The warmongers are still not satisfied with the mess they’ve made. Bloodthirsty neocons and their suckers are howling now for Iranian blood.
Considering that there are about 1,300,000,000 Muslims in the world, and the U.S. (and allies’) foreign policy seems designed to anger them all, the “coalition of the duped, bribed, and coerced” could soon have more people under its “occupation forces” than the entire population of the U.S. and its allies.
What chance do we have to actually control so many angry people?
What will this policy do to our security?
How much will it cost? How will we pay the costs?
How can we expect to not get hit with more terrorism, if we continue to attack and terrorize the Muslim world?
Here’s the beginning part of an article -- actually a speech -- presented to the US Congress, by Ron Paul. If you want to understand the real reasons -- rather than the hype -- for making war, this article is a good start: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm.
| U.S. Congressman Ron Paul wrote: |
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government.
[...] |
While I grow weary of war, I'm relatively apathetic towards this. Someone has to teach the radical Muslims that what they are doing is wrong. I know that the world 'wrong' can be subjective, but if you agree to the killing of the innocent, personally, you shouldn't be breathing air. But that's my humble opinion.
And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. I just felt compelled to say what I did, not sure why.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| While I grow weary of war, I'm relatively apathetic towards this. |
That's so convenient, now dear president and his puppet masters don't even need to lie or forge evidence about WMDs or terror anymore !
Their blind supporters no longer need excuses.
They've become apathetic.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Someone has to teach the radical Muslims that what they are doing is wrong. |
Was Saddam Hussein a radical muslim ? What did you need to teach him ?
Were the thousands dead people of Iraq, radical muslims ? What did you teach them by killing them ?
Is Iran a radical muslim nation ?
What did Iraq or Iran ever do ?
If anyone is being a threat to another nation, it's the USA.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| if you agree to the killing of the innocent, personally, you shouldn't be breathing air. But that's my humble opinion. |
You agree to America invading Iraq or Iran, don't you ?
You agree to the murder and torture of several thousands of innocent people, as long as they are muslims, don't you ?
Are you suffocating yet ?
Or perhaps, your humble opinion is not so humble after all ?
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. I just felt compelled to say what I did, not sure why. |
Coincidentally, even dear president Bush accidentally referred to these invasions as "Crusades". He wasn't sure why.
You and him just felt compelled to spew the hatred that brews within.
You felt the need to mire Islam, knowing fully well that it has nothing to do with it.
I've noticed you doing this quite a lot, so I'll ask you again -
What do you have against Islam apart from the fact that it's different from your own religion ? | xalophus wrote: |
Was Saddam Hussein a radical muslim ?
|
Yes
| xalophus wrote: |
What did you need to teach him ?
|
That what he was doing was wrong.
| xalophus wrote: |
Were the thousands dead people of Iraq, radical muslims ?
|
Yes, most of them.
| xalophus wrote: |
What did you teach them by killing them ?
|
Not to help saddam.
| xalophus wrote: |
Is Iran a radical muslim nation ?
|
Yes
| xalophus wrote: |
What did Iraq or Iran ever do ?
|
Iraq: Invade kuwait, kill off significant portions of Iraq's population.
Iran: Threaten to obliterate Isriel, then try to build nukes.
| xalophus wrote: |
You agree to America invading Iraq or Iran, don't you ?
You agree to the murder and torture of several thousands of innocent people, as long as they are muslims, don't you ?
|
First question: yes.
Second question: murder yes, torture no.
| xalophus wrote: |
Are you suffocating yet ?
|
No, why?
| xalophus wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. I just felt compelled to say what I did, not sure why. |
Coincidentally, even dear president Bush accidentally referred to these invasions as "Crusades". He wasn't sure why.
|
They're the ones on a jihad, wer'e just counterattacking.
| xalophus wrote: |
You and him just felt compelled to spew the hatred that brews within.
You felt the need to mire Islam, knowing fully well that it has nothing to do with it. |
Read carefully:
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. |
1: for the "voilence never solves anything" crowd: Wake up.
2: for xalophus: When did this change from a discussion of warmongers to a discussion about islam?
3: for simply being on topic: A country threatens to wipe out another country, and then wants to be left alone while it develops nuclear weapons? Absurdity. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: |
Was Saddam Hussein a radical muslim ?
|
Yes |
He wasn't a radical muslim for sure.
The Baath party was founded by a orthodox christian, Michel Aflaq. He was also head of the Baath party under Saddam Hussein. He didn't have much influence though.
Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but not a radical muslim. He was oppressing the radical muslims/terrorists himself, together with the rest of the country.
| Quote: |
| In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical Islamism. Saddam was integral to U.S. policy in the region, a policy which sought to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union. |
| Quote: |
| In 1979 Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, thus giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The influence of revolutionary Shi'ite Islam grew apace in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations, especially Iraq. Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas — hostile to his secular rule — were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_HusseinOops, I've got to do my research better next time.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| What chance do we have to actually control so many angry people? |
I don't think all 1.3Bn Muslims will be angry if the US (and possibly other countries) attack Iran. There seems to be some unrealistic perception of Muslims that they are all the same, they all follow the same paths etc etc. I have a few friends who are Muslim and they are very similar to myself. We still go out at the weekend, we still play sports together, and we even still hang out and get into deep and meaningful conversations. The last time we had a chat about Iraq and the sorry state of affairs out there, my (Muslim) friend and I agreed that Saddam Hussein is evil. The world may be a better place now that he's not in control of weapons or a country, but the way in which the war in Iraq has worked out is not good. My friend did not declare a Jihad on the US and didn't go and sign up for terror-training. Nor did he riot in the streets. He said "I didn't agree with that"
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
What will this policy do to our security?
How much will it cost? How will we pay the costs?
How can we expect to not get hit with more terrorism, if we continue to attack and terrorize the Muslim world? |
These questions essentially have the same end. By attacking Iran, there may be some heightened concerns about national security, and some radical groups may use this as an excuse for an act of violence. However, many more Muslims may also be sitting at home saying "it really worries me that Iran are developing their nuclear capability".
Since the events of 9/11, any global instability has led to fears about national security, heightened "terror threat levels" and so on. There have not been many large-scale terror attacks since 9/11, and the "terror threat levels" arbitrarily go up and down with no rhyme or reason. Why? To keep (particularly) American citizens thinking about terrorism, to keep them afraid of terrorism - I believe that it was this perceived threat that allowed George Bush to win his second term in the White House.
The perception of Terrorism is much higher than the actual threat of terrorism and I am concerned that because of the high-profile terrorism coverage, it is causing the term "Muslim" to become synonymous with "terrorist".
Yes, Iran is a Muslim country, but any attack on Iran will not cause all of the world's Muslims to be up-in-arms and avenging the attacks. If anything, I believe there may be a smaller global impact from any action against Iran than there was with Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was poorly managed, and has caused untold difficulties, where I think there is global concern and condemnation over Iran's nuclear ambitions. If the UN is seen to be behind any action against Iran, the world may actually remain a far more stable place than is expected. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | Was Saddam Hussein a radical muslim ? |
Yes |
No.
Infact he was the thorn in Al-Qaeda's eyes for being devoutly secular in his thinking and his way of ruling.
But thanks for proving my point.*
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | What did you need to teach him ? |
That what he was doing was wrong. |
What was he doing wrong ?
Having destroyed his WMDs ?
Running his country with a secular law ?
Or just growing a weird looking beard ?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | Were the thousands dead people of Iraq, radical muslims ? |
Yes, most of them. |
Iraqi soldiers, civilians and unorganized militia fighting against an intruder make up most of the dead.
Will you call American soldiers as "mostly" radical christians ?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | What did you teach them by killing them ? |
Not to help saddam. |
Don't preach what you don't practice.*
If Saddam was ever helped by any country in getting armed and developing those mysterious WMDs, it's the USA. Not Iraq.
If any country ever provided any kind of support to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, it's the USA again. Not Iraq.
Or do you choose to selectively forget that part of the history ?
Those lessons need to be taught to the White House, not Iraq or Iran.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | Is Iran a radical muslim nation ? |
Yes |
No.
But now that we know the way you think - what about Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Egypt and all other countries with a muslim majority ?
They're as muslim as America is christian. But radical ? No.
You may want to look up the meaning of the word "radical" before letting hate overrun logic.*
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | What did Iraq or Iran ever do ? |
Iraq: Invade kuwait, kill off significant portions of Iraq's population.
Iran: Threaten to obliterate Isriel, then try to build nukes. |
Iraq (Saddam) : Invaded Kuwait since the then American ambassador gave him America's go ahead. Not to forget that he got all the funding he needed from USA.
Killing off significant portions of Iraq's population ? Only America has the right to do that ?*
But staying on topic, you may want to read up on the facts (from US defence intelligence reports)
| Quote: |
| Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents-and the Iranians do - we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. |
- Appendix B to Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War, Vol . I, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/
Iran: voiced their hatred publicly, it's not like Israel will think twice before obliterating Iran. Perhaps you think that that's ok ?*
But what about the USA who threatens to obliterate Iran and many more middle east countries ? Again, does only the US have the right to publicly declare their ambitions ?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | You agree to America invading Iraq or Iran, don't you ?
You agree to the murder and torture of several thousands of innocent people, as long as they are muslims, don't you ? |
First question: yes.
Second question: murder yes, torture no. |
Why do you support Iraqi invasion ? Because they had WMDs ? Or because they were a threat to America ?
So why do you support their murder ?*
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | Are you suffocating yet ? |
No, why? |
Because it was said in a post above that those who support killing of the innocent, shouldn't be breathing air.
You just prove my point again though - your "humble" opinion is indeed very much biased.*
Suffocating yet ?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | | Soulfire wrote: | | And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. I just felt compelled to say what I did, not sure why. |
Coincidentally, even dear president Bush accidentally referred to these invasions as "Crusades". He wasn't sure why. |
They're the ones on a jihad, wer'e just counterattacking. |
Jihad = "A holy war waged by Muslims against infidels"
Did any Iraqi or Irani attack American infidels ?
Perhaps you bought the propaganda and believe that Iraq actually had anything to do with 9/11.*
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: | You and him just felt compelled to spew the hatred that brews within.
You felt the need to mire Islam, knowing fully well that it has nothing to do with it. |
Read carefully: | Soulfire wrote: | | And I don't think that Islam has any relevancy here. |
|
Read: | Soulfire wrote: |
| I just felt compelled to say what I did, not sure why. |
and before that : | Soulfire wrote: |
| Someone has to teach the radical Muslims that what they are doing is wrong |
But I like how you read just the first sentence and conveniently skipped the next.*
| ocalhoun wrote: |
1: for the "voilence never solves anything" crowd: Wake up.
2: for xalophus: When did this change from a discussion of warmongers to a discussion about islam?
3: for simply being on topic: A country threatens to wipe out another country, and then wants to be left alone while it develops nuclear weapons? Absurdity. |
1: violence begets violence, it can solve the population problem though.
2: If your mind was reading my words without bias, you'd notice that I never discussed Islam. And if you want to know where Islam got into the discussion, read the post above mine.
3: USA threatens (and no mere threats these) every middle-eastern country, yet already have more nukes than they're ever going to need ? Logic ?*
* - The neocons are proud of you for that. | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
What chance do we have to actually control so many angry people?
What will this policy do to our security?
How much will it cost? How will we pay the costs?
How can we expect to not get hit with more terrorism, if we continue to attack and terrorize the Muslim world?
|
Ha ha, So, was “The Anarchy Princess” taken, or did you just feel “The Philosopher Princes” sounded prettier? 
Anyway, with regard to entering Iraq and WMDs, Sadam gave little other choice. The US could have either maintained its ‘diplomacy’ until Sadam died of boredom or showed a great US weakness to ALL of their enemies, or it could have gone in hard and removed their nemesis showing its enemies what will happen if they choose the path of brutality and belligerence.
It is quite obvious now that WMD were not the main threat our leaders saw as the threat to us. It seems to me that these leaders who we have put in charge of our safety and security are not staring down the road 100 meters searching for threats that we would understand. I would hope that they are not only staring 1,000 meters ahead but also sending the squire well ahead of site. In my own novice study of history and experience with leadership and the conduct of complicated systems is that the threats that will kill you have already done so once they are recognized by those not searching.
The problem is not Muslims, radical fundamentalists, or ever ‘terrorists’. The trouble is the groups that us such things as fundamental Islam for their own means despite ramifications. Sadam certainly was not a Muslim but do you remember him appeals for the Islamic world to raise up against the US or his cash awards to Palestinian martyrs?
Altering defense strategy or international policy in hopes of avoiding angering peoples that commit such acts as terrorism is really not realistic. Also is avoiding current conflict in order to avoid the expenditure of $.
With regard to Iran, if they persist with their belligerent attitude having already made their intentions known with previous threats the US has little choice but to go ahead.
<sarcasm>Actually, an attack on Iran with a newly trained US equipped Iraqi army may be a key to Iraqi national unity!</sarcasm>
| xalophus wrote: |
| 1: violence begets violence, it can solve the population problem though. |
Actually my friend, this is quite false in this situation.
Firstly, violence is necessary when dealing with those willing to use it. If you show unwillingness these aggressors will certainly see this as a weakness requiring immediate action.
Secondly, violence equating to warfare does not salve population problems. Populations problems are rarely do to population as the short sighted word leads on to believe. Population problems occur when a population outgrows its ability to provide for its members. Warfare consumes that which would remedy the problem, strong bright young men and women, resources that would otherwise go to improving infrastructure, and feeling of security i.e. willingness for the members to invest in their future. In fact warfare increases population problems. Economics….. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Anyway, with regard to entering Iraq and WMDs, Sadam gave little other choice. The US could have either maintained its ‘diplomacy’ until Sadam died of boredom or showed a great US weakness to ALL of their enemies, or it could have gone in hard and removed their nemesis showing its enemies what will happen if they choose the path of brutality and belligerence. |
I'm so bored of the Iraq War debate. After all the confessions by the Bush administration, one would have hoped that you would have accepted that this war is not half as noble as you wish it was. There was no solid proof that Iraq had WMD, or that it posed a threat to US. Shady intelligence that Iraq had links with 9/11 and the following propaganda that were successfully shoved down our throats, feeding on spreading fear, is what this war was based on. And why, oh why must the US interfere with other states' internal affairs, especially when Iraq had clearly been established as a sovereign state by the UN? Sure, there is the human rights issue, but the UN has to deal with it. The US went into war with Iraq without approval by the Secutiry Council... do you want me to repeat the few thousand points about why this war was wrong? 
| Quote: |
| It is quite obvious now that WMD were not the main threat our leaders saw as the threat to us. It seems to me that these leaders who we have put in charge of our safety and security are not staring down the road 100 meters searching for threats that we would understand. I would hope that they are not only staring 1,000 meters ahead but also sending the squire well ahead of site. In my own novice study of history and experience with leadership and the conduct of complicated systems is that the threats that will kill you have already done so once they are recognized by those not searching. |
It's quite obvious (or hopefully will be painfully obvious to all neo-cons in a few months/years) that the real threat definitely was not Iraq's imaginary WMDs or their imaginary capability to build them, but rising oil prices and lack of oil.
| Quote: |
| Altering defense strategy or international policy in hopes of avoiding angering peoples that commit such acts as terrorism is really not realistic. Also is avoiding current conflict in order to avoid the expenditure of $ |
The highlighted word there is highly amusing... you talk of "defense" about a pre-emptive strike on a country which everyone assumed had WMDs based on faulty intelligence?
| Quote: |
| Secondly, violence equating to warfare does not salve population problems. Populations problems are rarely do to population as the short sighted word leads on to believe. Population problems occur when a population outgrows its ability to provide for its members. Warfare consumes that which would remedy the problem, strong bright young men and women, resources that would otherwise go to improving infrastructure, and feeling of security i.e. willingness for the members to invest in their future. In fact warfare increases population problems. |
Exactly! So why support war?[quote="Bondings"] | ocalhoun wrote: |
| xalophus wrote: |
Was Saddam Hussein a radical muslim ?
|
Yes |
I'm a Muslim and i think in the ISLAM Radicalism doesn't support...So Saddam may not a Muslim but i'm sure he wasn't a real Muslim...Muslims musn't kill any innocent person...He was a Murderer we don't support Murderer's. WOW lib, S3d is right about your poor reading skills. If you would have taken your time you would have absorbed the following facts about my post.
1. horseatingweeds wrote what you quoted, not ocalhoun. [The Philosopher Princess: I edited it to be correct.]
2. My point was not about there being WMD but that there could be other reasons.
3. I am uninterested in debate. You seem very interested however, taking the time to slap up your anti-war redirects. My motivation to spend time here at frihost is not to fill it with spam-like non-productive ‘debating’. It is to have productive discussions for the sake of my own understanding and enlightenment. So if you don’t have anything new or productive to say or if all you want to do is sloppily quote others in an attempt to propagate your views, further impress yourself or whatever your motivation is, stop squirting your spam all over frihost.
Very interesting, horse, that your first point was about how I made a mistake with my quoting, instead of getting right to the point.
As for your "other reasons", you maybe noticed I mentioned what I think the other reaons are? Or did your "reading skills" fail you
Point number 3 - while your have just written a post getting at least 3 FRIH$ about how I'm squirting my spam all over the forums, I notice you have not added anything to this discussion/debate, excepting of course, your views on my posting styles and my typos. And to be very honest, you are the first person to ever have accused me of spamming, I find that amusing, seeing as how I always do a lot of research before posting in this forum, and spend quite a lot of time on my post to make sure I am not wasting my time. Apparently, I have, because you have not addressed any solid point that I have made...
Also, I admit, I spent only 7-10 minutes on this post, and that was primarily taken up in typing.
PS: Thanks to the moderator (The Philospher Princess) for fixing the quote.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Ha ha, So, was “The Anarchy Princess” taken, or did you just feel “The Philosopher Princes” sounded prettier? |
I first tried to get the Frihost name of “The Anti-Force Anti-Fraud Anti-Theft Pro-Freedom Pro-Critical-Thinking Princess”, but they said it was too long 
.
~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve only skimmed the posts after Animal’s, but I will read those in depth soon. In the mean time, my next post is what I wrote having read up to that point.Animal, you make some good points to consider. Here is partly a response to you, but mostly it’s just more of my thinking. And so, though inspired by you, it’s not all spoken at you. 
| Animal wrote: |
| Yes, Iran is a Muslim country, but any attack on Iran will not cause all of the world's Muslims to be up-in-arms and avenging the attacks. If anything, I believe there may be a smaller global impact from any action against Iran than there was with Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was poorly managed, and has caused untold difficulties, where I think there is global concern and condemnation over Iran's nuclear ambitions. |
Certainly there are huge rifts amongst Muslims, and attacking one side will be viewed as helping another. But, it is the proclivity to take sides and get embroiled in squabbles between foreign peoples and powers (which are none of our business) that makes most of the world distrust, fear, and dislike (hate in many cases) America.
Consider the way the U.S. backed Saddam, built his military power, provided him with chemical weapons, got him to fight an 8-year war with the far-larger Iran (while U.S. and British oil companies connived with Kuwait to steal the oil out of the southern end of Iraq), then gave him assurance that if he invaded Kuwait to make them pay for the stolen oil, that it wouldn’t be any of America’s concern -- and then suddenly turned on him, attacked Iraq militarily, and now has him on trial in a kangaroo court.
Could anybody knowing that history be comfortable with America as the preeminent world power?
Iran isn’t a viable threat to anybody. Israel has enough nukes to keep Iran in check, even if Iran were to develop a few.
The way to make the world safer is to quit turning little perceived threats into high-profile large-scale conflicts. The way to make America safer is to bring our troops home from the 100-plus countries where they are stationed, mind our own business, and let other people mind theirs.
Thomas Jefferson was right when he strived for, “peace, commerce [free trade], and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. Instead, we have entangling alliances with (almost) all nations, friendship and free trade with none, and more like a big piece of action than any real peace.
It’s no wonder that America has gone from being a most loved nation on earth to the most hated. It has meddled in the affairs of everybody, made a huge mess of things, changed sides, double-crossed its “allies”, and uses its overwhelming military superiority to force its way on the whole world.
So, it’s not so much a question of whether one particular invasion is going to enrage people against America. It’s the perception that this is a warhungry superpower intent on dominating the world. This war is just another example of Government run amok.
Some other recent examples are:
The US helped Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, set up training camps for al-Qaeda, paid the Taliban millions to fight the drug war, and then turned on them (well before 9/11).
The US pressured the Saudis into allowing permanent US military bases on some of the Muslims’ most sacred places -- a primary cause of the 9/11 attacks.
The US-backed coup overthrowing the Allende Government in Chile, and the long history of keeping corrupt and ruthless dictators in power in Central and South America that supported the US agenda.
The US involvement in the Balkans, where we still have thousands of troops (and probably will forever).
If there is any legitimacy to the doctrine of preemptive strike, it would seem that the country most deserving would be the one that has made the most unprovoked attacks on other countries. At this time, that seems to be the United States of America. (The two presidents named Bush have offensively attacked more countries during their terms in office than all the other US presidents combined.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Animal wrote: |
| I have a few friends who are Muslim and they are very similar to myself. |
Understood. I am similar as well. Two of my very dearest friends are from Iran.
Another very smart and in-tune friend of mine is from Iraq. Though he hated Saddam, he didn’t believe US military intervention was the right way to get rid of him. And my friend warned from early on that we were getting into a huge mess that we could probably never get out of -- because he knows Iraq.
I’ve also had other friends and acquaintances from those and other such countries, and befriended some during my European travels during school.
I like people of all sorts. But I do not like bullies of any sort. And I especially do not like bullies pushing their political agendas on me and those I care about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Animal wrote: |
| There seems to be some unrealistic perception of Muslims that they are all the same |
I certainly do not think they are all the same in all ways. The point is: Which of them -- any of them -- likes other countries to invade, conquer, and occupy them? I do believe that Muslims are like other people who don’t like to be bullied.
And Muslims tend to become irate when their sacred shrines and mosques are desecrated, damaged, or destroyed. Stationing US troops on Muslim Holy Lands angered Osama bin Laden (and thousands of other Muslims) causing the attack on the Cole, the attack on the World Trade Centers, bombing of US Embassies, and starting (actually just adding to, since it stemmed from earlier provocations, too) the whole chain of events that has the US now bogged down in an unjust unwinnable war in Iraq, a deteriorating mess in Afghanistan, and contemplations to make matters worse by also attacking Iran (and Syria, and others).
So, the Iraq war has resulted in the desecration and destruction of holy places of the Shiites and Sunnis. In Lebanon, our allies, the Israelis, have been attacking the Druze and Shiites. In Israel, the preeminent Holy Land of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the Christian Crusades have destroyed Muslim holy places for centuries.
This is a long history of powerful Christian countries disrespecting the Muslim people and their religion.
| Zacarias Moussaoui, currently on trial, said not wrote: |
| For 14 centuries, Muslims have been at war with non-Muslims. I am proud to be part of that struggle. |
Now, American politicians talk about increasing the desecration by attacking Iran, where many more Muslim Holy Places would be at risk from the war.
Even in the cases where various Muslim factions are warring with each other, I think they are agreed that it is horrible for us to disrespect them and desecrate their holy places. One thing I know about Muslims is that they are people who greatly value respect.
One thing that is obvious about American foreign policy is that it has no respect. Our politicians have become arrogant with power and think that like the Babylon, Persia, Greece, The Roman Empire, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Great Britain, and all the other Great World Powers of their time, that they can control the world militarily.
Fortunately for the world, such ambitions always collapse eventually and the countries that had been “on top of the world” find themselves overextended and in deep trouble.
Unfortunately for us, when the negative results of the politicians’ arrogance hits America, it will be the common people who suffer most. The politicians will wail and moan and say they need more power to “get us out of this mess”.
Warmongers don’t take responsibility for their actions. They always claim that somebody else started it, that they had no choice, and that they were in the right. Just like the majority of Germans believed that Hitler was just protecting German people, the majority of Americans believe Bush is protecting them. Warmongers will always use the same excuses, and gullible people will always believe them. I usually have alot to say when responding to any post by The Philosopher Princess...but all I can say this time is that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Now there's a first Princess I think everyone is caught up in the hype of anti-war. Of course nobody truly supports war, at least in my opinion, but it seems to be the only way (nowadays) of getting your point across.
I guess I have a problem with sitting back and letting other countries develop nuclear weapons (referring to Iran). And what would YOU do if all of your intelligence said:
a) Iraq has WMDs
b) Saddam is a threat
As president, would you just sit there and wait? If you waited, we could've been nuked, and then people would be complaining for the opposite reason they are now: "Why didn't Bush go to war, he's an idiot"
So it's a lose-lose situation for Bush:
1) His intelligence says "Go to war, we're in danger." So he goes. He gets heat from everyone, and since everyone thinks any war for any reason is bad, everyone hates him.
2) He follows popular opinion and waits. We get nuked, and the entire east coast is gone. Then he gets complaints of "Why didn't you go to war you idiot?"
I realize that there wasn't WMDs found, but most people say there were. And when you think about it, the majority of the nation supported the war at first, when everyone was under the popular mindset that there were weapons.
Now, they didn't find any, so everyone has flip-flopped and now do not support the war.
It's hard to win with the people of America.
Perhaps we should pull out of world affairs, and allow anyone to do whatever they want?
North Korea can continue to develop nuclear weapons, and take over Asia, then control trade on a global scale.
Iran can nuke every country that isn't Muslim (including us).
Palestinians can continue their suicide bombing mission against Israel.
Oh wait, then people would still complain! Is that all the population of America is good for, complaining? And I find it just as ironic as you that I am complaining about complaining, but I think you got my point (hopefully).
But Soulfire, the point is that it wasn't the intelligence and UN inspectors who said there were WMD. It was rather the governments of both the UK and USA claiming that and forcing the intelligence services to make those statements. And if they wouldn't, they would lose their jobs and other punishments.
The intelligence services did claim that Iraq had some hidden weapons and programs, but those claims were ridiculously exagerated (I remember Blair claiming that Saddam could launch WMD to England in 45 minutes).
Wasn't there some huge schandal about the US governement purposely leaking information to blow up the cover of an undercover agent who didn't want to support the claims of the WMD? I bet that wasn't the only case.
By the way, you talk about nukes, but I don't think it was even possible to hide a complete nuclear program. I thought it was quite obvious before the war, that Iraq didn't have any nukes at all and not even the means to start thinking of trying to make them. How come most people in Europe knew this and Bush with his whole intelligence didn't?
And Soulfire, there is a difference with countries actually being a threat and having or making nuclear weapons and those who hardly are a threat at all, like Iraq was.
I still get a dark chuckle out of the way we chose Iraq...
A nation we suspected might just have WMDs, or at least it was likely enough we could pretend they did. A nation we knew wasn't that much of a military threat.
If our governments were really concerned about WMDs being in the hands of ruthless, inhumane governments, which torture and kill their own people, we'd be doing something about North Korea.
But we know for a fact North Korea has WMDs - lots of them. And that Kim Jong-Il would use them in a heartbeat if he was pushed. And that it's cripplingly unfair and brutal to its citizens. So we attack Iraq, and get China to lean on North Korea for us.
Why did we pick Iraq? Sure, Saddam had been doing horrible things to his subordinates, but the same could be said for countries all across the globe. There are dozens of dictators, millions, perhaps billions of repressed people. Saddam hadn't done anything to us recently. Our leaders were just suddenly filled with righteous ire towards Iraq. Frankly the only explanation that does spring to mind is that we knew they weren't as strong as they pretended, and that they had oil.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Warmongers don’t take responsibility for their actions. They always claim that somebody else started it, that they had no choice, and that they were in the right. |
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I think everyone is caught up in the hype of anti-war. Of course nobody truly supports war, at least in my opinion, but it seems to be the only way (nowadays) of getting your point across. |
I found that somewhat amusing.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I guess I have a problem with sitting back and letting other countries develop nuclear weapons (referring to Iran). |
Hey, guess what?
I have a problem with countries developing nuclear power too, especially when they start taking about eliminating other countries. However, I also think logically. Israel, with America's backing, is a strong enough military power to make the Iranis hesitate a thousand times before considering the use of military force. Israel has nukes, and Iran will be very careful about its actions, since they know that the US is looking for the smallest reason whatsoever to attack them.
| Quote: |
And what would YOU do if all of your intelligence said:
a) Iraq has WMDs
b) Saddam is a threat |
All intelligence did not say Saddam had WMDs and he was going to attack the US. Some intelligence said that, and most of this intelligence was collected in a very short period of time.
| Quote: |
| 2) He follows popular opinion and waits. We get nuked, and the entire east coast is gone. Then he gets complaints of "Why didn't you go to war you idiot?" |
nuked? Please don't confuse WMDs with nukes.
| Quote: |
I realize that there wasn't WMDs found, but most people say there were. And when you think about it, the majority of the nation supported the war at first, when everyone was under the popular mindset that there were weapons.
Now, they didn't find any, so everyone has flip-flopped and now do not support the war. |
Soooo now that people have found out the truth, and the truth is that this war was fought for all the wrong reasons, you expect them to be supportive of it anyway?
| Quote: |
| Perhaps we should pull out of world affairs, and allow anyone to do whatever they want? |
Hey, there's a good idea!
But in case you did want to play active (and responsible) role in the international community of nations, you might want to consider caring about the UN, and making sure that it is effective, instead of undermining its Council... don't forget, it is the biggest council representing the largest number of nations.
| Quote: |
| Iran can nuke every country that isn't Muslim (including us). |
Let's think logically... a country starts a nuclear war... other countries (most likely with N-capacity themselves) will definitely strike back. The result is a nuclear disaster of large scale. To get to the highest seat of authority requires at least a tiny shred of common sense. No country leader would risk nuclear winter... think about it."The dogs of war don't capitulate"
"The dogs of war don't negotiate"
-David Gilmore
I still agree with you Princess.
Ah well, you can't satisfy everyone. If we didn't go to war, this would be the complete opposite. Everyone would be calling Bush an idiot for backing out.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Ah well, you can't satisfy everyone. If we didn't go to war, this would be the complete opposite. Everyone would be calling Bush an idiot for backing out. |
I'd disagree to this...
Mr. Bush went to war (for what now seem to be wrong reasons or whatever), and yet there are many who support him (at least within the USA).
If he hadn't gone to war, only a minority (the minority which supports the war right now) would have called him an idiot, whereas the majority that are throwing brickbats at him now would support the decision not to go to war.Before Saddam Hussein came to power, the US backed and supported one of the most brutal regimes in the area, the Shah of Iran, because it was a way to have bases, oil, and power in the mideast to counter Iraq ( if my enemy is your enemy then we are friends mentality!!) We know what happened to the Shah and we are still dealing with that government. WHen Hussein came to power and Iran became our enemy, we gave Hussein weapons, training ( we brought him and some of his officers to the US for training!!) and we gave him government loans ( money from the taxpayers) to pay for the arms we were giving him, hmmmmm I wonder how much of the loan he paid back. We did this because (if my enemy is your enemy then we are friends mentality!!)
Maybe you can start to see the pattern here. We did this in Vietnam to project authority, we did this in Korea, we tried this is Cuba (bay of pigs) Whenever it seems to be in our interest to pick a side or pick a fight, we do, funny that is seldom works out the way we want it to, maybe we should try something else.
Well friends I have read most of the post in this discussion and what I concluded is that it is the matter of knowing and not knowing rather than that of religion and ethnic affiliation. Those who are in favor of war should consider a few things. The radical muslims who are now being called terrorists are no other than the people previously supported and trained by the US agencies and are equally a menace for the Muslim world. They were first used against other anti-US forces and now are being used as a pretext to play tricks in the game of OIL and weapon market. If Usama was the culprit and the US and allies fail to capture him, they have no right to keep on killing innocent people saying they doubt of Usama’s presence or for some unproven association with him. What I strictly believe is that no terrorist organization could break the security net that easily in cities like New York, Washington and London without covert help from inside. If the government still insist on this they should resign for their utter failure and stop accusing and torturing those who even did not know the name Bin Laden before the 9/11 tragedy.
Lol. Looks like the anti-Bush crowd is taking it in the shorts on this one.
| lib wrote: |
After all the confessions by the Bush administration, one would have hoped that you would have accepted that this war is not half as noble as you wish it was. |
Still blaming this whole thing in Bush I see.
Keep spewing lies long enough and you actually believe it, don't you? | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| the anti-Bush crowd |
You want to talk about crowds? Let’s talk about crowds.
Speaking for myself, I am not anti-Bush per se. I am anti-aggression, anti-initiation of force, -- and I am that way on principle. It doesn’t matter if a person is the head of a Mafia/Government who affects millions of people, or is just a simple, if prolific, Frihost poster who doesn’t have much effect -- if <a person> promotes Intrusion, Invasion, and Initiation of force, then any freedom-loving person is going to be anti-<that-person>.
But, unfortunately, I am not in a crowd.
You, S3nd K3ys, for your own reasons, support the stealing of people’s earnings in the form of taxes and other confiscatory methods to fund a war and a leader (Bush) that you support. If you have any principles, they include stealing and Infringements on people and their property.
And you are in a crowd on that, as there are many other people who support the same things as you.
But, let’s switch to looking at the people who are anti-war and anti-Bush. The majority of them also support “the stealing of people’s earnings in the form of taxes and other confiscatory methods”. It’s just that they want to have the Mafia/Government spend those stolen goods on the pet projects that they support (e.g., National Endowment for the Arts, Socialist System of Healthcare, Welfare Projects which keep the Poor impoverished). And they would prefer a different aggressor Mob Boss (e.g., Kerry, Clinton). These people are in their own very large crowd. And, likewise, if they “have any principles, they include stealing and Infringements on people and their property”.
If we look at the entire crowd that supports “the stealing of people’s earnings in the form of taxes and other confiscatory methods”, then it’s going to include your pro-war, pro-Bush crowd as well as most people who are anti-war and anti-Bush. Oh man, that is one gigantic crowd! 
On the other side of the table of that gigantic crowd, there is only a miniscule number of people in my teeny-weeny group who does not support any stealing for any reason.
I would be very pleased if you would come to decide that you will renounce these I-concepts: Intrusion, Invasion, Infringements, and Initiation of force.
But I would be extremely Impressed if you would be brave enough to leave your gigantic crowd and join my little group. Only the truly tough can handle not being part of such a gigantic crowd as you are currently in.
__________
[I have agreed to not rainbox posts to S3nd K3ys.]Before Saddam Hussein came to power, the US backed and supported one of the most brutal regimes in the area, the Shah of Iran, because it was a way to have bases, oil, and power in the mideast to counter Iraq ( if my enemy is your enemy then we are friends mentality!!) We know what happened to the Shah and the hostages. We are still dealing with the aftermath. We gave Saddam Hussein weapons, training ( we brought him and some of his officers to the US for training!!) and we gave him government loans ( money from the taxpayers) to pay for the arms we were giving him. With these weapons he killed thousands of Iranians and as a bonus, killed and oppressed his own people. Iranians were killed with support from the US through Saddam Hussien, why wouldn't they be pissed off at us. We claim that the war is not about oil or money or Islam but I don't see us invading other countries in South America, Asia or Africa, that have leaders who are just as brutal as Hussein was. It stands to reason that people in countries like Iran feel threatened when we have people like Cheney and Bush making threats about the axis of evil or that the US will not let Iran build have a nuclear weapon. I don't think we want them to have a nuclear weapon either but when we refuse to talk to them directly, it makes it a little hard to put all of the blame on them.
