-US. But I will not just go along with the status quo that has culminated in an enraged middle east, and seemingly more and more violence coming as the result. A fundamental change in foreign policy is needed. And I have my ideas for fundamental changes I believe should happen here at home, but that's another thread.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.