Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Confused about War on Terror

0 helpful
185 replies

by jdclyde

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

If you were to listen to some news reports, or very liberal people both in and out of the US, you would think that the terrorist problems in the world today are all President Bushs fault.

This show a complete ignorance as the final straw of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush, his policies, or anyone in his administration.

Do we say it was President Clintons fault that the terrorists hated the US so much that they took the trade centers down? Or do we recognise our crime was being alive and that they are quite insane?

Yes, I get it. Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush. Does that make everything wrong in the world his fault?

Did he make mistakes? Of course he did. Not using ENOUGH force in Iraq was his main mistake, provided he would still go in if he knew that once Saddam was not there to force rule of law, the different flavors of Islam would go right back to killing each other for nothing more than being the wrong flavor?

Where do we go from here? Do we let the Democrats pull us out and let Iran and Syria take over Iraq, or do we continue to assist them in building a country of their own?

185 replies

by mjwx

Just not successfully and terrorism has been alive since the Napoleonic days (probably before). Also we seem to get Republicans that are full of hate for anything not republican (not you JD, but I think we all know which one here I am referring to). And I will say before I start, of course bush had nothing to do with 9/11 wrong place wrong time (but really people he shouldnt have kept reading that book, time to stand up and say "sorry kids but I have important president stuff to do").

Disclaimer [b]you're not going to like what I have to say but it is most unfortunately true[/b]

The mistake was going to Iraq in the first place. Not to place blame on a specific president but fear of WMD's was drummed up to gain popular support for an invasion of the most powerful secular state in the mid east. WMD's are yet to materialise and other not-so-western-friendly-states are taking advantage of a power vacuum left by Saddam?s departure in the region. no matter what people thought of Saddam (I don?t have fond opinions of him) he was an integral part of the balance in that religion, secular Iraq managed to cancel out fundamentalist Iran, both states had their own agendas which pushed against one another with no help what so ever from the outside. Now that Saddam has been removed we are seeing that fundamentalist Iran is pushing its own agenda with little interference from local sources and as always foreign interference is ineffective.

The US has no chance of fixing the problems over there now. All you can hope is that foreign powers not US can manage to stabilise the region. The EU and AU (African Union not Australia in this case) hold more sway over the Middle Eastern states than the US especially after what is perceived over there as the backstabbing of Iraq (yes most Arabs and Persians considered Saddam to be western friendly). You'll have to rely on your allies if you expect any kind of a victory. Not every state is against the west, Turkey is trying to get into the EU, Jordan is a very forward thinking state (king Abdullah seems to love the BBC) what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran.

Somalia and Syria are good places to start, Somalia especially is a good place to start as the Islamic council is trying to separate themselves from the terrorist stereotype. Hearts and minds, we have to work to convince the Middle East that there is only madness and destruction coming from Tehran. This can only be done if the US buts out, proving that you can put the most powerful state in the back seat for the greater good (for anyone who has failed to catch on this is what we need to get the Middle Eastern states to do to Iran)

On Iraq, the US has really got no choice now. Iraq is in a civil war and neither side really want US forces there. You're just going to have to let them fight it out and hope that fundamentalists don?t take over. It will keep costing you lives, just like Vietnam did. As for not using enough force, it's like a rubber band the harder you pull the more resistance the rubber band puts out. The US is yet to encounter a "Hezbollah" style civilian militia in Iraq, you have only encountered light resistance compared to that the Lebanese threw at Israel during the 22 year occupation. Accept it, the Iraqi's want an American ruler as much as Americans want an Iraqi ruler.

I said you wouldn?t like this and I suspect you haven?t. But the facts are the facts, in the Middle East You've Failed.

Now to the naysayser?s that would call this "chamberlain style appeasement" I would say that we have tried your way for the last 30 odd years first with the Roosevelt style "ignore it because it doesn?t concern us" and then the for the last 4 and a half years "bomb the crap out of it and try to turn it into an US democracy". You've been trying to stabilise Afghanistan for 4 years and to date, women are still forced to wear burquas, Sharia law has been reinstated and the Taliban are gaining strength because the only way for people to make a living is via poppy farming, which is deemed illegal by the US. Iraq is in the middle of a bloody sectarian war. You've failed, now sit back and let someone else work on it.

Now as for fighting terror, I don?t want to live in terror so I support it. I say we start with the fear mongers in Australia, Europe and America? I have spoken to some Arabs and Persians who have moved here to the great land of Australia, they have varying opinions of back home in the Middle East but they will always tell me how pleased they were to be able to immigrate to Australia.

by jdclyde

if we all agreed right off the bat, now would it?

I figured it would take a few posts at least to make you see the error of your ways? B-)

As for not liking what you said, I do agree with a lot of it. I think the US should get out of other countries, and cut off ALL aid to anyone that is not considered a close ally. Want to hate America? Fine, get your funds from your comrades in Russia and China. Can't buy friends, and we should stop trying.

Would be nice if there WERE other groups stepping up to try to resolve the issues in Iraq, but that just doesn't seem to be happening. Everyone would rather the place turned to a pile of rubble just so they can gloat on a failure of the US, instead of worring about helping people. Global politics sucks, and so do the people that practice it.

by tryten

Think of how many BILLIONS of dollars the American government would only aid close allies. The numbers that keep popping in my head are astronomical.

Others did try to help the US in Iraq. I dont want to go into it, but I will say that most of those "Friendly Fire" incedents inflicted on allied solders by US solders were probably not accidents, they probably deserved it.

by mjwx

A scathing "Maxwell Edison" libertarian style response to my somewhat scathing post. Who was it that said "expect the unexpected".

In Iraq the damage is already done, the people have to want help and after living under Saddam, they don?t know what they want only what they don?t want.

We can?t force the Iraqi people accept a specific way of governance, they have to choose for themselves. If they can?t choose they will get another dictator, be they a traditional or religious dictator.

Like Tony said, I don?t want to blame the US (we've told you before we [b]are not[/b] democrats, so if you expect democrat like responses you will be disappointed) but it would be good if they would take some damned responsibility and stop blaming other nations/political parties about the situation in Iraq.

Diplomacy is a game that nobody wins but war is a game that everybody loses. I think that is a good description, requires a bit of semantics to understand.

by tony hopkinson

persuasion.

If we allow them to pull out, ie vote in another set of scum bag politicians with that policy, then we are saying we are as bigger set of assholes as they are., both lots !

I'm a died in the wool socialist, I've voted labour since I got my majority. I want Tony Blair's epitaph to be, 'Wish I hadn't gone into Iraq'.

Those responsible can't be allowed the option to escape the painful consequences of their own ignorance.
The iraqi people can't, our troops and their families can't either.

Keep them in power until they say they are sorry, and keep them there until they mean it.

Oh, and enlist all their kids, it's only fair.

Try not to annoy me by lumping me in with those democrats, I do believe in fighting terrorism.

However unlike the nipple heads who authored this stupidity, I realise I've got to find my enemy before I can give him a slap.
Hitting someone who looks him, might make me feel better, but all I end up with is at least one more enemy.

by jdclyde

in a way that was not a attack on anyone who is a non-republican.

What would be your solution from today forward on how to handle Iraq? Do we throw all of our soldiers on a boat and bring them home today, or do we continue to TRY to train their own forces to be able to protect themselves? Or is there another option that isn't on the table yet?

Right now, I don't CARE about blame, I care about solutions. I see the Democrats in the US right now going down the "pull them NOW" path, but that seems to be more to try to hurt Bush than to do what is good for Iraq or us.

by jamesrl

You make the omlette. You can't put it back in their shells no matter what wonderful hindsight you have.

If you pull out too soon, you leave a power vacuum and civil war ensues. Groups that are allied today to fight the US will fight each other. If there weren't a high probability of massive civilian casualties, I wouldnt care so much.

James

by jck

"Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush."

Nah...that's not attacking anyone...nah...not in the least...not even their character :D

Dubya for Czar 2008! :D

by tony hopkinson

The only way forward is to persuade the iraqi's that the terrorists are the bad guys.

They cannot operate unless they can hide among the general public.
To do that and have any resources left to attack their enemies, they have to have sympathisers. So kicking Ali's door in because he might have a terrorist in his house pretty much guarantees there will be one in there the moment we leave the building.

It's a waste of time talking about our military resources compared to theirs, it's that imbalance that made them choose to 'fight back' using terrorist and guerilla tactics in the first place.

As far as the most committed are concerned, it's their only possible way to win.

Drain the enemy, make it too expensive. A pull out would be a victory for people who manipulate, purposely created victims of ignorance, to kill themselves and others to further their aims.
The mere idea makes me want to puke.

It's not about blame for me either, it's about accepting responsibility for your actions. That's everybody, because to fail to act, to refuse to act and to act incorrectly are all decisions with consequences.

by hal 9000

So we have to stay there to help rebuild it so it can function by itself without being invaded and taken over the moment that we pull out.

We have made a total mess in the Middle East that looks impossible to unmake at the moment and have fuelled the seeds of Discontent in Afghanistan again. No matter what everyone thought about the Talaban they actively tried to prevent the Poppies Cultivation that the COW willing approved of to get control of the land at the expense of the Talaban in the last days of the Rule of the Talaban. Now that money is coming back to haunt us all as it is going to feed the enemy. It's even better they are accepting foreign junkies into the place and feeding their habit for 50 cents per day and still making a massive profit on the deal and that money is being used against us now. Previously it was used against the Talaban as they where attempting to wipe out the Poppies Plantations but now they will do everything possible to push the cultivation of this useless crop on to gain money for their own ends.

Lets face facts this is a [b]Mess[/b] with no current solution. Sure here is no combat situation now but just like the Germans found in France and other occupied lands it's one thing to take control and it's entirely another thing to keep control, in a position like we have in both of these countries we are fighting the wrong people. Was Saddam a nasty piece of work? [b]Hell Yes[/b] but so is everyone else in that area.

Did the Talaban accept money & support from Alacadia? [b]Hell Yes[/b] but they needed the money to keep on in their attempts to close down the poppies fields in Southern Afghanistan and they got their troops trained for free as well. Unfortunately neither of these countries where directly involved in the events of 9-11 but because this is an enemy that is intent on capturing hearts & minds not land we are unable to fight it with the means at out disposal as we have never had to fight a [b]Stateless Enemy Before.[/b]

Every time previously we where fighting for Land and this time there is no Land to fight for only to defend from others coming in and taking it away from our control.

Sorry to say this but I think that [b]We've Lost This One.[/b] sure we can roll in and capture the place but to date we have proved incapable of keeping control and on many occasions we have sunk to their level the ones that we where supposed to be fighting to free them from this oppression so we are causing a [b]Self Creating Enemy[/b] so we are currently making a [b]Rod for our own Backs[/b] that is going to defeat us eventually and be the undoing of us all.

Through whatever we have brought this on ourselves and currently I can see no way out. If we where to walk away now they win and we are subject to attack at their whim. If we stay put trying to put in place some form of stable Government we are training our enemies to fight us eventually and again when through pure economics we have to pull out we are again subject to attack at their Whim.

Lets face it we've lost this one so maybe it's better to just get the Hell out and try to make our own borders safe so we can minimise the attacks when they do come. If we get very lucky we may be able to stop 1 in 3 attacks that are coming but that's about the best that we can now hope to achieve.

Col

by jdclyde

I don't CARE if the different groups kill each other off, but because by nature it seems the followers of Islam are cowards that attack civilians regardless of men,women and children, instead of military or militia groups, it would get real ugly, real quick.

Evacuate the citizens and let the other groups kill each other. Who ever is left alive, try to make them a trade partner.

by jdclyde

Saying your 6'6" is not an attack, nor is it an attack to clearly state what YOU have been saying all along.

How is this FACT an attack? Please explain?

Now if I had said "Everyone that hates Bush is a doodie head", THAT would have been an attack. I await your clarification on how this is an attack.

by jck

"Yes, I get it. Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush. Does that make everything wrong in the world his fault?"

Labelling someone as full of hate because of a belief is an attack on their character. Just like if I said "Muslims world wide are full of hate for Jews.", that would be an attack on the character of peace-loving Muslims who are (whether you want to believe it or not) the majority in their religion.

You and others have reprimanded me time and time again...for generalising. And now, your statement is such that I am returning the favour. ;)

Fact is, you addressed it in words that liberals are full of hate for Bush. That *is* a very vague, weakly-worded, and inaccurate generalization of liberals. I can introduce you to liberals whom I work with in government who do not hate him. I can introduce you to people whom you'd deem as liberal from several countries that don't hate him. Therefore, your generalisation is not fact.

Not even a more specific generalisation of "Congressional liberals" or "Democratic liberals" would have been accurate. Therefore again, that makes it not a fact.

I know of conservatives that hate Bush.
I know of Republicans that hate Bush.
I know of a Libertarian who hates Bush for his policies (namely, Tucker Carlson from MSNBC who calls Bush a liberal...and he's right).

Therefore, your vaguely worded generalism was not fact....it was your [b]opinion[/b]. Big difference.

BTW...who said everything in the world that was wrong is Bush's fault?

Just the weak result in Iraq and gross overspending of American taxpayer dollars is Bush's fault. After all, he approved of and signed the orders for all those things to happen as President. Do you disagree?

Have a nice day.

Comrade Bush for Czar 2008! :D

by jdclyde

but didn't see you list ANY liberals that don't HATE Bush.

Regardless of if this is a fact (which in my opinion it is) or if it is just my opinion (which IS a fact), does not change if this is an insult or not.

You are only insulted if you choose to be. Me saying out loud about you and yours Hating Bush was not an insult. It was just you looking to be arguemenative and distract from the point that liberals are the hateful creatures that they are. :p

So there!

B-)

by mark miller

Worse than now.

I can't help but think that when politicians talk about a pullout that it's just a political ploy to satisfy their base. I can't imagine that they would be so stupid as to actually go through with it. In fact, when the Republicans have brought forward resolutions to get the Democrats to put up or shut up, to say whether they want a pullout of Iraq, most of them vote no. Yet they keep coming forward in the media saying, "We've got to get out of there!" It's hard for me to say if even Lamont in CT is the real deal, or if he's just pandering, too.

The worst case scenario I can imagine if we were to pull out is that Iran throws its support behind the Shia to take over Iraq totally. Al Qaeda gets behind the Sunnis (they're Sunni). Saudi Arabia may do the same (the royal family is Sunni), and the Kurds decide "fuck it!" and secede from Iraq, causing Turkey to go to war with the Kurds. Turkey has said from the beginning they will not tolerate an independent Kurdish region right next door to them.

What's such a joke is the "plan" put forward by some liberals (note I did not say all) that we should get out "and monitor the situation", and "intervene if things get too dicey" (oh, like a wholesale slaughter a la Pol Pot???), and "we'll let them know that we will be there to help with reconstruction." Sheah, right! And monkeys might come flying out my butt! There won't be any reconstruction because anyone who tries to rebuild anything will be murdered on the spot.

At least right now the violence is somewhat contained. Some people want to imagine it's horrible now. It could be worse.

by nighthawk808

His mistake was pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where we were searching for the person responsible for 9/11, in order to have the resources to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.

Why is it OK to leave a job half-finished in Afghanistan, yet when Rummy et al. have demonstrated their complete failures as human beings or as leaders in Iraq, suddenly "stay the course" is so important?

You do bring up a good point about Iran and Syria. However, if Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq, Iran wouldn't be nearly as brave as it is now.

People hate Bush because he has made them, and the world, much less safe. Just because people hate him doesn't mean he's on to something. Somehow the White House has created the doublethink that having people hate you is a good thing. It's not when there are dozens of perfectly good reasons for it.

by jdclyde

Funny, but much of the HATE talk has been floating around since the First election run, and it never let up.

The mindless masses hate him because they were told that they should, period.

Now as for staying the course, are you saying we should NOT stay the course?

What is the solution? Lets hear you post what we SHOULD do. Show that there are people of your political mind set that are FOR SOMETHING, instead of simply the obstructionists that are against anything Republicans say or do.

I suppose in a separate post, you might list your "dozens" of perfectly good reasons. You didn't specify how many dozens, so I will only look for a simple 24 reasons that are "perfectly good reasons to be so full of hate.

And please do not confuse reasons to disagree, with reasons to HATE.

by Member 25348569

and not have the slightest idea what to do about it now.

Those of us who have been against the invasion from the outset are not the reason that the region is now going to hell in a handbasket. The fault lies with the politicians who engaged in such a gamble as was the invasion without any valid reasons. Those politicians are the leaders of BOTH our countries. I don't hate them, though, I despise them for what they have done.

We now have to stay there at whatever the cost in lives and hatred and just [b]hope[/b]. In that we agree.

Neil

by crabbyabby86

I take offense to anyone being labeled an obstructionist, every since my home state was suckered by republican mudslinging of the word and voted Thune over Daschle. They called Daschle an obstructionist, and, I suppose, they were right.

He was the Democratic party leader in the Senate. As the minority leader, it was his JOB to question the majority. And I think EVERY citizen should have taken the same cue. You at least have to THINK about what your leaders are telling you, no matter how you vote in the end.

Because of the negative spin on a word that describes what we ALL should do, we rejected a man with the power to do great things for us (and who HAD done great things for us in his fifty-some years of service) in favor of the Republican party's new assistant whip.

Questioning the majority is GOOD for democracy. That's just how it works.

by oz_media

Meanwhile Aghanistan has returned to the a repressive, downtrodden state it once was. Taliban are still in control of Kandahar, the one strong female representative of government, who was there to support women's rights was tossed out and sought refuge with the UN.

As everyone was saying before, AlQaeda is still your key enemy to target and expend resources on, not Iraq. The Republican zealots scoffed and stated how much mroe important Iraq was. Meanwhile AlQeda sects have been rebuilding and plotting to attack the US in over 60 different countries.

but that's all BS, it's the Liberals and Democrats that are the problem, the ones who don't get it etc.

No I am not suggesting pullin gout or Iraq, at this point that would be just as stupid as invading Iraq in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right.

by jck

yours? are you referring to my family? my political party affiliation? my ham radio club? my computer society?

If you mean my own family, I have no wife and children. Hence, there is no "yours" in that aspect. That is a fact, so you'd be wrong in that case.

If you are referring to party affiliation, I've been a registered Republican for 19 years. Hence, you'd be inferring that Republicans hate Bush, if that is the case. Again, you'd be wrong in that case too...really wrong...unless you're willing to prove that Rove and Cheney and Lott hate Bush. hehe.

If you're talking about me being liberal again, I'm a lot less liberal than comrade Bush (whom you support so much) in the fact that I didn't think we belonged in Iraq in the first place, imposing our government, it's structure, and political ideologies on another country... which is about as governmentally liberal as you can be. So if I'm liberal, Bush must be a socialist leftist wingnut in comparison. And if he's a conservative, I must be an ultra-conservative libertarian.

Again, I point you to Tucker Carlson of MSNBC who is about as conservative as they come. I agree with almost everything the man says. He points out that Bush is truly a liberal. He is not only pushing more and more governmental control into American lives, but he's also pushing our governmental ideologies and policies and societal standards into another country, i.e.- Iraq.

And I'm not insulted by you simply because I know you're wrong about the "full of hate" presumption you've made...especially in respect to [b]me[/b]. And, that is an attack on my character... stating I am "full of hate for Bush" or that i'm a "hateful creature". There is one person in this world I hate...and, he's not a politician at all. He works for FedEx.

You'd think you work for Psychic Friends or something, with you telling me what I think and how I feel. Or have you been dating Ms. Cleo or something? :D

Because I call him stupid because he can't pronounce and enunciate words, can barely read his telepromptered speeches, and beats around topics because he has no answers unless his advisors give them to him...it's not hate for Bush...it's an assessment (and rather accurate at that) of his inadequacy as an individual who is not well-read or articulate enough to be leader of our country. Watch him stammer, stutter, pause until he can go back to the teleprompter because he can't remember more than 5 words, and can't remember what word expresses his thought properly. It's quite evident.

Once again, you're wrong ... both about "liberals" in general...and especially about me...being "full of hate" for Bush. I don't hate Bush. I hate his policies. I hate the fact he is the person that the world associates with "American leadership". He gives us a bad image amongst people of all ethnicities, religions, and means.

But, I don't hate Bush at all. If anything, I pity him.

As for me being a "hateful creature", at least I don't sit and make negative attacks about your being a hate monger of liberals. I just let your words and attitude speak for itself :D

OK...well...here...Terrorists are stupid, hateful, misguided people. There...I'll generalise for you. Now I'm wrong for making broad, inaccurate generalisations right along with you. I'm sure that there is or has been one intelligent terrorists somewhere :D

Wait...I just figured it out! I bet you just don't like my assessment because you're bucking to get something from the Republican party, aren't you? You wanna be state senator jdclyde or something? Keep playin that party line like a good puppet ;)

Anyway, keep thinking like that about me if you like, with your overzealous, distorted "I must support our leader and our system no matter what or I'm not a real American" attitude of patriotism. You'll fit right in when you go to retire in Idaho or Montana.

BTW...just so you know. An insult is an attack of negative implication on an aspect of someone's being...whether it is racial, physical, or religious.

OK...wanna join my bumpersticker campaign now??? gotta think of the future!!! Say it with me, jdclyde!!!

Comrade Bush for Czar 2008!!! :D

Oh P.S. - My parents...registered Democrats and liberal people...for over 50 years...they don't hate Bush. So, there's my liberals you demand me to point out that don't hate Bush.

Now you gonna tell me I'm wrong and that my parents aren't liberals? :D

"...or if it is just my opinion (which IS a fact),..."

God, you are a riot. Now go eat a croissant and play golf and get ready for the 2016 election...I'm sure you'll make a good politician someday. :D

Oh...one last thing...about "looking to be argumentative":

Who started this argumentative thread in the first place looking for political argument?? :p

by jdclyde

I find it hard to believe your absolute of "without ANY valid reasons".

Since the late 90's, very liberal and non-warmongering people have been saying what a threat to the world Saddam is.

Since Desert Storm, Saddam has broken every sanction against him.

I am more worried right now, today, about the weapons the every country in the world knows he had, that we have not been able to find. To stupidly say we didn't find them so he was a grand old fella that we should have left along drives me nuts. (I am not refering to you, Neil) I think we have more to fear of those weapons than ever before.

If more forces would have been in place to lock down Iraq right off the bat, Iran would not be in the stronger position they are in now. Should have been overwhelming force, and a door to door, removing every weapon found.

As for against the war, it does not improve anyones position or situation to just cry about how someone is doing something if you are not willing to step up and help to find a solution. The ONLY thing that does is undermine all efforts to that date, AND gives scumbag terrorists hope that all they have to do is wait us out and they will win just by surviving, like they are claiming in Lebanon right now. The Lebanese are going down a bad road, and the next time because of their embracing of Hezballah NOW, will not be innocent bystanders next time around.

by Member 25348569

I think that the UN's sanctions and weapons inspectors backed up with the [b]threat[/b] of force had Saddam Hussein pretty much checked. I accept your contempt for the UN and agree with some but by no means all. But I do think that it would have been good for the world in general to see that Saddam was down - he was - and was being kept down - he could have been [b]by the UN[/b]. In invading, we destroyed the last bit of hope that the UN was worth anything (most of the UN's credibility already having been destroyed by Israel). That is by no means "leaving Saddam alone".

Iran just might have taken notice if Saddam were held down by UN sanctions and weapons inspectors and the spotlight then turned on her.

As for Iraq, you don't have sufficient forces on your own and, because of the near-unilateral action, few allies so that "overwhelming force" and "door-to-door" is not and was not an option.

Hezbollah were - until recently - no threat to me. My country had not declared Hezbollah as a terrorist organistaion. Hezbollah were less of a threat than the IRA are now and certainly less of a threat that the IRA used to be.

I know we've done this to death but you've really got to separate out these groups and understand them because, as both you and the Israelis have so eloquently demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, force won't do it. Hezbollah are still there. The Taleban are still there - see Col's excellent post! - and Al Qaeda are still there. As for Hezbollah, a significant part of the Lebanese army are Shia and therefore sympathetic. ALL Lebanese now, courtesy of US-supplied cluster bombs, hate the Israelis and are therefore more sympathetic towards Hezbollah.

The Lebanese army will [b]not[/b] be successful against Hezbollah. A multi-national force will [b]not[/b] be successful against Hezbollah. Ten years time and the whole thing will kcik off again.

I still say that you can't keep on asking me and people like me for a solution to a mess caused by something that we wouldn't have done. Especially as you're not going to like and would very probably ignore what I've got to say anyway.

Three questions to be answered as you would have done June 1st 2006.

What on earth have Hezbollah done to you?

What business is it of yours that allows you to act in the way you do?

Given that the failure of munitions to explode, around 15%, creates an "instant minefield" and given that the use of cluster munitions against civilians is arguably against the Geneva convention, do you consider it acceptable for the US to supply such weapons to the Israeli Defence Force given their track record in other wars?

Neil

p.s What [b]would[/b] I say?

Well, for a start, we'd have to go to the UN and say "Sorry, guys, but we f*cked up". Just like an alcoholic on the road to recovery once he admits that he has a problem. We [b]have[/b] f*cked up, you know but theres sod-all chance of [b]that[/b] scenario.

by m_a_r_k

They were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. So why should our leaders in the US have felt that it is their duty to enforce those sanctions? Why don't we then go ahead and try to enforce every UN resolution? Why didn't we take it upon ourselves to enforce UN resolutions regarding Hezbollah and Lebanon?

A country's armed forces are typically referred to "defense" forces, not "offense". To defend something usually means to protect something. This means that armed forces should only be used to defend a country's possessions, not to take another's country's. If one nation goes on the offensive and attacks another unprovoked, then overwhelming force is hardly justified. However, the attacked nation has every right and obligation to use overwhelming force to defend themselves and to expel the offender. Same principal applies to an intruder breaking into your home. If someone threatens to break in to your home, you have no right to use force of any kind against that person. However, if he does physically enter your home without your consent, you have much more legal right to defend yourself and your property, and to use overwhelming force and all means necessary to throw the ba$tard out.

by jck

I liked it better when you were saying something about just nuking them all :D

That was you, right? ;)

by oz_media

Because they were dead set in invading long before the inspectors turned up nothing, that's why they were removed in order to invade, they reportedly had found nothing that the US administration WANTED ot find.

Sanction breaches my a$$, the US was breaching them too and so were many other countries. Snactions, Liberation, WMD, Repression, Democracy, they tried everything, fortunately we didn't ALL buy into it, UNFORTUNATELY, Bush never listened to the people of the world, afterall it IS America's place to police the globe isnt it?

by oz_media

[i]I find it hard to believe your absolute of "without ANY valid reasons".[/i]

You should have highlighted VALID not ANY. there were dozens or reasons given, they seemed to changes almost daily to hush public outcry over the last questionable reason. The problem is, it takes a lot more thqn a REASON to go to war, you need VALID reasons and UNQUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATION. EvERY reason cited raised questions of vlidity and importance LONG before the desicion to go to war was even made. Aliles and the UN all cited such questions based on the supposed 'evidence' that was provided.
YOUR president ignored those questions, YOUR president was dead set on invading Iraq (most likely LONG before any meetings took place and the republicans were most likely set on invading Iraq long before Bush took on presidency, signs show this was coming for a long time).

So before you play dumb and suggest there was no way of knowing what the truth was, remember that you were all here discounting such comments and swearing that you had it right from teh onset and that you WOULD succeed in finding these imminent threats upon the US. While attackes were being planned in another country as expected by OTHER alied intelligence the whole time.

Any valid reason? DOZENS of valid reasons. CIA reports, UN reports, Allied intelligence, questionable sources of inteligence etc. There were far too many IGNORED signes for anyone to agree that it was a mistake anyone could make.

You guys are all tryig to play simple and innocent now, whiel you were all running around ganbusters and slamming anyione questioning the intelligence you were acting on.

I call bulls*t, you guys are just being caght with your pants down and innocent backpeddling doesn't cut it. You chose to use your fantsatic intelligence that nobody else could top and invade a country, you had no JUST reason to invade, why should anyone else be providing a 'solution' beyond 'told you so you idiots!'?

I guess your 'grand pooh bah' should have thought about that while rallying the troops to follow his BS to war and their almost certain death.

Smart assed dummies now looking for answers from those they scolded for opposing the conflict to begin with, how ignorant can you get?

by m_a_r_k

I say nuke the crap out of anyone who attacks us without provocation. Terrorists have attacked us so they and their ilk are fair game for obliteration, annihilation and decimation.

by oz_media

You are right, terrorists HAVE attacked you werew backed globally by your allies and supported by voices al over the world. I don't think ANYONE objected to yuor retalition against the terrorists who attacked you, nobody is so dense to permit such things to hapen to allies. You since removed your vericious attack and went on to invade some other country based on questionable evidence (quiestionable all the time not just in hindsight), terrorists have tried to attack you again, but failed because other intelligence was focused elsewhere.

You are right though, nuke the terrorists that attacked you, why invade Iraq then?

by m_a_r_k

Unless you can read people's minds, you do not know what Bush, et. al. were thinking or what they may have been dead set on doing.

Second, name one UN sanction that "the US and many other countries" were breaching. I'm sure have been some, though I don't know of any off the top of my head. (And be sure to name one or two that dear old righteous Canada was breaching, too.) If so, it just proves the point that everyone already knows. The UN is toothless and spineless and it is just a forum for chicken-shit nations to skirt around important issues by hiding behind meaningless resolutions so they won't have to step up and take charge and try to resolve a problem on their own. Look at what the UN "peacekeepers" did in Bosnia and Lebanon. Absolutely nothing.

Third, Bush is not supposed to be listening to the people of the world. His first priority is Americans' needs and opinions. He was elected by American citizens to listen to American citizens.

by crashoverider

To understand the terrorism of today we need to look back in to the world history and our part in that history. The terrorism of today has been born from the foreign policy of the United States. For the past 100 years the United States has been moving ahead with a foreign policy of removing other countries leaders and installing despotic rulers, and funding our approved terrorists (like Bin Laden who was associated with the CIA)

If the US would keep our noses out of other countries business, station our troops inside the United State, and stop funding terrorist groups we would not be attacked. This is the punishment for the foreign intervention that the US has started.

If you need to blame a group for the 9/11 attacks it should be the federal goverment they began this ball rolling a long time ago.

Please remember Violence breeds violence.

by jdclyde

the US government is not to blame for everything that has gone wrong for the last 100 years, and there have been terrorists not of our making, around for a long time. Care to try that again?

by tony hopkinson

Total bollocks is the way I'd put. Various leaders have been putting 'like minded' people in power somewhere else since Ug the cave man got annoyed by his brother.

As for causing 9/11, well ....

by oz_media

To suggest that your government caused terrorism on it' sown soil is a bit ridiculous. Certainly the acts of the US government over MANY years have increased the hostility these fanatics hold upon the 'free world', often represented/paraded as the USA.

Terrorists are insane by western standards, the train of thought is not one we can accept nor consider rational or sane. In the middle east, it is not so bizarre, this is not really 'terrorism' but war or revenge as they deem it. We consider behaeadins=gs to be barbaric, they consider it a way of expressing a point.

So nobody CREATED terrorists but the terrorists seem to have been pushed toward attacking the USA as the major of 'The Free World'.

As far as who is responsible for Iraq, well we all know that is 110% the fault of the current Bush administration and their failure to recognize or heed other information before taking decisive and rash action based on a false premise.

by protiusx

You must really try to post something original or something that you thought of and considered carefully. This dribble comes straight from the Barbra Boxer sound bite closet and doesn't help much at all. I am not refuting the fact that the US has made mistakes in international diplomacy over the past two hundred years but can you detail some? Are you a student of history or are you merely regurgitating what you hear from the leftist media and the DNC? Our dependence on oil is not something that can be overcome easily as our entire economic infrastructure is dependant upon not only for the fuel that drives your car but the clothes that you wear and to the food you eat. Alternative fuel cars are a great idea but it is a drop in the bucket relative to our total consumption. How will you provide electricity and heat? How will you replace the oil used in the manufacture of plastics and other synthetics?

So I would ask you not to throw out simple sound bites and instead truly stop to consider your comments.

by oz_media

Any good leader would take heed of intelligence gathered by allied county's. Any good leader would think twice when almost unanymous opinions request further investigation. Yes he is supposed to listen to teh people of America. Perhaps you werejust lucky that you agreed with the resolution they chose, if not you would be the one saying government doesn't listen to the people. That's pure crap in this caes anyway. The people didn't request this action, they were told how to fear lack of action, by the government.

As for breaching sanctions, you've been here long enough to have been shown the US Embassy's report to congress that states how sanctions were being breached.

The US was supposed to inspect inbound goods and hold any 'dual purpose goods' from import. This resulted in the questionable holding of many shipments needed as essential food and medical supplies. They were aqccused of holding goods up to a year, in which time many woul dbe perished or past usage date, thus destroyed and never shipped to Iraq. They were playing tug of war with it.

Other nations that were purchasing oil from Iraq and trading for dual purpose goods banned by the sanctions, were also doing so in inceased numbers. This was mainly due to America's need for oil that they couldn't purchase directly from Iraq.

As for playing "he didn't know any better".. someone who was given information from a source KNOWN to have an ulterior motive and then completely ignoring it (while allies suggest it be confirmed), only to go to war and find it WAS false, is definitely not fit to lead the world's super power. Unaware and innocent? Everyone else suggested what was going on, the plan was set out LONG before action was taken, the plan to use force to complete inspections IF NEEDED was not followed.

How you can still vehemently defend someone who has been proven to be a putz and even admitted to being wrong about his motives on public TV, is just ridiculous.

He f****d up, they tried to stop him, he is not worthy of such a position of power. Either fight terror where it exists like everyone else is doing (sans invading anyone) or hang him by the nads and elect a bimbo to focus on building more supermalls and funding beauty pageants instead.

by oz_media

To thumb your nose, you place your thumb on the tip of you nose (like you would to wiggle your fingers and say NAH NAH NA NAH NAH!! like a kid) then flick upward. It's like the Italian 'fongulo!'(sp?) when you flick your thumbnail off your upper teeth.

It's just a little kids thing.

by tryskadec

Terrorist Problems today are Bush's fault at all.

Matter of fact if you talk to any for a period of time, you learn that they believe British and American Imperialism going back many decades are the root of our terrorist problems.

by tony hopkinson

rigellian...

Terrorism is an out growth of guerilla warfare, it's been around since humans came up with the concept of more. As in they've got more fighters than we have, so a stand up fight is not on the cards.

British imperialism, otherwise known as the cunning use of flags definitely annoyed some people in recent history. American imperialism as in the cunning use of big mac's is even more recent and has annoyed people with at least an interest in a balanced diet.

You can't go far enough back in history to not find terrorists, in current definitions Jesus would be arrested under the patriot or the prevention of terror acts.

Both the british and americans as points in history would have been defined as terrorists by their enemies.

by protiusx

I happen to live in the Peoples Republic of Seattle where I am constantly hearing my leftist/socialist/communist fellow Americans blaming GWB for everything from Global Warming (which is a load of granola in any event) to Israel?s assault on Lebanese women and children (that was sarcasm in case you missed it). On the other hand the Republicans are saying he hasn?t done enough on protecting our boarders from the massive influx of illegal immigrants (I mean come on ? even France is beginning mass deportations) to going to lightly on the war on terror. As far as I am concerned I wouldn?t want the job. No way, no how!

by jamesrl

I consider it a human failing (one to which, as a human, I am guilty of as well from time to time) that we seek simple solutions to complex problems.

We'd like to blame a President, a Government organization, a race a religion, for what is in reality a complex set of interactions that bring us to where we are today.

They have been times in history when Muslim countries not only tolerated Jews and Christians but welcomed them into the highest ranks of the government (except for the ruler itself).

There have been times where Jews and Christians have been persecuted by Muslim states.

How we get from one state to another is not by throwing a switch. Its a series of events, done by many different people, on both "sides" over the course of decades and centuries. Little happens overnight.

Hitler may have been the primary "cause" of WWII, but what caused Hitler to be able to gain power. It took him over a decade from the time he started. Initially he was seen by most Germans as a thug. He was thrown in jail, and his book was dismissed by many leading Germans. Was it the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles? Partially. Was it the collapse of the German governmental system? Partially. Did the world wide economic depression have an impact? Yes.

Similarly, causing 9/11 - it can't be one thing. The US didn't really meddle in the Middle east that extensively until after WWII. Certainly the Arabs who fought for the Allies in WWI felt betrayed by the West, but their focus of anger was on Britain. How far back do you want to go?

To blame it on Bush, or Clinton or the CIA or the FBI or any individual, single organization, or one event, is simplistic nonsense and simply intellectually dishonest.

It must be something in our collective psyche that makes us demand a scapegoat. But we would all be better off without spending so much time and effort looking for one.

James

by tony hopkinson

and if there was a simple solution, even us stoopid buggers would have found it by now.

Actually scapegoats are provided by the ruling elite to distract the plebs from the real culprit. Every now and then they provide one of their own so uncontrolled statisticians won't come up with a number that could be an indicator of the truth.

Any 'foreign' group who doesn't think there will be payback for being needed now, should have read a history book or talked to the last poor buggers in that position.

I'm on tenterhooks waiting for the american goverment to do us again, as soon as they don't need us anymore.

by yobtaf

I'm not confused. I never was.
Iraq had nothing do do with 911. We could have gone after Bin
Laden but Chaney had some reason for invading Iraq instead.

If you're confused stop watching FOX News and use your own
brain.

by tony hopkinson

talk of Fox news was about.
So I watched it.
It's very informative, did you know it's -17 celsius in siberia ?

Other than that it seemed to be complete bollocks to me. Not for it's regurgitation of a particular ideology, but because it was completely free of any requirement for thinking. Makes you wonder what their agenda actually is. Not f'ing news that's for sure.
Course CBS isn't much better, and the BBC, well that's gone to rat ****

by jdclyde

you neither answer the questions, nor make a point.

Blame Bush AND Fox news is the answer to events that went on before Bush even got in office.

I think your more confused than you realize.

by yobtaf

A wise man once said "you can't argue with a crazy person".

I'm out of here.

Goodbye

XXXOOO

by nicknielsen

Clearly zoned after retirement?

Until I see evidence otherwise, I am convinced that Dubya had personal reasons for invading Iraq and used WMD and an alQaida connection as fear factors to justify it.

by yobtaf

I don't know about what the UK or the rest of the world gets for
new, but in the USA a news network or program delivers very
little in the way of news. But FOX is in a league all by it self. Very
interesting that when Dick Chaney finally decided to be
interviewed, who did he give the privilege to? You guessed it.
And when the administration needed a new press secretary,
where did they get one? You guessed it again.

As far as I'm concerned, the only place I can get the real news is
'The Daily Show' and that's on 'Comedy Central'. How fitting at
this time in history.

It probably doesn't air in the UK but I'm pretty sure it's
downloadable from iTunes. Spend a couple of bob and see what
I mean.

by hal 9000

Successful Exports to the Land of the Free. Hows it feel to have a failed Aussie running that network? His empire here is nothing more than a joke and from what I've seen of Fox that's no better. :D

But [b]Please Keep Him we don't want him back![/b] :0

Col

by nicknielsen

But we may chase him away yet. I've heard that 20th-Century Fox is not doing too well, and with Fox News a laughingstock outside conservative circles...

I can always hope.

by hal 9000

Is badly putting down the [b]Laughing Stocks[/b] that abound Fox news doesn't reach those great heights they are just a [b]Bit Player[/b] on the side of nowhere trying to make themselves credible by presenting Drama and calling it [b]News![/b] :D

If you want feel free to chase him away but if he comes this way we'll just mark on the envelope [b]Return To Sender[/b] we got rid of him and don't want it back under any circumstances ever. :p

Col

by tony hopkinson

get completely non plussed over that point of view.

We said we want our colony back, not you back up our colon.

by bamabrad

Watch the last 5 minutes of the movie "War of the Worlds"-Let that be an answer to any and all terrorist- Plus throw in a few of the attitudes of "Swordfish"

by tony hopkinson

where all the martians got a cough and crashed their spaceships wasn't it ?

No doubt a freak mutation of the common cold caused by cracking off nuclears explosion here there and everywhere.

WTF it's got to do with this issue I have no idea.

Or was this another film where american action hollywood hero saved the pluton.

Call the governator !.

LOL

You do know you are absolutley stark staring mad don't you ?

Not a problem for me I'm british we'd simply diagnose you as eccentric and put you in charge.

by yobtaf

Tony,

I'm really starting to like you.

I promised myself not to come back to this 'discussion?' but the
temptation to see your reply was too great.

It's reassuring to know that there are a few people that see
what's going on. Everybody seriously involved in this
'discussion?' is as mad as a hatter.

This forum is more about insanity than confusion.

The problem is, it's like watching a car wreck, it's hard not to
look at it in perverse fascination.

by oz_media

It's missing a word though.

"BUSH: Confused about the War on Terror."

LOL :)

What a maroooooooon!!!!!

by jdclyde

all was just fine until the evil Bush Administration took over, right? Marooooooooooooooon is right, for anyone that believes that.

by tony hopkinson

is the one thing any IT professional should know, is that assumimg people know what you are talking about is a fast track to disaster.

Maybe the guy will come back and we can say
Oh that's what you meant !
It's not a cup holder !

There are some good posters here, some confused ones and outright loons. Strangely as we change topics, we can change which group we are judged to be in as well.

by nicknielsen

We have ours. The only thing different is the medication. :D

Anybody want a Sam? Psshh! B-)

Edit: typo

by hsd229

The only way America is going to get itself out of this mess is to be come a totally neutral nation (such as Sweden or Switzerland), and to butt of out of other countries' internal affairs. Similarly, we should do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop alternate sources of energy. In this world there are about 75 dictatorships (including our good friends Saudi Arabia). We do not have neither the right nor the resources to be a world policeman.

by jdclyde

If the US were to do as you say, and become as neutral as Sweden and stop giving billions in aid to other nations (in an attempt to buy influince), we would hear it all the same.

Also, if you had actually been paying attention, Radical Muslims hate the US because of their WAY OF LIFE. All the sex and evil as they see it is a bad influince. And the more we drift to a "no judgements/no morals/no standards" way of life, the more they will hate us. (see, it IS all the liberals fault! ;\ )

by Member 25348569

Radical Muslims hate the US for, nominally, lots of different reasons but most of it is because you're an easy target for their hatred. Their political masters can whip up ant-US feelings and you become a scapegoat for all of their ills and a distraction from the [b]real[/b] reason that all the oil-rich Muslim countries are crap, unjust and cruel.

Your reason is a very valid but it's just something that the politicians can get the Imams to use to whip up anti-US feeling. Israel is obviously another reason. I would give odds that the majority of Syrians, for example, don't really give a rats bum for their Palestinian Muslim brothers but it's something that their leadership can use against you.

Remember also that most Muslims know [b]nothing[/b] about the US as most of them don't even see the works of Hollywood - though that's probably a good thing.

I don't know what you can really do about it now. Even if you did adhere to a moral code, it wouldn't be [b]their[/b] moral code.

I really don't know the answer to this question. I tried to prod another peer about it but didn't get an answer. "Who DO you give money to?" It would give me an interesting insightinto US foreign policy. I reckon, though, that you haven't got much that doesn't go to Iraq and Afghanistan now.

by yobtaf

jd

You're the last person in the bunker. Even Hitler knew when to pack
it in.

by x-marcap

1. Our oceans no longer mean we are unassailable.

2. Airplanes and boats, radio transmissions cross borders as do Mexicans...

the results of isolationism.

Our policy of Isolationism had the US enter WWI and WWII way too late.

Let me be clear. I would love to close our borders and say "sod off" to the rest of the world. What that would entail is opening wells in OH, PA, TX, FL, and processing the oil to remove the sulfur rather than not using it... Then we go on a Nuclear, and coal Diet for electricity production.
(Buy McDermott Stock, and Alstrom Stock if the Congress is ever this smart.) Then we start using the excess heat for additional power generation...

Sooner or later Congress will be smart enough to forget the movie, The China Syndrome. Jack Lemmon did earn and get a Best Actor Oscar, and ruined an entire industry. In the US that is...

by maxwell edison

Disclaimer: I'm not offering opinion one way or the other.

Out of curiosity, if the USA has neither the right nor the resources to be a world policeman, does anybody? If so, who? And why them? And how will they get their resources? And what would give them the right?

If not, what would be some of the potential consequences of a world without a "policeman"?

by maxwell edison

Disclaimer: I'm not offering opinion one way or the other.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the United States took a neutral position in world affairs? What was the outcome of that position?

And what would the world be like today if, for example, the United States remained totally neutral in the years between 1948 and 1978? Of course, your answer would be nothing short of a guess, but based on your obvious immense experience and expertise in world affairs, what is your educated guess?

by nicknielsen

Western Europe dominated by the threat of Soviet occupation (if not already occupied).

The Asian continent and Indian subcontinent completely dominated by China and the USSR.

Continuous border wars between the rival Communicst regimes in China and the USSR.

Essentially, I don't believe that the majority of technological advances of the last 50 years would have occurred as fast as they did. No moon landings, no SR-71, no videotape, no CDs, no cable, no cell phones, ICs were only "discovered" last year.

A constant troop presence is required along the Mexican border to keep internal strife from spilling over into the United States.

And the majority of Americans are even more insular, provincial, and arrogant than they already are.

Just speculation of course...

by maxwell edison

Disclaimer: I'm not offering opinion one way or the other

If we should, [i]"do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop alternate sources of energy", [/i] exactly what steps would have to be taken? What are those things that fall under the category, [i]"everything in our power"[/i]?

by jdclyde

We are all going to start living in caves, stop driving cars, and live off of the land.

What we WON'T do is drill and process our own oil, replace oil and coal use with nuke plants and windmill farms.

Actually, what we WILL do is talk about what a problem it is, and how we should get the government to do something about it.

by maxwell edison

Yours is a typical emotional rant, using the same, silly old platitudes, not offering any depth or substance at all -- evidenced, in part, by your failure to answer my simple (or not so simple) questions.

by jamesrl

First of all, don't presume that all Arabs or Muslims hate the US and the lifestyle.

After 9/11 we all heard about a few incidents where Palestinians celebrated. Did you know that hundreds of thousands Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Tehran (wouldn't happen today with their new leader). Did you know that Fatah, the group that used to rule Palestine (replaced by more radical Hamas) condemmed the attack and by some estimates up to a million Palestinians also did a candlelight walk to show support.

Many Iranians blame the US government, and the state department for the brutal regime of the Shah, who was every bit the dictator and tyrant that Saddam Hussein was, except he was a US ally.

Many Arabs are upset with what they see is a one sided support of Israel by the US.

Its just way to simplistic to parrot the Fox new line of "they hate us because of our freedom".

James

by jdclyde

"way of life". Even if we were to completely withdraw from the region, the ever more decadent way of life in the West is growing like a cancer. Standards are lowering, morals are fading, and it is becoming an "anything goes" mentality.

Read that France was going to close some beaches to being topless. Did the French suddenly devolope a sence of modesty? I don't think so.

Yes, there is more to it that just this, but it is still a piece, even if all other factors were gone. Hate, as the Democratic party has learned, is a powerful unifier. Villify someone else and get people that normally don't care about politics suddenly scared that evil republicans want the elderly to have to eat dog food. there are actually people of very limited intellegence that believe that. Sad.

And I DO refer more to the people in charge of the brain washing of the masses, not the average Muslim that has never seen an American in his whole life and finds they have no bearing on his life.

That is a Fox news line? If they are saying the same thing I am, they must be pretty smart! :D Wonder if they are reading my postings to get their material? I haven't watched ANY news in some time now. Can't bring myself to turn the TV on anymore except to watch a DVD or play on the xbox with my boys.

by x-marcap

We give foreign aid to Isreal,S. Korea, Iman, Kuwait, and 63 other countries from the Federal budget. 67 countries in total get billions in aid...

The US Congress is too generous with Max's and my money...

by jdclyde

I keep forgetting the single reason everything is going wrong over the last 20 years. It was all Bush's fault, via proxy!

He has been pulling the strings for decades now, and is a crimial mastermind that is positioning himself to rule the world! BWAAHAHAAAHHAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!
[i]
"The fools! I shall destroy them all!"

by hal 9000

Bubba been responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong since the beginning of recorded history and possibly even before that. :D

If you believe in [b]Time Travellers[/b] it's him popping in to wreak Havoc every several hundred years or so. Or if like me you believe in [b]Reincarnation[/b] he constantly messes things up and causes all the problems and will continue to do so until he gets it right which judging from history is going to take a very long tome and many more lifetimes to do. :^0

Sorry I just couldn't resist. :p

Col ]:)

by protiusx

You do like stirring the pot!  I will say that I agree with your perspective though.

My take ?
There has been a slow growing fundamental shift growing from the UK?s occupation of Arab lands dating back to the nineteenth century. History will show that a group of Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt began organizing and terrorist activities in the 1920?s. The movement which was not confined to Egypt but spanned Sunni dominated lands such as Syria (Bathist), and Iraq. Throughout the early twentieth century this movement was responsible for growing terrorist activities and government destabilizations.
I must clarify here that while the members of these factions are zealous in their resolve I don?t not believe them to be pious to any degree. They have no problem with murder, maiming, rape and other forms of terror for their political cause which they mask behind religious rhetoric. The early Catholic Church did the same thing prior to the Reformation. Italian history is rife with examples of this. In any case Islamic Fascism is nothing new to the world at large but it is new to the US as we have not played in this arena until the 1950?s onward where we became mass consumers of the regions oil supply.
Most Americans don?t understand the many dynamics that make up the conflict that we find ourselves in today. There are many players who call themselves Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Persians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Christians, Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Israelis and Jews. Notice that I mixed religious monikers with clan or national monikers. That is because of the multiple levels of allegiance that spans the area. In Lebanon one might find groups of Lebanese Christians, Lebanese Shiites and other groups, one might also find Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Christians, Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Kurds. Each group, family, clan, religious sect and nation wants something different and most all of them are willing to murder in mass to get it. Life is worth very little in this part of the world.
Many westerners wonder if things would get better if we just left the area and I believe that if not for our dependence of foreign oil from that region the answer would be yes for the near term. No nation that wishes the US or her allies harm have the capability of launching long range attacks that would reach the US, the UK or Europe for that matter. What I think would happen is that the area would suffer under the weight of a collapsing economy for a number of years until one nation after another collapsed into civil war and chaos. Understand this is all predicated on the world freeing itself of its dependence on Middle East oil.
So, like it or not the world needs oil and a stable oil supply. The US is the world?s largest consumer of Oil second only to China who is fast approaching our consumption rates. As the largest consumer of oil the US has a vested interest in establishing stability in the region. So, yes, one might conclude that all this mess is over oil but before you rage against the president or the prime minister contemplate where you would be right now if oil was not available or was $120 or more a barrel. The economies of the the US and the UK would be crippled and that is no laughing matter.

by jamesrl

As someone whose been active on the net since 1992, I invoke Godwin's law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one"

The usenet tradition, one I think we should adopt here, is that once Godwin's law is invoked, the thread ends.

James

by yobtaf

This is really a forum for IT related issues.

The real abuse comes when someone decides to use it to
express their own personal beliefs.

The first amendment allows us freedom of speech but maybe
there is a better place for it.

Further more, I'm self employed, if I want to waste my time on
this forum, it's my money that's wasted. I just wonder how many
of the participants, in particular, the guy who started the
discussion, are doing it on company time.
If I was their boss I'd be pretty upset that they were spending
company time expressing their political positions, whether I
agreed or not.

And I still think it's time to pack it in. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. If you
prefer the invocation of Richard Nixon's name better, then, even
Nixon knew when to pack it in. I'll bet Mike Godwin would agree.

by nicknielsen

This is the Miscellaneous topic; usenet vets might know it better as alt.

There are 23 other topics in this forum reserved for IT-related issues.

Guilt accepted. I've been stretching my lunch breaks and typing while driving. :p

by jdclyde

is always a wonder, don't you think Nick?

First, if the previous poster has a problem with the topic of a discussion, seems like the intellegent thing would be to not come into it, instead of going on about how this isn't a tech topic. It IS a topic that affects techs though, so it turns out to be a good fit.

As for wasting time, I don't see how someone could be wasting time and have their boss not know it. Is there job getting done or isn't it? Simple.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but my job gets done every day.

by nicknielsen

We can point to the PC, network, or whatever and say "That's done." :D

I spent three years as a FoxBase coder a couple of decades ago, and learned that coding is like giving birth. Your program is your child, and it's hard to let go. :_|

But you're correct. It is impolite to complain about others' work or lack thereof. Not that we've ever been concerned about politeness here... ;)

by itgirli

Think back a couple hundred years. Our American Revolution. Yes, we were a new country just beginning to take shape, but we were ruled by England. We wanted our freedom and had to fight the English and those loyal to the crown in our own colonies. The french came over to help us (a great and miraculous thing) repel our oppressors, just as we are in the middle east. They helped us fight for our freedom, not for even a terrorist issue.
The war in Iraq has taken over 3 years.
Our American Revolution took over 7 years.

Bush's popularity has taken a rather steep dive in the past couple of years.
During the Revolution, Washington (who was not yet president, but commander in chief) had one of the worst popularity ratings of all time, mostly as a result of the loss of New York City in the first part of the war.
Washington continued to fight and lead even as his own troops were running out on him in the dead of night. In the end, he never gave up and led us to our American freedom.
If he had given up, where would we be?
If we leave Iraq now, what chance do they stand?

by Member 25348569

The difference is that they [b]asked[/b] the French for help. In fact, Benjamin Franklin [b]begged[/b] the French for help. The French, in their turn, although acting purely out of animosity towards Britain but, to give them their due, they were good allies to you and did not attempt to mould the fledgling America in their image.

I do not believe that the Iraqi people requested any part of the invasion, "shock and awe" and what followed. I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy and that your attempts to foist US political and economic hegemonisation upon them is doomed to make things worse.

George Bush is [b]not[/b] Washington. Not in any way.

If Washington had given up, the revolution lost and you had remained a British colony then you may have ended up like Canada, New zealand or, God forbid, Australia; possibly one of the most repressive and evil regimes on the face of the planet. (Nice beaches, though)

Only in your last sentence do you make a valid point and if you hadn't gone into Iraq for no good reason then you wouldn't need to make it.

Perspective...

Neil :)

by jdclyde

We had no way of knowing that Britan was going to desolve their world wide empire.

And everyone knows it was all fought over taxes anyways, just like our "civil" war was.

As for Iraq, I don't see good things coming from anywhere in the middle east as long as people with nothing to live for except to die are in the region.

by Member 25348569

But, although I don't know the exact split, I would guess that your population was not all in favour of the Revolution and your neighbours to the north obviously disagreed with it so it can't have been [b]that[/b] bad. The next change of UK government would have probably have made stuff better.

Anaother day, another thread we can get into how much the Revolution and the subsequent constitution was for Rich White Men. Taxes pretty much sums it up.

I really don't know how much of Iraq is due to politics, how much is due to money (Oil) and how much is really done for "better" reasons such as self-preservation or altruism. I would really like to know so I can stop being so cynical.

I think that ITGirli and I just have different perspectives on history as we've clashed before on the Irish issue but I definitely see few comparisons between The US Revolution and Iraq and Washington and Bush. In fact, I see none.

Neil :)

p.s. Today is the last "Bank Holiday" day off until Christmas and I'm trying to get out but every fifteen minutes, it's sunny for ten and rains for five! Seems to be getting better though.

by jdclyde

They even teach that in our schools.

"Taxation without representation" as the reason we went to war for our "freedom".

Our "civil" war is not as widely known, as it doesn't sound good that we went to war because of tarrifs placed on goods from the South coming into the North. sounds much more NOBEL to say we fought to "free the slaves". There are brainless wonders around that STILL think that is why we went to war, even though Lincoln was quoted as specifically saying that was NOT why we were at war. Sad.

Iraq and all other worldly dealings. People look for a humanitarian excuse to do what they want. If we were to execute the top 10 people from every country in the world, it would be a much more peaceful place. That and make it like days of old where the King got out in front and lead the charge. To glory? We would find out real quick just which conflicts they REALLY feel conviction for, huh?

Again, too much to go into here and still working on my coffee. Not sleeping well again and so I am just not in the mood right now, ya know?

You mean you actually got 10 minutes of sun? All at once? Wasn't the record in the UK something like 7 minutes before this? :0

Enjoy your holiday!

by jamesrl

....Had taxation with representation? France was still ruled by a King, with a parliament more feeble than Britain's. Did any colony have more independance than the 13 colonies - highly doubtfull.

As for the US Civil War and slavery. It was fought over the principle of State's rights versus the rights of the Federal Government, but the principle state's right being protected was the right to allow slavery. The southern states were upset that new states were predicted to be more anti slavery than pro slavery, and there was a concern that eventually there would be enough anti-slavery states to ban it.

Read some of the Lincoln biographies. Of course Lincoln's concern was more pro union than anti-slavery. He thought that the slavery issue would be resolved over time. Read the Gore Vidal biography which attempts to get into his head. He was hoping to keep the country together and delay tackling the slavery issue. But deep down he feared there was no compromise and that war was inevitable.

So you are correct that at the outset of war, Lincoln was not pushing for freeing the slaves, and that he only did the emancipation proclamation when he was certain that there would be no negotiated peace. Certainly up until that point, Lincoln hoped that the south would negotiate coming back into the union, and he resisted bringing slavery into the argument as that would mean that the south would never agree.

James

by jamesrl

Those that left America during the revolution were the "United Empire Loyalists". There were more of them from the south than from New England. Suprisingly, they not only included English but German and Dutch immigrants, natives, slaves and black freemen as well.

Some loyalists wanted to stay in America, some of them were burned out, tarred and feathered and/or run out on a rail. This is not to say that there were atrocities on both sides. It is somewhat suspicious that the loyalists most likely to be treated that way were the large landowners.

The first significant black immigration into were Loyalists. Many of them came to Nova Scotia at the time. They were granted their freedom, but it would be a stretch to say that they were "accepted".

Canada (colonies of Upper and Lower) did have rebellions in 1839. At that time they were being ruled as colonies by small aristocracies(Family Compact). After the rebellions, Royal commissions were held, and parliamentary assemblies were set up, which lead to the inevitable formation of the country we know as Canada.

James