hey pro war @#$##$#$$#@@s

[The Buddy Love Show]

we are running the whole country of IRAQ....so where the **** are all the weapons of mass destruction

please tell me we aint invaded another country, increased our deficit, killed thousands of innocents and inflamed tensions globally and THEY DIDNT HAVE ANY ALL ALONG ( which by the way is what is quietly now being reported in the news - that most of the weapons stockpiles were destroyed a long time ago)

oh and before ya try and trump my ace....(1) WE stated that we had hard intelligence of where and when and how (2) most of the detainees state that the weapons had been destroyed (3) experts say that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to destroy the stockpiles that the Bush administration stated they had in the short time frame before the war began


you stupid ****s...i wish they had shot some of your dumb asses out of the missile launchers at Iraq...the opposite of "smart" bombs..its idiots like you that allow this country to be led by one of the biggest asses of US presidential history

oooops my bad..the new news topic is wheteher Laci Pedersons husband did it...i need to shorten my attention span

[ April 30, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: your idol, Buddy Love ]

[Hk]

Welp,

We'll chalk ya up on the side of the conscious!...Welcome aboard....

Watch they run the same dumb BS to the masses regarding another Muslim or African country,
rile em up wit-some staged tradgedy, and here
we go again...

Does anyone smell coffee, I didnt think so.... :(

[Woody Rosen]

Yall know Bush aint gonna stop til he finds SOMEBODY'S damn WMDs and then hes gonna try to pin it on old Saddam. My money is on Syria being the next to get ****ed. I hope Im wrong.

[mdpm99]

Greetings your idol, Buddy Love:

WMD & Other Lies


This article from NYTimes.com


Matters of Emphasis

April 29, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN


"We were not lying," a Bush administration official told
ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The
official was referring to the way the administration hyped
the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.
According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war
was that the administration "wanted to make a statement."
And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all
the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the
perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that
"intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were
furious that briefings they gave political leaders were
distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told
the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which
said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass
destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually
find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those
aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a
small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the
world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his
case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly,
Iraq didn't have anything like that - and Mr. Bush must
have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people
say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been
freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions - not just
about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the
World Health Organization - the same organization we now
count on to protect us from SARS - called for a program to
fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that
it would save the lives of millions of people every year.
The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10
billion per year - a small fraction of what we will spend
on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration
contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of
diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to
Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in
a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost
too much. And that must be true - we wouldn't let innocent
people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people
doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's
just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out,
however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any
occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation
supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that
the original case for war has turned out to be false. In
fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have
found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage
on TV; how many people catch the later announcement - if it
is ever announced - that it was a false alarm? It's a
pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the
war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge
against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent
debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question
the administration's credibility? Some strange things
certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush
cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he
said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear
weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he
said. In fact, the report said no such thing - and for a
few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the
headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then
the story vanished - not just from the top of the page, but
from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or
suppressed retractions, the American public probably
believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat -
just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with
Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a
democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take
place with the informed consent of its citizens. That
didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy - aren't
we?

[mdpm99]

Ps.

The main reason for this war was oil. We have known that from the beginning. I scoff at those who believe this war had been a success. The only thing this war managed to do was allow Saddam to ESCAPE, kill over a thousand Iraqis and shake our relationships with our allies. Now Bush is saying "We THINK we BELIEVE Syria has chemical weapons." Give me a break. Where are the weapons we killed innocent civilians over? And where is the freedom? Is it in the filthy drinking water? Their starving bellies? Or is it in the snide remarks from Americans when they hear the people of Iraq are protesting the US occupation of their country? Is that freedom? When we protested the war, we were told to shut up, is that freedom? We want to give them liberation but are silencing our own people. And now that the Iraqi people speak out, we are scoffing at them. This country is filled with some, who are self-righteous, arrogant "patriots" who confuse loving their country with bending over, grabbing their ankles and submitting to the government. But what can you expect from sheep? I don't mind if they feel the need to be a part of the herd, but I have a problem when they try and pull the wool over MY eyes. Anyone who is thinking of voting for Bush needs to realize that going to war in the middle of a recession was not smart, and neither is Bush's idea of lowering taxes for the rich in these economically hard times. .

Thank you for letting me vent smile.gif

Peace on Earth

d

[ April 30, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Querck]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
Ps.

The main reason for this war was oil. We have known that from the beginning. I scoff at those who believe this war had been a success. The only thing this war managed to do was allow Saddam to ESCAPE, kill over a thousand Iraqis and shake our relationships with our allies. Now Bush is saying "We THINK we BELIEVE Syria has chemical weapons." Give me a break. Where are the weapons we killed innocent civilians over? And where is the freedom? Is it in the filthy drinking water? Their starving bellies? Or is it in the snide remarks from Americans when they hear the people of Iraq are protesting the US occupation of their country? Is that freedom? When we protested the war, we were told to shut up, is that freedom? We want to give them liberation but are silencing our own people. And now that the Iraqi people speak out, we are scoffing at them. This country is filled with some, who are self-righteous, arrogant "patriots" who confuse loving their country with bending over, grabbing their ankles and submitting to the government. But what can you expect from sheep? I don't mind if they feel the need to be a part of the herd, but I have a problem when they try and pull the wool over MY eyes. Anyone who is thinking of voting for Bush needs to realize that going to war in the middle of a recession was not smart, and neither is Bush's idea of lowering taxes for the rich in these economically hard times. .

Thank you for letting me vent smile.gif

Peace on Earth

d David,

Do you really think it was about oil? My feeling is that this war was perfect for Bush II for several reasons. Re-establishing American dominance in the world in the wake of 9/11 (thus consistent with the ideological positions of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc); spending money on the military (the military-industrial complex loves this); appeasing the Jewish lobby; increasing Bush II's popularity before an election cylce; distracting the public from a ridiculous economic plan that benefits the rich and increases the income gap, while contributing to unemployment; gaining control of Iraqi oil and pipelines--all of these, and probably some more than others, are reasons why this war happened.

[Fletch]

He would be completely buggin' if he were to expand this to Syria. That may be worse than Nixon invading Cambodia.

And speaking of Peterson, I still can't understand how anyone can drop someone in the SF Bay. The water's NOT THAT DEEP!!!! Anvil or not!!!!

Oh, yeah, another public service announcement from your idol, Buddy Love.

[mdpm99]

Greetings Dannyboy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this awhile back. From some of the recent posts I have read, I thought
it might be a good idea to post this once again.

Have a great day and thank you,

d.


America has come to a crossroads. You must understand that power is linked,
in world politics, to oil. And as the greatest industrial nation on the
Earth, America has an insatiable appetite for oil. When coal was the number
one energy in the world, Great Britain ruled the world. She had the greatest
deposits of coal. But when the power to move engines moved from coal to oil,
England and America began vying for control of the places on this Earth that
produce oil.

Who are the rogue states that America says she does not like, and lets see
how oil is connected here. I want you to consider Libya in North Africa.
This little desert country where most of the people live along the coast has
the sweetest crude oil. There’s a song we sing: From the halls of Montezuma to
the shores of Tripoli. Where’s Tripoli? We will fight our country’s battles
on the land and on the sea.
[barbary pirates, i know] What are you doing over here? Did these people
bother you? No. They have oil. America had military bases here. For what?
Oil! They had a king named Idriss and Muammar Gadhafi, as a young man in a
bloodless coup, overthrew the king and then kicked the British out, the
Americans out, and nationalized the oil. Now he could raise the standard of
living of all the Libyans, and with money left over he could aid the
liberation struggle of people all over the world. America got very upset
with that. Youre messing with us, Gadhafi. Youre a terrorist.

Iraq has a lot of oil, and next door is Iran which has lots of oil. In Iran,
there was a man by the name of Mohammad Mossadegh and he nationalized the
oil. He wanted to use the oil to raise the standard of living of the Iranian
people.

Whats wrong with that? Theres nothing wrong with that to our eyes, but
something was wrong with that to the eyes of the rich and the powerful. So
they organized a coup and overthrew him and placed a man on the throne called
the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. As that was their man in Iran, they
gave him weapons, modern planes, but he was a Muslim, but he was not deep in
the religion. So under him, the religion suffered. So the people that
wanted their religion to come back to purity started organizing. The leader
of that was Imam Khomeini.

Look at a map of the Middle Eastern part of the world. In Saudi Arabia, there
is a whole lot of oil. President [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt struck up a good
< relationship with the king, and Aramco [Corporation] had access to all this
oil. The kings lived well, they did well for their people, but there was no
democracy. America doesnt care anything about that, just keep pumping the oil.

Every one of us has somebody in our family that is a victim of drugs. Theres
something about a drug addictif its your son, if its your daughterthey become
artful liars. They can make up the fanciest stories just to get money to get
to the drug. If you dont give them the money, when you turn your back, your
fur coat is gone. When you turn your back this is gone, that is gone. They
become thieves and soon, if they get real bad, they become murderers.

America is an oil junkie. She doesnt care how she gets it, she must have it.

Did you know that they found the largest deposit of oil anywhere in the
world? Guess where they found it? In the southern Sudan. And what America is
trying to do is foster the revolution to break off the southern Sudan from
the Islamic regime in Khartoum so that America can have access to the oil.
But they say its them Moslems killing Christians, making slaves out of these
people in the South. America sent arms to Eritrea and Ethiopia and Uganda. So
all along the border of Sudan, war was started with the Sudan. But something
happened. Eritrea started using her weapons against Ethiopia, and vice versa.
So [Eritrea and Ethiopia] couldnt give the Sudan the trouble that America
wanted.

You dont know these things because you dont travel. You dont know these
things because youre not interested. You dont know these things because
foreign policy is not for the common American. And that we have to change. I
believe that if the American people knew, foreign policy [would reflect] that
which is better for the American people.

Lets go to Nigeria. Theres some sweet oil here. Do you know what America
tried to do? They tried to separate the eastern region and call it Biafra,
which started a civil war in Nigeria, causing thousands upon thousands of
lives to be lost because of American foreign policy. Lets go back to
Afghanistan. Do you see this place called Baku? Oil has been coming out of
this area for years and years. But the Soviet Union had control of the oil in
Kazakhstan, in Uzbekistan and in Tajikistan. All this area the Soviet Union
had.

Have you ever heard of Zbignew Brezinski? Zbignew got us in trouble. He was
the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. Guess what? Show
me Afghanistan. Did you know that in the city of Kabul, some 20 years ago,
the Muslims, women were in government, they were in school, they were in
medicine. But something was wrong with Afghanistan. Do you know what was
wrong? The government in Kabul leaned more toward the Soviet Union. They were
Muslims but they had a socialist leaning that America didnt like. So Zbignew
Brezinski and American policy sent money into Afghanistan to destabilize the
government in Kabul. When they brought up and paid for opposition to the
government in Kabul, Russia, the Soviet Union, sent their troops into
Afghanistan and the war began.

When the war started, Osama bin Laden was in Arabia growing up. He loves
Islam, he loves Muslims, he sees the Soviet Union taking over Afghanistan and
theres war in Afghanistan to get the Soviet Union out, and America says, Were
going to back those Muslim mujahideen. So American money and American weapons
trained them and they drove the Soviet Union out after ten years of war,
which left Afghanistan in ruins. Then they looked to America to help them,
but America backed out and left them in that condition and a civil war broke
out in Afghanistan. The country is already in ruins, now a civil war. Then
you have the Taliban that comes to power. And they want a pure Islamic state.

I read a book written by two Frenchman called, Osama bin Laden: The Forbidden
Truth. And they said that early on in the Bush administration he was
negotiating with the Taliban and he said [the Taliban] were a source of
stability. Why was he negotiating? Let me tell you. All of this, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, this is oil. And guess what? A company called Unical owns 75
percent of the oil up here. And what they wanted was a pipeline to come down
through Afghanistan into Pakistan into the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, as
an outlet for the oil of that area. The Taliban didnt agree.

Back in July, an American representative met with the Taliban, sometimes in
the UN, sometimes right in Peshawar, in Pakistan. The representative said
either you accept a carpet of gold or we will bury you under a carpet of
bombs. This was in July. Then came September 11, and now its Osama bin Laden.
The government didnt know anything about any terrorists the day before. But
on September 11, 12, and 13, they have 19 faces in the paper saying these are
the guys. When did you learn that? How did you learn that? Something is wrong
with this picture. Muslims and Arabs got all the blame and they went
immediately to the Congress beating the drums of war.

Do you want to know why people in the world hate America? You dont understand
the dirt that goes on in your name. And thats why the American people have to
be awakened. Am I upsetting? Im not trying to upset you. But now that theyve
destroyed the Taliban, Mr. Hamid Karzai, whom America set up, he now will get
the carpet of gold and lets see if that pipeline wont come through
Afghanistan. Its all about oil and power.

Therefore, the hatred for the American government and its policiesnot for the
American peopleis not subsiding, but increasing. If the United States attacks
Iraq, that hatred will only be worse and the cycle of violence that is now
seen in acts that are called terrorist acts will only increase.

We should be asking President Bush and the Congress, appealing to the
fairness of the American people, that before one American soldier should be
put in harms way, or one bomb dropped on Iraq, that there should and there
must be congressional hearings. That this proposed war be debated, and that
those who desire war with Iraq, put before the American people the reasons
that justify such action and allow the scholars and scientists who disagree
with the Administrations position to testify that the American people may
hear both sides of this question, and then prevail upon our representatives
in Congress to represent the will of the majority of the American people, and
not the will of any lobby, no matter how strong that lobby may be.

It would be just and appropriate if the Congress of the United States would
invite representatives of the Iraqi government to come before Congress of the
United States and defend themselves and their position.

In closing, no nation, no matter how powerful it may be, can sustain its
power if its evil outweighs its good and it exceeds the limits in the doing
of injustice. There is a force in nature that God has placed in this universe
that will move against an individual, a nation or a world when it exceeds the
limit and becomes unjust in its behavior. Such was the case of Pharaoh. Such
was the case of Rome and Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah, Ancient Nineveh. We
must not allow such to be the case for the greatest and only remaining
superpower, the United States of America.

[ March 23, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[lyot]

hey David.. I agree the geostrategic importance of the region bOILs down to OIL.. ;) ..Yet, there are many issues at stake, like Dannyboy mentionned..That's the only reason, I think, why in the end, everyone that calls the shots got convinced we needed to intervene in Iraq..

Some time ago, i read this very interesting article, that most defenitly gives better insight in the 'sensitivities' of the region.


Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy
By Michael Scott Doran
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMOVE THE WEDGE?

When toppling Saddam Hussein rose to the top of the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, a chorus of voices protested that Washington had misdiagnosed the root cause of its Middle Eastern dilemmas. "It's Palestine, stupid!" was the refrain heard not only from European and Arab capitals, but from some quarters in the United States as well. These voices argued that attacking Iraq while the Israelis were reoccupying Palestinian lands would substantiate the claim, already widespread in the Middle East, that the United States had declared war against all Arabs and Muslims. The ensuing backlash would undermine the American position in the region and wreak havoc on American interests. What Washington really needed to do was postpone or abandon a showdown with Saddam and focus instead on achieving a breakthrough in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Unqualified U.S. support for Israel, the critics reason, drives a wedge between Washington and the Arabs, most of whom support Palestinian aspirations; for the United States to improve its regional position, it must remove the wedge by tilting somewhat toward the Palestinians. The problem with this argument is that it rests on two hidden and faulty assumptions: about how much Washington would have to change its stance, and about how much goodwill that change would produce.

Unfortunately, Americans and Arabs nurture such different conceptions of what constitutes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it is hard to imagine Washington ever adopting a policy toward it that would be truly popular in the Arab world. The most "pro-Palestinian" policy realistically conceivable would look something like the Clinton plan presented in late 2000, but even this would entail major Palestinian compromises (such as the renunciation of the right of pre-1967 refugees to return to their homes inside Israel proper). Under the right conditions, a handful of Arab leaders might be induced to endorse such a settlement, but they would be denounced by others as puppets of Washington and the Jews. Suicide bombings would very likely continue, and the United States would still find itself entangled in a passionate communal conflict. The Palestine wedge would thus remain in place -- smaller and less troubling, perhaps, but a wedge nonetheless.

Even if the United States were somehow able to broker a stable Palestinian-Israeli settlement that met many Arab aspirations, however, this would not necessarily generate a great deal of goodwill. Those who argue the opposite see Palestine as the primary obstacle blocking an American-Arab rapprochement. They claim, correctly, that Arab political discourse revolves around Palestine and that a great many Arabs hold the United States responsible for Palestinian suffering. But what they overlook is that although Palestine is central to the symbolism of Arab politics, it is actually marginal to its substance.

Palestine-as-symbol has a protean nature, a capacity for expressing grievances wholly unrelated to the aspirations of the Palestinians themselves. In Northern Ireland last summer, for example, the Irish Republican Army raised the Palestinian flag over Republican strongholds. Why? Because for many around the world, this pennant now expresses simple anticolonial defiance, the protest of those who believe their native rights have been trampled under the boots of foreign rulers. (Not to be outdone, Unionists countered by flying the Israeli banner over their neighborhoods.)

The migration of Middle Eastern symbolism to a remote corner of Christian Europe would hardly be noteworthy were it not for the fact that the Palestinian flag plays a similar role throughout the Arab world itself, where it often expresses grievances unrelated to the specifics of Palestine-as-place. In addition to serving as a front for venting anger at local repression, unemployment, and inequity, Palestine-as-symbol expresses the resistance of Arabs and Muslims to Western political and cultural hegemony.

Palestine has acquired this broad meaning because in Arab political discourse the maltreatment of the Palestinians signifies the prejudice of the West toward all Middle Easterners. Palestine is the only Arab land successfully colonized in modern times, a fact that rankles deeply. According to a commonly held version of history, the Western powers (especially the United Kingdom and the United States) planted Israel in the Arab world and then nurtured it with the intention of using the Jewish state as an "imperialist base," a bridgehead for dominating the entire region. For most Arabs, the history of Palestine is thus not simply the story of two peoples struggling for the same land, but rather evidence that unmasks the true and nefarious intentions of the West toward Arabs and Muslims in general.

As a sign of anti-Western defiance, Palestine-as-symbol resonates beyond the Arab lands -- in Iran and, to a lesser extent, throughout the entire Muslim world. Precisely because it invokes a version of the history of relations between the Middle East as a whole and the West, Palestine is one of the few communal symbols that crosses religious, ethnic, and national lines. An Iranian Shi`ite, a Moroccan Sunni fundamentalist, and a Syrian Alawite who would never brush elbows at home can all stand united under the banner of Palestine. Although particularly well suited to Muslim immigrants living in the West (who frequently encounter shabby and discriminatory treatment from the majority populations in countries that also maintain good relations with Israel), the symbol's universalism works wherever Middle Easterners engage in mass politics. But, of course, it speaks most directly to Arab aspirations. To call for justice in Palestine is to decry the debasement of the entire Arab world in the modern period, to long for a more just and authentic political order in the Middle East, and to demand a change in the balance of power between Arabs and the West, represented today chiefly by the United States.

There are many reasons why Washington should distance itself from misguided Israeli policies such as the building of settlements in the occupied territories, but among them should not be the hope that such a move would greatly affect the broader sources of resentment and despair that Palestine-as-symbol encompasses. If coupled with a stand-down on Iraq, moreover, dramatic pressure on Israel now might even inflame matters further, by calling into question American willingness to support its friends and oppose its enemies in the region.

What the Bush administration seems to understand better than its critics is that the influence of the United States in the Arab-Israeli arena derives, to no small extent, from its status as the dominant power in the region as a whole -- and that this status, in turn, hinges on maintaining an unassailable American predominance in the Persian Gulf. It is worth remembering that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 came on the heels of the first Palestinian intifada, which also provoked much Arab hostility toward the United States. It was Saddam's defeat that cleared a space for the Madrid Conference and eventually the Oslo peace process. Then as now, defeating Saddam would offer the United States a golden opportunity to show the Arab and Muslim worlds that Arab aspirations are best achieved by working in cooperation with Washington. If an American road to a calmer situation in Palestine does in fact exist, it runs through Baghdad.

FUNDAMENTALISM HITCHES A RIDE

After the September 11 attacks, many in the West wondered how important a concern Palestine was for Osama bin Laden and his followers. Some argued that undermining the United States and the dynastic regime in Saudi Arabia were bin Laden's top priorities, with Palestinian nationalism coming almost as an afterthought. Others saw Palestine as crucial. Citing bin Laden's frequent references to the issue, they argued that even if he personally had only limited interest in the matter, the prominence he accorded it demonstrated how greatly he felt his audience cared. To blunt the edge of radical Islamism, in this view, the United States must successfully address Palestinian concerns.

For this second camp, al Qaeda's political intentions possess all the subtlety of a laundry list: (1) expel Crusaders from the Holy Land, (2) remove Jews from Jerusalem, and so on. Viewing these concerns in the context of Islamic fundamentalism and inter-Arab politics, however, leads to some skepticism about the role Palestine plays in the al Qaeda phenomenon.

Bin Laden is a product of a radical Islamic reform movement that originated in the early twentieth century. In the eyes of its adherents this movement represents true religion itself and dates back to the Prophet Muhammad and, before him, to the dawn of human existence. Looking at the state of the Islamic world today, radical Islamists bemoan the degradation of their lands and ask, What went wrong? In formulating their answer, they hark back to a utopian view of early Islamic history -- a time when, as they see it, the companions of the Prophet marched successfully against the greatest empires of their day. In that golden age, the rulers were united in values with the virtuous among the ruled, and both obeyed God's laws.

The comparison between the idealized past and the ugly present leads them to conclude that Muslims fell into their current state of degradation because they abandoned their true religion. This abandonment, in turn, is held to have two causes: the political, economic, and cultural rise of Western civilization; and the slavish subservience to the West by local, nominally Muslim rulers who use the power of the state to propagate Western values inimical to true Islam. The first is considered the "far enemy" and the second the "near enemy." Both present mortal threats to the umma, or universal Islamic community, that cannot be ignored.

From the 1970s through the advent of al Qaeda in the 1990s, radical Islamists focused mainly on the near enemy, trying to launch revolutions against local rulers. They calculated that defeating the West required the creation of a base, a bastion of true Islam that could serve as the staging point for spreading their message throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Israel was placed firmly in the category of the far enemy; the struggle against Zionism was seen as a distraction from the essential goal of revolution at home. Israel, moreover, was considered an offshoot of the West -- a particularly ugly and irritating offshoot, to be sure, but not an independent element in the struggle.

Bin Laden's own statements, including his 1998 fatwa against Crusaders and Jews, clearly portrayed Israel as a derivative factor. To al Qaeda, Palestine's travails were irrefutable evidence of hostile Western intentions toward Muslims. But they were hardly the only example of these intentions and were often mentioned alongside, say, the vast numbers of Iraqi babies the United States had allegedly starved by imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein.

After al Qaeda merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the late 1990s, however, Palestine moved to the center of its propaganda. Gone now from al Qaeda's statements were the long, rambling discussions of internal developments in Saudi Arabia, the ills of the Saudi dynasty, and the justification in Islamic law for attacking infidels. In one of the organization's first video statements released after September 11, for example, bin Laden's close associates Ayman al-Zawahiri and Sulayman Abu Ghayth held forth at length on Palestine. Bin Laden himself also had something to say on the matter, and his words were typical of the tone and content of his associates' message:

That which America is suffering today is an insignificant thing compared to what we have been suffering for scores of years. ... In these very days, Israeli tanks and armored troop carriers have entered Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jala, and elsewhere ... in order to wreak havoc in Palestine, and we do not hear anyone who will raise his voice or lift a finger. ... Neither America nor anyone who lives in America will ever dream of peace until we experience it as a reality in Palestine.

To interpret this statement properly, one needs to understand that the cause of Palestine is so deeply wrapped up with fundamental questions of identity in the Arab and Muslim worlds that a simple reference to it reveals almost nothing about the speaker's political agenda. A call to action over it, on the other hand, especially when accompanied by implied or overt criticism of government inaction, does reveal something: the speaker's opposition to the status quo. What the statement above shows, therefore, is bin Laden advancing his candidacy as an avenger, an opponent of the West and the corrupt Arab regimes that do its bidding. But it says nothing about his specific goals, nor does it even indicate that he has any practical concern for the fate of actual Palestinians. If anything, quite the opposite: Palestine-as-symbol works best when Palestine-as-place is burning.

Bin Laden may have moved Palestine to the center of his propaganda on the advice of al-Zawahiri, who brought to the organization years of political experience and considerable acumen. Or he may have recognized that the outbreak of the second intifada created a regional atmosphere conducive to a message couched in Palestinian terms. Whatever the trigger, what matters is that in Palestine-as-symbol he found the perfect vehicle for his propaganda.

Al Qaeda had been seeking to topple near enemies (such as the Saudi dynasty and the Hosni Mubarak regime in Egypt) by sparking a conflict with the far enemy (the United States). To achieve this, bin Laden needed a war that would polarize Arab countries between ruling elites allied with the United States and societies sympathetic to him and his cause. If he and his associates had gone before the world proclaiming that they had carried out the attacks in order to, say, raise up the shari`a, they would have alienated potentially valuable constituencies for whom questions of religion are not the main grievance. By spinning the attacks as retribution for crimes committed against Palestine, however, al Qaeda benefited from the symbol's universalism, the fact that it represents all grievances in the Middle East against the West and its local agents.

In order to foster the broadest possible popular identification with the September 11 attacks, furthermore, the leaders of al Qaeda avoided taking direct responsibility for them, implying that the attacks expressed the collective will of the Islamic world itself. In their imagery, September 11 did not reflect the agenda of a specific political organization with its own parochial interests, but rather a belated counterattack in response to a prolonged war that the United States had been waging against Muslims everywhere -- a natural, even inevitable backlash against the oppressive status quo.

Given such an ideological framework, it is hard to conceive of any plausible change in American policy with respect to Palestine that would appease bin Laden and his ilk. Radical Islamists are by nature revolutionaries, enemies of the prevailing order and enemies of the West. A practical solution to the Palestine question would solidify the status quo and further legitimate the presence of the United States in the region. Far from welcoming such developments, radical Islamists would consider them a catastrophe.

THE JAWF INTIFADA

Al Qaeda invoked Palestine as a trump card in a game of Arab nationalist one-upmanship, trying to delegitimize the Saudi regime and weaken its grip on power. It was a kind of political theater that invited audience participation. When a figure such as Osama bin Laden attacks the United States, he hopes to energize disaffected groups and create cadres that, although mobilized in the name of Palestine, will actually work on behalf of local agendas.

A similar phenomenon has been taking place recently in Al Jawf, a region located in northern Saudi Arabia east of the Jordanian border. In the two years since the second intifada broke out, Al Jawf has earned the distinction of being the only place in the Saudi kingdom repeatedly and consistently to defy laws criminalizing popular demonstrations. Matters reached a head last April 5 in the town of Sakaka, where about 4,000 angry young men congregated in town squares, burned Israeli and American flags, and called on Arab states to take action on behalf of the Palestinians. To restore order Saudi authorities had to dispatch three transport planes carrying 500 riot police, and for weeks afterward these forces continued to patrol the area.

As extensive reporting in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds al-Arabi has made clear, the demonstrations "were organized in solidarity with the Palestinians and in protest over the neglect which the region is suffering at the hands of the government." Al Jawf is one of the most backward places in Saudi Arabia. Many towns in the region, including Sakaka, lack electricity and the basic amenities of modern life. Located far from ports and oil revenues, lacking access to the corridors of power, the residents of Al Jawf feel deprived. They secretly quote lines from their poet laureate, Dabis al-Murkhan, who immortalized the region's anti-Saudi sentiments: "By God, were the skies to rain sheikhs and agencies ffi the tyranny that has been heaped on us would not pass away."

Like bin Laden, in their protests the people of Al Jawf chose to express their grievances by playing the Palestine trump card. By decrying the "shameful Arab silence" in the face of Israeli military operations, they telegraphed to their government a simple message: prove that you are authentic Muslims and Arabs by taking meaningful action on Palestine. Of course, the protesters knew that the government, given its strong economic and security ties to the United States, would do no such thing, thus tacitly admitting its complicity in the oppression of fellow Arabs. What was really at issue in Al Jawf, therefore, was less Israeli-Palestinian relations than the legitimacy of the Saudi government -- something that can be seen from the details of the protests themselves.

The demonstrations were organized by a group called the Popular Committee of the Jawf Region for the Support of the Palestinian People. Although on the surface there might seem to be little seditious about such an organization, in context it represented a direct challenge to the Saudi government, which had already established a number of its own official committees for supporting the Palestinians -- the most notable of these being the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, chaired by the interior minister, Prince Nayif bin Abdulaziz, who among other duties runs the police and the secret police.

In a limp attempt to undermine the protestors, Nayif stated that "those wanting to show support to their Palestinian brothers must do it with money, not words." And sure enough, three days later the Saudi government ran a telethon to raise money for the Palestinian cause. (This latter event was widely reported in the United States but rarely presented in its proper domestic, as opposed to international, context.)

But the fund raiser did not satisfy the aspirations of protesters in Al Jawf, nor would more criticism of Israel and more diplomatic engagement in the Middle East by the United States. The wedge that separates Washington from Al Jawf and its sister regions throughout the Arab world does not depend primarily on whether Israel is prepared to yield 85 percent or 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, or even on whether Palestinians are fighting or living in peace. It stems more from the poverty, repression, and frustration that fuel the region's symbolic politics, and will remain until those larger issues are somehow addressed.

TRUMPING WASHINGTON

Using Palestine as a trump card is not a new gambit. Since the foundation of the Arab League in 1945, the states of the region have been split into two camps: one supportive of the status quo and aligned with Western powers, and one hostile to it and them. The anti-status quo states have inevitably played the Palestine card in order to deny the Western powers loyal allies in the region. In the Middle East today, three major actors (Iraq, Iran, and Syria) and two minor ones (Hizbollah and al Qaeda) are all doing something similar. Their primary goal is to drive a wedge between the United States and Saudi Arabia. They fear the imposition of a Pax Americana in the region and regard Israeli-Palestinian violence as a tool for keeping the United States at bay. For them, in fact, the revolt in Palestine is, among other things, a proxy war against the United States.

Recent developments in the Saudi-Iraqi relationship show how the game is played. Saddam Hussein first resorted to the tactic against Saudi Arabia in 1990. In preparation for the invasion of Kuwait, Baghdad expressed its casus belli in terms of Kuwait's alleged participation in a Zionist-imperialist conspiracy to destroy Iraq. Saddam accompanied this rhetoric with bellicose anti-Israel statements, such as his famous threat to burn half of the Jewish state with chemical weapons. When the American counterattack began, Saddam backed up his threats by targeting Israel with Scud missiles, trying to foster such unrest inside Saudi Arabia that it could not host the American troops required to oust the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. At the time, Saddam's gambit failed. Over the last dozen years, however, he has continued to pursue the same strategy, and finally it is starting to pay dividends.

Social changes inside Saudi Arabia since the Persian Gulf War have created a constituency that responds more readily to Saddam's lures. Today, two in five Saudis are under 15 years old. The country's population has exploded while its economy has stagnated, with the result that its per capita income has dropped. Under these conditions, a new generation of disaffected Saudi youth has come of age. Fifteen young Saudis attacked New York and Washington on September 11, approximately 80 more are in captivity in Guantanamo, and untold others are moldering in shallow graves in Afghanistan or filtering back home after the fall of the Taliban. These numbers alone suggest that more is going on inside Saudi Arabia than just the fact that, as official spokesmen would have it, a few suggestible young men fell in with the wrong crowd.

Many from this generation hold the United States responsible for their plight and for the sad state of affairs in the Arab and Islamic worlds more generally. For its part, Riyadh has no ideological resources or public vocabulary with which to counter them and justify its dependence on the United States. Saddam plays the Palestinian card to exploit this gap between ruler and ruled. For the ploy to succeed, the disgruntled young need not admire Saddam personally, nor find the Iraqi model attractive, nor care one iota about the suffering of the Palestinians. Baghdad wins simply if a significant number of Saudis, for whatever motive, reject cooperation between Riyadh and Washington and hitch a ride on the Palestine issue as a means of expressing that rejection.

Saddam's campaign enjoyed its greatest success at the Arab League summit in Beirut last March. The official symbolism of the meeting had Riyadh and Baghdad putting aside their differences in order to demonstrate unity at a moment when Israel, their putative common enemy, was at war with the Palestinians. The assembled leadership of the Arab world even raised a cheer when Iraqi Vice President Izzat Ibrahim received a kiss from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

If Palestine provided the symbolism for this Iraqi-Saudi rapprochement, however, it had little to do with the substance. The real story at Beirut was neither the Israeli incursion nor the peace plan that the Saudis floated as a response. It was the battle over Arab authenticity and regional order in the Persian Gulf. Riyadh and Baghdad were negotiating the fate of the Iraqi government, which stood uncomfortably under Washington's sword. Wrapping themselves in the Palestinian flag, Saudi Arabia and Iraq arrived at a quid pro quo: Iraq pledged to "respect the independence, sovereignty, and security of the state of Kuwait and safeguard its territorial integrity," and the other Arab states called for "lifting the sanctions on Iraq and ending the tribulation of the fraternal Iraqi people" while expressing their "categorical rejection of attacking Iraq." Saddam, meanwhile, granted Crown Prince Abdullah the pan-Arab legitimacy that he needed to prove to his own people that he was not a puppet of foreigners, in return for a Saudi pledge to reject any American plan to topple the Iraqi regime.

The Beirut summit diminished the overtly abusive propaganda coming from Baghdad, but it did not end the Saudi-Iraqi conflict. Immediately after the summit adjourned, Saddam continued to make mischief. On April 6, the day after the riot in Sakaka, thousands of Saudi protesters marched on the U.S. consulate in Dhahran, chanting slogans calling for the government to turn off the flow of oil to the West. Saddam was clearly listening, and out of feigned concern for the Palestinians he obeyed the command. Two days later he announced his decision to stop the export of oil for 30 days "or until the armies of the Zionist entity withdraw unconditionally from the Palestinian territories they have occupied, and respect the will of the people of Palestine, and the will of the Arab nation." This was not a serious attempt at an economic embargo but a challenge to the Saudis either to follow suit or be seen as puppets of the Americans. And in fact, sandwiched between Saddam and their own public, the Saudis have continued to be leery of American invasion plans.

Many saw the Saudi peace plan presented in Beirut as a beacon by which the United States could chart a new, more "evenhanded" Mideast policy. That plan calls for an Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, borders in return for full normalization between Israel and the Arab states. The fact that all of those Arab states signed off on the idea is certainly significant, marking as it does the first explicit suggestion of a potential all-Arab recognition of Israel. But the boldness of Riyadh's move has been greatly overrated.

The Saudi plan was not about Palestine-as-place, but rather about balancing the demands of cultural authenticity against the need for an alliance with the United States. In Washington, the Saudis depict it as the work of peacemakers carrying water for American interests. At home, however, Riyadh can point to the plan and depict it as an ultimatum to Washington: "You Americans roll back the Israelis, or else!" The plan requires no practical action by the Saudis or, for that matter, by any Arab party until the far-off time when the Americans will have returned the situation in Palestine to its early 1967 status quo, at which stage Riyadh claims it will stand up and be counted. Far from getting themselves dirty with peace-processing, the Saudis cleverly devised a way to avoid touching Palestine for as long as possible, recognizing that in the end it can only burn them. When it comes to managing the conflict the United States is largely on its own, and Washington should plan accordingly.

The dance between Baghdad and Riyadh demonstrates that for Arab states the Palestinian issue is a game of four-dimensional chess. When an Arab leader announces a policy toward the issue, he makes a move directed simultaneously at critics at home, Arab rivals abroad, the United States, and the Palestinians and Israelis themselves -- with the last being by far the least important audience. The sad fact is that with the possible exception of Jordan, alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people is not a primary policy objective of any Middle Eastern state. For Washington to mistake symbol for substance and tie itself into knots trying to resolve the Palestinian problem before tackling other matters would thus be a sucker's move, providing its enemies with even greater incentives to incite violence there while avoiding other arenas where it has greater freedom of action and chances for success.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

The United States' present dilemma stems directly from its role as guarantor of the contemporary Middle Eastern order. This order serves several important interests of the United States, regional governments and elites, and the international community at large. But it also fails to serve the interests of many of the people who actually live under it. Those who seek to overturn the regional status quo, such as al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, may be thought of as America's own "near enemies"; they represent clear and direct threats that must be countered firmly and effectively. But factors that contribute to the region's popular anger and despair constitute "far enemies" and must eventually be dealt with just as firmly and effectively if the American-sponsored order is to last and thrive over the longer term.

The United States must indeed help address the festering wound of Arab-Israeli conflict, for so long as several million Arabs chafe under unwanted foreign rule the realities of Palestine-as-place will continue to help fuel the disruptive power of Palestine-as-symbol. But those who say that it should be tackled before or instead of Iraq and al Qaeda have their strategic priorities backward. The near enemies must be met first, both because the danger from them is more urgent and because countering them successfully will actually ease the drawn-out task of addressing the far enemies of occupation, tyranny, and social and economic malaise.

The uneasy, decade-long stalemate with Iraq and halfhearted attempt to contain Iran have raised a question mark over the future of American power in the Persian Gulf. Policies that were intended as patchwork solutions to temporary problems have remained stuck in place even when the problems persisted, thanks largely to inertia and lack of attractive alternatives. Unpleasant for the United States, this has proved far more so for its local allies, especially the Saudis. The presence of large numbers of American troops on Saudi soil irritates nationalists and Islamists alike and eventually may come to threaten the stability of the Saudi regime.

Domestic and foreign opponents of Riyadh often express their hostility to the regime and its alliance with Washington through the rhetoric of Palestine, but care must be taken to distinguish symbol from substance. The new generation in Saudi Arabia, along with its many disaffected counterparts throughout the region, nurtures dreams of an authentic and independent Arab order -- a powerful, unified bloc of Muslims presenting a common face to the outside world. Radical Islamists and other opponents of the status quo are hard at work sending these youths a simple message: "The Americans are finished; your government has the ability to expel them, but for its own crass motives it chooses to ignore this policy option." The Saudi regime does not possess the ideological resources to sell the alliance to its public, and at a time when the American presence in the region appears under attack and on the defensive, the rebelliousness grows.

The first order of business for the United States must therefore be to demonstrate forcefully that challenges to its authority in the region will be defeated. Its near enemies can be met in no other way, since their opposition to the present order is deep-rooted and total. Unless America is prepared to abandon its position and pull back from the region, as the British did three and a half decades ago, it must carry its struggle against al Qaeda and Saddam to the finish, putting an end to all doubt regarding its resolve. Thwarting Saddam's ambitions and continuing to root out bin Laden's henchmen and associates, moreover, will do more than take care of immediate menaces. It will also serve to sober up onlookers with oppositionist ambitions of their own, making them recalculate the odds of defying a power that has demonstrated its intention to remain a permanent and dynamic regional player.

Once the near enemies have been bested, however, the moment will arrive to launch a vigorous and sustained effort to address the far enemies, as the crucial second stage in strengthening the Pax Americana. Unless the suppression of Saddam is seen to lead to a better life for the Iraqi population, and unless American strength and resolve is used on behalf of all the region's people, not simply the governments of American allies, then a new set of near enemies will certainly arise and have to be dealt with in their turn. In the long run, the strength and passion of Palestine-as-symbol will be sapped only by the creation of a new, more persuasive historical narrative that allows the people of the Middle East to see the United States, and the West more generally, as their partner in the quest for a better life.


Copyright 2003 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[mdpm99]

dannyboy & Lyot:

I failed to mentioned that I am in agreement with most of his points.


Thank you for posting the above.

smile.gif

d

All Truth goes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed.
Finally it is accepted as self evident. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

[ April 30, 2003, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Hk]

Shit I got too much to do but I'll try to keep it brief, as I can.

QUIT looking for the reason!!!! Let's say you're dead on target with your information (said in general with no particular person in mind) AND...??


:rolleyes:


Right! Matters not, now that there has been a cause, I am sure that there will be an effect. Fact of the matter is that despite ANY reason, cats are gonna be shitty (as anyone well would be). The reason does not stop the effect of any negative events that will happen in the future in Am. or around the world as a result of this....

But hey, if another plane hits a building at least you guys will understand why their doing it and what made them do it.....(so, like me, you wont be angry at all Saudis or all Muslims, U'd be shitty at your own goverment for causing the entire thing...)

French Roast anyone....

[imported_Gman]

Magus you are still calling a bunch of folks on this board assholes and idiots. Doesn't quite set the atmosphere for a discussion or debate.

-G

[Cheddar]

People give Dubya toooo much credit. He knows not what he does, none of them do (Presidents).

Dannyboy...you mentioned 9-11..still believe that this was a masterplot by some cavemen who ( Atta (http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={1EE63533-55B0-4ED2-AAEA-1EB17484636C}&width=1024&height=768&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4) ) day by day are being linked to Government..ooops I meant our tax funds.
My lil' point is; lets not use 9-11 as justification for anything because it was never investigated..rather it was narrated.

This is about oil, supressing Islamic nations who (by the way of oil and drugs) have begun to empower themselves through affiliations with rogue factions from our nation (once again people paid by our taxdollar), and finally there is the Israel factor which is the scariest because that is where the religous sh*t come into the fold.

[lyot]

hmm,i just read that for a second day in a row , US forces have been shooting on a demonstrating crowd throwing stones and...shoes (!)

Although this is imminently sad, i can't help but smile at the thaugt of the shoe throwing crowd..

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by Gman:
Magus you are still calling a bunch of folks on this board assholes and idiots. Doesn't quite set the atmosphere for a discussion or debate.

-G you are right...title of thread has been changed to reflect that....just pissed that the administration is staright up lying and NOW we start getting the straight dope after all these lives have been wasted

i wish Bush would die and we had a "regime change"

[gabriel]

Originally posted by Woody:
Yall know Bush aint gonna stop til he finds SOMEBODY'S damn WMDs and then hes gonna try to pin it on old Saddam. My money is on Syria being the next to get ****ed. I hope Im wrong. he's going to have to end up either in korea or here at home.

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by 1343:
People give Dubya toooo much credit. He knows not what he does, none of them do (Presidents).

Dannyboy...you mentioned 9-11..still believe that this was a masterplot by some cavemen who ( Atta (http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={1EE63533-55B0-4ED2-AAEA-1EB17484636C}&width=1024&height=768&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4) ) day by day are being linked to Government..ooops I meant our tax funds.
My lil' point is; lets not use 9-11 as justification for anything because it was never investigated..rather it was narrated.

This is about oil, supressing Islamic nations who (by the way of oil and drugs) have begun to empower themselves through affiliations with rogue factions from our nation (once again people paid by our taxdollar), and finally there is the Israel factor which is the scariest because that is where the religous sh*t come into the fold. The way I see it, 9-11 is irrelevant to a point. To me, 9-11 was an excuse to start the wheels turning for an attack on Iraq and Saddamn Hussein's regime.

IMO GWB is irrelevant. He more or less looks like a puppet in this entire scheme of things.

Listen to any hard core republican and they will tell you that our sole purpose as a nation is to "Spread" democracy throughout the world.

Then there are our interests. One of them being, well of course, oil.

Back in the fourties and fifties this same belief was spoken but different terms were used. In those days it was to defeat communism, especially in small satellite countries such as Vietnam.

Looking for WMDs in Iraq now as we speak seems rather futile. If they find one canister, that still won't be enough to justify going into Iraq. It would sound rather silly if we found limited amounts of the stuff, if it even exists.

Peace

[Ken1015]

I'm glad we invaded. Now we can convert those people to the God fearing christians they ought to be.

[GROOVE VICTIM]

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Ben.]

this is what scares me: www.newamericancentury.org (http://www.newamericancentury.org)

[Ken1015]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
I hope you're being sarcastic. Yes, I am. I know that the mentality does exist though.

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
I hope you're being sarcastic. Yes, I am. I know that the mentality does exist though. </font>[/QUOTE]So True.

[ramar]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
I hope you're being sarcastic. Yes, I am. I know that the mentality does exist though. </font>[/QUOTE]So True. </font>[/QUOTE]it exists in the relevant areas of industry:
http://deephousepage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=028636

RMR

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
People give Dubya toooo much credit. He knows not what he does, none of them do (Presidents).

Dannyboy...you mentioned 9-11..still believe that this was a masterplot by some cavemen who ( Atta (http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={1EE63533-55B0-4ED2-AAEA-1EB17484636C}&width=1024&height=768&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4) ) day by day are being linked to Government..ooops I meant our tax funds.
My lil' point is; lets not use 9-11 as justification for anything because it was never investigated..rather it was narrated.

This is about oil, supressing Islamic nations who (by the way of oil and drugs) have begun to empower themselves through affiliations with rogue factions from our nation (once again people paid by our taxdollar), and finally there is the Israel factor which is the scariest because that is where the religous sh*t come into the fold. The way I see it, 9-11 is irrelevant to a point. To me, 9-11 was an excuse to start the wheels turning for an attack on Iraq and Saddamn Hussein's regime.
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you can call it irrelevant. You should not forget that the war on terrorism didn't start on 9/11.. Of course these attacks provided a window of opportunity, but the reason the US attacked Iraq had, imho, a lot if not everything, to do with the threat of terrorism in a broad sense (i.e. the thread the muslim extremist are to the Middle East region, and not so much to the American homeland..).




IMO GWB is irrelevant. He more or less looks like a puppet in this entire scheme of things.

I agree that it's rather irrelevant. It might have been crucial for the symbolism of this conflict, yet marginal to the substance of it. First of all, I want to add that WMD in fact encompasses nuclear weapons..Of what I've read, I don't think Iraq has a WMD capacity.. I think it could have been possible to succesfully check that with UN monitoring mission.
I do think they had biological and chemical weapons..But not in the amounts the US governement told us.




Listen to any hard core republican and they will tell you that our sole purpose as a nation is to "Spread" democracy throughout the world.

hmm,aren't hardcore republicans supposed to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Neo-conservatives views can hardly be called 'hardcore republicanism', no ?






Then there are our interests. One of them being, well of course, oil.

[QUOTE]

Back in the fourties and fifties this same belief was spoken but different terms were used. In those days it was to defeat communism, especially in small satellite countries such as Vietnam.

Looking for WMDs in Iraq now as we speak seems rather futile. If they find one canister, that still won't be enough to justify going into Iraq. It would sound rather silly if we found limited amounts of the stuff, if it even exists.

Peace did someone take the effort to read the article that I posted ? Any comments ?

[GROOVE VICTIM]

The reason why I say 9-11 is irrelevant is because it seems to me that we would've invaded Iraq regardless of this tragedy happening or not.

Our removal of the Taliban in Iraq was as result of 9-11 but I bet you that this would've not occurred had not 9-11 occurred.

What would be the Administration's reasoning for removing the Taliban? What do we get out of removing this regime?


Look at all of the main players in this Administration and their history.


Peace

[ April 30, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: GROOVE VICTIM ]

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
The reason why I say 9-11 is irrelevant is because it seems to me that we would've invaded Iraq regardless of this tragedy happening or not.

Our removal of the Taliban in Iraq was as result of 9-11 but I bet you that this would've not occurred had not 9-11 occurred.
hmm, difficult to say if the US would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 ..It served as a facilitator for both Iraq & Afghanistan, that's for sure. Without 9/11, can you imagine the difficulties the US would have had to convince it's own people to go to war ? It might be difficult to answer that question right now (2 years after fear started reigning the minds of US citizens).





What would be the Administration's reasoning for removing the Taliban? What do we get out of removing this regime?

I think that without 9/11, the Taliban would probably still be in place. Although, in the months leading to 9/11 the US governement was getting more and more crancky with the Taliban, and their refusal to cooperate on oil businness issues.

the goal of toppling the Taliban : taking on the battle against extremists..It's not that Afghanistan is an issue on itself..You can't consider these two wars as seperate issues.. It's intrinsically linked, even if Saddam Hussein -on first sight- doesn't have anything to do with 9/11 .. It's all connected, and this campaign serve one purpose: to show the defiant muslim extremists that the hope they cherished is vain.
The last decade the US governement hasn't really been an example of steadfastness in dealing with the Middle East. That's why the hope grew - i think - in the Muslim extremist community. They were openly defying the West, in order to confrot eventually their own puppet regimes. I think this is the key. The West (=US) who is the guarantor of the status quo in the Middle East has stood up and is now, by using force, showing the extremists that their hope is goin' to be crushed.

I don't know if this is the right strategy.. I need to do some more thinking.. These issues are so complex..





Look at all of the main players in this Administration and their history.


Peace yes, I see your point..At least, if you are pointing to the connections with Israel. Well, i don't have any doubt that they see the solution of the Middle East issue in the same way. Please read the article above that i posted. Israel is the last colony that succesfully got installed, and maintained up untill today. It's a beachhead for the west in the middle east.. Those people fully support the idea of a strong Israel, and i can see where they come from (geostrategical interests)..
I do not agree that the Israeli's are governing the US, but that they have the same ideas is clear.

[Hk]

I'll agree with U Groove V.

Simply because;

1. Mutha****as forget the white cat who blew up the Fed building but the Media and politicians quickly, hastefully, instinctfully, tried to pin it up on Islamic Fundamentalists.....dont ja memba!

2. As Malcolm X said, a capitalist needs someones blood to suck.

Besides it takes oil to make the light switch work, i.e., its intricately tied up with AM culture...think of all the things that need oil (any 2 metal pieces that rub together)....now think of depleting because of excessive use...

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by lyot:
yes, I see your point..At least, if you are pointing to the connections with Israel. Well, i don't have any doubt that they see the solution of the Middle East issue in the same way. Please read the article above that i posted. Israel is the last colony that succesfully got installed, and maintained up untill today. It's a beachhead for the west in the middle east.. Those people fully support the idea of a strong Israel, and i can see where they come from (geostrategical interests)..
I do not agree that the Israeli's are governing the US, but that they have the same ideas is clear. No, what I mean is look at who is a part of this Administation and their past influences on our government under different administrations and corporatations.

Dick Cheney and Halliburton. This is just one example. Notice how this huge corporation recieved many deals with regards to maintaing the oil fields in Iraq. Many private corporations bidded for this position and were denied for some BS reasons.

The list goes on and on. These cats have positioned themselves throughout the years to influence many corporations, some of which have no Experience with running companies to begin with. There are former military Generals running some of these corporations that are under contracts with the US Military. This is part of Rumsfeld's privatization of the military.

Peace

[ April 30, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: GROOVE VICTIM ]

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
yes, I see your point..At least, if you are pointing to the connections with Israel. Well, i don't have any doubt that they see the solution of the Middle East issue in the same way. Please read the article above that i posted. Israel is the last colony that succesfully got installed, and maintained up untill today. It's a beachhead for the west in the middle east.. Those people fully support the idea of a strong Israel, and i can see where they come from (geostrategical interests)..
I do not agree that the Israeli's are governing the US, but that they have the same ideas is clear. No, what I mean is look at who is a part of this Administation and their past influences on our government under different administrations and corporatations.

Dick Cheney and Halliburton. This is just one example. Notice how this huge corporation recieved many deals with regards to maintaing the oil fields in Iraq. Many private corporations bidded for this position and were denied for some BS reasons.

The list goes on and on. These cats have positioned themselves throughout the years to influence many corporations, some of which have no Experience with running companies to begin with. There are former military Generals running some of these corporations that are under contracts with the US Military. This is part of Rumsfeld's privatization of the military.

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with these facts, but sorry, i don't immediately grasp the point you are trying to make.

In my opinion I would synthesise the presence of so many links between private & public sector, in the case of war like this : the cost of war is always "communautarised" (is this correct english), while the revenues are privatised...The US citizens are paying the bill of 80 billion $, while the Halliburtons and Cheney's put the profit in their pockets.

Yet, i do not believe that this is the reason why war is waged. It's just a side effect.. A pretty sick one though.

[GROOVE VICTIM]

My point is that the Powers that be have stratgeically placed their imprints within our government and corporations to benefit themselves rather than the good of our nation and the world.
Loosing control over the oil in the middle east can possibly mean lost revenue for some of these corporations. This is one of the reasons why the administration doesn't want other countries dealing with the "rebuidling" of Iraq. Why share the pot when you can own it all.

Peace

[konbit]

Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now?

[The Buddy Love Show]

Originally posted by konbit:
Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now? yeah not a ****ing peep outta those __________ now. Thats why sheep are made for shearing - and deservedly so

[Querck]

Originally posted by konbit:
Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now? The war was clearly illegal to begin with. Finding WMD's has nothing to do with legality, but it would have been more of a moral justification.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
I'm glad we invaded. Now we can convert those people to the God fearing christians they ought to be. That's how Columbus took over America. He discovered Native Americans and Africans. He conquered America by eliminating them, especially if they didn't convert to Christianity. Ironically, people like Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity think in a similar fashion.

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
I'm glad we invaded. Now we can convert those people to the God fearing christians they ought to be. That's how Columbus took over America. He discovered Native Americans and Africans. He conquered America by eliminating them, especially if they didn't convert to Christianity. Ironically, people like Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity think in a similar fashion. </font>[/QUOTE]Divine right is what they called it right??
Once I read that I have had a hard time understanding organized religon here in the states...especially afro and carribean americans.

[Bold Soul]

In this issue, as in all issues, there are dimensions which are obvious and a dimension that is not.

[martino]

watch it unfold: any rebellion that happens in iraq against the new iraqi gov't will now be blamed on outside forces like iran, which will then be an excuse for more war/invasions.

same old colonial games.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by lyot:
hmm, difficult to say if the US would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 ..It served as a facilitator for both Iraq & Afghanistan, that's for sure. Without 9/11, can you imagine the difficulties the US would have had to convince it's own people to go to war ? It might be difficult to answer that question right now (2 years after fear started reigning the minds of US citizens).
[/QB][/QUOTE]


Very important point. Had it not been for 9/11, G.W. Bush and Jeb Bush would be facing Senate hearings on voter fraud. Rudy Guiliani would still be considered a racist and adulterer. Enron and Anderson Consulting would not have had a scapegoat for awful accounting practices. United and American Airlines would be making more money than Southwest or ATA. Finally, the average U.S. citizen would have been appalled about the U.S. going to war at the risk of losing it's allied base in the U.N. But the since 9/11 did occur, the total opposite has taken place. It's a shame that 9/11 has been used more as a propaganda toll than for any other purpose. Every pro-war talk show host was using it as a reason to go after Saddam, who is shown to have very little if anything to do with 9/11. It just shows that it's very easy to convince sheople into believing anything when a major event stirs their emotions.
So Lyot, you're exactly right in bringing up the extreme difficulty it would take to get the war machine rolling (even if it goes in the wrong direction) without the events of 9/11.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by 1343:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
I'm glad we invaded. Now we can convert those people to the God fearing christians they ought to be. That's how Columbus took over America. He discovered Native Americans and Africans. He conquered America by eliminating them, especially if they didn't convert to Christianity. Ironically, people like Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity think in a similar fashion. </font>[/QUOTE]Divine right is what they called it right??
Once I read that I have had a hard time understanding organized religon here in the states...especially afro and carribean americans. </font>[/QUOTE]Divine Right or Manifest Destiny. The God-given right to conquer the "uncivilized" peoples of the world and convert to the "correct" religion, which is Christianity. Scary manifesto, but covertly still in use.

[lyot]

Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
I'm glad we invaded. Now we can convert those people to the God fearing christians they ought to be. That's how Columbus took over America. He discovered Native Americans and Africans. He conquered America by eliminating them, especially if they didn't convert to Christianity. Ironically, people like Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity think in a similar fashion. </font>[/QUOTE]Divine right is what they called it right??
Once I read that I have had a hard time understanding organized religon here in the states...especially afro and carribean americans. </font>[/QUOTE]Divine Right or Manifest Destiny. The God-given right to conquer the "uncivilized" peoples of the world and convert to the "correct" religion, which is Christianity. Scary manifesto, but covertly still in use. </font>[/QUOTE]contrary to Islam by the way, if i'm correct.. Islam can only defend itself from outside attacks, and not itself conquer others.. Well, this is the theory, of course. I'm sure the Muslims did some preëmptive attacks as well... ;)

[lyot]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
In this issue, as in all issues, there are dimensions which are obvious and a dimension that is not. hey BoldSoul,

you're right.. But you still didn't state what your position is in this whole Iraq issue..Did you form yourself an opinion in the mean time ?

[lyot]

Originally posted by martino:
watch it unfold: any rebellion that happens in iraq against the new iraqi gov't will now be blamed on outside forces like iran, which will then be an excuse for more war/invasions.

same old colonial games. well, i think that might not even be so unreasonable martino. There are some countries who have an interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq (Iran to a certain extent, Turkey (an intervention in the North would be usefull), Syria (keeping the US at bay by doing a war by proxy in Iraq)) ..

On the other hand, the Iraqi's do have their own agenda, and even if those regional forces would try to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, the Iraqi's themselves would not accept to be on a foreign payroll.

[lyot]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
My point is that the Powers that be have stratgeically placed their imprints within our government and corporations to benefit themselves rather than the good of our nation and the world.
Loosing control over the oil in the middle east can possibly mean lost revenue for some of these corporations. This is one of the reasons why the administration doesn't want other countries dealing with the "rebuidling" of Iraq. Why share the pot when you can own it all.

Peace What you say indeed. it's about big profit..It's an important issue, yet i would not go so far as to say this is the reason why the war was started..For profit of these multinationals like Halliburton.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by lyot:
[/qb]contrary to Islam by the way, if i'm correct.. Islam can only defend itself from outside attacks, and not itself conquer others.. Well, this is the theory, of course. I'm sure the Muslims did some preëmptive attacks as well... ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]


Correct. A jihad is an Islamic holy war meant to be fought on a spiritual plan, not a physical one. And it starts with the individual. But just like Christians and Jews, Muslims have made preemptive strikes

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
In this issue, as in all issues, there are dimensions which are obvious and a dimension that is not. hey BoldSoul,

you're right.. But you still didn't state what your position is in this whole Iraq issue..Did you form yourself an opinion in the mean time ? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah Boldsoul, what's your stance? The war is "over" now. I know you have an opinion man. graemlins/grinyes.gif

[Skip Intro]

I cannot believe anyone actually indulges these posts. Is this only place for the self-proclaimed "Idol" correction, "I dull" to sound off his nonsensical ramblings?

[lyot]

Originally posted by Mykhal:
I cannot believe anyone actually indulges these posts. Is this only place for the self-proclaimed "Idol" correction, "I dull" to sound off his nonsensical ramblings? hello Mykhal,

I just want to talk about the war.. Every opportunity is a good one .. What do you think is nonsensical in his message ?

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
My point is that the Powers that be have stratgeically placed their imprints within our government and corporations to benefit themselves rather than the good of our nation and the world.
Loosing control over the oil in the middle east can possibly mean lost revenue for some of these corporations. This is one of the reasons why the administration doesn't want other countries dealing with the "rebuidling" of Iraq. Why share the pot when you can own it all.

Peace What you say indeed. it's about big profit..It's an important issue, yet i would not go so far as to say this is the reason why the war was started..For profit of these multinationals like Halliburton. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree in that this is no legitimate reason to invade any country, but if any conflict were to happen in the near future, these guys made damn sure that they will profit from it no matter the cost.

Peace

[lyot]

I would like to read some more about these private firms who are getting more and more jobs the military originally did..I can understand that outsourcing catering is to a certain extent to the benefit of everyone, but if this trend is going to continue, then in the end, the military will become a entire private affair.. Than we would be back in the middle ages, with the standing (?) armies..

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
In this issue, as in all issues, there are dimensions which are obvious and a dimension that is not. hey BoldSoul,

you're right.. But you still didn't state what your position is in this whole Iraq issue..Did you form yourself an opinion in the mean time ? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah Boldsoul, what's your stance? The war is "over" now. I know you have an opinion man. graemlins/grinyes.gif </font>[/QUOTE]I have no stance, and my observations are not political. I don't mind discussing this offline.

[lyot]

do you , out of principle, only want to have a stance on these issues where information is 100% accurate ?

[Bold Soul]

The information will never be 100% accurate. There is no truth - only those who decieve and those who do not.

[martino]

Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by martino:
watch it unfold: any rebellion that happens in iraq against the new iraqi gov't will now be blamed on outside forces like iran, which will then be an excuse for more war/invasions.

same old colonial games. well, i think that might not even be so unreasonable martino. There are some countries who have an interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq (Iran to a certain extent, Turkey (an intervention in the North would be usefull), Syria (keeping the US at bay by doing a war by proxy in Iraq)) ..

On the other hand, the Iraqi's do have their own agenda, and even if those regional forces would try to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, the Iraqi's themselves would not accept to be on a foreign payroll. </font>[/QUOTE]whats not unreasonable? the theory that i brought up or the US attacking other countries based on chaos in iraq?
Cause what i'm saying is that there are so many previously oppressed and criminalized (iraqi)groups in iraq that are now able to go after their goals (since the "regime change")that chaos will surely happen without turkey or syria or iran being really involved, but they can be blamed easily enough.
by the way, you really think syria will give the US an excuse to attack?

[U]

Originally posted by Woody:
Yall know Bush aint gonna stop til he finds SOMEBODY'S damn WMDs and then hes gonna try to pin it on old Saddam. My money is on Syria being the next to get ****ed. I hope Im wrong. That's exactly what I have been thinking!

Tell me again, how did Bush get into office?

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

I did not take the time to read all 3 pages and I am gonna make a long story short:

Opion / Views expressed will not stop a single thing. Think about it people, is the dirty bomb suspect still in jail? Was there any proof behind his arrest? Not really.

With that in mind, what really give any of you a single thought that Anti anything (said about the government) amounts to the value of a hill of beans?

And that is putting it nicely. smile.gif

[lyot]

Originally posted by martino:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by martino:
watch it unfold: any rebellion that happens in iraq against the new iraqi gov't will now be blamed on outside forces like iran, which will then be an excuse for more war/invasions.

same old colonial games. well, i think that might not even be so unreasonable martino. There are some countries who have an interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq (Iran to a certain extent, Turkey (an intervention in the North would be usefull), Syria (keeping the US at bay by doing a war by proxy in Iraq)) ..

On the other hand, the Iraqi's do have their own agenda, and even if those regional forces would try to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, the Iraqi's themselves would not accept to be on a foreign payroll. </font>[/QUOTE]whats not unreasonable? the theory that i brought up or the US attacking other countries based on chaos in iraq?
Cause what i'm saying is that there are so many previously oppressed and criminalized (iraqi)groups in iraq that are now able to go after their goals (since the "regime change")that chaos will surely happen without turkey or syria or iran being really involved, but they can be blamed easily enough.
by the way, you really think syria will give the US an excuse to attack? </font>[/QUOTE]i meant to say that it is not unreasonable to think that regional forces would try to spark (even more) unrest in Iraq then we can already see.. And I do agree that the simple fact of regime change is already enough to launch chaos (like we see now), but my initial point is that, to a certain degree, foreign countries are trying to force events into a certain direction..I've read reports that more then 3000 Iranian Baadr forces slipped into Iraq in the last couple of weeks. This is clearly to excute Iran's hidden agenda..Just like Iran, Syria and Turkey are also trying to get as much control as possible over events and people in Iraq (did you read the report that said the US forces arrested 30 Turkish special forces who were on their way to Kirkuk, hiding in a humanitarian convoy ?). They are all walking a thin line and certainly Syria needs to be very carefull..Of course, Syria does not want to give the US a reason to attack..But it will go as far as it thinks it can to protect its interests. It did/does defy the US by hosting some of former Iraqi regime officials..During the war, it also allowed some of its citizens to go to Iraq to fight against the US forces. Some intelligence reports say the Syrians harbors the Iraqi biological & chemical weapons..I don't know if it's true..In fact, the US did demand three things of Syria : 1. extradition of the Iraqi officials 2. handing over of Iraqi WMD 3. End of the support of terrorist groups (Hezbollah / Hamas /...) .. I do want to see if the Syrians are going to deliver on all of these three points.. They might comply to the first demand (they in fact have already handed over 4 Iraqi officials) but whether they will comply to the second demand remains doubtfull..And considering the third demand, there's no way Assad is going to accept this..He stated clearly he does not consider Hezbollah terrorists...Well, let me stick to my point : i think the Syrians WILL try to keep things chaotic in Iraq, if they see the slightest chance of doing this..They have an interest in doing this..If they can defy the US on 2 of the 3 important demands, they will defenitly try to get foment chaos in Iraq (but not in an open way of course).

[lyot]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
The information will never be 100% accurate. There is no truth - only those who decieve and those who do not. i can accept that..I do not think there's truth either. In the end, what we have is nothing more than a personal perception of things..I want to try to come as close as possible to what could be a 'thruthfull perception'.. to give an example : i think i have understood by reading a lot about this war, that it was not about WMD, like featured so prominently in the media, but deeper geostrategic issues. That's maybe only one single and minor 'thruthfull perception', but to me, that already is worth all the reading..

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Hk:
Shit I got too much to do but I'll try to keep it brief, as I can.

QUIT looking for the reason!!!! Let's say you're dead on target with your information (said in general with no particular person in mind) AND...??


:rolleyes:


Right! Matters not, now that there has been a cause, I am sure that there will be an effect. Fact of the matter is that despite ANY reason, cats are gonna be shitty (as anyone well would be). The reason does not stop the effect of any negative events that will happen in the future in Am. or around the world as a result of this....

But hey, if another plane hits a building at least you guys will understand why their doing it and what made them do it.....(so, like me, you wont be angry at all Saudis or all Muslims, U'd be shitty at your own goverment for causing the entire thing...)

French Roast anyone.... Interesting HK.....like an illness, the result is more important than the cause.

d

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by konbit:
Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now? graemlins/thumbsup.gif

d

Ps

Great thread by the way!

[ April 30, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Hk]

David....

The 2 are intricately woven, but the fact is that A has happened, should we not, necessarily, suspect B.

Of course we should, despite all these ideas.

(P.S.) Leonard, I agree with you, our ideas dont mean nothing, its only are actions.....now then, how does it feel to be on the Gestapos side of the fence?....(sorry for the judgement, cuz truly I dont know....I await for you reply, if any....I aint trying to start nuthin either. I just like to really see what the mental process is of a Black man(presumption, correction would be nice) who holds uncle Sham's hand, with the history of us being slaves, tortured, raped, beat, killed still, shot, hung, burned, gutted....oh all of that....

And you were saying?

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Hk:
David....

The 2 are intricately woven, but the fact is that A has happened, should we not, necessarily, suspect B.

Of course we should, despite all these ideas.

(P.S.) Leonard, I agree with you, our ideas dont mean nothing, its only are actions.....now then, how does it feel to be on the Gestapos side of the fence?....(sorry for the judgement, cuz truly I dont know....I await for you reply, if any....I aint trying to start nuthin either. I just like to really see what the mental process is of a Black man(presumption, correction would be nice) who holds uncle Sham's hand, with the history of us being slaves, tortured, raped, beat, killed still, shot, hung, burned, gutted....oh all of that....

And you were saying? Greetings Hk,

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure where up and down is in your mindfield i.e. not following your chain of thought. Please advise, if you will.

Thank you,

smile.gif

d


"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied." Arthur Miller

[ April 30, 2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Hk]

Peace Mancuso,

A war just took place and hundreds of thousands of people died, and more will die (A).

Should we not presume that some people from Iraq
will sooner or later take revenge (B)?

Seemingly, its a human quality would you not say....(imagine it happened to you and this country, that's all you really have to do, and I think you, of most on the board, has the imaginative power to do this......I have been wrong before though).....

BTW, the PS was for Leonard, not you.

[lyot]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now? graemlins/thumbsup.gif

d

Ps

Great thread by the way! </font>[/QUOTE]i think it can only be declared illegal by the UN Security Council ..Guess who has a veto vote.. ?

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Hk:
Peace Mancuso,

A war just took place and hundreds of thousands of people died, and more will die (A).

Should we not presume that some people from Iraq
will sooner or later take revenge (B)?

Seemingly, its a human quality would you not say....(imagine it happened to you and this country, that's all you really have to do, and I think you, of most on the board, has the imaginative power to do this......I have been wrong before though).....

BTW, the PS was for Leonard, not you. Yes to A. B.....it's already happening.


Have a great day

d

Ps.


Dear President Bush
by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Memo to: President Bush, the White House
From: Saddam Hussein, in a Baghdad basement

Well, you sure ruined my birthday. . . . O.K., you won, and your prize is Iraq. Are you ready for it? I don't think so. Truth is, I hope you fail. But because my people have suffered enough, I'll give you a few tips on how to run this place, before you make a total mess:
(1) Yes, Iraq was the way it was, in part, because I was the way I was — and I was a bad boy. But what you're seeing now is that I was the way I was, in part, because Iraq was what it is — a very difficult place to rule without an iron fist. You see, I know the Iraqi people didn't want me. And you will soon discover they don't want you. The big question here has always been: Do they
want each other? Can Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis find a way to live
together without an iron fist holding them together? Maybe, but they're not going to find it on their own. They are going to need a firm hand guiding them. You need to have a very clear idea of where you want to take this place, because, trust me, if you don't, others will.
(2) If you want to build a self-governing authority here, you had better understand that "shock and awe" is not just for war-making. It's an everyday tool for running this place. Why did it take you two weeks to throw out that bozo who declared himself mayor of Baghdad? What about all the others? You now have armed gangs or Shiite clerics grabbing control all over the country. You thought that you were just going to decapitate my army and then rely on it to run the place for you. But the whole army collapsed instead, and you don't have enough troops here to fill the security vacuum. So when a few of your guys come under fire, they panic and start shooting up the place. I ran Iraq with an iron fist. You're trying to run it on the cheap with an iron finger. No way. This ain't Norway here, pal. Your powerlessness will scare people here much more than your power.
(3) When you broke my army, you broke the most important secular
institution in the country, and the clerics are rushing to fill the void. Some are O.K., and some are bad news. Since the Shiites make up 60 percent of Iraq, if you're going to let the people here rule, that means the most important question for you is: Who dominates the Iraqi Shiite community? Not only is the future of Iraq at stake in the answer, but also, to some extent, the future of Iran. How so? Remember, the real academic and spiritual center of Shiism is the
Iraqi town of Najaf, not the Iranian city of Qom. Qom is a backwater that became religiously important only because I crushed my Shiites, while Khomeini created a Shiite theocracy in Iran. Most Iraqi Shiite spiritual leaders in Najaf have long opposed Khomeini's notion that Shiite clerics should be in power. They think this has corrupted the clergy in Iran, angered the people and driven young Shiites away from their religion. You've now set off a fight for control of Najaf, between those Iraqi Shiite leaders who believe in the separation between mosque and state, and the pro-Iranian clerics who want to run Iraq
Khomeini-style. That's why the Iranians are so concerned about what's happening here. They know if Najaf re-emerges as the center of Shiism — and if it's dominated by Iraqi ayatollahs who don't believe that the clergy should be in politics — the claim of the Iranian clergy to remain in power will be weakened. This is the most important power struggle in the Middle East today. For now,
the Iraqi Shiite clergy in Najaf are weak. They don't have many senior clerics. I kept it that way. But you can't just install your own Iraqi Shiite leaders. They will have to emerge on their own. You need to create the conditions in Najaf whereby students can come back and the natural Iraqi-Arab Shiite traditions can flower again to counter the Iranians.
(4) Always remember: This is an Arab country. Iraqis want to be
first-class Arabs, not second-class Americans. If you want to build a legitimate, moderate political center here, you need to enlist some help, and some cover, from Arab states and the U.N. Iraqis will eventually want their parties and leaders legitimized by the Arab world and media. They won't want to be seen as U.S. stooges. They don't watch Fox News here. Mr. Bush, I know you're wondering why I did not do more to avoid this war, which ended my political life. What in the world was I thinking? Who was I listening to? The answer is: I was listening only to myself. Don't make my mistake.

[ April 30, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[mhd]

Originally posted by Hk:

(P.S.) Leonard, I agree with you, our ideas dont mean nothing, its only are actions.....now then, how does it feel to be on the Gestapos side of the fence?....(sorry for the judgement, cuz truly I dont know....I await for you reply, if any....I aint trying to start nuthin either. I just like to really see what the mental process is of a Black man(presumption, correction would be nice) who holds uncle Sham's hand, with the history of us being slaves, tortured, raped, beat, killed still, shot, hung, burned, gutted....oh all of that....

And you were saying? powerful point

[mhd]

Originally posted by dannyboy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
Hmmm.... Where are those pro-war folks that were so gung ho?

By the way...does this mean that the war was clearly illegal, now? The war was clearly illegal to begin with. Finding WMD's has nothing to do with legality, but it would have been more of a moral justification. </font>[/QUOTE]impeachable

[Hk]

Thanks David, my day was 15 times better than great but ahhh...

I doubt the author and content of the letter to be accurate...(and here my verbacious ass goes again with 15 million opinions.....)....

Silly, as the structure sounds western, or should I say verbiage. To each his/her own, I am not the judge, but the important issue is this:

The stage is being set for something larger and the scapegoats have been burned into the minds of the masses over the world by Mass Media (yea, but how do I know what's going on in the world I believe is the Mass/Robot/Automaton response I think). Reminds me of a dubious scenario we brothas find ourselves in; If a cop wanted to kill one of us, say me, and get away scotts-free its easy.....blow my ****in head to the back of my knees and then buy some dope-viles, plant em on me and tell the media, I was drug dealer.

Shid, my own mother might have a second doubt! Do I feel secure(hell no and that's a necessity), that's mental terror and, to relate this, so too is living in a country lead by quacks with control fetishes, who cant scream Crusades cuz I seen better morals in a hooker! But can easily blame any event on a Islamic Fundamentalist, an Iraqi rebel, or some other monster and justifiably go and destroy a country.....under the banner of ole glory, with negroes waving them! graemlins/rofl.gif

Even if they(the Iraqi people) dont retaliate, say the Columbians do, for the BS happening down there. Well, lets shift the blame to the sand-nygars.....its a catch-25 mental hell....and despite how general this claim is, Americans are too ignorant, not dumb or stupid, to conceptualize issues!....

[Believe it or not Big Cheese I am working.... :D ]

[mdpm99]

Hk

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns and beliefs. Your energy is appreciated.

Much respect to you.

d

[lyot]

Originally posted by Hk:
Peace Mancuso,

A war just took place and hundreds of thousands of people died, and more will die (A).

Should we not presume that some people from Iraq
will sooner or later take revenge (B)?

Seemingly, its a human quality would you not say....(imagine it happened to you and this country, that's all you really have to do, and I think you, of most on the board, has the imaginative power to do this......I have been wrong before though).....

BTW, the PS was for Leonard, not you. Hello Hk,

first of all, I think the number of hundred of thousands dead Iraqi's might be a bit exaggerated, no ? In the end, the Iraqi army defenitly didn't wasn't completely destroyed at all..Of what I read, most of the Iraqi Republican Guards just layed of their military uniform, put on their civilian clothes (but TOOK their guns!) and went home after a lot "deep probing intelligence" succeses by the US (read: they bribed a lot of the Iraqi officers , just like we saw in Afghanistan..so often only the Fedayeens fought, but not the Republican Army).

I stand to think that the cause or the reasons behind this war ARE important and can not be neglected since the reason the US started this war was, like I mentionned above, in the first place to change the minds of the Arab world/governments. "You defy us, we hit you hard". That's basically the US strategy..By bullying the Arab governments, the US governement thinks it will be able to root out the threat of terrorism..It's like showing who is strongest to an audience that best understand the language of force (by nature, muslim terrorists aren't the guys who are willing to negotiate and indulge in compromises) Also, it's crushing the hopes of a broader crowd Osama Bin Laden could use as a reservoir of forces..The way to do it is to force these reluctant Arab nations to cooperate with the US, to a far greater extent than has been the case untill now.. Mind you, I'm not voicing any personal opinion with this (my god, i'm beginning to sound like Bold Soul...), as I'm not at all convinced if this could work or not.. I guess there might be a chance on succes if this rooting out of terrorism by force is accompagnied by a massive campaign of social and economic aid to these countries, in order to attack the underlying causes of extremism ( one of the lessons I retained from my class on 'Muslim Extremism' is that it only flourishes in an environment where socio-economic circumstances are really harsh..) I'm worried about this second part of the equation, because it's not mentionned -or hardly- in the US strategy..Talking about democratisation is not the same as saying you are willing to help these people on the economic level..

keep it going ..

smile.gif

[mdpm99]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12908278&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=TWO%20KILLED%20IN%20NEW%20IRAQ%20DEMO%20S HOOTING

[Jolyon]

Shit is still going on in Iraq right now. People are still dying.

WTF is happening is the people of Iraq don't want the American Army in their country and they sure as hell don't want America forcing another puppet on the country.

Baby Bu$h & Rumsfeld still haven't answered this question: Will democracy in Iraq allow one person one vote? And if so, and they elect an Islamic government, will the US let it stand or try and **** it up with the CIA?

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
[/qb]I have no stance, and my observations are not political. I don't mind discussing this offline. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Based on your scriptural signature, are you viewing the war from more of a spiritual standpoint? Check your pm's, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12908278&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=TWO%20KILLED%20IN%20NEW%20IRAQ%20DEMO%20S HOOTING This article by itself proves that Americans never get the real story from it's own media.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
I have no stance, and my observations are not political. I don't mind discussing this offline. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Based on your scriptural signature, are you viewing the war from more of a spiritual standpoint? Check your pm's, I'd like to hear what you have to say. [/QB][/QUOTE]

My signature doesn't reflect a spiritual perspective, but a philosophical one.

[mhd]

Originally posted by djmarbll:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hmm, difficult to say if the US would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 ..It served as a facilitator for both Iraq & Afghanistan, that's for sure. Without 9/11, can you imagine the difficulties the US would have had to convince it's own people to go to war ? It might be difficult to answer that question right now (2 years after fear started reigning the minds of US citizens).
</font>[/QUOTE]Very important point. Had it not been for 9/11, G.W. Bush and Jeb Bush would be facing Senate hearings on voter fraud. Rudy Guiliani would still be considered a racist and adulterer. Enron and Anderson Consulting would not have had a scapegoat for awful accounting practices. United and American Airlines would be making more money than Southwest or ATA. Finally, the average U.S. citizen would have been appalled about the U.S. going to war at the risk of losing it's allied base in the U.N. But the since 9/11 did occur, the total opposite has taken place. It's a shame that 9/11 has been used more as a propaganda toll than for any other purpose. Every pro-war talk show host was using it as a reason to go after Saddam, who is shown to have very little if anything to do with 9/11. It just shows that it's very easy to convince sheople into believing anything when a major event stirs their emotions.
So Lyot, you're exactly right in bringing up the extreme difficulty it would take to get the war machine rolling (even if it goes in the wrong direction) without the events of 9/11. [/QB][/QUOTE]

gotta big-up this point from yesterday