Here's another note I wrote on Facebook. Enjoy! Remember, I love feedback! :)
Our present administration seems to have an odd obsession with the elimintation of terrorists across the globe. Let me ask this... how do you destroy an ideal? How are we supposed to break the will of the people to fight us? That would require us to torture them and beat into their heads that they cannot and will not win. It would require us to annihilate their religion and all their present culture. Essentially, it is impossible and completely unethical. It's the same situation we faced in Vietnam. Not only can we not force change upon them, it is hard to identify who it is that we are actually fighting. In Vietnam we had trouble identifying the Vietcong because they looked exactly like the villagers we were trying to protect. Then, when the night came, they would emerge from their homes with guns and fight us. We cannot win in Iraq, or anywhere we try to fight terrorists on there turf. Their entire infrastructure is hidden and underground.
Yet, there is a solution. Let them come to us. Allow them to be the aggressors and show themselves as such. Then, we can respond with appropriate action. In the mean time, we should concentrate on securing our borders and establishing sound immigration policy. Therefore, we should withdraw all our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., immediately, except to protect U.S. embassies in those countries. If we remove our soldiers, they have nothing to target, and therefore they are forced to come to us if they wish to fight. Then, the war is on our ground, and we gain the advantage.
Aside from the military strategy, there is another answer to terrorism. But first, we must ask the question, what is the goal of a terrorist? Quite simply, to terrorize, or to instill fear through acts of extreme violence and oppression. It is not possible for them to oppress us as they do not possess the military might, nor are they in control of our government (at least, I would hope not, haha). So they must resort to acts of extreme violence to inflict fear upon us. The moment we stop fearing them, they lose. They will have failed and we can claim victory. There is no need to fear terrorists, whether or not they achieve an act of extremism, like destroying the Twin Towers. We do not need to fear. Why? Because we are the United States of America, and we will always overcome. We as a nation have grown from a British colony who was oppressed, to the worlds last Superpower. There is no way that some tiny group of radicals can bring us down unless we let them. I heard a great quote once that I think is very appropriate to this topic...
"All men will fall down, the question is, how high will you bounce back?"
This is America, and we will always bounce back. The question is, how high?
Iraq is all about oil. Iraq had no terrorists - it sure does now.
The fear card has been played and replayed and now Giuliani is picking up the call and telling us to be afraid.
I want a president that restores America's decency and integrity, and puts us on a path to energy independence so we don't need to go to war for oil.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Stupid war on terror??
You people kill me. Do you not realize that there are people who would kill you and your family because you wont/dont worship Alla???. How do you plan to handel this issue?. Hugging trees dosent make them ok with you.
There are and have been people in this country who have had to make tough decisions. Im not ok letting radicals move into my neghborhood and car bombing my kids school because you live in a fantasy world..
Don't get down on the guy too hard now, I mean all he is saying is that if we hadn't been fighting this StUpId "War on Terror" or whatever before 9/11 then we wouldn't have created the terrorists who attacked us. Isn't that obvious.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/Dusto/Photos/HeresYourSign.jpg
I hope this was meant to be sarcastic. When was it that we were fighting a war on terror prior to 2024? Is this the Ron Paul school of thought? Are we talking about the Whisky Rebellion? The gulf war was meant to help Kuwait. The Iran Contra affair was attempting to fix what Carter and Vance chose not to engage. Grenada, which has nothing to do with terrorists, was to free Americans that could have become hostages. The Crusades started nearly four hundred years after Mohammad gave his edict of convert or die... I am confused.
The reason you are confused is because you are both uninformed and misinformed. It is not your fault however, if the only place you got info on Gulf War I, Iran Contra, Grenada and almost anything else for that matter was ABCBSFOXMSNBCNPR and almost all major newspapers you don't know anything but you are highly susceptible to having been brainwashed into believing a pack of lies.
The internet is a great place to research all of the above. Do a little research whenever anyone presents you with their version of the facts that you diagree with and come back informed and ready with some evidence to confirm or deny their version of the facts.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and expose the MSM!
This comment has been moved here.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger132.html
By Jacob C. Hornberger
An excerpt:
Hitler’s war on terrorism
One of the most searing events in German history occurred soon after Hitler took office. On February 27, 1933, in what easily could be termed the 9/11 terrorist attack of that time, German terrorists fire-bombed the German parliament building. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Adolf Hitler, one of the strongest political leaders in history, would declare war on terrorism and ask the German parliament (the Reichstag) to give him temporary emergency powers to fight the terrorists. Passionately claiming that such powers were necessary to protect the freedom and well-being of the German people, Hitler persuaded the German legislators to give him the emergency powers he needed to confront the terrorist crisis. What became known as the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to suspend civil liberties “temporarily,” that is, until the crisis had passed. Not surprisingly, however, the threat of terrorism never subsided and Hitler’s “temporary” emergency powers, which were periodically renewed by the Reichstag, were still in effect when he took his own life some 12 years later.
Is it so surprising that ordinary German citizens were willing to support their government’s suspension of civil liberties in response to the threat of terrorism, especially after the terrorist strike on the Reichstag?
During the 1930s, the United States faced the Great Depression, and many Americans were willing to accede to Roosevelt’s assumption of massive emergency powers, including the power to control economic activity and also to nationalize and confiscate people’s gold.
During the Cold War, the fear of communism induced Americans to permit their government to collect massive amounts of income taxes to fund the military-industrial complex and to let U.S. officials send more than 100,000 American soldiers to their deaths in undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Americans have been more than willing for their government to infringe on vital civil liberties, including habeas corpus, involve the nation in an undeclared and unprovoked war on Iraq, and spend ever-growing amounts of money on the military-industrial complex, all in the name of the “war on terrorism.”
Read the entire article to see the similarities to today.
We know how much better off Germany and the German people were after believing a pack of lies, don't we?
Is their any difference between the Enabling Act of Germany and the Patriot Act of the US?
Whats your point?. We should ignore the Muslim extremists. Or we should fight them as we did the german extremist?.
The crowd in the White House and their enablers in the Congress are much more of a threat to America, our values and our freedom than muslim extremists.
Not all of them are bad guys, the trick is to separate them and show the bad guys the door, tell them
the partys over and thanks for coming. The big question! How do we accomplish this goal?
I said before that, if it happend that extremists are in our country killing familys, I would stand by my neighbors.
You are on your own.
Editorial
NY Times
Published: July 18, 2024
It had to happen. President Bush’s bungling of the war in Iraq has been the talk of the summer. On Capitol Hill, some of the more reliable Republicans are writing proposals to force Mr. Bush to change course. A showdown vote is looming in the Senate.
Enter, stage right, the fear of terrorism.
Yesterday, the director of national intelligence released a report with the politically helpful title of “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,” and Fran Townsend, the president’s homeland security adviser, held a news conference to trumpet its findings. The message, as always: Be very afraid. And don’t question the president.
Certainly, the report’s conclusions are disturbing. Nearly six years after 9/11, terrorism remains a huge threat. Al Qaeda has replaced leaders killed or captured by the United States, regrouped in its former home base in the tribal lands on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and is trying to use affiliated terrorists in Iraq “to raise resources and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives.”
If the report is given an honest reading, it is a powerful rebuke to Mr. Bush’s approach to the war on terror. It vindicates those who say that the Iraq war is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism — a fight that is not going at all well.
The administration, however, seized on the report and, through bald political timing, tried to use it to dampen calls for an end to Mr. Bush’s catastrophic war. That required some particularly twisted logic. Ms. Townsend, for example, dismissed a reporter who asked whether the fact that Al Qaeda has regrouped in the area from which it planned the 9/11 attacks suggested that it was a mistake to divert American forces to Iraq. She said Al Qaeda headed by Osama bin Laden and the terrorists in Iraq that use the name Al Qaeda are the same.
In fact, we’ve seen no evidence of that, and none was in the intelligence report, at least the page and a half of conclusions released to the public.
Was there a link before the war between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader in Iraq? Ms. Townsend refused to answer. “This is ground long covered,” she snapped.
Indeed it is. The answer is, “No.” In fact, Mr. Bush’s bungled invasion spawned a new terrorist army and gave it a home base. Now, the report said, those terrorists are the only ones affiliated with Al Qaeda that are “known to have expressed a desire to attack the” United States.
The White House denied that the report was timed to the Senate debate. But the administration controls the timing of such releases and the truth is that fear of terrorism is the only shard remaining of Mr. Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.
This administration has never hesitated to play on fear for political gain, starting with the first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, and his Popsicle-coded threat charts. It is a breathtakingly cynical ploy, but in the past it has worked to cow Democrats into silence, if not always submission, and herd Republicans back onto the party line.
That must not happen this time. By now, Congress surely can see through the president’s fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself.
I cannot believe so many people will not face the fact that this is a religous war declared on
the west in the 80's. They will not stop until we have comformed to Shai law. Wake up.
I have a few problems with our country's reaction to 9/11.
(1) Motivated by fear, too many people were too willing to give up their liberties and let legislation like the Patriot Act pass.
(2) Too many politicians felt the same way and acquiesced to the administration.
(3) We should have concentrated on Afghanistan and not jumped into Iraq at the same time. A big reason why Germany lost in WWII was that they fought a "two-front" war. We are making the same mistake and may soon be adding new "Fronts" (i.e., Iran).
(4) In real-life (a term few politicians are familiar with), if you want to set an achievable goal, you state it in concrete terms that can be measured so that you know when you've succeeded. Defining our goal as "The War on Terror" sets us up for failure. It's too general. When Daddy Bush was president and Iraq invaded Kuwait, he stated his goals clearly and specifically and thus got a huge coalition with UN countries. The war was over nearly as fast as it started and his goals were met. We had measurable results. He didn't try to take on all the issues in the Middle East at once. He focused on the problem at hand. His example was lost on sonny boy.
(5) We need to find better tactics for fighting terrorists. They are using guerrilla tactics, while we are still fighting as if against a formal army.
My brother will soon be going back for his second tour in Iraq. I respect his determination to serve his country wherever it sends him. I don't, however, respect or trust our politicians to make wise decisions when it comes to sending our brave men and women to war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff.
First of all, Jim; I wish your brother a safe return, and to say I am proud of him, as I know you are, and in all Americans presently engaged in fighting terrorism. I am sure he knows what most Americans know, the only way to fight terrorism is to engage it. In fact, the whole purpose of terrorism is not to engage the military might of the opposing country. It really doesn't matter where you engage terrorism, as long as you engage it.
Secondly, the fundamental purpose of a country's military is to step into harm's way when its civilian population is exposed to attack. That's why we have a military. That's why your brother join the military and is willing to go back to fight in Iraq.
Thirdly, Iraq is strategically the right place to be, if there is a right place to be, to fight terrorism because it is on the left flank of Iran. Sometimes being in the right strategic position to threaten a nation will make it change its actions without the need of actually going to war, something no one wants to do with Iran. However, without this US presence, Iran could, and probably will, force the US to invade its territory in order to prop up its theocratic government up when it inevitably looses political support among the Iranian people. Even now we see evidence of this in Iran's support of the proxy war with the US in Iraq and in their recent moderation in their nuclear UN inspection program.
Lastly, Jim, everybody wants peace. We are a peace-loving nation. Our economy depends on peace. It grows when there is peace. But peace always has a price, sometimes a high price. And we must never forget, trading peace for anything less than peace will only result in more war, that is the fundamental fallacy of those calling for a withdrawal from Iraq now before a sustainable peace is achieved.
ex animo
davidfarrar
davidfarrar said: "Our economy depends on peace. It grows when there is peace.
Well, that is totally false. Our country, born of war, has made its reputation on war. We became a world power by attacking Cuba and the Philipines in the late nineteenth century during the Spanish American War. We went to war in Europe to protect our loans in WW I, and our country rebounded from the Depression through the establishment of the military-industrial complex during WW II. So, our country is not really a peace loving country because we are capitalistic and war makes for great business. The current war has helped Bush get out of a tight economic spot as well. This is the history of this country. Even the North benefitted economically through the Civil War. Just prior to that war the South supplied the greatest part of our export economy. After the war the North became dominant in that arena. It is a fallacy to believe that our country desire peace. Maybe citizens like you and I do, but the elite business men understand how to profit from war. I suspect that one of the reasons we attacked Iraq was to boost the economy through the military-industrial complex. Look at all of the subcontractors making a bundle over there. Our military has subcontracted everything from the port-a-poties and mess halls to the security of companies like Black Water. Face the facts; our country thrives on war.
Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I deplore your statement "our country is not really a peace loving country because we are capitalistic and war makes for great business." In no way is war an inherent feature of capitalism. Capitalism is, quite simply, how individuals associate with one another in a free society... it is nothing more than the application of property rights and free association. What you call "capitalism" would best be called mercantilism, or even fascism. The United States has never been a fully capitalistic society, and there is now perhaps less capitalism in the United States than ever before. Capitalism cannot thrive where a bloated and arbitrarily powerful government exists. I argue that war does not enhance the economy of a nation, except in the case of purely defensive war. The militarism of the United States may result in a transfer of wealth to the United States, but this wealth will the concentrated into the hand of special interests. It will not "boost the economy"... it will transfer wealth to special interests at the expense of many. The people thrive during times of peace. The elites thrive during times of war... and at the expense of the people.
You may deplore the statement, but you have to understand the history of this country. I am not saying it is right, just true. Show me evidence of our country prospering during peace time. I can tell you that we were born of war, remained a sovereign country due to war, and became a world power because of war. Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex and his words were prophetic. This war is just too profitable for the elites to get out of it. Read some of Kevin Philips' books. He shows how millionaires made their money on war (I believe it is in Wealth and Democracy). It puts people to work, and it establishes our hegemony in other parts of the world. The Spanish American War established markets that capitalists needed across the globe. World War I left us in the cat-bird seat to feed the European war machines. We profitted on both sides of that war, and then joined to make sure the right side won. WWII helped bring us out of the Depression (I also believe that FDR's programs were working but too slowly for most and they were bound to reach a platau that the war broke through). Suddenly people have jobs. Look how the economy turned around for us with this war. Remember how dire it was before the war? I would like to be idealistic too, but the reality is that this country benefits by war because we are geographically removed from it, but we have the man power to support it and profit from it. And that is the plain truth of the whole bloody matter. I agree that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite. They have highjacked our government. Do you really believe that special interest groups had no role to play in this war? Of course they did. Cheney was the main reason we went into the war. He saw a good chance to make a lot of dough for his freinds. I love that people believe he was objective because he resigned from Haliburton (who cut and ran to Dubai after fleecing the American taxpayer) as if he does not stand to make an incredible pension after his term is up. This is not conspiracy stuff; it is out there in the media if you choose to look for it. Watch some of the book talks on Cspan 2. Read some of the books out there about how Cheney pulled the strings. It is reality.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
"I am sure he knows what most Americans know, the only way to fight terrorism is to engage it."
Is this the majority wants the Iraq War to continue? Because it's not 2024 anymore...
"It really doesn't matter where you engage terrorism, as long as you engage it."
This attitude is precisely why Americans are seen as ignorant in large portions of the world...
"Thirdly, Iraq is strategically the right place to be"
I won't argue this, as long as you realize that it is strategically located with regards to controlling the oil supply of the Middle East, not for fighting terrorism.
"However, without this US presence, Iran could, and probably will, force the US to invade its territory in order to prop up its theocratic government up when it inevitably looses political support among the Iranian people. Even now we see evidence of this in Iran's support of the proxy war with the US in Iraq"
So Iran will force the US to invade itself (I guess)in order to prop up its theocratic regime, which is in danger of losing its support? Where to begin? Only the US could "force" itself to invade Iran. In that event, we would NEVER "prop up" the theocratic regime. The theocratic regime in Iran EXISTS because we tried and failed to prop up the Shah, prompting the instability which led to the fundamentalists taking over. As for the inevitability of the current regime losing power, you're right. Inevitably, when our troops are no longer perched to invade Iran, the regime's anti-American stances will lose popularity. There is plenty of support for US culture there, especially among the youth of the country, but there is next to no support for US troops on Iranian soil. Do you think Iranians look at Iraq and think- we can't WAIT to live like that!
As for Iran's support of the proxy war in Iraq, dig a little deeper. What Iran supports is the Shiite population of Iraq (the majority) being in power. Most likely they want this because it was the Sunni led minority government of Saddam Hussein that it had the long war with. One of the reasons for that war was Saddam's suppression of the majority Shiite population of Iraq. Of course, Sunnis are the majority of Muslims on the whole, and many Sunni led countries (Saudi Arabia springs to mind again)aren't really comfortable with Shiite control of Iraq. This would leave two (Iran and Iraq)of the largest oil producing states in the hands of the Shiites. While I don't doubt that some monetary support for the "insurgency" in Iraq comes from Iran, I know that the majority of it comes from Saudi Arabia(ns). As do most of the suicide bombers.
"The Boston Globe conducted an extensive review of where U.S. servicemen had been killed in Iraq throughout the war. They found that over 60% of U.S. fatalities had taken place in Sunni controlled provinces, while only 4% occurred in Shiite provinces." link in post below
If Iran were supporting a proxy war, they would support the Shiites, not the Sunnis. That 4% shows that the Shiites, if they are involved in a proxy war at the behest of Iran, aren't very effective. This goes back to the earlier comment. It DOES matter where you engage terrorism, and where it comes from. Moreover, it matters very much that you understand WHO you are fighting.
"We are a peace-loving nation. Our economy depends on peace. It grows when there is peace."
Near as I can tell, our troops have been engaged in fighting on foreign soil almost every single year since Pearl Harbor. We say we love peace as citizens, but our government's idea of peace is drastically different from mine, although perhaps not yours. We use words like "invasion" and "occupation" without stopping to think that these concepts are inimical to peace. Also, there has been a growth (theoretically at least) in the US economy since the War on Terror began. You might argue that it hasn't "trickled down", but war is good for big business, and big business is good for Wall Street. My point is that it also grows (and in some cases much, much faster) during wartime.
Hope you gained some insight here
JT
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The fact about the deaths in Sunni held lands, while not surprising, is a higher number than I would have suspected. Although I think the 4% is probably supposed to be a 40%. I think the only area that would have such a low death rate would be the Kurdish lands.
As far as Iran goes, I think the point he was trying to make was that if we were to pull out, it would leave a power vacuum in the country. Sunni's would raise a ruckus, and the Shi'ites would look to their big cousins to the east. Iran would no doubt intervene, because it makes them look good to their own people. They are losing control, slowly but surely, and it would be a political godsend if they were given the chance to give peace to Iraq. That peace would be at the expense of every other ethnic and religious group in Iraq, but that is the glory of a state-run media system. So what he is trying to say is, in essence, we cannot cut and run. If we do that, and leave a weakened Iraq, it will destabilize the region. And, that is not only bad for our supply of oil, but for our strategic allies in the area, namely the Sunni countries of Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Those countries are very afraid of a Shi'ite controlled theocratic state on their doorstep, especially one who outnumbers all of the gulf countries. The fear that the Sunni states have of an Iraq-Iran state is a large reason why Saddam was supported by the U.S., and a large reason why we didn't take the war to Iraq in 1991.
Actually, the figure is 4%. Left out of the percentages is Bagdhad, as it has a mixture of Sunni and Shiite that is difficult to calculate. It is all in the link at the bottom, if you want to check it out. Here it is again.
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
If you followed the link, you might understand why I'm not interested in our Saudi "allies." If you didn't, I'll just say that between the two theocracies- Saudi Arabia and Iran- I don't have much of a preference. I certainly don't need to join the fascist crescendo pointing out (and exaggerating) what a threat Iran is, though. That is the MSM's job, and they do it quite well.
As for the power vacuum part: the USA created that power vacuum, which exists right now. Irregardless of how you feel about our current failures, you cannot deny that in the past the USA has worked to fill that power vacuum between Iran and Israel (or the Sunni "allies"). In fact, the guy who was executed for crimes of war (Saddam) was funded by the USA in the Iran/Iraq war. We provided him with support and weapons to fight the Iranian menace back then, a fact conveniently looked over when talking about his genocide against the Kurds (with our backing at the time). The power vacuum WILL be filled by Shiites, if there is to be any legitimacy in Iraq. They are the majority. However, I do not think that Iraq is in its heart anything but secular. That was one of the benefits (gasp!) of Saddam Hussein's leadership. The other major benefit, of course, was that he was able to brutally suppress the elements of unrest the USA is currently suppressing, all the while keeping the USA's image nice and clean in the matter. The USA has set up a "democracy" in Iraq now, and I see no reason for the Shiites to deviate from a representative system in which they theoretically hold the majority of the power. While I anticipate the Iraqi government of the future to be friendly with Iran (which might improve stability in the region, no?), I highly doubt that they would cede their sovereignty to priests in Iran.
Either way, I do not agree with the concept that the US Army's presence in Iraq is necessary to prevent Iranian conquest of Iraq. Its presence in Iraq only exacerbates the tension in the area, which is quite likely the reason they actually are there. The Bush administration would love a chance to invade Iran to prove their strength, to mirror your comments on Iran. Keeping the US army on Iran's doorstep is the best way to move towards this goal. That this move would have (further) disastrous on global security is barely considered. To finish up, I appreciate your agreement with what I said, but urge you to drop the "cut and run" idea from your vocabulary. War has always had far more losers than winners, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably trying to sell you a war. To listen to those same people (the ones who got us into this mess) tell you that you need to stay in a country they obviously NEVER understood is the height of folly. If "cutting and running" involves following the letter of international law, ceasing our meddling in a foreign country, and stopping our soldiers from dying in a war that will never have the "desired" outcome, then by all means let us "cut and run". To put it another way, lets' hold our "leadership" accountable for an illegal, unjust war of aggression and tell the world that the USA will no longer tolerate its "leadership" acting as if the international laws past congresses ratified are toilet paper. Just a thought.
Yes, I agree that the goal is peace. Peace for ALL occupants of this small clod of dirt floating in space we like to call "EARTH."
But there are others that use their philosophies and energies for hatred. Hatred, for several (Serbs, Croats; Sunni, Shia; Israelis, Palestinians) has been passed down for centuries by grandfathers telling children, at an early age, whom to hate, whom to kill. Early on, they fought for the high ground or the territory closer to water, whatever collective goal one faction decided to want or need to sustain their existence.
As the world became smaller, by land becoming crowded, the hate continued and the tribes and factions were forced to live closer to one another, making escalated conflict inevitable when hatred prevented sharing of common needs.
When things become smaller, behavior in those smaller spaces requires more basic rules (ask me for enhancement or further explanation if required). Two Hundred and thirty years ago a landmass was populated by those, mostly, rejected from the territories they occupied. As the populace became denser and the space smaller, certain enlightened ones came together to create a new form of infrequently used philosophy to encourage tolerance and control the consequences of hatred. The result was the Constitution. We are not perfect yet, but there are solid examples of diverse groups getting along and successfully making progress to share nicely. Both, or all, factions reaping the benefits of their cooperation and harmony. The example was obvious for all watching that it can work and we can evolve and grow in the absence of hatred. Several have chosen to ignore the example and continue their hatred, not allowing for any flexibility in their group or tribal perception of survival. The All or Nothing approach requires the elimination of the sharing faction. Simplistic? Yes! True? Yes, again!
When a faction, tribe, group or whatever separate class opts to use mass murder as a tool of survival, then the opposing sides must act to survive. However, in order to stop the murder and mayhem, we must employ the strategies that work effectively.
For this conflict, the war on terror, the only thing is to fight it with its own tactics and strategies. Terror with terror. Fire with fire, call it what you will. There are two approaches to this problem if we are indeed going to stop it. One, remove the reasons for hate. Two, Remove the haters.
If we waged a war on terror with terror, it is just possible that we may motivate an enlightened leader of those opposed to understand the folly of their continuance of the present strategy. Convinced that their course of action will lead to extinction may just get them to change their approach. If not, then extinction can be arranged for those that can only solve their perceived problems with violence and murder.
Phoenomagus
武士の単語
This is an interesting website which challenges many of the notions that we fight "the War on Terror" to win it..You can get most of the gist without the .pdfs if you're short on time.
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
Why is it that Saudi Arabia gets a free pass in the "War on Terror"? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, yet we're not attacking there. When all of our flights were grounded that day, the only people flying out of here were Saudis, some of them named bin Laden. That shouldn't be news to most, but its interesting, no? Our stance towards the Saudis makes you wonder if the "War on Terror" is about finding nations which harbors terrorists (the Saudis obviously do)or a guise under which the whims of powerful interests operate. Personally, I'm quite sure its the latter.
For example- Why are we even friends with the Saudis in the first place? They are a Theocratic Monarchy. This is a blending of the two systems most inimical to our concept of representative government. Sure, they have oil, but so does Iran. No Iranians were involved in 9/11 (or Iraqis, for that matter). If this event was our "mandate" to send troops to the Middle East, we picked the wrong country, as we all know by now. And yet still Saudi Arabia gets a pass.
I can understand Bush wanting to protect the Saudis. I don't condone it, but why is it that there is no outcry in the media. i understand that the media has its own agenda, but why is there no outcry amongst the people? That's what I'm after here. How do all of us collectively dismiss the facts we have been given (whether you believe them or not) in this case? Saudis funded and carried out 9/11 more than any other group of foreign nationals. This is what I'd like to debate.
For starters, the Saudi regime is as oppressive or moreso than Iran's. I don't think anyone could doubt this. But shouldn't we examine why Iran is Operation Next and the Saudis (who are responsible for most of the suicide bombers in Iraq killing our troops right now) are our allies? Is it just the media propaganda?
To me, this goes to the very heart of our commitment to spreading "Democracy" abroad, which is supposedly part of the "War on Terror". Is it any wonder people around the world doubt our ideals when we continue to prop up this oppressive Monarchy in the name of stability?
Phoenomagus - you have a skewed view of facts - THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ - before we invaded - change your station from Fox.
Jtrem - you are right on. I believe we will pay dearly for propping up the Sauds - the royal famiily parties on the Riviera - think the religious wackos don't know that? And more hypocrisy from Bush - "democracy" - yeah, the Sauds want to hear about democracy..... When the people revolt in Saudi Arabia, it'll become another Iran and we'll be hated for propping up the Sauds like we did the Shah.
It's all about oil. The Saudis give us their oil so they can do no wrong. Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iran but you don't hear about Pakistan - because Pakistan has no oil.
If it were really about terrorism, we'd have stuck to Afghanistan and stayed after Bin Laden, but no oil in Afghanistan.....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Quicksilver- Seems a skewed view is common. After careful self-review of my post, seem I never mentioned, hinted, or implied any specifics of global location. I did highlight traditional behavior of the peoples in the tribes of the western Asian continent. Tribal hatred has yet to be resolved in those areas, just ask an Albanian.
But I do agree that its mostly about oil- not the resource-but the profits. Of course it is also about arms and the arms profits. To keep those profits high we change allies when it suits us. This keeps the war machine going and the money flowing. We will continue to find those that hate us and switch sides if they don't hate us enough, or purchase our resources.
We've had Bin-Laden and failed to execute the mission. Why??? Former Foes make the best allies, it seems.
Which information source is your remote stuck on?
Phoenomagus
武士の単語
We all seem to love Ronald Reagan. Why? He was easily understood and his approach to issues was basic common sense.
WE ARE AT WAR. WHY? Terrorism and oil and WE DO NOT want to live with the fear of religious fanatics.
If you have any doubt about the magnitude of the issue, I think you are in fantasy world( I'm being kind ).
If we continue as a politically divided country, we will lose. Major decisions have been made and implemented. Whether we like them or not we must go forward. What is the common sense approach to where we are?
1.) We must support those decisions that have been made. We do not have to agree with them. WE must continue to debate the issues . 2.)At the same time we need to identify alternatives and stradegies that a positive majority will support. Criticism without positive recommendations is worthless.
I totally disagree. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and is all about oil. I do not support American Imperialism.
I am not in fear of religious fanatics from the mideast - and I watched the 2024 attacks from across the Hudson river and could hear the roar as the towers fell - but religious fanatics who want to control the US do alarm me.
I do think we need to address the perversion of religion as part of the entire civilized community - we are not the only country facing the problem.
The best strategy for the US is to aim for energy independence so we aren't able to be held hostage to an oil embargo, and we stop feeding petro-dollars to fund extremists. Our wide-open borders need to be secured. We need to re-join the world community as a member, not a bully.
Invading and occupying an arab country gives arabs just cause to want revenge on us.
I do not agree that we need to support wrong decisions - the decision to invade Iraq was based on fear, deception, and outright lies.
Reagan was an actor and had a better script writer than George has. I do agree common sense has been absent.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Iraq was feel good foreign policy that was tied to no cogent Long-Term Strategy. They willy nilly dismissed the military war-gaming and State BIR Intel. I'm all for taking out Saddam - was the worst of the worst and would have been for decades if we didn't and he would have killed millions more. But HOW we did Iraq is the question we need to asnwer and Bush blew it big time and largely due to a lack of a cogent consistent well thought-out Grand Strategy.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Iraq war could have turned out very differently except for Rumsfeld & Bremer. Their ignorance and arrogance created the mess we're in. Had Powell and Jay Garner been in charge Iraq would likely not be the morass it is now.
The ineptness with which the war was conducted only makes its imperialist oil motive all the more tragic for those lives lost. I read that people selected for non-military posts in Iraq were grilled on their ideology - whether they were neo-con enough - not whether they were qualified. We see the result.
Funny how you say Saddam was worst of the worst - he was good enough for Rumsfeld to shake hands with and give weapons to when he invaded Iran.
It's indicative of this administration - never before have I seen such corruption, deceit and hypocrisy coupled with such incompetence. Nixon was bad, but at least he was competent. Just look at Gonzales.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Quick I agree with your first 2 sentences and the incompetency thing, but that is about it. Saddam was the worst and we made a key mistake by thinking that the enemy of our enemy is Always our friend. Saddam was our friend back then in the 1980s esp visavi the growing Shiite'Iranian pressures, but with Kuwait and subsequent years it was clear that he was jobbing us and the world and his people. Bush did call him on it albiet so incredibly incompently. And Yes Powell and Garner would not have allowed such incompetency if they were in charge.
I'm off on vacation to Iowa to see the butter cow (State Fair) and the Iowa Straw poll cattle show in Amersso I'll be out of touch a bit. I'll pass the Unity word!! Cheers! Milligan
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
See if you can get a peek at Ron Paul, he will be easy to spot. He will be the guy with the huge crowd but no media!
For Unity08 to succeed, we must all try to free our minds of typical two-party prejudices. We don't want to be like the other parties. To begin, look for policies in which both Dems and Reps can agree. Compromises made within Unity08 should not be made unilaterally. Be positive. No name calling.
There are a lot of delegates here you will never convince to free their mind of past allegiance to their respective party. They will stick around until the candidates are picked and when their party's not on the top of the ticket they will vote their party. It goes back to the rather see their "enemy" lose than their friend win deal. The only viable solution is for U08 to put up the candidates/issues polls, like they said they would, and we can settle on who the U08 candidates are. The "centrist" thing, imo, will never work. Some of the most partisan candidates and candidates who's views reflect only a minority of delegates views are constantly being brandied about as the "best" candidate. The most amazing thing is that some of the delegates here voice a valid solution to a problem with the system but can't bring themselves to propose the candidate who's view most closely matches their own.
At any rate:
The revolution is not being televised or publicly recognized by the MSM but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and get a free country!
Cabse5 and HC-
I, for 1, am encouraged. For the first time, more people are "independent" rather than republican or democrat. Polls show the president's ratings in the toilet, but the democratic congress's rating is in the bowl with him.
I am of the opinion (and I see many here agreeing with me) that both parties are inherently corrupt and there is a minority in each party that are good. The goal is to seek the good from each party and rebuild from there.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
UO8 Reminds me of the tell about the woman who was stranded on her house top during a flood. When some neighbors attempted to get her into a raft she told them no that the Lord was going to save her. Later someone else offered her a ride in a boat but again she refused saying the Lord would save her. Lastly a helicopter attempted to rescue her but again she refused saying the Lord would save her. She eventually drowned and when she came face to face with the Lord she questioned him as to why he did not save her. He replied that he had sent a raft, boat and helicopter and that she had refused them all.
It is the same with U08. Many posters have proposed common sense solutions to some of the major problems facing the country but refuse to acknowledge or offer support to the one candidate who's views exactly match their own.
When the country utterly falls apart and liberty is lost many will lose their lives and like the woman on the house top some will come face to face with the Lord and ask him why he didn't rescue them. He will probably reply, well I sent you Ron Paul.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution our only hope to save us from the flood of lies and deceit that threaten to wash away the USA!
there is that word again in some of the posts on this topic. FEAR! when i see people posting that they and others live in fear of being attacked it makes me wonder what has happened to americans. has our country grown that soft? fear was when we had the cuban missile crisis, when a portion of the world was at risk. but do most people out there live their daily lives worrying about a terrorist attack on us soil. i sure hope not. i am not making light of 911 but as the original post for this thread said we cannot live in fear. have the people of this nation become so soft that we cower at the very mention of a possible terrorist attack. do we tremble when chertoff says he has a gut feeling we might be attacked. do we hide under the bed when it is code orange or whatever the color is for high alert. if so we have lost the battle to the terrorists. this is precisely what they want. our politicians feed of it. corporations feed off of the wars our leaders create to enrich their coffers. all the while they are constantly instilling fear through the media. the media shares responsibility because terrorism is the next best thing to "if it bleeds it leads".
guilliani is running a presidential campaign almost solely on a platform touting him as the guy who can save us from terrorism.
my opinion is we should not have removed saddam. we should not have gone into iraq. we should have placed our military resources where they belong hunting down those responsible for 911 and securing our borders, airports, ports, etc...
perhaps this is a simplistic view of a complicated situation but often the k.i.s.s. method works no matter how complex.
Former Senator Gary Hart (D - Colorado and former Dem. Presidential candidate) tried to warn us of the coming Age of Terrorism back in the 70s and 80s. At that time he discussed various reforms that could be taken in the areas of intelligence, military, energy, and etc. Had he not been discredited with a scandalous romantic laison, we might have been more prepared today.
There appears to be some movement among Republican representatives to try and bring new border measures to Congress. I urge everyone to keep an eye on things and take appropriate action with your representatives. We really should not wait any longer in taking care of first things first.