- This topic has 420 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM #14919
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM #336689
jficquette
ParticipantIts ok if Obama gets our guys killed.
-
January 28, 2009 at 5:19 AM #337492
Anonymous
GuestPresident Elect, Barack Obama has announced a job stimulus plan that is geared towards creating more jobs while providing individual states with much needed funding for highway maintenance projects As we all know, bridges and highways throughout the country are in need of repair and this plan seems to have gained favor among some that have spoken out against previous economic stimulus packages that have been executed thus far.
Jimmy
Car Loans -
January 28, 2009 at 5:19 AM #337823Guest
President Elect, Barack Obama has announced a job stimulus plan that is geared towards creating more jobs while providing individual states with much needed funding for highway maintenance projects As we all know, bridges and highways throughout the country are in need of repair and this plan seems to have gained favor among some that have spoken out against previous economic stimulus packages that have been executed thus far.
Jimmy
Car Loans -
January 28, 2009 at 5:19 AM #337914Guest
President Elect, Barack Obama has announced a job stimulus plan that is geared towards creating more jobs while providing individual states with much needed funding for highway maintenance projects As we all know, bridges and highways throughout the country are in need of repair and this plan seems to have gained favor among some that have spoken out against previous economic stimulus packages that have been executed thus far.
Jimmy
Car Loans -
January 28, 2009 at 5:19 AM #337940Guest
President Elect, Barack Obama has announced a job stimulus plan that is geared towards creating more jobs while providing individual states with much needed funding for highway maintenance projects As we all know, bridges and highways throughout the country are in need of repair and this plan seems to have gained favor among some that have spoken out against previous economic stimulus packages that have been executed thus far.
Jimmy
Car Loans -
January 28, 2009 at 5:19 AM #338033Guest
President Elect, Barack Obama has announced a job stimulus plan that is geared towards creating more jobs while providing individual states with much needed funding for highway maintenance projects As we all know, bridges and highways throughout the country are in need of repair and this plan seems to have gained favor among some that have spoken out against previous economic stimulus packages that have been executed thus far.
Jimmy
Car Loans
-
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM #337018Participant
Its ok if Obama gets our guys killed.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM #337107Participant
Its ok if Obama gets our guys killed.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM #337134Participant
Its ok if Obama gets our guys killed.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM #337222Participant
Its ok if Obama gets our guys killed.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM #336714
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPartypup: It’s probably akin to mentioning to your liberal friends that Clinton was more interventionist than Bush, spent the last two and a half years of his Presidency bombing the living crap out of Iraq (in the largest sustained bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam) and employed a sanctions program (under UN auspices) that killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis and potentially as many as half a million.
It galls leftists to no end when you point out certain “inconvenient truths” like these.
I wonder what Michael Moore, my favorite propagandist after Leni Riefenstahl, is going to say now. Or Bill Maher? Or Jon Stewart? I’d say Al Franken, but he’s gone legit now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM #337043Participant
Partypup: It’s probably akin to mentioning to your liberal friends that Clinton was more interventionist than Bush, spent the last two and a half years of his Presidency bombing the living crap out of Iraq (in the largest sustained bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam) and employed a sanctions program (under UN auspices) that killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis and potentially as many as half a million.
It galls leftists to no end when you point out certain “inconvenient truths” like these.
I wonder what Michael Moore, my favorite propagandist after Leni Riefenstahl, is going to say now. Or Bill Maher? Or Jon Stewart? I’d say Al Franken, but he’s gone legit now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM #337132Participant
Partypup: It’s probably akin to mentioning to your liberal friends that Clinton was more interventionist than Bush, spent the last two and a half years of his Presidency bombing the living crap out of Iraq (in the largest sustained bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam) and employed a sanctions program (under UN auspices) that killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis and potentially as many as half a million.
It galls leftists to no end when you point out certain “inconvenient truths” like these.
I wonder what Michael Moore, my favorite propagandist after Leni Riefenstahl, is going to say now. Or Bill Maher? Or Jon Stewart? I’d say Al Franken, but he’s gone legit now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM #337159Participant
Partypup: It’s probably akin to mentioning to your liberal friends that Clinton was more interventionist than Bush, spent the last two and a half years of his Presidency bombing the living crap out of Iraq (in the largest sustained bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam) and employed a sanctions program (under UN auspices) that killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis and potentially as many as half a million.
It galls leftists to no end when you point out certain “inconvenient truths” like these.
I wonder what Michael Moore, my favorite propagandist after Leni Riefenstahl, is going to say now. Or Bill Maher? Or Jon Stewart? I’d say Al Franken, but he’s gone legit now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM #337247Participant
Partypup: It’s probably akin to mentioning to your liberal friends that Clinton was more interventionist than Bush, spent the last two and a half years of his Presidency bombing the living crap out of Iraq (in the largest sustained bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam) and employed a sanctions program (under UN auspices) that killed in excess of 200,000 Iraqis and potentially as many as half a million.
It galls leftists to no end when you point out certain “inconvenient truths” like these.
I wonder what Michael Moore, my favorite propagandist after Leni Riefenstahl, is going to say now. Or Bill Maher? Or Jon Stewart? I’d say Al Franken, but he’s gone legit now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 8:03 PM #336729
Arraya
ParticipantAnd yet, when I mention these factoids to my *liberal* friends and colleagues, they shrug and say, “Well, we’ve got a war on terror going on, you know?
This is funny in sad way. I’ve been going thru the same things with my supposed anti-war liberal friends about the escalation in pipe-line-istan or is it poppy-lanistan.
I predicted about 6 months ago that suddenly liberals would become pro-war and the main stream conservatives would suddenly start complaining about lack of coherent plan or no exit strategy or something that they would have deemed as anti-troops 2 years ago.
It is possible they could completely loose control of they money situation and the troops may have to hitch a ride home. Surely they will raid every pension and social security before the let that happens though. Hey, world domination is expensive.
-
January 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM #336734Participant
Interesting article in Salon.com from Juan Cole, a leading lefty author, on the potential for Pakistan and Afghanistan to become Obama’s Vietnam. He likens the present situation to the one facing LBJ as he took office following JFK’s assassination in Dallas. He also warns that the present situation in that part of the world, like Vietnam in 1963, could wind up having a life of it’s own, outside of Obama’s ability to control it.
-
January 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM #336750
partypup
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Interesting article in Salon.com from Juan Cole, a leading lefty author, on the potential for Pakistan and Afghanistan to become Obama’s Vietnam. He likens the present situation to the one facing LBJ as he took office following JFK’s assassination in Dallas. He also warns that the present situation in that part of the world, like Vietnam in 1963, could wind up having a life of it’s own, outside of Obama’s ability to control it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/26/obama/%5B/quote%5D
Great article, Allan. I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think? Seriously, when I have these discussions with Democrats now they just sort of stare at me with a blank face, and then when I push them for a response they walk away, mumbling something about not wanting to be depressed.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:26 PM #336755
afx114
Participant[quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]
I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.
Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.
Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM #336775Participant
afx: The US pursued and prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan prior to the handover to NATO forces. The problem was that the NATO forces, by and large, did not want to fight (the exception being the Canadians).
Most of the NATO forces confine themselves to their own areas of operation and do not actively patrol and do not seek out the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in battle.
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM #336795
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.[/quote]No it hasn’t. George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
Saying that Obama is following the same plan laid out by Bush is like saying that a 1 KM Race-Walk with all elderly participants is equivalent to an Olympic Marathon. Are you sure you’re not a right-wing nutjob? You have about the same ability to distinguish between massive differences as a righty.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM #336806Participant
Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).
How many people do you know that are in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now? I happen to know six (four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan). I can tell you, without any fear of contradiction, that the continuing disintegration of Afghanistan and the loss of operational tempo that was sustained during NATO’s assumption of various areas of responsibility was watched closely by Centcom and several operations plans at various troop levels were drawn up.
The operations plans were all contingent upon which units would be available for deployment and how many of the NATO forces would be supplanted by US forces and how long, in terms of sustaining combat operations, those forces would be there.
You DO NOT move entire US Army combat brigades or Marine Expeditionary Units/Forces overnight. A good friend of mine is an LTC with Centcom and we’ve been talking about this on and off for over the last year. I’d wager he has a far better handle, being one of those “boots on the ground” than any of the punditocracy over at HuffPost.
-
January 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM #336866Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM #336881
CostaMesa
ParticipantI don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.
“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM #337211Participant
I don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.
“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM #337300Participant
I don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.
“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM #337326Participant
I don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.
“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM #337416Participant
I don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.
“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”
-
January 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM #336932Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?[/quote]
How about words are words actions are actions. The media has been cuing up the need to increase troop levels for well over a year. We have seen talk from the DOD for 6 months or so about it. So it’s pretty obvious that way before Obama was Prez they were planning on some level to up the troop level in afganistan and bomb pakistan. It’s observable.
So what do we have? We have two verbally different stances and constant fluid OBSERVABLE set of actions over a timeline that conflicts with the distinctly different publicly stated plans. Don’t look were the conjuror does not want you to, it ruins the trick.
Oh, and you can’t forget the Obama’s advisor Brezinski and Gates have written ME policy together back in 2004 for non other than the CFR. Which I am sure is purely coincidental and in no way influenced what Gates did under Bush. Do you really think Obama strategizes these things alone?
“What are you going to believe me or you lying eyes….”
Really it changed, it did it did!
Speaking of Banksters….
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E0DA1638F933A0575BC0A9659C8B63
J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports.J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq.
Operating the bank, the Trade Bank of Iraq, will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq, which has huge oil reserves; foreign bank companies have not operated in the country since a policy of nationalization in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yesterday’s announcement came on the day a car bomb killed a top Iraqi cleric and at least 82 others, underscoring the danger of having a presence in the country.
The trade bank will serve as an intermediary for Iraqi government agencies’ purchases of equipment and supplies from companies based outside the country, Mr. McPherson told reporters in Washington in a conference call from Baghdad.
Wonder how that is working out today
The Bank is already one of the success stories of the country. We have overseen USD 21 billion in trade finance, introduced Visa cards to Iraq and implemented the first banking system in the country (Misys). We are moving into a new phase of helping to finance infrastructure projects, with the first Kurdish power plant as one of our projects and many more to follow. Another priority is a major drive to uplift the Iraqi banking sector, which will be crucial in facilitating the country’s economic and infrastructure development.”
Mr Al-Uzri added: “Our development will require international backing and finance and so we are developing an international presence both in the region and of course in London, the world’s financial centre.”
Pheew, finally some good news from the banking industry.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM #336937
NotCranky
ParticipantYou are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:20 AM #336957Participant
[quote=Russell]You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
[/quote]You have an interesting understanding of how to “take” freedom to somebody. Also, how do you account for the spoils of war being calculated before the war was initiated? I believe they call this motive in legal speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force’s materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force’s records to remain secret.[4][5]
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and United Arab Emirates’ oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.Is wikipedia lying too? Please help explain, my twisted little brain is confused.
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM #336962Participant
C’mon Arraya, you know sarcasm when you see it.
Here is my kid’s bedtime story on the night of the freedom walk,I am sure Allan will make welcome corrections but this exemplifies why they hate us and more on topic, why Obama brings nothing new to the table in the “fight against “Terrorism'”
Posting the article doesn’t mean I have affiliations with any group socialist or otherwise.
Imperialism – Remaking the Middle East
Feature Article by Anne Ashford, May 2003The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq’s new conquerors.
‘I’ll never engage in creating kings again: it’s too great a strain.’ As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921. Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage. George Bush and Tony Blair’s modern day colonial adventure is only the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to shape the Middle East in the interests of the Great Powers.
However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later. British, and later US, support for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an ‘axis of democracy’ spanning the Middle East, postwar Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.
– – – – –
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan shows how imperialist powers and their local clients have used the warring factions of the Kurdish elite for their own ends, while the Kurdish people have paid a heavy price.
Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of western Asia. It has a long history as a frontier between rival empires. The Kurdish regions of south eastern Anatolia cover the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which provide water for Iraq and Syria. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Kirkuk oilfield on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan has a capacity of around 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Britain’s desire to control Kirkuk’s oil saw large areas of Kurdish population added to the new kingdom of Iraq, although the Treaty of Sevres promised a referendum on Kurdish independence. This betrayal provoked Kurdish uprisings in 1923 and 1932 which were brutally suppressed.
Since the 1970s two parties have dominated political life in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won the backing of the traditional Kurdish landowners and sheikhs in the 1960s. The core of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has its roots in a layer of middle class activists who wanted to build a modern nationalist movement.
Despite their bitter rivalry, the KDP and PUK have long followed the same strategy. They have built up substantial armed militias hoping to force concessions over Kurdish autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, while looking to Iraq’s regional competitors and international enemies for support.
For ordinary people in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the driving force behind the nationalist movement has been the increasing brutality of Iraqi rule. This culminated in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. In only six months, Iraqi troops commanded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, wiped out as many as 182,000 people. Thousands died in chemical gas attacks, or were shot and buried in mass graves. At the time, western governments refused to act, claiming that the Kurds had exaggerated the death toll.
During the 1990s the KDP and PUK returned to courting the regional powers in an attempt to dominate Iraqi Kurdistan. KDP and PUK feuding has, as David McDowall puts it, ‘increasingly [driven] each party into greater dependency on, and cooperation with, the aims of their respective external rival sponsors’.
The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of ‘liberation’ and ‘self government’, although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba’athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour. Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, French and British officials encouraged the perpetuation of confessional politics–conveniently playing off Sunni against Shia, and Christian against Muslim, as it suited them. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials–old and new–have always preferred repression. In 1920 British troops put down an insurrection in Iraq, and crushed protests and strikes in favour of independence in Egypt. In the face of this resistance, British colonial officials followed a two-pronged strategy–brutal repression of the mass protests was coupled with a concerted effort to forge an alliance with local elites. Today’s discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree–every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.
The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers. France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century. In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.
While Sharif Hussein’s sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse trading demonstrated that despite their talk of ‘liberating the oppressed’ neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state. And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP’s Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany. As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. ‘Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris…the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves.’
The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq. As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: ‘The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of “the white man’s burden”, a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government.’
Insurrection
Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.
The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq. Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country. Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the �40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated ‘India Office’ policy of direct rule.
Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain’s preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had created a shortlived Arab kingdom based in Damascus. After French troops forced him out of Syria, British officials offered Faisal the crown of the yet to be created Kingdom of Iraq. Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his future subjects. In August 1920 she wrote, ‘Its not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic… I don’t believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety.’
A combination of bribery, threats and political manipulation eventually ensured Faisal’s acceptance. To the strains of ‘God Save the King’–no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem–he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.
A rising tide of nationalist anger in Egypt proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.
A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation’s members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd–Arabic for delegation–and its leader, Sa’ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.
Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt’s working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919. Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class’s entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected as foreigners owned many of Egypt’s key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.
Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state–making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu’ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt’s foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.
The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed–not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.
In Lebanon and Syria–designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement–the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations. The French authorities ejected Emir Faisal and his Arab government from Damascus in 1919. Although Faisal was crowned king of Iraq by the British, nationalist agitation continued, culminating in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria’s religious sects off against each other.
In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France’s most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.
The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq. By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.
Today’s generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shockwaves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.
The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.
– – – – –
A history of intervention
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France parcels out the Middle East between the Great Powers.
1917
Lord Balfour gives British assent to the creation of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.
1948
Creation of the state of Israel after the UN accepts the partition of Palestine.
1953
A CIA-backed coup overthrows a nationalist government in Iran.
1956
British, French and Israeli forces attack Egypt after Nasser nationalises the Suez Canal.
1967
Israel attacks Egypt and Syria with US support
1980
US officials encourage Saddam Hussein to declare war on Iran.
1982
Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to crush Palestinian resistance.
1991
US-led forces expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait after a devastating bombing campaign kills thousands of Iraqi civilians.
2003
US and British forces conquer Iraq.
Comments?
Email [email protected]
Contents
Complete list for this issue
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM #337289Participant
C’mon Arraya, you know sarcasm when you see it.
Here is my kid’s bedtime story on the night of the freedom walk,I am sure Allan will make welcome corrections but this exemplifies why they hate us and more on topic, why Obama brings nothing new to the table in the “fight against “Terrorism'”
Posting the article doesn’t mean I have affiliations with any group socialist or otherwise.
Imperialism – Remaking the Middle East
Feature Article by Anne Ashford, May 2003The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq’s new conquerors.
‘I’ll never engage in creating kings again: it’s too great a strain.’ As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921. Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage. George Bush and Tony Blair’s modern day colonial adventure is only the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to shape the Middle East in the interests of the Great Powers.
However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later. British, and later US, support for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an ‘axis of democracy’ spanning the Middle East, postwar Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.
– – – – –
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan shows how imperialist powers and their local clients have used the warring factions of the Kurdish elite for their own ends, while the Kurdish people have paid a heavy price.
Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of western Asia. It has a long history as a frontier between rival empires. The Kurdish regions of south eastern Anatolia cover the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which provide water for Iraq and Syria. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Kirkuk oilfield on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan has a capacity of around 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Britain’s desire to control Kirkuk’s oil saw large areas of Kurdish population added to the new kingdom of Iraq, although the Treaty of Sevres promised a referendum on Kurdish independence. This betrayal provoked Kurdish uprisings in 1923 and 1932 which were brutally suppressed.
Since the 1970s two parties have dominated political life in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won the backing of the traditional Kurdish landowners and sheikhs in the 1960s. The core of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has its roots in a layer of middle class activists who wanted to build a modern nationalist movement.
Despite their bitter rivalry, the KDP and PUK have long followed the same strategy. They have built up substantial armed militias hoping to force concessions over Kurdish autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, while looking to Iraq’s regional competitors and international enemies for support.
For ordinary people in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the driving force behind the nationalist movement has been the increasing brutality of Iraqi rule. This culminated in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. In only six months, Iraqi troops commanded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, wiped out as many as 182,000 people. Thousands died in chemical gas attacks, or were shot and buried in mass graves. At the time, western governments refused to act, claiming that the Kurds had exaggerated the death toll.
During the 1990s the KDP and PUK returned to courting the regional powers in an attempt to dominate Iraqi Kurdistan. KDP and PUK feuding has, as David McDowall puts it, ‘increasingly [driven] each party into greater dependency on, and cooperation with, the aims of their respective external rival sponsors’.
The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of ‘liberation’ and ‘self government’, although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba’athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour. Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, French and British officials encouraged the perpetuation of confessional politics–conveniently playing off Sunni against Shia, and Christian against Muslim, as it suited them. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials–old and new–have always preferred repression. In 1920 British troops put down an insurrection in Iraq, and crushed protests and strikes in favour of independence in Egypt. In the face of this resistance, British colonial officials followed a two-pronged strategy–brutal repression of the mass protests was coupled with a concerted effort to forge an alliance with local elites. Today’s discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree–every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.
The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers. France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century. In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.
While Sharif Hussein’s sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse trading demonstrated that despite their talk of ‘liberating the oppressed’ neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state. And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP’s Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany. As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. ‘Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris…the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves.’
The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq. As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: ‘The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of “the white man’s burden”, a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government.’
Insurrection
Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.
The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq. Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country. Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the �40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated ‘India Office’ policy of direct rule.
Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain’s preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had created a shortlived Arab kingdom based in Damascus. After French troops forced him out of Syria, British officials offered Faisal the crown of the yet to be created Kingdom of Iraq. Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his future subjects. In August 1920 she wrote, ‘Its not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic… I don’t believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety.’
A combination of bribery, threats and political manipulation eventually ensured Faisal’s acceptance. To the strains of ‘God Save the King’–no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem–he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.
A rising tide of nationalist anger in Egypt proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.
A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation’s members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd–Arabic for delegation–and its leader, Sa’ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.
Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt’s working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919. Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class’s entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected as foreigners owned many of Egypt’s key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.
Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state–making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu’ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt’s foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.
The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed–not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.
In Lebanon and Syria–designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement–the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations. The French authorities ejected Emir Faisal and his Arab government from Damascus in 1919. Although Faisal was crowned king of Iraq by the British, nationalist agitation continued, culminating in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria’s religious sects off against each other.
In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France’s most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.
The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq. By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.
Today’s generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shockwaves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.
The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.
– – – – –
A history of intervention
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France parcels out the Middle East between the Great Powers.
1917
Lord Balfour gives British assent to the creation of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.
1948
Creation of the state of Israel after the UN accepts the partition of Palestine.
1953
A CIA-backed coup overthrows a nationalist government in Iran.
1956
British, French and Israeli forces attack Egypt after Nasser nationalises the Suez Canal.
1967
Israel attacks Egypt and Syria with US support
1980
US officials encourage Saddam Hussein to declare war on Iran.
1982
Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to crush Palestinian resistance.
1991
US-led forces expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait after a devastating bombing campaign kills thousands of Iraqi civilians.
2003
US and British forces conquer Iraq.
Comments?
Email [email protected]
Contents
Complete list for this issue
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM #337379Participant
C’mon Arraya, you know sarcasm when you see it.
Here is my kid’s bedtime story on the night of the freedom walk,I am sure Allan will make welcome corrections but this exemplifies why they hate us and more on topic, why Obama brings nothing new to the table in the “fight against “Terrorism'”
Posting the article doesn’t mean I have affiliations with any group socialist or otherwise.
Imperialism – Remaking the Middle East
Feature Article by Anne Ashford, May 2003The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq’s new conquerors.
‘I’ll never engage in creating kings again: it’s too great a strain.’ As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921. Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage. George Bush and Tony Blair’s modern day colonial adventure is only the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to shape the Middle East in the interests of the Great Powers.
However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later. British, and later US, support for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an ‘axis of democracy’ spanning the Middle East, postwar Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.
– – – – –
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan shows how imperialist powers and their local clients have used the warring factions of the Kurdish elite for their own ends, while the Kurdish people have paid a heavy price.
Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of western Asia. It has a long history as a frontier between rival empires. The Kurdish regions of south eastern Anatolia cover the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which provide water for Iraq and Syria. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Kirkuk oilfield on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan has a capacity of around 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Britain’s desire to control Kirkuk’s oil saw large areas of Kurdish population added to the new kingdom of Iraq, although the Treaty of Sevres promised a referendum on Kurdish independence. This betrayal provoked Kurdish uprisings in 1923 and 1932 which were brutally suppressed.
Since the 1970s two parties have dominated political life in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won the backing of the traditional Kurdish landowners and sheikhs in the 1960s. The core of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has its roots in a layer of middle class activists who wanted to build a modern nationalist movement.
Despite their bitter rivalry, the KDP and PUK have long followed the same strategy. They have built up substantial armed militias hoping to force concessions over Kurdish autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, while looking to Iraq’s regional competitors and international enemies for support.
For ordinary people in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the driving force behind the nationalist movement has been the increasing brutality of Iraqi rule. This culminated in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. In only six months, Iraqi troops commanded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, wiped out as many as 182,000 people. Thousands died in chemical gas attacks, or were shot and buried in mass graves. At the time, western governments refused to act, claiming that the Kurds had exaggerated the death toll.
During the 1990s the KDP and PUK returned to courting the regional powers in an attempt to dominate Iraqi Kurdistan. KDP and PUK feuding has, as David McDowall puts it, ‘increasingly [driven] each party into greater dependency on, and cooperation with, the aims of their respective external rival sponsors’.
The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of ‘liberation’ and ‘self government’, although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba’athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour. Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, French and British officials encouraged the perpetuation of confessional politics–conveniently playing off Sunni against Shia, and Christian against Muslim, as it suited them. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials–old and new–have always preferred repression. In 1920 British troops put down an insurrection in Iraq, and crushed protests and strikes in favour of independence in Egypt. In the face of this resistance, British colonial officials followed a two-pronged strategy–brutal repression of the mass protests was coupled with a concerted effort to forge an alliance with local elites. Today’s discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree–every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.
The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers. France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century. In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.
While Sharif Hussein’s sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse trading demonstrated that despite their talk of ‘liberating the oppressed’ neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state. And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP’s Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany. As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. ‘Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris…the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves.’
The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq. As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: ‘The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of “the white man’s burden”, a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government.’
Insurrection
Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.
The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq. Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country. Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the �40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated ‘India Office’ policy of direct rule.
Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain’s preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had created a shortlived Arab kingdom based in Damascus. After French troops forced him out of Syria, British officials offered Faisal the crown of the yet to be created Kingdom of Iraq. Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his future subjects. In August 1920 she wrote, ‘Its not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic… I don’t believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety.’
A combination of bribery, threats and political manipulation eventually ensured Faisal’s acceptance. To the strains of ‘God Save the King’–no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem–he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.
A rising tide of nationalist anger in Egypt proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.
A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation’s members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd–Arabic for delegation–and its leader, Sa’ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.
Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt’s working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919. Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class’s entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected as foreigners owned many of Egypt’s key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.
Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state–making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu’ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt’s foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.
The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed–not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.
In Lebanon and Syria–designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement–the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations. The French authorities ejected Emir Faisal and his Arab government from Damascus in 1919. Although Faisal was crowned king of Iraq by the British, nationalist agitation continued, culminating in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria’s religious sects off against each other.
In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France’s most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.
The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq. By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.
Today’s generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shockwaves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.
The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.
– – – – –
A history of intervention
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France parcels out the Middle East between the Great Powers.
1917
Lord Balfour gives British assent to the creation of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.
1948
Creation of the state of Israel after the UN accepts the partition of Palestine.
1953
A CIA-backed coup overthrows a nationalist government in Iran.
1956
British, French and Israeli forces attack Egypt after Nasser nationalises the Suez Canal.
1967
Israel attacks Egypt and Syria with US support
1980
US officials encourage Saddam Hussein to declare war on Iran.
1982
Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to crush Palestinian resistance.
1991
US-led forces expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait after a devastating bombing campaign kills thousands of Iraqi civilians.
2003
US and British forces conquer Iraq.
Comments?
Email [email protected]
Contents
Complete list for this issue
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM #337405Participant
C’mon Arraya, you know sarcasm when you see it.
Here is my kid’s bedtime story on the night of the freedom walk,I am sure Allan will make welcome corrections but this exemplifies why they hate us and more on topic, why Obama brings nothing new to the table in the “fight against “Terrorism'”
Posting the article doesn’t mean I have affiliations with any group socialist or otherwise.
Imperialism – Remaking the Middle East
Feature Article by Anne Ashford, May 2003The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq’s new conquerors.
‘I’ll never engage in creating kings again: it’s too great a strain.’ As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921. Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage. George Bush and Tony Blair’s modern day colonial adventure is only the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to shape the Middle East in the interests of the Great Powers.
However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later. British, and later US, support for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an ‘axis of democracy’ spanning the Middle East, postwar Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.
– – – – –
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan shows how imperialist powers and their local clients have used the warring factions of the Kurdish elite for their own ends, while the Kurdish people have paid a heavy price.
Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of western Asia. It has a long history as a frontier between rival empires. The Kurdish regions of south eastern Anatolia cover the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which provide water for Iraq and Syria. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Kirkuk oilfield on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan has a capacity of around 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Britain’s desire to control Kirkuk’s oil saw large areas of Kurdish population added to the new kingdom of Iraq, although the Treaty of Sevres promised a referendum on Kurdish independence. This betrayal provoked Kurdish uprisings in 1923 and 1932 which were brutally suppressed.
Since the 1970s two parties have dominated political life in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won the backing of the traditional Kurdish landowners and sheikhs in the 1960s. The core of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has its roots in a layer of middle class activists who wanted to build a modern nationalist movement.
Despite their bitter rivalry, the KDP and PUK have long followed the same strategy. They have built up substantial armed militias hoping to force concessions over Kurdish autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, while looking to Iraq’s regional competitors and international enemies for support.
For ordinary people in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the driving force behind the nationalist movement has been the increasing brutality of Iraqi rule. This culminated in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. In only six months, Iraqi troops commanded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, wiped out as many as 182,000 people. Thousands died in chemical gas attacks, or were shot and buried in mass graves. At the time, western governments refused to act, claiming that the Kurds had exaggerated the death toll.
During the 1990s the KDP and PUK returned to courting the regional powers in an attempt to dominate Iraqi Kurdistan. KDP and PUK feuding has, as David McDowall puts it, ‘increasingly [driven] each party into greater dependency on, and cooperation with, the aims of their respective external rival sponsors’.
The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of ‘liberation’ and ‘self government’, although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba’athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour. Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, French and British officials encouraged the perpetuation of confessional politics–conveniently playing off Sunni against Shia, and Christian against Muslim, as it suited them. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials–old and new–have always preferred repression. In 1920 British troops put down an insurrection in Iraq, and crushed protests and strikes in favour of independence in Egypt. In the face of this resistance, British colonial officials followed a two-pronged strategy–brutal repression of the mass protests was coupled with a concerted effort to forge an alliance with local elites. Today’s discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree–every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.
The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers. France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century. In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.
While Sharif Hussein’s sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse trading demonstrated that despite their talk of ‘liberating the oppressed’ neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state. And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP’s Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany. As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. ‘Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris…the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves.’
The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq. As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: ‘The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of “the white man’s burden”, a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government.’
Insurrection
Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.
The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq. Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country. Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the �40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated ‘India Office’ policy of direct rule.
Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain’s preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had created a shortlived Arab kingdom based in Damascus. After French troops forced him out of Syria, British officials offered Faisal the crown of the yet to be created Kingdom of Iraq. Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his future subjects. In August 1920 she wrote, ‘Its not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic… I don’t believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety.’
A combination of bribery, threats and political manipulation eventually ensured Faisal’s acceptance. To the strains of ‘God Save the King’–no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem–he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.
A rising tide of nationalist anger in Egypt proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.
A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation’s members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd–Arabic for delegation–and its leader, Sa’ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.
Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt’s working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919. Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class’s entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected as foreigners owned many of Egypt’s key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.
Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state–making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu’ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt’s foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.
The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed–not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.
In Lebanon and Syria–designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement–the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations. The French authorities ejected Emir Faisal and his Arab government from Damascus in 1919. Although Faisal was crowned king of Iraq by the British, nationalist agitation continued, culminating in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria’s religious sects off against each other.
In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France’s most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.
The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq. By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.
Today’s generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shockwaves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.
The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.
– – – – –
A history of intervention
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France parcels out the Middle East between the Great Powers.
1917
Lord Balfour gives British assent to the creation of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.
1948
Creation of the state of Israel after the UN accepts the partition of Palestine.
1953
A CIA-backed coup overthrows a nationalist government in Iran.
1956
British, French and Israeli forces attack Egypt after Nasser nationalises the Suez Canal.
1967
Israel attacks Egypt and Syria with US support
1980
US officials encourage Saddam Hussein to declare war on Iran.
1982
Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to crush Palestinian resistance.
1991
US-led forces expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait after a devastating bombing campaign kills thousands of Iraqi civilians.
2003
US and British forces conquer Iraq.
Comments?
Email [email protected]
Contents
Complete list for this issue
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM #337496Participant
C’mon Arraya, you know sarcasm when you see it.
Here is my kid’s bedtime story on the night of the freedom walk,I am sure Allan will make welcome corrections but this exemplifies why they hate us and more on topic, why Obama brings nothing new to the table in the “fight against “Terrorism'”
Posting the article doesn’t mean I have affiliations with any group socialist or otherwise.
Imperialism – Remaking the Middle East
Feature Article by Anne Ashford, May 2003The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq’s new conquerors.
‘I’ll never engage in creating kings again: it’s too great a strain.’ As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921. Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage. George Bush and Tony Blair’s modern day colonial adventure is only the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to shape the Middle East in the interests of the Great Powers.
However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later. British, and later US, support for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an ‘axis of democracy’ spanning the Middle East, postwar Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.
– – – – –
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan shows how imperialist powers and their local clients have used the warring factions of the Kurdish elite for their own ends, while the Kurdish people have paid a heavy price.
Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of western Asia. It has a long history as a frontier between rival empires. The Kurdish regions of south eastern Anatolia cover the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which provide water for Iraq and Syria. The US Department of Energy estimates that the Kirkuk oilfield on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan has a capacity of around 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Britain’s desire to control Kirkuk’s oil saw large areas of Kurdish population added to the new kingdom of Iraq, although the Treaty of Sevres promised a referendum on Kurdish independence. This betrayal provoked Kurdish uprisings in 1923 and 1932 which were brutally suppressed.
Since the 1970s two parties have dominated political life in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won the backing of the traditional Kurdish landowners and sheikhs in the 1960s. The core of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has its roots in a layer of middle class activists who wanted to build a modern nationalist movement.
Despite their bitter rivalry, the KDP and PUK have long followed the same strategy. They have built up substantial armed militias hoping to force concessions over Kurdish autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, while looking to Iraq’s regional competitors and international enemies for support.
For ordinary people in Iraqi Kurdistan, however, the driving force behind the nationalist movement has been the increasing brutality of Iraqi rule. This culminated in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. In only six months, Iraqi troops commanded by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, wiped out as many as 182,000 people. Thousands died in chemical gas attacks, or were shot and buried in mass graves. At the time, western governments refused to act, claiming that the Kurds had exaggerated the death toll.
During the 1990s the KDP and PUK returned to courting the regional powers in an attempt to dominate Iraqi Kurdistan. KDP and PUK feuding has, as David McDowall puts it, ‘increasingly [driven] each party into greater dependency on, and cooperation with, the aims of their respective external rival sponsors’.
The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of ‘liberation’ and ‘self government’, although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba’athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour. Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. In Lebanon and Iraq, French and British officials encouraged the perpetuation of confessional politics–conveniently playing off Sunni against Shia, and Christian against Muslim, as it suited them. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials–old and new–have always preferred repression. In 1920 British troops put down an insurrection in Iraq, and crushed protests and strikes in favour of independence in Egypt. In the face of this resistance, British colonial officials followed a two-pronged strategy–brutal repression of the mass protests was coupled with a concerted effort to forge an alliance with local elites. Today’s discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree–every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.
The Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers. France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century. In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.
While Sharif Hussein’s sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse trading demonstrated that despite their talk of ‘liberating the oppressed’ neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state. And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP’s Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany. As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. ‘Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris…the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves.’
The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq. As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: ‘The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of “the white man’s burden”, a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government.’
Insurrection
Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.
The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq. Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country. Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the �40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated ‘India Office’ policy of direct rule.
Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain’s preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had created a shortlived Arab kingdom based in Damascus. After French troops forced him out of Syria, British officials offered Faisal the crown of the yet to be created Kingdom of Iraq. Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his future subjects. In August 1920 she wrote, ‘Its not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic… I don’t believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety.’
A combination of bribery, threats and political manipulation eventually ensured Faisal’s acceptance. To the strains of ‘God Save the King’–no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem–he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.
A rising tide of nationalist anger in Egypt proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.
A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation’s members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd–Arabic for delegation–and its leader, Sa’ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.
Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt’s working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919. Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class’s entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected as foreigners owned many of Egypt’s key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.
Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state–making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu’ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt’s foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.
The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed–not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.
In Lebanon and Syria–designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement–the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations. The French authorities ejected Emir Faisal and his Arab government from Damascus in 1919. Although Faisal was crowned king of Iraq by the British, nationalist agitation continued, culminating in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria’s religious sects off against each other.
In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France’s most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.
The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq. By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.
Today’s generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shockwaves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.
The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.
– – – – –
A history of intervention
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France parcels out the Middle East between the Great Powers.
1917
Lord Balfour gives British assent to the creation of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.
1948
Creation of the state of Israel after the UN accepts the partition of Palestine.
1953
A CIA-backed coup overthrows a nationalist government in Iran.
1956
British, French and Israeli forces attack Egypt after Nasser nationalises the Suez Canal.
1967
Israel attacks Egypt and Syria with US support
1980
US officials encourage Saddam Hussein to declare war on Iran.
1982
Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to crush Palestinian resistance.
1991
US-led forces expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait after a devastating bombing campaign kills thousands of Iraqi civilians.
2003
US and British forces conquer Iraq.
Comments?
Email [email protected]
Contents
Complete list for this issue
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:20 AM #337284Participant
[quote=Russell]You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
[/quote]You have an interesting understanding of how to “take” freedom to somebody. Also, how do you account for the spoils of war being calculated before the war was initiated? I believe they call this motive in legal speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force’s materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force’s records to remain secret.[4][5]
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and United Arab Emirates’ oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.Is wikipedia lying too? Please help explain, my twisted little brain is confused.
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:20 AM #337374Participant
[quote=Russell]You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
[/quote]You have an interesting understanding of how to “take” freedom to somebody. Also, how do you account for the spoils of war being calculated before the war was initiated? I believe they call this motive in legal speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force’s materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force’s records to remain secret.[4][5]
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and United Arab Emirates’ oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.Is wikipedia lying too? Please help explain, my twisted little brain is confused.
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:20 AM #337400Participant
[quote=Russell]You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
[/quote]You have an interesting understanding of how to “take” freedom to somebody. Also, how do you account for the spoils of war being calculated before the war was initiated? I believe they call this motive in legal speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force’s materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force’s records to remain secret.[4][5]
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and United Arab Emirates’ oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.Is wikipedia lying too? Please help explain, my twisted little brain is confused.
-
January 27, 2009 at 9:20 AM #337491Participant
[quote=Russell]You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
[/quote]You have an interesting understanding of how to “take” freedom to somebody. Also, how do you account for the spoils of war being calculated before the war was initiated? I believe they call this motive in legal speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force’s materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force’s records to remain secret.[4][5]
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq’s, Saudi Arabia’s and United Arab Emirates’ oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.Is wikipedia lying too? Please help explain, my twisted little brain is confused.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM #337265Participant
You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM #337354Participant
You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM #337381Participant
You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM #337471Participant
You are lying Arraya, My son participated in a freedom walk with his kindergarten class last Sept.11. No one would tell my kid that those soldiers were taking freedom to poor Iraqis if it were true that Britain and or the U.S , depending on the which of the last 10 decades or more you consider, have been carrying on an invasion and domination of middle eastern affairs, spoils go to the victor war?
-
January 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM #337260Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?[/quote]
How about words are words actions are actions. The media has been cuing up the need to increase troop levels for well over a year. We have seen talk from the DOD for 6 months or so about it. So it’s pretty obvious that way before Obama was Prez they were planning on some level to up the troop level in afganistan and bomb pakistan. It’s observable.
So what do we have? We have two verbally different stances and constant fluid OBSERVABLE set of actions over a timeline that conflicts with the distinctly different publicly stated plans. Don’t look were the conjuror does not want you to, it ruins the trick.
Oh, and you can’t forget the Obama’s advisor Brezinski and Gates have written ME policy together back in 2004 for non other than the CFR. Which I am sure is purely coincidental and in no way influenced what Gates did under Bush. Do you really think Obama strategizes these things alone?
“What are you going to believe me or you lying eyes….”
Really it changed, it did it did!
Speaking of Banksters….
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E0DA1638F933A0575BC0A9659C8B63
J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports.J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq.
Operating the bank, the Trade Bank of Iraq, will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq, which has huge oil reserves; foreign bank companies have not operated in the country since a policy of nationalization in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yesterday’s announcement came on the day a car bomb killed a top Iraqi cleric and at least 82 others, underscoring the danger of having a presence in the country.
The trade bank will serve as an intermediary for Iraqi government agencies’ purchases of equipment and supplies from companies based outside the country, Mr. McPherson told reporters in Washington in a conference call from Baghdad.
Wonder how that is working out today
The Bank is already one of the success stories of the country. We have overseen USD 21 billion in trade finance, introduced Visa cards to Iraq and implemented the first banking system in the country (Misys). We are moving into a new phase of helping to finance infrastructure projects, with the first Kurdish power plant as one of our projects and many more to follow. Another priority is a major drive to uplift the Iraqi banking sector, which will be crucial in facilitating the country’s economic and infrastructure development.”
Mr Al-Uzri added: “Our development will require international backing and finance and so we are developing an international presence both in the region and of course in London, the world’s financial centre.”
Pheew, finally some good news from the banking industry.
-
January 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM #337349Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?[/quote]
How about words are words actions are actions. The media has been cuing up the need to increase troop levels for well over a year. We have seen talk from the DOD for 6 months or so about it. So it’s pretty obvious that way before Obama was Prez they were planning on some level to up the troop level in afganistan and bomb pakistan. It’s observable.
So what do we have? We have two verbally different stances and constant fluid OBSERVABLE set of actions over a timeline that conflicts with the distinctly different publicly stated plans. Don’t look were the conjuror does not want you to, it ruins the trick.
Oh, and you can’t forget the Obama’s advisor Brezinski and Gates have written ME policy together back in 2004 for non other than the CFR. Which I am sure is purely coincidental and in no way influenced what Gates did under Bush. Do you really think Obama strategizes these things alone?
“What are you going to believe me or you lying eyes….”
Really it changed, it did it did!
Speaking of Banksters….
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E0DA1638F933A0575BC0A9659C8B63
J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports.J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq.
Operating the bank, the Trade Bank of Iraq, will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq, which has huge oil reserves; foreign bank companies have not operated in the country since a policy of nationalization in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yesterday’s announcement came on the day a car bomb killed a top Iraqi cleric and at least 82 others, underscoring the danger of having a presence in the country.
The trade bank will serve as an intermediary for Iraqi government agencies’ purchases of equipment and supplies from companies based outside the country, Mr. McPherson told reporters in Washington in a conference call from Baghdad.
Wonder how that is working out today
The Bank is already one of the success stories of the country. We have overseen USD 21 billion in trade finance, introduced Visa cards to Iraq and implemented the first banking system in the country (Misys). We are moving into a new phase of helping to finance infrastructure projects, with the first Kurdish power plant as one of our projects and many more to follow. Another priority is a major drive to uplift the Iraqi banking sector, which will be crucial in facilitating the country’s economic and infrastructure development.”
Mr Al-Uzri added: “Our development will require international backing and finance and so we are developing an international presence both in the region and of course in London, the world’s financial centre.”
Pheew, finally some good news from the banking industry.
-
January 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM #337376Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?[/quote]
How about words are words actions are actions. The media has been cuing up the need to increase troop levels for well over a year. We have seen talk from the DOD for 6 months or so about it. So it’s pretty obvious that way before Obama was Prez they were planning on some level to up the troop level in afganistan and bomb pakistan. It’s observable.
So what do we have? We have two verbally different stances and constant fluid OBSERVABLE set of actions over a timeline that conflicts with the distinctly different publicly stated plans. Don’t look were the conjuror does not want you to, it ruins the trick.
Oh, and you can’t forget the Obama’s advisor Brezinski and Gates have written ME policy together back in 2004 for non other than the CFR. Which I am sure is purely coincidental and in no way influenced what Gates did under Bush. Do you really think Obama strategizes these things alone?
“What are you going to believe me or you lying eyes….”
Really it changed, it did it did!
Speaking of Banksters….
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E0DA1638F933A0575BC0A9659C8B63
J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports.J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq.
Operating the bank, the Trade Bank of Iraq, will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq, which has huge oil reserves; foreign bank companies have not operated in the country since a policy of nationalization in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yesterday’s announcement came on the day a car bomb killed a top Iraqi cleric and at least 82 others, underscoring the danger of having a presence in the country.
The trade bank will serve as an intermediary for Iraqi government agencies’ purchases of equipment and supplies from companies based outside the country, Mr. McPherson told reporters in Washington in a conference call from Baghdad.
Wonder how that is working out today
The Bank is already one of the success stories of the country. We have overseen USD 21 billion in trade finance, introduced Visa cards to Iraq and implemented the first banking system in the country (Misys). We are moving into a new phase of helping to finance infrastructure projects, with the first Kurdish power plant as one of our projects and many more to follow. Another priority is a major drive to uplift the Iraqi banking sector, which will be crucial in facilitating the country’s economic and infrastructure development.”
Mr Al-Uzri added: “Our development will require international backing and finance and so we are developing an international presence both in the region and of course in London, the world’s financial centre.”
Pheew, finally some good news from the banking industry.
-
January 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM #337465Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?[/quote]
How about words are words actions are actions. The media has been cuing up the need to increase troop levels for well over a year. We have seen talk from the DOD for 6 months or so about it. So it’s pretty obvious that way before Obama was Prez they were planning on some level to up the troop level in afganistan and bomb pakistan. It’s observable.
So what do we have? We have two verbally different stances and constant fluid OBSERVABLE set of actions over a timeline that conflicts with the distinctly different publicly stated plans. Don’t look were the conjuror does not want you to, it ruins the trick.
Oh, and you can’t forget the Obama’s advisor Brezinski and Gates have written ME policy together back in 2004 for non other than the CFR. Which I am sure is purely coincidental and in no way influenced what Gates did under Bush. Do you really think Obama strategizes these things alone?
“What are you going to believe me or you lying eyes….”
Really it changed, it did it did!
Speaking of Banksters….
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E0DA1638F933A0575BC0A9659C8B63
J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports.J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq.
Operating the bank, the Trade Bank of Iraq, will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq, which has huge oil reserves; foreign bank companies have not operated in the country since a policy of nationalization in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Yesterday’s announcement came on the day a car bomb killed a top Iraqi cleric and at least 82 others, underscoring the danger of having a presence in the country.
The trade bank will serve as an intermediary for Iraqi government agencies’ purchases of equipment and supplies from companies based outside the country, Mr. McPherson told reporters in Washington in a conference call from Baghdad.
Wonder how that is working out today
The Bank is already one of the success stories of the country. We have overseen USD 21 billion in trade finance, introduced Visa cards to Iraq and implemented the first banking system in the country (Misys). We are moving into a new phase of helping to finance infrastructure projects, with the first Kurdish power plant as one of our projects and many more to follow. Another priority is a major drive to uplift the Iraqi banking sector, which will be crucial in facilitating the country’s economic and infrastructure development.”
Mr Al-Uzri added: “Our development will require international backing and finance and so we are developing an international presence both in the region and of course in London, the world’s financial centre.”
Pheew, finally some good news from the banking industry.
-
January 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM #337196Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?
-
January 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM #337285Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?
-
January 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM #337311Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?
-
January 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM #337401Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).[/quote]
Allan,
I agree with you that HuffPost is a biased source, but he was quoting Obama, not some HuffPost blowhard. Care to comment on the Obama quote itself?
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM #337135Participant
Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).
How many people do you know that are in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now? I happen to know six (four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan). I can tell you, without any fear of contradiction, that the continuing disintegration of Afghanistan and the loss of operational tempo that was sustained during NATO’s assumption of various areas of responsibility was watched closely by Centcom and several operations plans at various troop levels were drawn up.
The operations plans were all contingent upon which units would be available for deployment and how many of the NATO forces would be supplanted by US forces and how long, in terms of sustaining combat operations, those forces would be there.
You DO NOT move entire US Army combat brigades or Marine Expeditionary Units/Forces overnight. A good friend of mine is an LTC with Centcom and we’ve been talking about this on and off for over the last year. I’d wager he has a far better handle, being one of those “boots on the ground” than any of the punditocracy over at HuffPost.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM #337223Participant
Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).
How many people do you know that are in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now? I happen to know six (four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan). I can tell you, without any fear of contradiction, that the continuing disintegration of Afghanistan and the loss of operational tempo that was sustained during NATO’s assumption of various areas of responsibility was watched closely by Centcom and several operations plans at various troop levels were drawn up.
The operations plans were all contingent upon which units would be available for deployment and how many of the NATO forces would be supplanted by US forces and how long, in terms of sustaining combat operations, those forces would be there.
You DO NOT move entire US Army combat brigades or Marine Expeditionary Units/Forces overnight. A good friend of mine is an LTC with Centcom and we’ve been talking about this on and off for over the last year. I’d wager he has a far better handle, being one of those “boots on the ground” than any of the punditocracy over at HuffPost.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM #337251Participant
Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).
How many people do you know that are in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now? I happen to know six (four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan). I can tell you, without any fear of contradiction, that the continuing disintegration of Afghanistan and the loss of operational tempo that was sustained during NATO’s assumption of various areas of responsibility was watched closely by Centcom and several operations plans at various troop levels were drawn up.
The operations plans were all contingent upon which units would be available for deployment and how many of the NATO forces would be supplanted by US forces and how long, in terms of sustaining combat operations, those forces would be there.
You DO NOT move entire US Army combat brigades or Marine Expeditionary Units/Forces overnight. A good friend of mine is an LTC with Centcom and we’ve been talking about this on and off for over the last year. I’d wager he has a far better handle, being one of those “boots on the ground” than any of the punditocracy over at HuffPost.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM #337340Participant
Breeze: Sorry, but you’re clearly wrong on this and you’re pulling your information from biased sources (HuffPost).
How many people do you know that are in either Iraq or Afghanistan right now? I happen to know six (four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan). I can tell you, without any fear of contradiction, that the continuing disintegration of Afghanistan and the loss of operational tempo that was sustained during NATO’s assumption of various areas of responsibility was watched closely by Centcom and several operations plans at various troop levels were drawn up.
The operations plans were all contingent upon which units would be available for deployment and how many of the NATO forces would be supplanted by US forces and how long, in terms of sustaining combat operations, those forces would be there.
You DO NOT move entire US Army combat brigades or Marine Expeditionary Units/Forces overnight. A good friend of mine is an LTC with Centcom and we’ve been talking about this on and off for over the last year. I’d wager he has a far better handle, being one of those “boots on the ground” than any of the punditocracy over at HuffPost.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM #336836Participant
[quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM #337066Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM #337096Participant
Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM #337111Participant
[quote=Russell]Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve. [/quote]
This thread is a perfect example of the circular firing squad that has become the USA.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM #337121
Enorah
Participant“Kill or be killed” is so 2007.
Can we all move on to collaboration and unity now?
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM #337448Participant
“Kill or be killed” is so 2007.
Can we all move on to collaboration and unity now?
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM #337539Participant
“Kill or be killed” is so 2007.
Can we all move on to collaboration and unity now?
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM #337566Participant
“Kill or be killed” is so 2007.
Can we all move on to collaboration and unity now?
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM #337655Participant
“Kill or be killed” is so 2007.
Can we all move on to collaboration and unity now?
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM #337126Participant
afx: Couldn’t agree more. We now argue over left versus right, Repub or Dem and, in so doing, miss the big picture.
Which is probably exactly the way the powers that be want it.
There is something truly enjoyable about a good, feisty dialogue and something truly hateful about the way discourse (or lack of it) is now conducted.
We’re all Americans, and the safety, security and prosperity of this country includes and involves all of us. Yet here we sit, throwing mud at each other and arguing over something that, in truth, we can do little to control, largely because we’ve so completely submitted to the arbitrary whims of the idiots we elected. And, yeah, that includes Obama.
-
January 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM #337136Participant
I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit. -
January 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM #337191Participant
Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.
It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.
However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.
I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.
The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.
Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.
If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.
-
January 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM #337259Participant
Obviously Allan some of our opinions are matching up. If you think I am labeling conservatives in one broad sweep that is a misinterpretation. You either missed the anger or the sarcasm.
As far as a simplistic view I have said it before and I will say it again, that is a stance you take as an excuse in preparation for your ultimate defense of U.S. correctness at it base. So with no sophistication whatsoever. I agree to disagree on that one.
Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation and judgement calls. You call Israel’s attack a preemptive strike against other Arab armies and I call Israel and U.S Coalition at it’s foundation and act of war and imperial tyrany.
You can dote all you want on the order in which all the little pieces on the cheess board get moved, but if you don’t put it into context in a unbiased fashion you may just be rationalizing. -
January 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM #337303Participant
Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?
Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.
Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?
I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM #337633Participant
Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?
Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.
Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?
I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM #337724Participant
Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?
Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.
Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?
I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM #337750Participant
Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?
Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.
Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?
I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM #337842Participant
Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?
Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.
Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?
I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.
-
January 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM #337588Participant
Obviously Allan some of our opinions are matching up. If you think I am labeling conservatives in one broad sweep that is a misinterpretation. You either missed the anger or the sarcasm.
As far as a simplistic view I have said it before and I will say it again, that is a stance you take as an excuse in preparation for your ultimate defense of U.S. correctness at it base. So with no sophistication whatsoever. I agree to disagree on that one.
Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation and judgement calls. You call Israel’s attack a preemptive strike against other Arab armies and I call Israel and U.S Coalition at it’s foundation and act of war and imperial tyrany.
You can dote all you want on the order in which all the little pieces on the cheess board get moved, but if you don’t put it into context in a unbiased fashion you may just be rationalizing. -
January 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM #337679Participant
Obviously Allan some of our opinions are matching up. If you think I am labeling conservatives in one broad sweep that is a misinterpretation. You either missed the anger or the sarcasm.
As far as a simplistic view I have said it before and I will say it again, that is a stance you take as an excuse in preparation for your ultimate defense of U.S. correctness at it base. So with no sophistication whatsoever. I agree to disagree on that one.
Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation and judgement calls. You call Israel’s attack a preemptive strike against other Arab armies and I call Israel and U.S Coalition at it’s foundation and act of war and imperial tyrany.
You can dote all you want on the order in which all the little pieces on the cheess board get moved, but if you don’t put it into context in a unbiased fashion you may just be rationalizing. -
January 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM #337705Participant
Obviously Allan some of our opinions are matching up. If you think I am labeling conservatives in one broad sweep that is a misinterpretation. You either missed the anger or the sarcasm.
As far as a simplistic view I have said it before and I will say it again, that is a stance you take as an excuse in preparation for your ultimate defense of U.S. correctness at it base. So with no sophistication whatsoever. I agree to disagree on that one.
Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation and judgement calls. You call Israel’s attack a preemptive strike against other Arab armies and I call Israel and U.S Coalition at it’s foundation and act of war and imperial tyrany.
You can dote all you want on the order in which all the little pieces on the cheess board get moved, but if you don’t put it into context in a unbiased fashion you may just be rationalizing. -
January 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM #337797Participant
Obviously Allan some of our opinions are matching up. If you think I am labeling conservatives in one broad sweep that is a misinterpretation. You either missed the anger or the sarcasm.
As far as a simplistic view I have said it before and I will say it again, that is a stance you take as an excuse in preparation for your ultimate defense of U.S. correctness at it base. So with no sophistication whatsoever. I agree to disagree on that one.
Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation and judgement calls. You call Israel’s attack a preemptive strike against other Arab armies and I call Israel and U.S Coalition at it’s foundation and act of war and imperial tyrany.
You can dote all you want on the order in which all the little pieces on the cheess board get moved, but if you don’t put it into context in a unbiased fashion you may just be rationalizing. -
January 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM #337518Participant
Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.
It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.
However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.
I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.
The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.
Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.
If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.
-
January 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM #337609Participant
Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.
It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.
However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.
I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.
The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.
Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.
If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.
-
January 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM #337635Participant
Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.
It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.
However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.
I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.
The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.
Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.
If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.
-
January 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM #337726Participant
Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.
It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.
However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.
I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.
The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.
Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.
If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM #337313Participant
[quote=Russell]I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit.[/quote]
I was not aiming that “kill or be killed” statement at you, Russ.
I agree with you, the government is a reflection/manifestation of our combined energies.
I am saying though, to have what we want means we must stop looking outside of ourselves, our homes, our cities, our states, our countries. We must each of us tend to our own internal issues that keep us separate from one another.
Again, just spouting off to the group, Russ, not aiming at you.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM #337362Participant
Allan we’ve been there already, you are going to present yourself as correct or me as wrong after spouting of an encyclopedia of historical Knowledge. I’ll skip that, thanks.
I don’t care about that. I can draw conclusions with what I have and be no more biased than you are. That has been proven.That said, I have appreciated the challenge to put some of these pieces together.
Enorah, I slipped up in a few places on that post. I should not have thought that you included me in any pro-war sentiment. I have three boys an I feel like this greed based war and our dumbed down and divided ways is going to get them thrown into an abyss.I don’t believe in war heroes, at least not with regards to the big picture in the Middle East, or the superiority of anyone’s God ,so I have no crutches to deal with it. I do really think the balance of power is ridiculously corrupted and Americans by default are as responsible as any group.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #337377Participant
I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM #337402Participant
[quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right 🙂
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM #337412Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right :-)[/quote]
partypup when you say “God” whom are you referring to? If it is Jehovah, well then, that being is one of those war gods I am talking about, in my opinion.
To me God is simply Love, so when I talk about the shift, I see it as one that will happen through our intention and love, not one that will happen because some being who holds itself above us as our creator deems it to be so.
I have had enough of that kind of enslavement.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM #337743Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right :-)[/quote]
partypup when you say “God” whom are you referring to? If it is Jehovah, well then, that being is one of those war gods I am talking about, in my opinion.
To me God is simply Love, so when I talk about the shift, I see it as one that will happen through our intention and love, not one that will happen because some being who holds itself above us as our creator deems it to be so.
I have had enough of that kind of enslavement.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM #337834Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right :-)[/quote]
partypup when you say “God” whom are you referring to? If it is Jehovah, well then, that being is one of those war gods I am talking about, in my opinion.
To me God is simply Love, so when I talk about the shift, I see it as one that will happen through our intention and love, not one that will happen because some being who holds itself above us as our creator deems it to be so.
I have had enough of that kind of enslavement.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM #337860Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right :-)[/quote]
partypup when you say “God” whom are you referring to? If it is Jehovah, well then, that being is one of those war gods I am talking about, in my opinion.
To me God is simply Love, so when I talk about the shift, I see it as one that will happen through our intention and love, not one that will happen because some being who holds itself above us as our creator deems it to be so.
I have had enough of that kind of enslavement.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM #337952Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right :-)[/quote]
partypup when you say “God” whom are you referring to? If it is Jehovah, well then, that being is one of those war gods I am talking about, in my opinion.
To me God is simply Love, so when I talk about the shift, I see it as one that will happen through our intention and love, not one that will happen because some being who holds itself above us as our creator deems it to be so.
I have had enough of that kind of enslavement.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM #337733Participant
[quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right 🙂
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM #337824Participant
[quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right 🙂
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM #337850Participant
[quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right 🙂
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM #337942Participant
[quote=Enorah]I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.[/quote]
From your lips to God’s ears, Enorah. I hope and pray with all my soul that you are right 🙂
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #337708Participant
I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #337799Participant
I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #337825Participant
I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #337917Participant
I agree about the corruption and I feel your sadness about that possible future for your boys.
I see a whole new reality opening up, Russ, one where war no longer is the way, one where the “war gods” who for so long have kept the inhabitants of this planet enslaved with messages of fear and by dimming the light no longer are the ruling class.
Hold your vibration, keep your heart open. We are shifting.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM #337382Participant
Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.
I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.
You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.
This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM #337407Participant
Allan,I think you are drawing a lot of conclusions that are not necessary, unless you take my participation in this blog as an effort to win or lose a debate.I might have done that before but I realize this isn’t the place to try to take things that far.
The history I posted was for the sake of contrast against the concept of a kindergarten “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the governement, the U.S military, U.S military industrial complex and who ever else is motivated to sell patriot lies. I also wanted to show Arraya that I considered his point of view valid and make up for my sarcasm, which was delivered without appropriate warning.
I do think what side you fall in these discussions is a matter of perspective,among many other things which I won’t go into, even though you probably say that bit “tongue in cheek”.I know South Americans who have been much closer to Che than your average American college student, who prefer him to the other alternatives.
I think the moral equivalency argument is a lame attack/defense. Disagreement is pretty normal.It is just not tolerated well when the stakes are made high. You fool yourself into thinking you will win or do win the argument by being on moral high ground too often.
Generally I consider you pretty open minded until you get pushed to a point where your faith in who are the good guys and who are the bad guys gets sufficiently challenged. I am not going to argue about who they are. I don’t think categories like that actually exist on the scale of populations which make up nations or major world religions. I just believe that the balance of power is corrupted in the Middle East and we are the more responsible at this point in history.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM #337437Participant
Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.
I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.
The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.
I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.
Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.
-
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM #337502Participant
Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.
-
January 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM #337542Participant
[quote=Russell]Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry Allen. Russ is penetrating the heart of what justifies violence. The power of myth.
From evolutionary biological perspective our species has had evolutionary successes from short term gain via competition of resources. We also are unique in our ability to deceive ourselves and others. This is a well researched phenomena that has developed from evolutionary successes.
From what I have witnessed over the past 8 or so years since I have been paying attention the US has exemplified these traits. Short term thinking, rapaciousness(good word Allen) and lying. Which would make sense since we have been the most successful at acquiring the most things. Thus being the most successful of our species.
Ah, but what happens when these traits no longer serve us. The rapacious, lying ape must evolve or perish. Human nature or human behavior?
I agree there is a better way. Looking at the state of affairs we may just get a chance to try a new way out in very short order.
-
January 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM #337597Participant
I agree as well, we must evolve
“Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, got to love one another right now”
-
January 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM #337928Participant
I agree as well, we must evolve
“Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, got to love one another right now”
-
January 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM #338019Participant
I agree as well, we must evolve
“Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, got to love one another right now”
-
January 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM #338045Participant
I agree as well, we must evolve
“Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, got to love one another right now”
-
January 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM #338138Participant
I agree as well, we must evolve
“Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, got to love one another right now”
-
January 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM #337692Participant
Rus/arraya: As I said before, history is immutable. As much as I would love to see things evolve, history tells a far different story.
The best book of history I ever read was Thucydides’ “A History of the Peloponnesian War”. This concise little volume contains an unchanging story, for nearly all of the written history that followed was the same tale, only with different actors in different places.
Looking at Athens and Sparta, at the height of their respective power and then watching as they engage in an utter fruitless, sanguinary war of thirty years that bankrupts Athens and opens the door to the autocracy and madness of Alexander the Great is heartbreaking. The story never changes, though. In the 2,500 years that have followed, the story never changes.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Lord Acton.
“History is written by the victor”, Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Treason is simply a matter of dates”, Talleyrand.
“Good guy? Bad guy? I’m the guy with the gun”, Bruce Campbell in “Army of Darkness”.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM #337737Participant
You are going to claim that you wish for something better, evolution, while you personify the saying “if you can’t beat them join them”.Maybe even be a Hero. How is the defect going to evolve away when you are actively supporting the most defective?
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM #337742Participant
Rus: Let me ask you a few questions. You’re a former vet, correct? You pay taxes, correct? You’re not an active protester against US policy in the sense that you’re not out publicly protesting the war(s) and US policy, correct?
If you answer “yes” to these three questions, then you’re also the personification of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. As I said earlier, I agree with some, but not all of our actions, and I understand why we do what we do and why it is necessary.
If you feel so strongly about the way the US conducts policy, and you fear for the safety of your young sons, why do you continue to live here? And, no, that is not a “love it or leave it” question, it is a question of pragmatism.
You want to sit in the comfort of your own home and type away about the madness of it all, but do nothing in terms of active protest. If you are to be taken seriously, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #337941Participant
Allan,
I served in the military because I came from a family that taught me nothing about how to live otherwise.Sounds like we might be pretty similar on that one. I started reading, observing and thinking on this topic and many others, becoming a mild conscientious objector very quickly but stayed in because the only way they let you out is if you say you are a coward or crazy. You know what I am talking about. I was only 18. It was a process and still is. I don’t hate the troops, especially the pawns.It could have been me.You are making some off target assumptions even if you fall short of being completely jingoistic. I am in the U.S. because I believe the parameters under which I live are not going to be perfect anywhere. I pay taxes because while I am here I go to jail if I don’t and I am sure some of them go to good use. If I had a ounce of power I would change the tax code so that I did not have to support the war and all my taxes would go to something else. I would give up any hope of “prosperity” for peace and a hell of a lot less bullshit, instead of codifying greed based violence. I don’t think America has to fall to pieces if that happens.If it does it is our own fault not an excuse to keep killing.I am fighting for my vision of my country what’s the problem with that? Right now it includes bitching about unjust wars and the consequences. I think Ron Paul did that.
As far as my kids go ,well I guess we will work on that one. I want that war will not kill any more children . They will have the right to join a branch military if they wish but I won’t propagandise them and pretend it isn’t what it is or stand by idle while their school or coach or whoever does.
Maybe I have the means to relocate my kids, what about those who don’t? What do I do for those who don’t if I just leave?What do I do as an American if I run off?As a citizen of the world? I can’t help the kids in Palestine but maybe I can help some here. Maybe I am supposed to be here to help FLU keep from getting shipped off to a concentration camp. I don’t believe in running away from problems. Is that the alternative to being “the one with the gun”?I am a truer American than most. I can still recognize what isn’t American, or what isn’t for me to be proud about and say something can’t I?
I don’t owe you any protest.There is no right kind of protester for you Allan, quit trying to make me jump through hoops.No matter what I say here, or do, if I am out proetestin and actually causing a threat to the system, when the time is right you will knock me over the head and put me in a pen, because you understand why it is done.You think my stance doesn’t cost me a lot of money? Anybody want to buy a house with the guy who says most Americans are Fascist by default? That our God isn’t better than anyone else’s?I mean it’s a good time to buy a house. I guess somehow you missed that this is a public place.
In part I do O.K because I am willing to do the work most people set aside for brown people and I live frugally.Not because I am too much of a hypocrite.Nobody can keep a perfect ethics record or be 100% “true to themselves” and survive in a conventional way. Degrees matter to my conscience.
You can’t prove I am wrong so you are going to try to prove I am insincere? What is next, coward, lunatic,seditious traitor, enemy of the people? That’s how it is done under the immutable war design isn’t it? Something immutable should not take so much coercion and propagandizing of the many by so few.
-
January 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM #338036Participant
Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.
I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.
I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.
Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.
America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).
Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM #338237Participant
Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.
“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]
– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend
I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM #338247Participant
Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM #338272Participant
I should quit while I am ahead.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM #338282Participant
Rus: Yup. No point in destroying a perfectly good love/hate relationship.
“Don’t take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive”. Mark Twain.
Have a good one, man. Seriously.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM #338292Participant
You too Allan, The discussion, regardless of the limitations we both impose ,has value from my perspective.
Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day….or was it? -
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM #338307Participant
Rus: I think Rome took about as long as we (America) will to run this thing into the wall.
Look on the bright side: Jamul and Fallbrook are enough off the beaten path to be ignored by the large mobs of angry villagers with pitchforks.
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you? I know that’s a worst case example and it would appear to support my point, but both of these countries wield power and influence in today’s world and far outside their borders. That’s the worldview that informs my approach.
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM #338322Participant
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you?
If I had to choose between the Russians, Chineese and Americans to trust. I would trust none….
I understand this triad of “semi- super power” to “superpower” is the crux for you. I don’t have an answer. I don’t think we need to be doing some of the things we are doing to deal with balance between the three and in fact I think we are probabaly raising the odds that we will find out how “untrustwothy” they are more than helping.
I will say this though. Clean fuel isn’t going to stop us form “protecting” the oil and gas in Iran and Iraq…not until China’s aquisition of those same resources would be a lot more irrelevant than it is today. This would be if the future follows the conventional path.
I am actually sometimes concerned about China and The U.S waging war, or at least some types of war, on the populations of both and other parts of the world, in cahoots. this is just an idea that occurs from time to time. It might be happening already.Anyway You understand where my trust level is at.
On that note I think I’ll go check out 1984 again.
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338342Participant
I dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed Rome and the areas it used to oversee when I visited there a couple years ago. Was the fall of Rome such a bad thing?
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338671Participant
I dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed Rome and the areas it used to oversee when I visited there a couple years ago. Was the fall of Rome such a bad thing?
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338765Participant
I dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed Rome and the areas it used to oversee when I visited there a couple years ago. Was the fall of Rome such a bad thing?
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338792Participant
I dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed Rome and the areas it used to oversee when I visited there a couple years ago. Was the fall of Rome such a bad thing?
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338884Participant
I dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed Rome and the areas it used to oversee when I visited there a couple years ago. Was the fall of Rome such a bad thing?
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM #338347Participant
BTW my foundation for anti-war views is that war is an act of volition.Extrapolating on your comparison of individuals to nations and ruminating on violence; neurotic individuals often have a tendency not to avoid fighting, even when the prospects for civility are almost overwhelming. Their volition is overcome by the defect of being neurotic.
The constructs of nationhood have made nations neurotic and their people neurotic in a way that promotes volition for war.How those constructs got put in to place I am not sure, part of the evolutionary process I guess.Borders are one of them. As the world becomes smaller the idea that we can throw off some of these troublesome arrangements has hope. I certainly don’t think the first round of “globalism” will be a success but maybe the third or fourth or fifth could. By the time it does there will be no borders. This may all be a bunch of malarkey, but worshipping past history, the idea of nations and ancient religions will never get us there. These things also subjugate everything else, even when we pretend they don’t as in these ecumenical,international worship meetings in the Washington Cathedral(or wherever they are held) .
Were we not going to take a break?Yikes
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM #338676Participant
BTW my foundation for anti-war views is that war is an act of volition.Extrapolating on your comparison of individuals to nations and ruminating on violence; neurotic individuals often have a tendency not to avoid fighting, even when the prospects for civility are almost overwhelming. Their volition is overcome by the defect of being neurotic.
The constructs of nationhood have made nations neurotic and their people neurotic in a way that promotes volition for war.How those constructs got put in to place I am not sure, part of the evolutionary process I guess.Borders are one of them. As the world becomes smaller the idea that we can throw off some of these troublesome arrangements has hope. I certainly don’t think the first round of “globalism” will be a success but maybe the third or fourth or fifth could. By the time it does there will be no borders. This may all be a bunch of malarkey, but worshipping past history, the idea of nations and ancient religions will never get us there. These things also subjugate everything else, even when we pretend they don’t as in these ecumenical,international worship meetings in the Washington Cathedral(or wherever they are held) .
Were we not going to take a break?Yikes
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM #338770Participant
BTW my foundation for anti-war views is that war is an act of volition.Extrapolating on your comparison of individuals to nations and ruminating on violence; neurotic individuals often have a tendency not to avoid fighting, even when the prospects for civility are almost overwhelming. Their volition is overcome by the defect of being neurotic.
The constructs of nationhood have made nations neurotic and their people neurotic in a way that promotes volition for war.How those constructs got put in to place I am not sure, part of the evolutionary process I guess.Borders are one of them. As the world becomes smaller the idea that we can throw off some of these troublesome arrangements has hope. I certainly don’t think the first round of “globalism” will be a success but maybe the third or fourth or fifth could. By the time it does there will be no borders. This may all be a bunch of malarkey, but worshipping past history, the idea of nations and ancient religions will never get us there. These things also subjugate everything else, even when we pretend they don’t as in these ecumenical,international worship meetings in the Washington Cathedral(or wherever they are held) .
Were we not going to take a break?Yikes
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM #338798Participant
BTW my foundation for anti-war views is that war is an act of volition.Extrapolating on your comparison of individuals to nations and ruminating on violence; neurotic individuals often have a tendency not to avoid fighting, even when the prospects for civility are almost overwhelming. Their volition is overcome by the defect of being neurotic.
The constructs of nationhood have made nations neurotic and their people neurotic in a way that promotes volition for war.How those constructs got put in to place I am not sure, part of the evolutionary process I guess.Borders are one of them. As the world becomes smaller the idea that we can throw off some of these troublesome arrangements has hope. I certainly don’t think the first round of “globalism” will be a success but maybe the third or fourth or fifth could. By the time it does there will be no borders. This may all be a bunch of malarkey, but worshipping past history, the idea of nations and ancient religions will never get us there. These things also subjugate everything else, even when we pretend they don’t as in these ecumenical,international worship meetings in the Washington Cathedral(or wherever they are held) .
Were we not going to take a break?Yikes
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM #338889Participant
BTW my foundation for anti-war views is that war is an act of volition.Extrapolating on your comparison of individuals to nations and ruminating on violence; neurotic individuals often have a tendency not to avoid fighting, even when the prospects for civility are almost overwhelming. Their volition is overcome by the defect of being neurotic.
The constructs of nationhood have made nations neurotic and their people neurotic in a way that promotes volition for war.How those constructs got put in to place I am not sure, part of the evolutionary process I guess.Borders are one of them. As the world becomes smaller the idea that we can throw off some of these troublesome arrangements has hope. I certainly don’t think the first round of “globalism” will be a success but maybe the third or fourth or fifth could. By the time it does there will be no borders. This may all be a bunch of malarkey, but worshipping past history, the idea of nations and ancient religions will never get us there. These things also subjugate everything else, even when we pretend they don’t as in these ecumenical,international worship meetings in the Washington Cathedral(or wherever they are held) .
Were we not going to take a break?Yikes
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM #338651Participant
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you?
If I had to choose between the Russians, Chineese and Americans to trust. I would trust none….
I understand this triad of “semi- super power” to “superpower” is the crux for you. I don’t have an answer. I don’t think we need to be doing some of the things we are doing to deal with balance between the three and in fact I think we are probabaly raising the odds that we will find out how “untrustwothy” they are more than helping.
I will say this though. Clean fuel isn’t going to stop us form “protecting” the oil and gas in Iran and Iraq…not until China’s aquisition of those same resources would be a lot more irrelevant than it is today. This would be if the future follows the conventional path.
I am actually sometimes concerned about China and The U.S waging war, or at least some types of war, on the populations of both and other parts of the world, in cahoots. this is just an idea that occurs from time to time. It might be happening already.Anyway You understand where my trust level is at.
On that note I think I’ll go check out 1984 again.
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM #338745Participant
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you?
If I had to choose between the Russians, Chineese and Americans to trust. I would trust none….
I understand this triad of “semi- super power” to “superpower” is the crux for you. I don’t have an answer. I don’t think we need to be doing some of the things we are doing to deal with balance between the three and in fact I think we are probabaly raising the odds that we will find out how “untrustwothy” they are more than helping.
I will say this though. Clean fuel isn’t going to stop us form “protecting” the oil and gas in Iran and Iraq…not until China’s aquisition of those same resources would be a lot more irrelevant than it is today. This would be if the future follows the conventional path.
I am actually sometimes concerned about China and The U.S waging war, or at least some types of war, on the populations of both and other parts of the world, in cahoots. this is just an idea that occurs from time to time. It might be happening already.Anyway You understand where my trust level is at.
On that note I think I’ll go check out 1984 again.
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM #338773Participant
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you?
If I had to choose between the Russians, Chineese and Americans to trust. I would trust none….
I understand this triad of “semi- super power” to “superpower” is the crux for you. I don’t have an answer. I don’t think we need to be doing some of the things we are doing to deal with balance between the three and in fact I think we are probabaly raising the odds that we will find out how “untrustwothy” they are more than helping.
I will say this though. Clean fuel isn’t going to stop us form “protecting” the oil and gas in Iran and Iraq…not until China’s aquisition of those same resources would be a lot more irrelevant than it is today. This would be if the future follows the conventional path.
I am actually sometimes concerned about China and The U.S waging war, or at least some types of war, on the populations of both and other parts of the world, in cahoots. this is just an idea that occurs from time to time. It might be happening already.Anyway You understand where my trust level is at.
On that note I think I’ll go check out 1984 again.
-
January 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM #338864Participant
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you?
If I had to choose between the Russians, Chineese and Americans to trust. I would trust none….
I understand this triad of “semi- super power” to “superpower” is the crux for you. I don’t have an answer. I don’t think we need to be doing some of the things we are doing to deal with balance between the three and in fact I think we are probabaly raising the odds that we will find out how “untrustwothy” they are more than helping.
I will say this though. Clean fuel isn’t going to stop us form “protecting” the oil and gas in Iran and Iraq…not until China’s aquisition of those same resources would be a lot more irrelevant than it is today. This would be if the future follows the conventional path.
I am actually sometimes concerned about China and The U.S waging war, or at least some types of war, on the populations of both and other parts of the world, in cahoots. this is just an idea that occurs from time to time. It might be happening already.Anyway You understand where my trust level is at.
On that note I think I’ll go check out 1984 again.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM #338352Participant
Allen-Here is Putin’s speech from Davos a few days ago.
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals. The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat. There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply
hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave. In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
.
The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating,
assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.snip
Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints moneywithout respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.
snip
And, finally, this crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labour productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.
snip
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states. This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.Some shots across the bow in there….
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM #338372Participant
An anti-war stance obviously brings up the question “how can Christians be so tolerant in participating in it”. I found this interesting…
In the early Christian Church followers of the Christ refused to take up arms.
In as much as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war… The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
—The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War theory was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of the Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the loss of a pacifist position as a great failing of the Church; see Constantinian shift and Christian pacifism. Mountains of individual debt, applied judiciously seemed to facilitate this transition.Came from wikipedia except for the last sentence.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM #338701Participant
An anti-war stance obviously brings up the question “how can Christians be so tolerant in participating in it”. I found this interesting…
In the early Christian Church followers of the Christ refused to take up arms.
In as much as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war… The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
—The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War theory was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of the Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the loss of a pacifist position as a great failing of the Church; see Constantinian shift and Christian pacifism. Mountains of individual debt, applied judiciously seemed to facilitate this transition.Came from wikipedia except for the last sentence.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM #338795Participant
An anti-war stance obviously brings up the question “how can Christians be so tolerant in participating in it”. I found this interesting…
In the early Christian Church followers of the Christ refused to take up arms.
In as much as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war… The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
—The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War theory was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of the Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the loss of a pacifist position as a great failing of the Church; see Constantinian shift and Christian pacifism. Mountains of individual debt, applied judiciously seemed to facilitate this transition.Came from wikipedia except for the last sentence.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM #338823Participant
An anti-war stance obviously brings up the question “how can Christians be so tolerant in participating in it”. I found this interesting…
In the early Christian Church followers of the Christ refused to take up arms.
In as much as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war… The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
—The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War theory was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of the Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the loss of a pacifist position as a great failing of the Church; see Constantinian shift and Christian pacifism. Mountains of individual debt, applied judiciously seemed to facilitate this transition.Came from wikipedia except for the last sentence.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM #338914Participant
An anti-war stance obviously brings up the question “how can Christians be so tolerant in participating in it”. I found this interesting…
In the early Christian Church followers of the Christ refused to take up arms.
In as much as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war… The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
—The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War theory was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of the Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the loss of a pacifist position as a great failing of the Church; see Constantinian shift and Christian pacifism. Mountains of individual debt, applied judiciously seemed to facilitate this transition.Came from wikipedia except for the last sentence.
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM #338681Participant
Allen-Here is Putin’s speech from Davos a few days ago.
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals. The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat. There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply
hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave. In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
.
The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating,
assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.snip
Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints moneywithout respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.
snip
And, finally, this crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labour productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.
snip
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states. This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.Some shots across the bow in there….
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM #338775Participant
Allen-Here is Putin’s speech from Davos a few days ago.
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals. The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat. There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply
hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave. In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
.
The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating,
assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.snip
Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints moneywithout respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.
snip
And, finally, this crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labour productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.
snip
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states. This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.Some shots across the bow in there….
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM #338803Participant
Allen-Here is Putin’s speech from Davos a few days ago.
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals. The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat. There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply
hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave. In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
.
The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating,
assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.snip
Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints moneywithout respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.
snip
And, finally, this crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labour productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.
snip
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states. This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.Some shots across the bow in there….
-
January 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM #338894Participant
Allen-Here is Putin’s speech from Davos a few days ago.
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals. The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace. The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat. There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply
hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave. In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
.
The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating,
assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.snip
Add to this colossal disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints moneywithout respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback.
snip
And, finally, this crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between stock market indices and capitalization began to overshadow rising labour productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid by future generations.
snip
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states. This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.Some shots across the bow in there….
-
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM #338636Participant
Rus: I think Rome took about as long as we (America) will to run this thing into the wall.
Look on the bright side: Jamul and Fallbrook are enough off the beaten path to be ignored by the large mobs of angry villagers with pitchforks.
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you? I know that’s a worst case example and it would appear to support my point, but both of these countries wield power and influence in today’s world and far outside their borders. That’s the worldview that informs my approach.
-
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM #338730Participant
Rus: I think Rome took about as long as we (America) will to run this thing into the wall.
Look on the bright side: Jamul and Fallbrook are enough off the beaten path to be ignored by the large mobs of angry villagers with pitchforks.
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you? I know that’s a worst case example and it would appear to support my point, but both of these countries wield power and influence in today’s world and far outside their borders. That’s the worldview that informs my approach.
-
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM #338757Participant
Rus: I think Rome took about as long as we (America) will to run this thing into the wall.
Look on the bright side: Jamul and Fallbrook are enough off the beaten path to be ignored by the large mobs of angry villagers with pitchforks.
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you? I know that’s a worst case example and it would appear to support my point, but both of these countries wield power and influence in today’s world and far outside their borders. That’s the worldview that informs my approach.
-
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM #338849Participant
Rus: I think Rome took about as long as we (America) will to run this thing into the wall.
Look on the bright side: Jamul and Fallbrook are enough off the beaten path to be ignored by the large mobs of angry villagers with pitchforks.
Not as a parting shot, but food for thought: If you had to choose to trust the Russians or the Chinese, would you? I know that’s a worst case example and it would appear to support my point, but both of these countries wield power and influence in today’s world and far outside their borders. That’s the worldview that informs my approach.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM #338621Participant
You too Allan, The discussion, regardless of the limitations we both impose ,has value from my perspective.
Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day….or was it? -
January 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM #338715Participant
You too Allan, The discussion, regardless of the limitations we both impose ,has value from my perspective.
Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day….or was it? -
January 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM #338742Participant
You too Allan, The discussion, regardless of the limitations we both impose ,has value from my perspective.
Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day….or was it? -
January 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM #338834Participant
You too Allan, The discussion, regardless of the limitations we both impose ,has value from my perspective.
Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day….or was it? -
January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM #338611Participant
Rus: Yup. No point in destroying a perfectly good love/hate relationship.
“Don’t take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive”. Mark Twain.
Have a good one, man. Seriously.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM #338705Participant
Rus: Yup. No point in destroying a perfectly good love/hate relationship.
“Don’t take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive”. Mark Twain.
Have a good one, man. Seriously.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM #338732Participant
Rus: Yup. No point in destroying a perfectly good love/hate relationship.
“Don’t take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive”. Mark Twain.
Have a good one, man. Seriously.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM #338824Participant
Rus: Yup. No point in destroying a perfectly good love/hate relationship.
“Don’t take life too seriously. You’ll never get out of it alive”. Mark Twain.
Have a good one, man. Seriously.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM #338601Participant
I should quit while I am ahead.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM #338695Participant
I should quit while I am ahead.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM #338722Participant
I should quit while I am ahead.
-
January 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM #338814Participant
I should quit while I am ahead.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM #338575Participant
Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM #338670Participant
Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM #338698Participant
Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM #338789Participant
Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.
You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.
I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.
I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM #338565Participant
Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.
“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]
– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend
I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM #338660Participant
Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.
“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]
– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend
I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM #338688Participant
Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.
“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]
– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend
I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.
-
January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM #338779Participant
Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.
“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]
– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend
I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.
-
January 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM #338365Participant
Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.
I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.
I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.
Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.
America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).
Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.
-
January 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM #338459Participant
Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.
I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.
I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.
Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.
America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).
Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.
-
January 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM #338486Participant
Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.
I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.
I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.
Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.
America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).
Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.
-
January 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM #338578Participant
Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.
I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.
I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.
Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.
America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).
Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #338271Participant
Allan,
I served in the military because I came from a family that taught me nothing about how to live otherwise.Sounds like we might be pretty similar on that one. I started reading, observing and thinking on this topic and many others, becoming a mild conscientious objector very quickly but stayed in because the only way they let you out is if you say you are a coward or crazy. You know what I am talking about. I was only 18. It was a process and still is. I don’t hate the troops, especially the pawns.It could have been me.You are making some off target assumptions even if you fall short of being completely jingoistic. I am in the U.S. because I believe the parameters under which I live are not going to be perfect anywhere. I pay taxes because while I am here I go to jail if I don’t and I am sure some of them go to good use. If I had a ounce of power I would change the tax code so that I did not have to support the war and all my taxes would go to something else. I would give up any hope of “prosperity” for peace and a hell of a lot less bullshit, instead of codifying greed based violence. I don’t think America has to fall to pieces if that happens.If it does it is our own fault not an excuse to keep killing.I am fighting for my vision of my country what’s the problem with that? Right now it includes bitching about unjust wars and the consequences. I think Ron Paul did that.
As far as my kids go ,well I guess we will work on that one. I want that war will not kill any more children . They will have the right to join a branch military if they wish but I won’t propagandise them and pretend it isn’t what it is or stand by idle while their school or coach or whoever does.
Maybe I have the means to relocate my kids, what about those who don’t? What do I do for those who don’t if I just leave?What do I do as an American if I run off?As a citizen of the world? I can’t help the kids in Palestine but maybe I can help some here. Maybe I am supposed to be here to help FLU keep from getting shipped off to a concentration camp. I don’t believe in running away from problems. Is that the alternative to being “the one with the gun”?I am a truer American than most. I can still recognize what isn’t American, or what isn’t for me to be proud about and say something can’t I?
I don’t owe you any protest.There is no right kind of protester for you Allan, quit trying to make me jump through hoops.No matter what I say here, or do, if I am out proetestin and actually causing a threat to the system, when the time is right you will knock me over the head and put me in a pen, because you understand why it is done.You think my stance doesn’t cost me a lot of money? Anybody want to buy a house with the guy who says most Americans are Fascist by default? That our God isn’t better than anyone else’s?I mean it’s a good time to buy a house. I guess somehow you missed that this is a public place.
In part I do O.K because I am willing to do the work most people set aside for brown people and I live frugally.Not because I am too much of a hypocrite.Nobody can keep a perfect ethics record or be 100% “true to themselves” and survive in a conventional way. Degrees matter to my conscience.
You can’t prove I am wrong so you are going to try to prove I am insincere? What is next, coward, lunatic,seditious traitor, enemy of the people? That’s how it is done under the immutable war design isn’t it? Something immutable should not take so much coercion and propagandizing of the many by so few.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #338364Participant
Allan,
I served in the military because I came from a family that taught me nothing about how to live otherwise.Sounds like we might be pretty similar on that one. I started reading, observing and thinking on this topic and many others, becoming a mild conscientious objector very quickly but stayed in because the only way they let you out is if you say you are a coward or crazy. You know what I am talking about. I was only 18. It was a process and still is. I don’t hate the troops, especially the pawns.It could have been me.You are making some off target assumptions even if you fall short of being completely jingoistic. I am in the U.S. because I believe the parameters under which I live are not going to be perfect anywhere. I pay taxes because while I am here I go to jail if I don’t and I am sure some of them go to good use. If I had a ounce of power I would change the tax code so that I did not have to support the war and all my taxes would go to something else. I would give up any hope of “prosperity” for peace and a hell of a lot less bullshit, instead of codifying greed based violence. I don’t think America has to fall to pieces if that happens.If it does it is our own fault not an excuse to keep killing.I am fighting for my vision of my country what’s the problem with that? Right now it includes bitching about unjust wars and the consequences. I think Ron Paul did that.
As far as my kids go ,well I guess we will work on that one. I want that war will not kill any more children . They will have the right to join a branch military if they wish but I won’t propagandise them and pretend it isn’t what it is or stand by idle while their school or coach or whoever does.
Maybe I have the means to relocate my kids, what about those who don’t? What do I do for those who don’t if I just leave?What do I do as an American if I run off?As a citizen of the world? I can’t help the kids in Palestine but maybe I can help some here. Maybe I am supposed to be here to help FLU keep from getting shipped off to a concentration camp. I don’t believe in running away from problems. Is that the alternative to being “the one with the gun”?I am a truer American than most. I can still recognize what isn’t American, or what isn’t for me to be proud about and say something can’t I?
I don’t owe you any protest.There is no right kind of protester for you Allan, quit trying to make me jump through hoops.No matter what I say here, or do, if I am out proetestin and actually causing a threat to the system, when the time is right you will knock me over the head and put me in a pen, because you understand why it is done.You think my stance doesn’t cost me a lot of money? Anybody want to buy a house with the guy who says most Americans are Fascist by default? That our God isn’t better than anyone else’s?I mean it’s a good time to buy a house. I guess somehow you missed that this is a public place.
In part I do O.K because I am willing to do the work most people set aside for brown people and I live frugally.Not because I am too much of a hypocrite.Nobody can keep a perfect ethics record or be 100% “true to themselves” and survive in a conventional way. Degrees matter to my conscience.
You can’t prove I am wrong so you are going to try to prove I am insincere? What is next, coward, lunatic,seditious traitor, enemy of the people? That’s how it is done under the immutable war design isn’t it? Something immutable should not take so much coercion and propagandizing of the many by so few.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #338391Participant
Allan,
I served in the military because I came from a family that taught me nothing about how to live otherwise.Sounds like we might be pretty similar on that one. I started reading, observing and thinking on this topic and many others, becoming a mild conscientious objector very quickly but stayed in because the only way they let you out is if you say you are a coward or crazy. You know what I am talking about. I was only 18. It was a process and still is. I don’t hate the troops, especially the pawns.It could have been me.You are making some off target assumptions even if you fall short of being completely jingoistic. I am in the U.S. because I believe the parameters under which I live are not going to be perfect anywhere. I pay taxes because while I am here I go to jail if I don’t and I am sure some of them go to good use. If I had a ounce of power I would change the tax code so that I did not have to support the war and all my taxes would go to something else. I would give up any hope of “prosperity” for peace and a hell of a lot less bullshit, instead of codifying greed based violence. I don’t think America has to fall to pieces if that happens.If it does it is our own fault not an excuse to keep killing.I am fighting for my vision of my country what’s the problem with that? Right now it includes bitching about unjust wars and the consequences. I think Ron Paul did that.
As far as my kids go ,well I guess we will work on that one. I want that war will not kill any more children . They will have the right to join a branch military if they wish but I won’t propagandise them and pretend it isn’t what it is or stand by idle while their school or coach or whoever does.
Maybe I have the means to relocate my kids, what about those who don’t? What do I do for those who don’t if I just leave?What do I do as an American if I run off?As a citizen of the world? I can’t help the kids in Palestine but maybe I can help some here. Maybe I am supposed to be here to help FLU keep from getting shipped off to a concentration camp. I don’t believe in running away from problems. Is that the alternative to being “the one with the gun”?I am a truer American than most. I can still recognize what isn’t American, or what isn’t for me to be proud about and say something can’t I?
I don’t owe you any protest.There is no right kind of protester for you Allan, quit trying to make me jump through hoops.No matter what I say here, or do, if I am out proetestin and actually causing a threat to the system, when the time is right you will knock me over the head and put me in a pen, because you understand why it is done.You think my stance doesn’t cost me a lot of money? Anybody want to buy a house with the guy who says most Americans are Fascist by default? That our God isn’t better than anyone else’s?I mean it’s a good time to buy a house. I guess somehow you missed that this is a public place.
In part I do O.K because I am willing to do the work most people set aside for brown people and I live frugally.Not because I am too much of a hypocrite.Nobody can keep a perfect ethics record or be 100% “true to themselves” and survive in a conventional way. Degrees matter to my conscience.
You can’t prove I am wrong so you are going to try to prove I am insincere? What is next, coward, lunatic,seditious traitor, enemy of the people? That’s how it is done under the immutable war design isn’t it? Something immutable should not take so much coercion and propagandizing of the many by so few.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #338483Participant
Allan,
I served in the military because I came from a family that taught me nothing about how to live otherwise.Sounds like we might be pretty similar on that one. I started reading, observing and thinking on this topic and many others, becoming a mild conscientious objector very quickly but stayed in because the only way they let you out is if you say you are a coward or crazy. You know what I am talking about. I was only 18. It was a process and still is. I don’t hate the troops, especially the pawns.It could have been me.You are making some off target assumptions even if you fall short of being completely jingoistic. I am in the U.S. because I believe the parameters under which I live are not going to be perfect anywhere. I pay taxes because while I am here I go to jail if I don’t and I am sure some of them go to good use. If I had a ounce of power I would change the tax code so that I did not have to support the war and all my taxes would go to something else. I would give up any hope of “prosperity” for peace and a hell of a lot less bullshit, instead of codifying greed based violence. I don’t think America has to fall to pieces if that happens.If it does it is our own fault not an excuse to keep killing.I am fighting for my vision of my country what’s the problem with that? Right now it includes bitching about unjust wars and the consequences. I think Ron Paul did that.
As far as my kids go ,well I guess we will work on that one. I want that war will not kill any more children . They will have the right to join a branch military if they wish but I won’t propagandise them and pretend it isn’t what it is or stand by idle while their school or coach or whoever does.
Maybe I have the means to relocate my kids, what about those who don’t? What do I do for those who don’t if I just leave?What do I do as an American if I run off?As a citizen of the world? I can’t help the kids in Palestine but maybe I can help some here. Maybe I am supposed to be here to help FLU keep from getting shipped off to a concentration camp. I don’t believe in running away from problems. Is that the alternative to being “the one with the gun”?I am a truer American than most. I can still recognize what isn’t American, or what isn’t for me to be proud about and say something can’t I?
I don’t owe you any protest.There is no right kind of protester for you Allan, quit trying to make me jump through hoops.No matter what I say here, or do, if I am out proetestin and actually causing a threat to the system, when the time is right you will knock me over the head and put me in a pen, because you understand why it is done.You think my stance doesn’t cost me a lot of money? Anybody want to buy a house with the guy who says most Americans are Fascist by default? That our God isn’t better than anyone else’s?I mean it’s a good time to buy a house. I guess somehow you missed that this is a public place.
In part I do O.K because I am willing to do the work most people set aside for brown people and I live frugally.Not because I am too much of a hypocrite.Nobody can keep a perfect ethics record or be 100% “true to themselves” and survive in a conventional way. Degrees matter to my conscience.
You can’t prove I am wrong so you are going to try to prove I am insincere? What is next, coward, lunatic,seditious traitor, enemy of the people? That’s how it is done under the immutable war design isn’t it? Something immutable should not take so much coercion and propagandizing of the many by so few.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM #338072Participant
Rus: Let me ask you a few questions. You’re a former vet, correct? You pay taxes, correct? You’re not an active protester against US policy in the sense that you’re not out publicly protesting the war(s) and US policy, correct?
If you answer “yes” to these three questions, then you’re also the personification of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. As I said earlier, I agree with some, but not all of our actions, and I understand why we do what we do and why it is necessary.
If you feel so strongly about the way the US conducts policy, and you fear for the safety of your young sons, why do you continue to live here? And, no, that is not a “love it or leave it” question, it is a question of pragmatism.
You want to sit in the comfort of your own home and type away about the madness of it all, but do nothing in terms of active protest. If you are to be taken seriously, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM #338164Participant
Rus: Let me ask you a few questions. You’re a former vet, correct? You pay taxes, correct? You’re not an active protester against US policy in the sense that you’re not out publicly protesting the war(s) and US policy, correct?
If you answer “yes” to these three questions, then you’re also the personification of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. As I said earlier, I agree with some, but not all of our actions, and I understand why we do what we do and why it is necessary.
If you feel so strongly about the way the US conducts policy, and you fear for the safety of your young sons, why do you continue to live here? And, no, that is not a “love it or leave it” question, it is a question of pragmatism.
You want to sit in the comfort of your own home and type away about the madness of it all, but do nothing in terms of active protest. If you are to be taken seriously, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM #338190Participant
Rus: Let me ask you a few questions. You’re a former vet, correct? You pay taxes, correct? You’re not an active protester against US policy in the sense that you’re not out publicly protesting the war(s) and US policy, correct?
If you answer “yes” to these three questions, then you’re also the personification of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. As I said earlier, I agree with some, but not all of our actions, and I understand why we do what we do and why it is necessary.
If you feel so strongly about the way the US conducts policy, and you fear for the safety of your young sons, why do you continue to live here? And, no, that is not a “love it or leave it” question, it is a question of pragmatism.
You want to sit in the comfort of your own home and type away about the madness of it all, but do nothing in terms of active protest. If you are to be taken seriously, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM #338283Participant
Rus: Let me ask you a few questions. You’re a former vet, correct? You pay taxes, correct? You’re not an active protester against US policy in the sense that you’re not out publicly protesting the war(s) and US policy, correct?
If you answer “yes” to these three questions, then you’re also the personification of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. As I said earlier, I agree with some, but not all of our actions, and I understand why we do what we do and why it is necessary.
If you feel so strongly about the way the US conducts policy, and you fear for the safety of your young sons, why do you continue to live here? And, no, that is not a “love it or leave it” question, it is a question of pragmatism.
You want to sit in the comfort of your own home and type away about the madness of it all, but do nothing in terms of active protest. If you are to be taken seriously, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM #337747
cr
ParticipantI think Obama’s supporters love him no matter what he does. He could lower taxes (like Bush) and his cheerleaders would say it will stimulate the economy. Then he could raise taxes and they will say it will help the deficit.
I guess that nice smile goes further than I thought.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM #337757Participant
Andre Trocme:
All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence…the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history.
George Wilhelm Hegel:
What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles. -
January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338086Participant
Andre Trocme:
All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence…the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history.
George Wilhelm Hegel:
What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles. -
January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338179Participant
Andre Trocme:
All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence…the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history.
George Wilhelm Hegel:
What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles. -
January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338205Participant
Andre Trocme:
All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence…the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history.
George Wilhelm Hegel:
What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles. -
January 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM #338298Participant
Andre Trocme:
All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence…the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history.
George Wilhelm Hegel:
What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles. -
January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM #338077Participant
I think Obama’s supporters love him no matter what he does. He could lower taxes (like Bush) and his cheerleaders would say it will stimulate the economy. Then he could raise taxes and they will say it will help the deficit.
I guess that nice smile goes further than I thought.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM #338169Participant
I think Obama’s supporters love him no matter what he does. He could lower taxes (like Bush) and his cheerleaders would say it will stimulate the economy. Then he could raise taxes and they will say it will help the deficit.
I guess that nice smile goes further than I thought.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM #338195Participant
I think Obama’s supporters love him no matter what he does. He could lower taxes (like Bush) and his cheerleaders would say it will stimulate the economy. Then he could raise taxes and they will say it will help the deficit.
I guess that nice smile goes further than I thought.
-
January 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM #338288Participant
I think Obama’s supporters love him no matter what he does. He could lower taxes (like Bush) and his cheerleaders would say it will stimulate the economy. Then he could raise taxes and they will say it will help the deficit.
I guess that nice smile goes further than I thought.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM #338067Participant
You are going to claim that you wish for something better, evolution, while you personify the saying “if you can’t beat them join them”.Maybe even be a Hero. How is the defect going to evolve away when you are actively supporting the most defective?
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM #338159Participant
You are going to claim that you wish for something better, evolution, while you personify the saying “if you can’t beat them join them”.Maybe even be a Hero. How is the defect going to evolve away when you are actively supporting the most defective?
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM #338185Participant
You are going to claim that you wish for something better, evolution, while you personify the saying “if you can’t beat them join them”.Maybe even be a Hero. How is the defect going to evolve away when you are actively supporting the most defective?
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM #338278Participant
You are going to claim that you wish for something better, evolution, while you personify the saying “if you can’t beat them join them”.Maybe even be a Hero. How is the defect going to evolve away when you are actively supporting the most defective?
-
January 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM #338022Participant
Rus/arraya: As I said before, history is immutable. As much as I would love to see things evolve, history tells a far different story.
The best book of history I ever read was Thucydides’ “A History of the Peloponnesian War”. This concise little volume contains an unchanging story, for nearly all of the written history that followed was the same tale, only with different actors in different places.
Looking at Athens and Sparta, at the height of their respective power and then watching as they engage in an utter fruitless, sanguinary war of thirty years that bankrupts Athens and opens the door to the autocracy and madness of Alexander the Great is heartbreaking. The story never changes, though. In the 2,500 years that have followed, the story never changes.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Lord Acton.
“History is written by the victor”, Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Treason is simply a matter of dates”, Talleyrand.
“Good guy? Bad guy? I’m the guy with the gun”, Bruce Campbell in “Army of Darkness”.
-
January 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM #338114Participant
Rus/arraya: As I said before, history is immutable. As much as I would love to see things evolve, history tells a far different story.
The best book of history I ever read was Thucydides’ “A History of the Peloponnesian War”. This concise little volume contains an unchanging story, for nearly all of the written history that followed was the same tale, only with different actors in different places.
Looking at Athens and Sparta, at the height of their respective power and then watching as they engage in an utter fruitless, sanguinary war of thirty years that bankrupts Athens and opens the door to the autocracy and madness of Alexander the Great is heartbreaking. The story never changes, though. In the 2,500 years that have followed, the story never changes.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Lord Acton.
“History is written by the victor”, Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Treason is simply a matter of dates”, Talleyrand.
“Good guy? Bad guy? I’m the guy with the gun”, Bruce Campbell in “Army of Darkness”.
-
January 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM #338140Participant
Rus/arraya: As I said before, history is immutable. As much as I would love to see things evolve, history tells a far different story.
The best book of history I ever read was Thucydides’ “A History of the Peloponnesian War”. This concise little volume contains an unchanging story, for nearly all of the written history that followed was the same tale, only with different actors in different places.
Looking at Athens and Sparta, at the height of their respective power and then watching as they engage in an utter fruitless, sanguinary war of thirty years that bankrupts Athens and opens the door to the autocracy and madness of Alexander the Great is heartbreaking. The story never changes, though. In the 2,500 years that have followed, the story never changes.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Lord Acton.
“History is written by the victor”, Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Treason is simply a matter of dates”, Talleyrand.
“Good guy? Bad guy? I’m the guy with the gun”, Bruce Campbell in “Army of Darkness”.
-
January 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM #338233Participant
Rus/arraya: As I said before, history is immutable. As much as I would love to see things evolve, history tells a far different story.
The best book of history I ever read was Thucydides’ “A History of the Peloponnesian War”. This concise little volume contains an unchanging story, for nearly all of the written history that followed was the same tale, only with different actors in different places.
Looking at Athens and Sparta, at the height of their respective power and then watching as they engage in an utter fruitless, sanguinary war of thirty years that bankrupts Athens and opens the door to the autocracy and madness of Alexander the Great is heartbreaking. The story never changes, though. In the 2,500 years that have followed, the story never changes.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Lord Acton.
“History is written by the victor”, Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Treason is simply a matter of dates”, Talleyrand.
“Good guy? Bad guy? I’m the guy with the gun”, Bruce Campbell in “Army of Darkness”.
-
January 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM #337873Participant
[quote=Russell]Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry Allen. Russ is penetrating the heart of what justifies violence. The power of myth.
From evolutionary biological perspective our species has had evolutionary successes from short term gain via competition of resources. We also are unique in our ability to deceive ourselves and others. This is a well researched phenomena that has developed from evolutionary successes.
From what I have witnessed over the past 8 or so years since I have been paying attention the US has exemplified these traits. Short term thinking, rapaciousness(good word Allen) and lying. Which would make sense since we have been the most successful at acquiring the most things. Thus being the most successful of our species.
Ah, but what happens when these traits no longer serve us. The rapacious, lying ape must evolve or perish. Human nature or human behavior?
I agree there is a better way. Looking at the state of affairs we may just get a chance to try a new way out in very short order.
-
January 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM #337964Participant
[quote=Russell]Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry Allen. Russ is penetrating the heart of what justifies violence. The power of myth.
From evolutionary biological perspective our species has had evolutionary successes from short term gain via competition of resources. We also are unique in our ability to deceive ourselves and others. This is a well researched phenomena that has developed from evolutionary successes.
From what I have witnessed over the past 8 or so years since I have been paying attention the US has exemplified these traits. Short term thinking, rapaciousness(good word Allen) and lying. Which would make sense since we have been the most successful at acquiring the most things. Thus being the most successful of our species.
Ah, but what happens when these traits no longer serve us. The rapacious, lying ape must evolve or perish. Human nature or human behavior?
I agree there is a better way. Looking at the state of affairs we may just get a chance to try a new way out in very short order.
-
January 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM #337990Participant
[quote=Russell]Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry Allen. Russ is penetrating the heart of what justifies violence. The power of myth.
From evolutionary biological perspective our species has had evolutionary successes from short term gain via competition of resources. We also are unique in our ability to deceive ourselves and others. This is a well researched phenomena that has developed from evolutionary successes.
From what I have witnessed over the past 8 or so years since I have been paying attention the US has exemplified these traits. Short term thinking, rapaciousness(good word Allen) and lying. Which would make sense since we have been the most successful at acquiring the most things. Thus being the most successful of our species.
Ah, but what happens when these traits no longer serve us. The rapacious, lying ape must evolve or perish. Human nature or human behavior?
I agree there is a better way. Looking at the state of affairs we may just get a chance to try a new way out in very short order.
-
January 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM #338083Participant
[quote=Russell]Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry Allen. Russ is penetrating the heart of what justifies violence. The power of myth.
From evolutionary biological perspective our species has had evolutionary successes from short term gain via competition of resources. We also are unique in our ability to deceive ourselves and others. This is a well researched phenomena that has developed from evolutionary successes.
From what I have witnessed over the past 8 or so years since I have been paying attention the US has exemplified these traits. Short term thinking, rapaciousness(good word Allen) and lying. Which would make sense since we have been the most successful at acquiring the most things. Thus being the most successful of our species.
Ah, but what happens when these traits no longer serve us. The rapacious, lying ape must evolve or perish. Human nature or human behavior?
I agree there is a better way. Looking at the state of affairs we may just get a chance to try a new way out in very short order.
-
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM #337833Participant
Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.
-
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM #337924Participant
Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.
-
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM #337950Participant
Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.
-
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM #338043Participant
Allan, Lovely morning to you too.
“History is a myth agreed upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte.
You are often a propaganda machine yourself Allan. I just don’t buy the myths you attach to history. Maybe I am guilty of claiming moral high ground because my anit-war stance and criticizing tolerance for brutal imperialism, has no place within the constructs of your “us or them” keep the drums beating, ends justifies the means, war hero, our God is better than your God, mentality.Didn’t mean to get your knee to jerking. Excuse me for thinking that there might be a better way.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM #337768Participant
Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.
I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.
The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.
I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.
Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM #337859Participant
Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.
I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.
The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.
I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.
Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM #337885Participant
Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.
I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.
The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.
I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.
Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM #337977Participant
Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.
I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.
The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.
I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.
Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM #337738Participant
Allan,I think you are drawing a lot of conclusions that are not necessary, unless you take my participation in this blog as an effort to win or lose a debate.I might have done that before but I realize this isn’t the place to try to take things that far.
The history I posted was for the sake of contrast against the concept of a kindergarten “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the governement, the U.S military, U.S military industrial complex and who ever else is motivated to sell patriot lies. I also wanted to show Arraya that I considered his point of view valid and make up for my sarcasm, which was delivered without appropriate warning.
I do think what side you fall in these discussions is a matter of perspective,among many other things which I won’t go into, even though you probably say that bit “tongue in cheek”.I know South Americans who have been much closer to Che than your average American college student, who prefer him to the other alternatives.
I think the moral equivalency argument is a lame attack/defense. Disagreement is pretty normal.It is just not tolerated well when the stakes are made high. You fool yourself into thinking you will win or do win the argument by being on moral high ground too often.
Generally I consider you pretty open minded until you get pushed to a point where your faith in who are the good guys and who are the bad guys gets sufficiently challenged. I am not going to argue about who they are. I don’t think categories like that actually exist on the scale of populations which make up nations or major world religions. I just believe that the balance of power is corrupted in the Middle East and we are the more responsible at this point in history.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM #337829Participant
Allan,I think you are drawing a lot of conclusions that are not necessary, unless you take my participation in this blog as an effort to win or lose a debate.I might have done that before but I realize this isn’t the place to try to take things that far.
The history I posted was for the sake of contrast against the concept of a kindergarten “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the governement, the U.S military, U.S military industrial complex and who ever else is motivated to sell patriot lies. I also wanted to show Arraya that I considered his point of view valid and make up for my sarcasm, which was delivered without appropriate warning.
I do think what side you fall in these discussions is a matter of perspective,among many other things which I won’t go into, even though you probably say that bit “tongue in cheek”.I know South Americans who have been much closer to Che than your average American college student, who prefer him to the other alternatives.
I think the moral equivalency argument is a lame attack/defense. Disagreement is pretty normal.It is just not tolerated well when the stakes are made high. You fool yourself into thinking you will win or do win the argument by being on moral high ground too often.
Generally I consider you pretty open minded until you get pushed to a point where your faith in who are the good guys and who are the bad guys gets sufficiently challenged. I am not going to argue about who they are. I don’t think categories like that actually exist on the scale of populations which make up nations or major world religions. I just believe that the balance of power is corrupted in the Middle East and we are the more responsible at this point in history.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM #337855Participant
Allan,I think you are drawing a lot of conclusions that are not necessary, unless you take my participation in this blog as an effort to win or lose a debate.I might have done that before but I realize this isn’t the place to try to take things that far.
The history I posted was for the sake of contrast against the concept of a kindergarten “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the governement, the U.S military, U.S military industrial complex and who ever else is motivated to sell patriot lies. I also wanted to show Arraya that I considered his point of view valid and make up for my sarcasm, which was delivered without appropriate warning.
I do think what side you fall in these discussions is a matter of perspective,among many other things which I won’t go into, even though you probably say that bit “tongue in cheek”.I know South Americans who have been much closer to Che than your average American college student, who prefer him to the other alternatives.
I think the moral equivalency argument is a lame attack/defense. Disagreement is pretty normal.It is just not tolerated well when the stakes are made high. You fool yourself into thinking you will win or do win the argument by being on moral high ground too often.
Generally I consider you pretty open minded until you get pushed to a point where your faith in who are the good guys and who are the bad guys gets sufficiently challenged. I am not going to argue about who they are. I don’t think categories like that actually exist on the scale of populations which make up nations or major world religions. I just believe that the balance of power is corrupted in the Middle East and we are the more responsible at this point in history.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM #337947Participant
Allan,I think you are drawing a lot of conclusions that are not necessary, unless you take my participation in this blog as an effort to win or lose a debate.I might have done that before but I realize this isn’t the place to try to take things that far.
The history I posted was for the sake of contrast against the concept of a kindergarten “Freedom Walk” sponsored by the governement, the U.S military, U.S military industrial complex and who ever else is motivated to sell patriot lies. I also wanted to show Arraya that I considered his point of view valid and make up for my sarcasm, which was delivered without appropriate warning.
I do think what side you fall in these discussions is a matter of perspective,among many other things which I won’t go into, even though you probably say that bit “tongue in cheek”.I know South Americans who have been much closer to Che than your average American college student, who prefer him to the other alternatives.
I think the moral equivalency argument is a lame attack/defense. Disagreement is pretty normal.It is just not tolerated well when the stakes are made high. You fool yourself into thinking you will win or do win the argument by being on moral high ground too often.
Generally I consider you pretty open minded until you get pushed to a point where your faith in who are the good guys and who are the bad guys gets sufficiently challenged. I am not going to argue about who they are. I don’t think categories like that actually exist on the scale of populations which make up nations or major world religions. I just believe that the balance of power is corrupted in the Middle East and we are the more responsible at this point in history.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM #337713Participant
Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.
I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.
You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.
This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM #337804Participant
Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.
I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.
You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.
This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM #337830Participant
Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.
I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.
You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.
This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM #337922Participant
Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.
I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.
You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.
This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM #337693Participant
Allan we’ve been there already, you are going to present yourself as correct or me as wrong after spouting of an encyclopedia of historical Knowledge. I’ll skip that, thanks.
I don’t care about that. I can draw conclusions with what I have and be no more biased than you are. That has been proven.That said, I have appreciated the challenge to put some of these pieces together.
Enorah, I slipped up in a few places on that post. I should not have thought that you included me in any pro-war sentiment. I have three boys an I feel like this greed based war and our dumbed down and divided ways is going to get them thrown into an abyss.I don’t believe in war heroes, at least not with regards to the big picture in the Middle East, or the superiority of anyone’s God ,so I have no crutches to deal with it. I do really think the balance of power is ridiculously corrupted and Americans by default are as responsible as any group.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM #337784Participant
Allan we’ve been there already, you are going to present yourself as correct or me as wrong after spouting of an encyclopedia of historical Knowledge. I’ll skip that, thanks.
I don’t care about that. I can draw conclusions with what I have and be no more biased than you are. That has been proven.That said, I have appreciated the challenge to put some of these pieces together.
Enorah, I slipped up in a few places on that post. I should not have thought that you included me in any pro-war sentiment. I have three boys an I feel like this greed based war and our dumbed down and divided ways is going to get them thrown into an abyss.I don’t believe in war heroes, at least not with regards to the big picture in the Middle East, or the superiority of anyone’s God ,so I have no crutches to deal with it. I do really think the balance of power is ridiculously corrupted and Americans by default are as responsible as any group.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM #337810Participant
Allan we’ve been there already, you are going to present yourself as correct or me as wrong after spouting of an encyclopedia of historical Knowledge. I’ll skip that, thanks.
I don’t care about that. I can draw conclusions with what I have and be no more biased than you are. That has been proven.That said, I have appreciated the challenge to put some of these pieces together.
Enorah, I slipped up in a few places on that post. I should not have thought that you included me in any pro-war sentiment. I have three boys an I feel like this greed based war and our dumbed down and divided ways is going to get them thrown into an abyss.I don’t believe in war heroes, at least not with regards to the big picture in the Middle East, or the superiority of anyone’s God ,so I have no crutches to deal with it. I do really think the balance of power is ridiculously corrupted and Americans by default are as responsible as any group.
-
January 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM #337902Participant
Allan we’ve been there already, you are going to present yourself as correct or me as wrong after spouting of an encyclopedia of historical Knowledge. I’ll skip that, thanks.
I don’t care about that. I can draw conclusions with what I have and be no more biased than you are. That has been proven.That said, I have appreciated the challenge to put some of these pieces together.
Enorah, I slipped up in a few places on that post. I should not have thought that you included me in any pro-war sentiment. I have three boys an I feel like this greed based war and our dumbed down and divided ways is going to get them thrown into an abyss.I don’t believe in war heroes, at least not with regards to the big picture in the Middle East, or the superiority of anyone’s God ,so I have no crutches to deal with it. I do really think the balance of power is ridiculously corrupted and Americans by default are as responsible as any group.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM #337643Participant
[quote=Russell]I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit.[/quote]
I was not aiming that “kill or be killed” statement at you, Russ.
I agree with you, the government is a reflection/manifestation of our combined energies.
I am saying though, to have what we want means we must stop looking outside of ourselves, our homes, our cities, our states, our countries. We must each of us tend to our own internal issues that keep us separate from one another.
Again, just spouting off to the group, Russ, not aiming at you.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM #337734Participant
[quote=Russell]I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit.[/quote]
I was not aiming that “kill or be killed” statement at you, Russ.
I agree with you, the government is a reflection/manifestation of our combined energies.
I am saying though, to have what we want means we must stop looking outside of ourselves, our homes, our cities, our states, our countries. We must each of us tend to our own internal issues that keep us separate from one another.
Again, just spouting off to the group, Russ, not aiming at you.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM #337760Participant
[quote=Russell]I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit.[/quote]
I was not aiming that “kill or be killed” statement at you, Russ.
I agree with you, the government is a reflection/manifestation of our combined energies.
I am saying though, to have what we want means we must stop looking outside of ourselves, our homes, our cities, our states, our countries. We must each of us tend to our own internal issues that keep us separate from one another.
Again, just spouting off to the group, Russ, not aiming at you.
-
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM #337852Participant
[quote=Russell]I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit.[/quote]
I was not aiming that “kill or be killed” statement at you, Russ.
I agree with you, the government is a reflection/manifestation of our combined energies.
I am saying though, to have what we want means we must stop looking outside of ourselves, our homes, our cities, our states, our countries. We must each of us tend to our own internal issues that keep us separate from one another.
Again, just spouting off to the group, Russ, not aiming at you.
-
January 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM #337463Participant
I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit. -
January 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM #337554Participant
I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit. -
January 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM #337581Participant
I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit. -
January 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM #337670Participant
I am not an assassin, If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it. From what I see and hear, it fits a lot of people. It should be a worthy topic of discussion even if it isn’t perfectly accurate.
Enorah,
My contribution is not kill or be killed. I don’t think we can move on to collaboration and unity while we tolerate status quo foriegn policy and the whole bunch of socially codified behaviors that enforce tolerance for it.Especially when a major successful component of the war making ruling class is to conquer and divide us, which is working. We don’t stand up for other people in the world in light of what our goverment, surrounded by the good people of a Christian God and a million flags, does to them. We shop, worry, fret, buy,and hope this recession isn’t too tough and that Jesus loves us.We vote for the person who we think will make that easier and don’t really give a damn about too much else. We deserve the government we have for tolerating what they do to others . Anyway nobody will respond to my posts for a while,I’ve broken the rules, I guess that’s gonna hurt a bit. -
January 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM #337453Participant
afx: Couldn’t agree more. We now argue over left versus right, Repub or Dem and, in so doing, miss the big picture.
Which is probably exactly the way the powers that be want it.
There is something truly enjoyable about a good, feisty dialogue and something truly hateful about the way discourse (or lack of it) is now conducted.
We’re all Americans, and the safety, security and prosperity of this country includes and involves all of us. Yet here we sit, throwing mud at each other and arguing over something that, in truth, we can do little to control, largely because we’ve so completely submitted to the arbitrary whims of the idiots we elected. And, yeah, that includes Obama.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM #337544Participant
afx: Couldn’t agree more. We now argue over left versus right, Repub or Dem and, in so doing, miss the big picture.
Which is probably exactly the way the powers that be want it.
There is something truly enjoyable about a good, feisty dialogue and something truly hateful about the way discourse (or lack of it) is now conducted.
We’re all Americans, and the safety, security and prosperity of this country includes and involves all of us. Yet here we sit, throwing mud at each other and arguing over something that, in truth, we can do little to control, largely because we’ve so completely submitted to the arbitrary whims of the idiots we elected. And, yeah, that includes Obama.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM #337571Participant
afx: Couldn’t agree more. We now argue over left versus right, Repub or Dem and, in so doing, miss the big picture.
Which is probably exactly the way the powers that be want it.
There is something truly enjoyable about a good, feisty dialogue and something truly hateful about the way discourse (or lack of it) is now conducted.
We’re all Americans, and the safety, security and prosperity of this country includes and involves all of us. Yet here we sit, throwing mud at each other and arguing over something that, in truth, we can do little to control, largely because we’ve so completely submitted to the arbitrary whims of the idiots we elected. And, yeah, that includes Obama.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM #337660Participant
afx: Couldn’t agree more. We now argue over left versus right, Repub or Dem and, in so doing, miss the big picture.
Which is probably exactly the way the powers that be want it.
There is something truly enjoyable about a good, feisty dialogue and something truly hateful about the way discourse (or lack of it) is now conducted.
We’re all Americans, and the safety, security and prosperity of this country includes and involves all of us. Yet here we sit, throwing mud at each other and arguing over something that, in truth, we can do little to control, largely because we’ve so completely submitted to the arbitrary whims of the idiots we elected. And, yeah, that includes Obama.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM #337438Participant
[quote=Russell]Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve. [/quote]
This thread is a perfect example of the circular firing squad that has become the USA.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM #337529Participant
[quote=Russell]Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve. [/quote]
This thread is a perfect example of the circular firing squad that has become the USA.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM #337556Participant
[quote=Russell]Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve. [/quote]
This thread is a perfect example of the circular firing squad that has become the USA.
-
January 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM #337646Participant
[quote=Russell]Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve. [/quote]
This thread is a perfect example of the circular firing squad that has become the USA.
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM #337423Participant
Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM #337514Participant
Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM #337541Participant
Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM #337631Participant
Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM #337393Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM #337484Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM #337511Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
-
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM #337600Participant
[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.
John
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM #337165Participant
[quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM #337253Participant
[quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM #337281Participant
[quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM #337370Participant
[quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
[/quote]
And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.
And this is change you can believe in??
Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM #337124Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.[/quote]No it hasn’t. George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
Saying that Obama is following the same plan laid out by Bush is like saying that a 1 KM Race-Walk with all elderly participants is equivalent to an Olympic Marathon. Are you sure you’re not a right-wing nutjob? You have about the same ability to distinguish between massive differences as a righty.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM #337213Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.[/quote]No it hasn’t. George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
Saying that Obama is following the same plan laid out by Bush is like saying that a 1 KM Race-Walk with all elderly participants is equivalent to an Olympic Marathon. Are you sure you’re not a right-wing nutjob? You have about the same ability to distinguish between massive differences as a righty.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM #337241Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.[/quote]No it hasn’t. George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
Saying that Obama is following the same plan laid out by Bush is like saying that a 1 KM Race-Walk with all elderly participants is equivalent to an Olympic Marathon. Are you sure you’re not a right-wing nutjob? You have about the same ability to distinguish between massive differences as a righty.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM #337328Participant
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.[/quote]No it hasn’t. George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.
Saying that Obama is following the same plan laid out by Bush is like saying that a 1 KM Race-Walk with all elderly participants is equivalent to an Olympic Marathon. Are you sure you’re not a right-wing nutjob? You have about the same ability to distinguish between massive differences as a righty.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM #337103Participant
afx: The US pursued and prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan prior to the handover to NATO forces. The problem was that the NATO forces, by and large, did not want to fight (the exception being the Canadians).
Most of the NATO forces confine themselves to their own areas of operation and do not actively patrol and do not seek out the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in battle.
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM #337192Participant
afx: The US pursued and prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan prior to the handover to NATO forces. The problem was that the NATO forces, by and large, did not want to fight (the exception being the Canadians).
Most of the NATO forces confine themselves to their own areas of operation and do not actively patrol and do not seek out the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in battle.
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM #337220Participant
afx: The US pursued and prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan prior to the handover to NATO forces. The problem was that the NATO forces, by and large, did not want to fight (the exception being the Canadians).
Most of the NATO forces confine themselves to their own areas of operation and do not actively patrol and do not seek out the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in battle.
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM #337307Participant
afx: The US pursued and prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan prior to the handover to NATO forces. The problem was that the NATO forces, by and large, did not want to fight (the exception being the Canadians).
Most of the NATO forces confine themselves to their own areas of operation and do not actively patrol and do not seek out the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in battle.
Granted, there are other problems there, the largest being the Karzai government, but the Obama “surge” you reference has been in the planning stages for a while now.
-
January 26, 2009 at 10:36 PM #336821Participant
[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I wonder how many more troops and innocent civilians will have to die in this new front on “terror” before the Left Wing finally comes to its senses and realizes that they have been snowed? What do you think?[/quote]
I think you’ll find that most lefties believe that we should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan all along. Not Iraq. You know, going after the guys who actually attacked us. To most lefties, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a good thing. If we had surged into there rather than Iraq, things would be a lot different today.
Criticizing Obama for ramping up in Afghanistan is like criticizing the plumber who has to fix the toilet after you’ve stopped it up with a massive load of nasty, smelly shit.
Lefties aren’t against war. We’re against un-necessary, un-planned, un-managed wars.[/quote]
No, your party is only against the wars it did not “start”.
And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today. The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
And you’re going to tell me that you and “most lefties” believe that we should have been in Pakistan? You think wasting American lives in Afghanistan is somehow better than seeing them squandered in Iraq? Seriously??
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”? My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
Lastly, you do realize how Afghanistan worked out for the Russians 25 years ago…don’t you? Apparently both you and Obama need to be briefed on the lessons of endless war in a country that devours everything that enters it.
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…
-
January 27, 2009 at 3:21 AM #336892Participant
[quote=partypup]
And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.
[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.
Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.
[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.
[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.
[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?
[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM #336991Participant
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.[/quote]
Please re-read what you just wrote and ask yourself whether it even begins to address my comment above. Simply regurgitating complaints about the war in Iraq does not explain why the world would have been a better place had we taken the fight to Pakistan, which is the assertion I took issue with. Any fool knows that Iraq was a pointless war. I knew that 6 years ago before the first shot was fired. Tell me something new, Breeze. Read my exchange with afx and tell me why the world would be safer if we had chosen to retaliate against Pakistan instead of Iraq after 9/11. You have not — and apparently cannot — address that point.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?[/quote]Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.[/quote]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) were killed in the Pakistani drone incident does not equate to “attacking” Pakistan. So tell me, Breeze, what constitutes an “attack”? I would suggest you familiarize yourself with a book that you appear to have long since forgotten how to use: the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, an “attack” occurs when one “begins to affect or to act injuriously on another.” Connect the dots, Breeze. When you send a drone into a sovereign nation, for ANY reason, and kill its citizens, you have attacked them. I can’t believe I have to return to grade school to make this very simple point that is really just common sense, something you apparently lack.
And if people that you cared about and loved where attacked by another country with a drone, I’m sure you’d change your tune. It’s fine and good to discount these casualties when they don’t affect you, Breeze. Such is the province of a hypocrite.
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]
Show me a poll that confirms this. Right now, as Americans are facing lay offs EVERY day in the tens of thousands, as states are going bankrupt, as our country is going bankrupt, I doubt Pakistan is anything that they want to focus on. You can dust off your pom poms and start cheering the terror cell “attacks”, but I don’t think most Americans share your enthusiasm by a long shot.
[quote=TheBreeze]This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there [/quote]
I don’t disagree with this point at all. But we’re not talking about Iraq. We’re talking about Pakistan. Why can’t you keep the two countries separate? Why do you insist on lumping Pakistan into a category with Iraq? Could it be because you believe that everyone in a Muslim country should be considered a terrorist? Is that the kind of obtuse thinking that is guiding your party right now? My point is that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq OR Pakistan. There were arguably just as many “terror cells” in Saudi Arabia (the country that provided 75% of the 9/11 hijackers) in 2003, as there were in Iraq or Pakistan. So why is Pakistan a more suitable target than Saudi Arabia? You haven’t addressed this question, because you can’t. The wars and “attacks” that are being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now are nothing more than the final stages of a long-fought war for resources, and if you actually think that the U.S. presence in the Middle East has to do with anything relating to terrorism, democracy or the other nonsense you are fed, then it’s no wonder you were naive enough to be brainwashed into voting for the Messiah.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.[/quote]
And once again, you have not explained to me why sending an unmanned drone into a sovereign nation, without its consent, and killing its people, cannot be considered an “attack”. If Pakistan sent an unmanned drone to New York City and killed 15 people, some of whom were civilians, is there any doubt in your mind that we would consider this to be an attack? Seriously, wake up, pull your head out of your rear end and stop being a hypocrite.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.[/quote]
And what is stunning is how your hypocrisy blinds you to the truth staring you in the face. You are basically giving the U.S license to “pre-emptively” violate the borders of a sovereign nation simply because we, in our judgment, have determined that “terror cells” are harbored there. Here’s something you might want to think about, Breezie: many nations around the world now consider US to be terrorists. Does that mean that they have the right to send a drone to San Diego and wipe 15 people off the face of the Earth? Your hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness is beyond astounding.
[quote=TheBreeze] [quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?[/quote]
Who said anything about Iraq? We are talking about Pakistan. This is a feeble attempt to distract from the issue at hand. Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.
[/quote]Had you paid any attention to my prior emails, you would know that I was a faithful member of the Democratic party until this year, when I saw my party hijacked by clandestine interests and the deepest pockets imaginable. I have always been a supporter of both Clintons, and I was a FERVENT opponent of George Bush. But in your little mind, this qualifies me as a “rightie”, even though I have never voted for a Republican president. The mere fact that I dare to question and criticize the party that has betrayed me and sold itself to corporate and military interests means that I am now a Republican. Is that the level of overly-simplistic thinking that occurs in your pubescent mind, Breeze?
You go right ahead and comfort yourself with the knowledge that a country wracked by 30% unemployment, a dollar collapse and massive unrest bin2012 will provide Obama with the votes he needs to “sweep” into a second term. Are you completely daft? Obama has “One term” written all over his face. He should enjoy the celebrity and fawning while he can. I hope your memory is not so short that you have forgotten how popular GW Bush was only 5 years ago. Or can you even remember what happened 5 years ago?
One has to wonder.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM #337001Participant
Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.
You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).
It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM #337329Participant
Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.
You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).
It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM #337419Participant
Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.
You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).
It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM #337445Participant
Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.
You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).
It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM #337535Participant
Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.
You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).
I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).
It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.
-
January 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM #337417Participant
[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:
Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.
“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00
[quote=partypup]
…were killed in the Pakistani drone incident does not equate to “attacking” Pakistan. So tell me, Breeze, what constitutes an “attack”? I would suggest you familiarize yourself with a book that you appear to have long since forgotten how to use: the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, an “attack” occurs when one “begins to affect or to act injuriously on another.” Connect the dots, Breeze. When you send a drone into a sovereign nation, for ANY reason, and kill its citizens, you have attacked them. I can’t believe I have to return to grade school to make this very simple point that is really just common sense, something you apparently lack.
[/quote]What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?
[quote=partypup]
And if people that you cared about and loved where attacked by another country with a drone, I’m sure you’d change your tune. It’s fine and good to discount these casualties when they don’t affect you, Breeze. Such is the province of a hypocrite.
[/quote]So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?
[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/
[quote=partypup]
My point is that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq OR Pakistan. There were arguably just as many “terror cells” in Saudi Arabia (the country that provided 75% of the 9/11 hijackers) in 2003, as there were in Iraq or Pakistan. So why is Pakistan a more suitable target than Saudi Arabia? You haven’t addressed this question, because you can’t.
[/quote]We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:
Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.
Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html
[quote=partypup]
The wars and “attacks” that are being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now are nothing more than the final stages of a long-fought war for resources, and if you actually think that the U.S. presence in the Middle East has to do with anything relating to terrorism, democracy or the other nonsense you are fed, then it’s no wonder you were naive enough to be brainwashed into voting for the Messiah.
[/quote]I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.
[quote=partypup]
And once again, you have not explained to me why sending an unmanned drone into a sovereign nation, without its consent, and killing its people, cannot be considered an “attack”.
[/quote]But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php
[quote=partypup]
And what is stunning is how your hypocrisy blinds you to the truth staring you in the face. You are basically giving the U.S license to “pre-emptively” violate the borders of a sovereign nation simply because we, in our judgment, have determined that “terror cells” are harbored there. Here’s something you might want to think about, Breezie: many nations around the world now consider US to be terrorists.
[/quote]After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1
[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.
-
January 27, 2009 at 10:18 PM #337447Participant
Breeze: It’s interesting, but it almost appears that you consider Bush’s actions to have happened in a vacuum, versus being a continuation (with a little aberrant jaunt into Iraq) of US policy in the Mideast since at least the late 1940s (following the exit of the British from the world stage after WWII).
Regime change in Iraq was strongly advocated by Clinton from the beginning and, as much as everyone wants to dress up the Iraq invasion as a Bush family vendetta, the possibility of it has been on the books for quite a while. Granted, Bush certainly ginned up the casus belli with a strongly influenced NIE, but a little quick research on the internet will show the bellicose pronouncements of such leading Clintonistas as Albright, Berger and Clarke during both terms of the Clinton Administration.
You hammer away at Bush’s “illogicality”, but there is nothing substantive to support that assertion. You conveniently ignore Saudi Arabia and the virulent Wahhabist teachings of the clerics there. And now you’re conflating Obama’s actions with a new “keep the nukes from al-Qaeda” policy that I’ve heretofore never heard of.
One last thing: If Pakistan was aware of the location of al-Qaeda and Taliban operations within their own borders, why wouldn’t they simply go after them using the Pakistani Army and Air Force? Pakistan is clearly aware of the dangers of using US assets/resources/forces, especially given how much anger and blowback it would generate among it’s own citizens.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM #337457Participant
Check out the victims of the latest attack. This is working like gangbusters. I’m sure this will stop terrorism. We are bombing mountain shepards in stone huts with robots. How dare them die so easily. It’s making us look bad. Well they are in the way of our supply lines so I guess we have to do it, or, er, I mean there are terrorists in the stone huts plotting to ride their goats right into DC with C4 strapped to their backs, yeah that’s it.
Considering we are there on disney land stories made for adults this is atrocious and we should all be ashamed.
The lies are washing away.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM #337472Participant
Allan,
I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?
Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?
As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.
Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.
If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #337687Participant
Breeze: In reference to your comment on Al Gore and him not invading Iraq: (from Frank Harvey/CDI paper)
“Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.” END
As to your position that “Knowledge = Trivia” and “Polemics = Facts”, I’m not interested in continuing either a conversation or a debate with you. You’ve done neither. What you’ve done is regurgitated information (which is not knowledge) from a variety of different sources and tried to make it your own. Your reversals of position, use of strawman arguments and the general sense you have of simply being lost (akin to your discussing banking with davelj) makes conversation or debate impossible.
The idea that my sense of history is simply trivia is indicative of that. You are heavily propagandized and cannot see history for what it is: A road marker in terms of how nation-states behave in a given situation and a predictor of future actions. You might want to learn some more “trivia” yourself (read a book or two).
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #338017Participant
Breeze: In reference to your comment on Al Gore and him not invading Iraq: (from Frank Harvey/CDI paper)
“Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.” END
As to your position that “Knowledge = Trivia” and “Polemics = Facts”, I’m not interested in continuing either a conversation or a debate with you. You’ve done neither. What you’ve done is regurgitated information (which is not knowledge) from a variety of different sources and tried to make it your own. Your reversals of position, use of strawman arguments and the general sense you have of simply being lost (akin to your discussing banking with davelj) makes conversation or debate impossible.
The idea that my sense of history is simply trivia is indicative of that. You are heavily propagandized and cannot see history for what it is: A road marker in terms of how nation-states behave in a given situation and a predictor of future actions. You might want to learn some more “trivia” yourself (read a book or two).
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #338109Participant
Breeze: In reference to your comment on Al Gore and him not invading Iraq: (from Frank Harvey/CDI paper)
“Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.” END
As to your position that “Knowledge = Trivia” and “Polemics = Facts”, I’m not interested in continuing either a conversation or a debate with you. You’ve done neither. What you’ve done is regurgitated information (which is not knowledge) from a variety of different sources and tried to make it your own. Your reversals of position, use of strawman arguments and the general sense you have of simply being lost (akin to your discussing banking with davelj) makes conversation or debate impossible.
The idea that my sense of history is simply trivia is indicative of that. You are heavily propagandized and cannot see history for what it is: A road marker in terms of how nation-states behave in a given situation and a predictor of future actions. You might want to learn some more “trivia” yourself (read a book or two).
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #338135Participant
Breeze: In reference to your comment on Al Gore and him not invading Iraq: (from Frank Harvey/CDI paper)
“Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.” END
As to your position that “Knowledge = Trivia” and “Polemics = Facts”, I’m not interested in continuing either a conversation or a debate with you. You’ve done neither. What you’ve done is regurgitated information (which is not knowledge) from a variety of different sources and tried to make it your own. Your reversals of position, use of strawman arguments and the general sense you have of simply being lost (akin to your discussing banking with davelj) makes conversation or debate impossible.
The idea that my sense of history is simply trivia is indicative of that. You are heavily propagandized and cannot see history for what it is: A road marker in terms of how nation-states behave in a given situation and a predictor of future actions. You might want to learn some more “trivia” yourself (read a book or two).
-
January 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #338228Participant
Breeze: In reference to your comment on Al Gore and him not invading Iraq: (from Frank Harvey/CDI paper)
“Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.” END
As to your position that “Knowledge = Trivia” and “Polemics = Facts”, I’m not interested in continuing either a conversation or a debate with you. You’ve done neither. What you’ve done is regurgitated information (which is not knowledge) from a variety of different sources and tried to make it your own. Your reversals of position, use of strawman arguments and the general sense you have of simply being lost (akin to your discussing banking with davelj) makes conversation or debate impossible.
The idea that my sense of history is simply trivia is indicative of that. You are heavily propagandized and cannot see history for what it is: A road marker in terms of how nation-states behave in a given situation and a predictor of future actions. You might want to learn some more “trivia” yourself (read a book or two).
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM #337803Participant
Allan,
I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?
Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?
As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.
Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.
If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM #337894Participant
Allan,
I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?
Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?
As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.
Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.
If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM #337920Participant
Allan,
I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?
Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?
As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.
Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.
If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.
-
January 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM #338013Participant
Allan,
I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?
Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?
As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.
Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.
If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM #337788Participant
Check out the victims of the latest attack. This is working like gangbusters. I’m sure this will stop terrorism. We are bombing mountain shepards in stone huts with robots. How dare them die so easily. It’s making us look bad. Well they are in the way of our supply lines so I guess we have to do it, or, er, I mean there are terrorists in the stone huts plotting to ride their goats right into DC with C4 strapped to their backs, yeah that’s it.
Considering we are there on disney land stories made for adults this is atrocious and we should all be ashamed.
The lies are washing away.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM #337879Participant
Check out the victims of the latest attack. This is working like gangbusters. I’m sure this will stop terrorism. We are bombing mountain shepards in stone huts with robots. How dare them die so easily. It’s making us look bad. Well they are in the way of our supply lines so I guess we have to do it, or, er, I mean there are terrorists in the stone huts plotting to ride their goats right into DC with C4 strapped to their backs, yeah that’s it.
Considering we are there on disney land stories made for adults this is atrocious and we should all be ashamed.
The lies are washing away.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM #337905Participant
Check out the victims of the latest attack. This is working like gangbusters. I’m sure this will stop terrorism. We are bombing mountain shepards in stone huts with robots. How dare them die so easily. It’s making us look bad. Well they are in the way of our supply lines so I guess we have to do it, or, er, I mean there are terrorists in the stone huts plotting to ride their goats right into DC with C4 strapped to their backs, yeah that’s it.
Considering we are there on disney land stories made for adults this is atrocious and we should all be ashamed.
The lies are washing away.
-
January 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM #337998Participant
Check out the victims of the latest attack. This is working like gangbusters. I’m sure this will stop terrorism. We are bombing mountain shepards in stone huts with robots. How dare them die so easily. It’s making us look bad. Well they are in the way o
-
-
-