PDA

View Full Version : Islam bigger threat than christianity.


vrang
08-06-2005, 02:50 PM
Here in scandinavia, the people are pretty secularized, but increasing imigration over the years has led to the sudden popping up of women in burkas and insane mulla`s. It seems that people who dislike the culture gets taken for racist. I dont give a good goddamn about colour, but importing that madness seems to me like idiocy. Its also strange how little common agnostic/atheist associations(human ethicals etc) chriticise Islam, but critizise christianity, even thoug christianity almost has no influence on the society. I mean gay people can get married, people get divorced, women are liberated, and most superstitions are debated out.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, much due to population growt and migration. If the number of moslems in the western world continue to grow, like it has from almost none in the 60`s to tens of millions in the 00`s. You cant stop this, once its started. And american policyes alienate the moslems further. For instance siding with corrupt monarchys(saudi arabia), with Israel(against the palestinians) Iraq, you name it. This is meddling in a waspnest. We should leave the moslem world alone, make an iron curtain. Islam and our lack of understanding for it(and also its neanderthalism), is an obsticle for growt for the free thought worldwide.

Pardon my english.

calpurnpiso
08-06-2005, 03:36 PM
Here in scandinavia, the people are pretty secularized, but increasing imigration over the years has led to the sudden popping up of women in burkas and insane mulla`s. It seems that people who dislike the culture gets taken for racist. I dont give a good goddamn about colour, but importing that madness seems to me like idiocy. Its also strange how little common agnostic/atheist associations(human ethicals etc) chriticise Islam, but critizise christianity, even thoug christianity almost has no influence on the society. I mean gay people can get married, people get divorced, women are liberated, and most superstitions are debated out.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, much due to population growt and migration. If the number of moslems in the western world continue to grow, like it has from almost none in the 60`s to tens of millions in the 00`s. You cant stop this, once its started. And american policyes alienate the moslems further. For instance siding with corrupt monarchys(saudi arabia), with Israel(against the palestinians) Iraq, you name it. This is meddling in a waspnest. We should leave the moslem world alone, make an iron curtain. Islam and our lack of understanding for it(and also its neanderthalism), is an obsticle for growt for the free thought worldwide.

Pardon my english.
Hmmm...I have to think I'm in one of those beautiful Scandinavian countries to stay cool here in Arizona where 45 degrees is not uncomun ( it is 38 now) Wht you say is true but one must realize Islam is just another branch of Abrahamic psychosis. It is growing so rapidlybecause families stay close in their beliefs and they pray 5 times a day!...and with the new Christian Crusaders ( US, Americas, Europe etc) constantly reminding them of the atrocities committed upon them since Carolus MAgnus time, the Crusades where Christians occupied Semitic lands committing all kinds of atrocities for over 270 years, and present day US allowing Christianity infected missionaries going all over impossing their morality, and devious Christian delusions on others....well, the natives are getting restless and begun hating the US IMPOSSER. As anyone can see the US Christian hipocresy is obvious at the way the US treats Saudi Arabia regardless if they disregaRD HUMAN RIGHTS have a religious police, discriminates about everybody and cut off the hands of thieves!

The Muslims keep quiet and continue to grow. We can not cure Islam-psychosis unless we first are aware Christianity, as well as all religious beliefs systems, is nothing more than a neurological disorder, then we can slowly but surely eradicated this mental illness. With the government of the US being infected by this disorder a cure is going to be very difficult...:)

ghoulslime
08-06-2005, 08:14 PM
Here in scandinavia, the people are pretty secularized, but increasing imigration over the years has led to the sudden popping up of women in burkas and insane mulla`s. It seems that people who dislike the culture gets taken for racist. I dont give a good goddamn about colour, but importing that madness seems to me like idiocy. Its also strange how little common agnostic/atheist associations(human ethicals etc) chriticise Islam, but critizise christianity, even thoug christianity almost has no influence on the society. I mean gay people can get married, people get divorced, women are liberated, and most superstitions are debated out.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, much due to population growt and migration. If the number of moslems in the western world continue to grow, like it has from almost none in the 60`s to tens of millions in the 00`s. You cant stop this, once its started. And american policyes alienate the moslems further. For instance siding with corrupt monarchys(saudi arabia), with Israel(against the palestinians) Iraq, you name it. This is meddling in a waspnest. We should leave the moslem world alone, make an iron curtain. Islam and our lack of understanding for it(and also its neanderthalism), is an obsticle for growt for the free thought worldwide.

Pardon my english.
Better prevent the cancer before it grows! I truly believe there will come a time when many western nations will be battling these subhumans in their own lands, in outright civil war.

abortionman
08-06-2005, 08:15 PM
Well durf...they are fucking nuts

And by the way...just to clarify since i really want to know this

Are Muslims the Mexicans of Europe? Except I like Mexicans

So rephrase: are they the violent crazy exploding Mexicans of Europe?

calpurnpiso
08-07-2005, 12:29 AM
Well durf...they are fucking nuts

And by the way...just to clarify since i really want to know this

Are Muslims the Mexicans of Europe? Except I like Mexicans

So rephrase: are they the violent crazy exploding Mexicans of Europe?
Remember, Christian were the fucking nuts in the 12th Century Crusades which lasted for over 270 years...The violence we see today is a Muslim Wahhabbi reaction to the Christian onslaugh and invasions of Muslim lands. The Iraq invasion by Christian armies, was the straw that broke the camel's back. The stupid Christ-psychosis infected Bush administration has no idea what has he gotten America into. Those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it...:)

abortionman
08-07-2005, 01:10 AM
what i meant by my question is:

are muslims the current cheap labor of europe
similarly to how mexicans emmigrate to the united states and tend to be used as cheap labor

the comment on explosion was meant to state that:
right now...they're fucking insane...and so is bush...but they're still pretty fucking nuts

Little Earth Stamper
08-07-2005, 02:28 AM
Your perspective is slightly different from ours here in America because here superstitions define the public discourse.

Gay marriage? Forget about it.

vrang
08-07-2005, 07:19 AM
what i meant by my question is:

are muslims the current cheap labor of europe
similarly to how mexicans emmigrate to the united states and tend to be used as cheap labor

the comment on explosion was meant to state that:
right now...they're fucking insane...and so is bush...but they're still pretty fucking nuts
Theyre not cheaper labor. Originally they came as that, but with family reunions and such they have grown to be many. They are over-represented in crime etc. Offcorse many of them are lawabaiding citizens as well. But look to the london attacks, I think unfortunately there are more of those kinds of extremists.

Metman07
08-07-2005, 03:47 PM
The key to drastically reducing the threat of the Islamic strand of Abrahamic-psychosis is to establish a separation of church (or mosque) and state in Islamic countries. Christianity is as violent and barbaric as Islam. The difference is that in most countries where Christianity is the predominant religion, there is a separation between church and state. Unfortunately, it seems that in America the wall that seperates religion and the government is erroding. Cal listed some of the many attrocities committed by Christians. Fortunately, the influence of the church was greatly reduced as a result of European kings having power struggles with the clergy hundreds of years ago.

In most Islamic countries today, the clerics wield a lot of power and they use it to impose their religious dogmas on society and stifle free thinking. The West should take steps to facilitate the emancipation from the shackles of religious oppression. Attacking sovereign countries to "liberate" them however, is counter-productive. This only helps to validate the opinions of the Islamo-fascists. I say go and establish trade relations with these countries. Give their people Burger King and Ford cars. Give them CNN and the internet. This will help to liberalize the societies.

God, my arse
08-07-2005, 07:36 PM
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, much due to population growt and migration. If the number of moslems in the western world continue to grow, like it has from almost none in the 60`s to tens of millions in the 00`s. You cant stop this, once its started. And american policyes alienate the moslems further. For instance siding with corrupt monarchys(saudi arabia), with Israel(against the palestinians) Iraq, you name it. This is meddling in a waspnest. We should leave the moslem world alone, make an iron curtain. Islam and our lack of understanding for it(and also its neanderthalism), is an obsticle for growt for the free thought worldwide.

Pardon my english.
Your idea of isolating the muslim world, is an interesting one and I contemplated it myself. We could just ban anyone from entering the zone and isolate them completely. But would this be fair to the people who are subjected to the law of the Koran, especially women, because Islam is a dangerous religion and actually states that there can be no other beliefs. But still I am conflicted I have some Muslim friends, granted they aren't devout but should they have to live in such a world?

Jennifer
08-07-2005, 07:53 PM
I think its an "asymilation rate" issue. Letting them in slowly enough that large subcultures that don't form - large groups that feel very little pressure to adapt to the new surrounding.

God, my arse
08-07-2005, 08:09 PM
Ya... Jennifer

Choobus
08-07-2005, 08:27 PM
what's this about muslim ninja beaver? Sounds dangerous

abortionman
08-07-2005, 09:28 PM
When I see a Muslim ninja I want to bitch slap them and say something like "don't be subjugated in this modern world bitch!" and to test... bitch slap them and say "get me a drink...bitch!"

Metman07
08-08-2005, 09:58 AM
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, much due to population growt and migration. If the number of moslems in the western world continue to grow, like it has from almost none in the 60`s to tens of millions in the 00`s. You cant stop this, once its started. And american policyes alienate the moslems further. For instance siding with corrupt monarchys(saudi arabia), with Israel(against the palestinians) Iraq, you name it. This is meddling in a waspnest. We should leave the moslem world alone, make an iron curtain. Islam and our lack of understanding for it(and also its neanderthalism), is an obsticle for growt for the free thought worldwide.

Pardon my english.
Your idea of isolating the muslim world, is an interesting one and I contemplated it myself. We could just ban anyone from entering the zone and isolate them completely. But would this be fair to the people who are subjected to the law of the Koran, especially women, because Islam is a dangerous religion and actually states that there can be no other beliefs. But still I am conflicted I have some Muslim friends, granted they aren't devout but should they have to live in such a world?
Isolation will only lead to strengthening of the fundamentalists.

Daniel
08-08-2005, 10:06 AM
The key to drastically reducing the threat of the Islamic strand of Abrahamic-psychosis is to establish a separation of church (or mosque) and state in Islamic countries. Christianity is as violent and barbaric as Islam. The difference is that in most countries where Christianity is the predominant religion, there is a separation between church and state. Unfortunately, it seems that in America the wall that seperates religion and the government is erroding. Cal listed some of the many attrocities committed by Christians. Fortunately, the influence of the church was greatly reduced as a result of European kings having power struggles with the clergy hundreds of years ago.

In most Islamic countries today, the clerics wield a lot of power and they use it to impose their religious dogmas on society and stifle free thinking. The West should take steps to facilitate the emancipation from the shackles of religious oppression. Attacking sovereign countries to "liberate" them however, is counter-productive. This only helps to validate the opinions of the Islamo-fascists. I say go and establish trade relations with these countries. Give their people Burger King and Ford cars. Give them CNN and the internet. This will help to liberalize the societies.
I think you're right, but that's exactly why the clerics bitch about us. They complain that we are economic imperialists corrupting their societies. And people here say we are exploiting those countries and imposing our ideas on them. I say, leave them alone so long as they leave us alone. Eventually they will implode like the Soviet Union did.

RedRob
08-08-2005, 10:19 AM
I think you're right, but that's exactly why the clerics bitch about us. They complain that we are economic imperialists corrupting their societies. And people here say we are exploiting those countries and imposing our ideas on them. I say, leave them alone so long as they leave us alone. Eventually they will implode like the Soviet Union did.
Except the Soviet Union didn't implode only changed face. Russia is just as dangerous to the Western values now as it was during the Soviet Union. They know nothing about freedom, democracy or human rights. Any little progress that the Ruskies made was do to our constant "civilized" behavior towards them. I don't see that same behavior towards the Muslim nations, do you? I donít remember us invading Poland or any other commie nation, perhaps you need re-examine history.
PS
Iraq was one of the most secular nations in that region before the US invaded them. I fear they will only become as "Islamic" as the rest of the Middle East as a result of our lack of understanding of the region.

Daniel
08-08-2005, 10:37 AM
RedRob,
I'm not sure I understand your point. Should we invade Muslim countries or should we do nothing in order to "understand" the region, as you say.

RedRob
08-08-2005, 10:58 AM
RedRob,
I'm not sure I understand your point. Should we invade Muslim countries or should we do nothing in order to "understand" the region, as you say.
I say nay to both.
We should not invade but should not isolate our selves from them as if they don't exist. We should embrace the runawayís of their culture but not go and change their culture. Successful changes canít be forced on the society we have to encourage change by example not by force. Terrorism is something their societies created but our societies created conditions for. Sort of like creating a breathing ground for mosquitos by draining some water from a lake and unintentionally creating a swamp.

Daniel
08-08-2005, 11:05 AM
RedRob,
I'm not sure I understand your point. Should we invade Muslim countries or should we do nothing in order to "understand" the region, as you say.
I say nay to both.
We should not invade but should not isolate our selves from them as if they don't exist. We should embrace the runawayís of their culture but not go and change their culture. Successful changes canít be forced on the society we have to encourage change by example not by force. Terrorism is something their societies created but our societies created conditions for. Sort of like creating a breathing ground for mosquitos by draining some water from a lake and unintentionally creating a swamp.
So before the invasion of Iraq you think we were doing fine?

RedRob
08-08-2005, 11:20 AM
So before the invasion of Iraq you think we were doing fine?
Did I say that? No, we were not doing "fine" in that region since the beginning of our contact with the region. Please don't put words in my mouth. My answer to you obviously states no inference period.

So you think we should nuke everyone? Just giving you a test of your own medicine by assuming you think a certain way based on absolutely nothing you've actually said.:D

Daniel
08-08-2005, 11:57 AM
RedRob,

1). Calm down, Kimosabe. I'm just asking you a question. I'm not attacking you or assuming anything. You said, "We should embrace the runawayís of their culture but not go and change their culture." We have a significant number of immigrants from the Middle East--which to me is very like your "embracing runaways" from their cultures. It's obvious from your statements that you don't support the invasion of Iraq. So that's what prompted the question, pre-invasion of Iraq do you think we were doing fine? It's just a question. No need to get all hot under the collar about everything.

2): Concerning your question to me: no I don't think we should nuke everyone. I think we should confront every situation differently and act according to our own long-term interests with that region.

I hope I didn't say anything that will anger you yet again. I know everything I say is a provocation to you, although I'm still not sure why. I would prefer a good, healthy debate but if you'd like to argue everything vociferously I suggest you go to your local church.

RedRob
08-08-2005, 12:13 PM
I hope I didn't say anything that will anger you yet again. I know everything I say is a provocation to you, although I'm still not sure why. I would prefer a good, healthy debate but if you'd like to argue everything vociferously I suggest you go to your local church.
:lol::lol::lol:
Again you are assuming something, but this time I'll take it as a joke.:lol:

1)No we were not doing fine before Iraq invasion #2. We were not doing fine since the invasion of Tripoli.<<<This is in reference to us, as in the USA.

2)I don't think you are educated enough in world history to assume any political view since you obviously show ignorance of western misadventures in the Middle East in the past. As if the only involvement of a western power in the region was in the 1990's.<<<This is in regards to other western powers.

Should I send you a graph with pretty pictures to clarify my posts?
Silly Texan.:D

Daniel
08-08-2005, 12:45 PM
I hope I didn't say anything that will anger you yet again. I know everything I say is a provocation to you, although I'm still not sure why. I would prefer a good, healthy debate but if you'd like to argue everything vociferously I suggest you go to your local church.
:lol::lol::lol:
Again you are assuming something, but this time I'll take it as a joke.:lol:

1)No we were not doing fine before Iraq invasion #2. We were not doing fine since the invasion of Tripoli.<<<This is in reference to us, as in the USA.

2)I don't think you are educated enough in world history to assume any political view since you obviously show ignorance of western misadventures in the Middle East in the past. As if the only involvement of a western power in the region was in the 1990's.<<<This is in regards to other western powers.

Should I send you a graph with pretty pictures to clarify my posts?
Silly Texan.:D
You're right. Since I have a minor in history and spend so much time reading history books (among other things) I must be completely ignorant of world history. There are so many misadventures in world history, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. Excuse me for making an inference from what you write, but as you know I'm just an imbecile with very limited intelligence. Since ancient Roman times there have been quite a few "Westerners" having various misadventures in the Middle East. Now, I'm not sure if Middle Easterners are pissed off at the Seleucids, the Frankish kingdoms and the Popes for invading during the Crusades, Napoleon for his little misadventure in the Middle East and his stealing of artifacts from Egypt, or is the Battle of Algiers, US involvement in Libya, Lebanon, help to Israel, aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, our support of the Sauds, etc., etc. Should we be angry at all at anything they've done to us? Should we be angry at the conquest of Spain in the 700s, or the Ottomans invading the Balkans and going up to Austria? I know in terms of history we're more of an "evil empire" than they are because it's just so amazing how "evil" we are, but still, sometimes Middle Easterners do a few bad things. Do you think they're still pissed because we helped to create the state of Israel? Or that we gave great support to the Shah of Iran?

Let's extrapolate a little from your statements (again I'm sorry for making too many inferences from your statements but after all I am just a silly Texan, myself): You said: "Terrorism is something their societies created but our societies created conditions for." By that logic (I'll try and use what little I might have, sir) we should be happy that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, after all first we supported the Shah with his secret police and torture of Iranian citizens. Then, because they had a revolution and had Ayatollah Khomeini who was screaming for our blood, we had the audacity to support Iraq when Iraq fought Iran to a bloody stalemate. We created the conditions for terrorists and like-minded murderers in Iran. It's our fault they are trying to develop nuclear weapons now since they perceive us as a threat to their way of life. So we should just try to understand that region but we should never invade them if (God forbid--sorry, I'm an atheist but it's just an expression) they threaten us with nuclear weapons. Same with other regions in the world, right? The only reason North Korea hates us is because of the Korean War. Again, we created the conditions for their hatred of Western powers. Let's try to understand Kim Jong Il. If he has nukes, we shouldn't dare to do anything because after all, we created the conditions for them wanting them in the first place.

As a matter of fact, let's give back the Southwest to Mexico. We owe them. They are angy because they have no jobs, and a very corrupt government. It must be our fault since we took away all the good land in Texas and California (let's not mention New Mexico and Arizona) in the Mexican War of the 1840s. Let's give it back and they can all live happily ever after. If it weren't for the US they wouldn't have such a poor economy and corrupt government. After all, our depredations created horrible conditions for them. Aztlan!

vrang
08-08-2005, 02:57 PM
One thing that`s perticulary threatening about islam is the way they look at women. In my neighborhood women were black tent like burkhas in the summer heat. And if some of them should mess around with boys, they would probably be killed or beaten half to death. While the sleazy men move on anything in skirts. It suprises me that feminist arent raving mad about this. Feminist`s tend to be liberals, and liberals doesnt dare to talk down about foreign cultures. The problem with being liberal is that you dont dare to stand up against other than your own kinds negative sides and conservatism. It was intresting the dutch anti-imigration pary(dont remember its name), they took a liberals view on why immigration was threatening. Its leader was unfortunately killed by a leftwing extremist.

Daniel
08-08-2005, 03:06 PM
One thing that`s perticulary threatening about islam is the way they look at women. In my neighborhood women were black tent like burkhas in the summer heat. And if some of them should mess around with boys, they would probably be killed or beaten half to death. While the sleazy men move on anything in skirts. It suprises me that feminist arent raving mad about this. Feminist`s tend to be liberals, and liberals doesnt dare to talk down about foreign cultures. The problem with being liberal is that you dont dare to stand up against other than your own kinds negative sides and conservatism. It was intresting the dutch anti-imigration pary(dont remember its name), they took a liberals view on why immigration was threatening. Its leader was unfortunately killed by a leftwing extremist.
I seem to remember people trying to stop the practice of suttee in India (whereby widows kill themselves after their husbands die). When Western nations stepped in to stop the practice the women themselves complained because they didn't want other people interfering with their culture. I wonder how much a person can do.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-08-2005, 06:56 PM
I don't mean to get in the middle of Daniel and RedRob's debate here, but I guess I am....

Mistakes that were made in the past are something we should learn from and try to keep from repeating in the future. The West has been mucking around in the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In the places we have mucked around in the most, the bigger of a mess and threat they are today. Places where we didn't muck around as much are not nearly as much of a problem (Turkey for example).

Possibly the best way to win other countries over in the future is to refrain from mucking around with them (unless we are really forced to do so in order to avoid a true "imminent threat") and to lead by example instead of at gunpoint whenever possible.

God, my arse
08-08-2005, 09:26 PM
Ya, just leave it, assimilate those who seek to escape. So the western world should stay away militaryily, culturally, politically and socially and accept any who wish to leave.

RedRob
08-09-2005, 10:16 AM
Ya, just leave it, assimilate those who seek to escape. So the western world should stay away militaryily, culturally, politically and socially and accept any who wish to leave.
Which was my point all along but Daniel is just too stubborn to realize it. Since you know all this about history Daniel, how are you so ignorant of our mistakes that you are willing to make them again? Oh and who is getting mad now keemosabe.

RedRob
08-09-2005, 10:17 AM
I don't mean to get in the middle of Daniel and RedRob's debate here, but I guess I am....

Mistakes that were made in the past are something we should learn from and try to keep from repeating in the future. The West has been mucking around in the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In the places we have mucked around in the most, the bigger of a mess and threat they are today. Places where we didn't muck around as much are not nearly as much of a problem (Turkey for example).

Possibly the best way to win other countries over in the future is to refrain from mucking around with them (unless we are really forced to do so in order to avoid a true "imminent threat") and to lead by example instead of at gunpoint whenever possible.
Once again my point exactly.

Cap'n Awesome
08-09-2005, 01:31 PM
I don't mean to get in the middle of Daniel and RedRob's debate here, but I guess I am....

Mistakes that were made in the past are something we should learn from and try to keep from repeating in the future. The West has been mucking around in the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In the places we have mucked around in the most, the bigger of a mess and threat they are today. Places where we didn't muck around as much are not nearly as much of a problem (Turkey for example).

Possibly the best way to win other countries over in the future is to refrain from mucking around with them (unless we are really forced to do so in order to avoid a true "imminent threat") and to lead by example instead of at gunpoint whenever possible.
I guess I'll throw myself in the middle of this debate also. This is reee dick you luss. I don't understand how you can say we don't need to interfer Islam. This is a violent phychotic religion where people blow themselves up to kill other people. These are all the most dangerous theocracies in the world. They have the intent of converting everyone to Islam, and are willing to kill the people who don't. They are christianity 600 years ago. I don't agree with all of our current foriegn policy, but do you really belive that if we leave these religious fanatics alone, they are really going to leave us alone?

Metman07
08-09-2005, 01:46 PM
Most of these terrorist organizations have a very religious message that resonates with a lot of Muslims, but their aims are mostly political. The West -particularly America- has taken some pretty hostile actions against these people. Of course, these actions were only furthering Western interests, but they were at the expense of many Middle Easterners. Things like overthrowing democractically elected governments to install a pro-Western king, establishing the state of Israel and constantly getting involved in the Middle East to protect our oil interests.

Unfortunately, we're at a point where we can't just disengage now. It's unlikely that our government will withdraw support for Israel any time soon and what's done is done with regard to Iraq; we can't just pull out and let the country plunge into even worse chaos.

I think the only way is to start winning the "hearts and minds", as Bush likes to say, of the younger generation. I'm not saying that we should make them think that America is a great freedom spreading angel that should be showered with roses. But we should try and expose the younger generation to the modern world. They will gradually break free from the shackles of religion by themselves. You have to introduce them to ideas and what is possible in the modern world. So give them Burger King, Ford cars, Dell computers. You can already see some changes in Saudi Arabia. That country has changed quite a lot from just ten years ago. I know because I lived there between 93 and 95 (my dad is an engineering contractor and he was working with the national oil company). I got the chance to visit Saudi Arabia again last winter. Though it might not seem like it from the outside, the country has liberalized quite a bit. Obviously it still has a long way to go, but if we can "win the hearts and minds" of the younger generation, then things will change for the better.

Nothing kills religion better than free thinking and the spread of new ideas. The Renaissance caused a huge decline in the Church's power. These same Muslim peoples that are now living in awfully backward societies helped to start the Renaissance. They introduced new break throughs in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and various other sciences and philosophies.

Daniel
08-09-2005, 03:15 PM
Ya, just leave it, assimilate those who seek to escape. So the western world should stay away militaryily, culturally, politically and socially and accept any who wish to leave.
Which was my point all along but Daniel is just too stubborn to realize it. Since you know all this about history Daniel, how are you so ignorant of our mistakes that you are willing to make them again? Oh and who is getting mad now keemosabe.
You're absolutely right RedRob, and I do apologize for getting sarcastic. But I was only responding to your assertion that I know nothing simply because I have a different viewpoint than you do. I listen to a lot of talk radio and read a lot of different websites from all across the political spectrum, and my biggest problem is how easily people slip from political debate into screaming at each other and personally attacking each other. I come on here to debate and discuss not to attack you personally just because you might disagree with me. But if you want to get angry at absolutely no provocation from me, go right ahead. You only confirm my fears that many in the American electorate cannot refrain from simple shouting matches.

But as to your point. I'm not too stubborn to realize anything. As I said before, every situation is different. It's just as silly to always go into another sovereign nation with nukes as it is to never do anything. It would be so nice to have a simplistic universe like that but then I would have to be a Christian to believe in a simple duality, us vs. them mentality. It's impossible in our global situation to stay away completely from different nations across the globe. I do think, at some point, many of those nations we have problems with will implode. I'm not sure who said it (sorry) on this thread, but I think it's a good idea to win them over by commerce--free ideas, porn, goods and services, porn. But, militarily, sometimes we have to allow them to fight their own fights. And we do have interests there, whether we like it or not. We can't just stay away because we're afraid of what kind of resentment we might stir up. I think it's awful when we put up puppet governments who rule harshly and oppress their people. But to believe that the only reason Middle Eastern governments hate us is because of the harms we have caused over there is just too simplistic for me. Any dictator is going to find a scapegoat to fool people into believing what he is doing is right. Since we are the most powerful nation on earth, we're bound to be a target for lots of people. We're not perfect. And our foreign policy isn't always the nicest you could ask for. But I find it very hard to believe everything our government does when it comes to foreign policy is the result of some "evil" ideology out to oppress everyone else on this planet. I'm not attacking anyone personally, but in my opinion, when I hear something like that, it sounds too much like theology.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-09-2005, 03:42 PM
Yes Cap'n Awesome, I do believe that the main reason that they are attacking us is because of our imperialistic mucking around over there. I know it is more convenient to cast our enemies as forces of pure evil that hate us for our "freedoms" to justify our actions but if you actually read their rhetoric, you will see that one of the main reasons bin Laden decided to go after us is because he didn't like the idea of an American military base on the soil of Saudi Arabia and he thought that our sanctions on Iraq resulted in the death's of thousands of children -- this is all aside from our support for Israel.

Just consider how we appear to them when we don't seem to play fair regarding enforcing UN sanctions. Israel isn't supposed to have nukes any more that Iran, but they do. We don't feel the need to legitimize the UN by enforcing sanctions on Israel like we did with Iraq. We don't appear to be playing even-handedly to them and that is because we aren't.

As far as the crazy Islamic religion goes, sure it has its nut-jobs like all the others, but it is basically an eye-for-an-eye type of religion regarding how to deal with enemies. For example, they believe that if we don't kill their civilian population, then they don't have the right to kill ours, but as soon as we start doing it, then they can start doing it as well. In theory, since Christians supposedly believe in "doing unto others...", and loving your enemies, and the Islamists believe they don't have the right to harm unless they are harmed, both sides should be getting along fine. But to a large extent, both sides can't seem to abide by their own prime directives in practice.

Maybe they are like Christianity 600 years ago, but it may be best not to go around poking at them with a stick and treating them unfairly regardless.

I agree with some of what Metman07 has to say about how to win hearts and minds. There was a book I heard about a few years ago. It was by this Russian who was making the case that the Beatles had more of an influence on the collapse of the Soviet Union than anyone might have thought. Their music was banned at the time, but it was smuggled in - sometimes on X-rays. The youth were exposed to the music and it seemed to them that the West was where it was happening because the music was so compelling. Of course, it wasn't just the Beatles, but they were far and away the biggest thing going during the 60's (if you didn't live through it, it is hard to explain how big they were because nothing has ever happened like it either before or since). Anyway, it was the music that sold the youth on Western society more so than any official propaganda might have done. The bright, compelling music looked pretty good against the drab black and white world they were living in.

But you can't start winning hearts and minds at the point of a gun.

You say; "Unfortunately, we're at a point where we can't just disengage now." That was what they were saying in Vietnam for years and where did that finally get us?

I can probably dig up articles that parallel everything we are doing now against everything we were doing then. There was even one that someone pointed out to me a few months ago from back then about how things were looking up since South Vietnam had finally managed to hold their own elections.

Everybody said we wouldn't get ourselves into a war like that ever again; that we would always remember to have clear goals and an exit strategy before we got into anything like that. Well, I guess that lesson wasn't learned well enough the first time.

Daniel
08-09-2005, 04:09 PM
I agree with some of what Metman07 has to say about how to win hearts and minds. There was a book I heard about a few years ago. It was by this Russian who was making the case that the Beatles had more of an influence on the collapse of the Soviet Union than anyone might have thought. Their music was banned at the time, but it was smuggled in - sometimes on X-rays. The youth were exposed to the music and it seemed to them that the West was where it was happening because the music was so compelling. Of course, it wasn't just the Beatles, but they were far and away the biggest thing going during the 60's (if you didn't live through it, it is hard to explain how big they were because nothing has ever happened like it either before or since). Anyway, it was the music that sold the youth on Western society more so than any official propaganda might have done. The bright, compelling music looked pretty good against the drab black and white world they were living in.

But you can't start winning hearts and minds at the point of a gun.

You say; "Unfortunately, we're at a point where we can't just disengage now." That was what they were saying in Vietnam for years and where did that finally get us?

I can probably dig up articles that parallel everything we are doing now against everything we were doing then. There was even one that someone pointed out to me a few months ago from back then about how things were looking up since South Vietnam had finally managed to hold their own elections.

Everybody said we wouldn't get ourselves into a war like that ever again; that we would always remember to have clear goals and an exit strategy before we got into anything like that. Well, I guess that lesson wasn't learned well enough the first time.
That's funny. I read that Frank Zappa was huge in Czechoslovakia and that the youth there listened to his music as a sign of political protest. I think most people just want to live a quiet, decent life free from fear and oppression. When they hear music like that, from nations that overall live those kinds of lives, they find some hope.

I agree with you about your statement concerning our lack of clear goals and an exit strategy. Whether you agree with attacking Iraq or not, it's clear that it has been horribly mismanaged. I would hope if we go into any war, the administration could at least have the decency to have a plan. It is disgusting to think that our administration thought we could just go in there, remove the head of state, and just be able to clean up afterwards.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-09-2005, 04:24 PM
Daniel, it doesn't have to be a case where our foreign policy is a result of some "evil" ideology. Was someone making that claim? Whether it was the result of poor judgment, ignorance, self-interest, misplaced good intentions, short-sightedness, greed, or whatever. I'm sure it has been different things at different times. The fact is that you have to take a look at what we have been doing in that part of the world since WWI and what the consequences have been regardless of what the intentions were.

Take Iraq... please.

Sorry. Couldn't resist that one.

I'm going to submit these excerpts from an essay I wrote a couple of years ago on this subject. The article was a brief history of the Middle East from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the first Gulf War. I am just excerpting the parts of the essay involving Iran and Iraq.....

....The crumbling Ottoman Empire aligned itself with Germany against Russia, Great Britain, France, and Italy. During the war, Britain encouraged the Arabs to revolt and supported them in guerrilla campaigns, promising them independence from the Ottoman Turks after the war. These campaigns are best known from the popular press coverage and writings of Thomas Edward Lawrence who was a British liaison officer aiding the Arab Revolt of 1916-18.

In 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI, the now famous "Lawrence of Arabia" warned that unless Arab nations received the independence promised them by Britain and France for their help battling German-allied Turkish forces during the war, his great grandchildren may have to fight a war in Iraq wearing gas masks.

Unfortunately, oil concerns resulted in broken promises and the Middle East was divided up between Britain and France into zones of influence with mandates from the League of Nations that suited their interests. Lebanon and Syria went to France, Iraq and Transjordan (now Jordan) went to Britain, and Palestine was to be controlled jointly between the two, but later, France ceded Palestine to Britain, which would oversee Palestinian affairs through a series of British High Commissioners until 1948. The decision to break these promises had actually been made during the war in the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and ran contrary to the recommendations of President Wilson's King-Crane Commission, a group sent to the Middle East to determine the wishes of the Arab people.

In 1920, Britain, France, and the U.S. seized the rights to 95% of Iraqi oil which started a revolt. When Iraqis attempted to throw the British out, the British responded by burning to the ground every village that had launched an attack against them (resulting in 10,000 Iraqi tribesmen and 450 British killed), they also kidnapped the popular leader Sayid Taleb, who had threatened a national revolt if Iraqis were not allowed to choose their own leader, and installed Feisal as king of Iraq. Later, they installed Feisal's brother Abdullah as king of Transjordan.

Over the next several decades, Great Britain and France maintained a heavy hand in Iraq and the Middle East in general.

In Iraq, for example, British intelligence initiated coups and murdered almost every Iraqi leader and king from 1920 through 1958, mainly because most of them had called for the return of Kuwait (Kuwait had previously been an autonomous region of the Ottoman Empire, but had become a British protectorate in 1899, a status it would maintain until independence was declared in 1961). The British even occupied Iraq for four years during WWII. Between 1921 and 1958 more than fifty governments came into power.

---Snip---

In Iran, the British had tried to establish itself as protectorate with the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919, but popular opposition lead Persian Cossacks Brigade officer Reza Khan to seize power in 1921. This gave them some independence until they nationalized their oil industry in 1951, resulting in sanctions and threats from the British and eventual overthrow of their democratic government by the CIA in 1951. The CIA then installed the Shah as dictator, who remained in control of Iran until 1979. By 1954, Iran was once again dealing with British, French, and American oil companies.

In 1958, the British and the U.S. backed a coup in Iraq to overthrow King Faisal II (who had been previously installed by the British), who was killed and replaced by Abdel Karim Qassim.

Qassim quickly fell out of favor with the West, buying arms from the U.S.S.R. and appointing communists to positions of power, so the CIA employed a 22-year-old Saddam Hussein to lead an attempt to assassinate Qassim in 1959. The assassination attempt failed when the young Saddam fired too early, only wounding Qassim and killing his driver. Afterwards, the CIA helped Saddam escape to Syria and then moved him to an upper-class neighborhood in Cairo after spending some time training in him in Beirut.

In 1960, the CIA tried again to kill Qassim, this time with a poisoned handkerchief, and once again failed. Also this year, OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting States) was formed to halt falling oil prices.

In 1961, Qassim nationalized part of Iraq Petroleum, which was controlled by the British, and resumed relations with the Soviet Union, further angering the West.

In 1963, the CIA tried again with Saddam, aiding him and his Ba'ath party in a bloody military coup. This time, they were successful in overthrowing Qassim, killing an estimated 5,000 and putting the Ba'ath party in power. After the coup, 800 communists were put to death from a list provided by the CIA. Without popular support, the Ba'ath party only lasted 9 months and was overthrown by rival army officers.

In 1968, the CIA backed the Ba'ath party again in another successful coup. Saddam Hussein became the dominate leader of the party.

In 1972, Iraq nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Company, causing the Nixon Administration to launch a campaign to destabilize the Iraqi government. The U.S. armed the Kurdish people to harass the Iraqi government and tens of thousands of Kurds were killed as a result.

From 1951 until 1979, the U.S. supported the Shah of Iran, whose brutal secret police (the SAVAK) had one of the worst human rights records in the world. Amnesty International said that their CIA-textbook torture techniques were "beyond belief."

Opposition to the rule of the Shah lead to a revolution in 1979, which caused the Shah to flee to the U.S. and his main opponent, the Islamic fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini, to return from exile to rule the country in a clergy-dominated Islamic Republic.

---Snip----

In 1980, the U.S. gave Saddam a green light to launch the war against Iran.

All during the Iraq/Iran war of the eighties, the U.S. supported Iraq; providing intelligence, satellite photography, strategic operational advice, cluster bombs, and chemical and biological agents, including many strains of anthrax. By 1983, the U.S. was aware of the almost daily use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces, but this did not halt support. During this time, President Ronald Reagan signed a secret order to do "whatever is necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war. One month later, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, telling him that the U.S. was willing to help his regime and attempted to work out a deal for a oil pipeline through Iraq.

In 1984, the U.S. stated; "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

In spite of the fact that the U.S. was backing Iraq, members of the Reagan administration illegally and secretly sold weapons to Iran in 1985 and 1986 to fund the Nicaraguan Contras in what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Salem bin Laden, Osama's oldest brother, was allegedly involved in funneling an estimated thirty-four million dollars through Saudi Arabia to the Contras.

----Snip----

In 1987, the U.S. destroyed three Iranian offshore oil platforms to aid Iraq in the war.

In 1988, the Iraq/Iran war ended in a stalemate. By this time, Saddam had rejected the idea of a pipeline, in spite of U.S. lobbying, and he began to fall out of favor.

In 1989, the U.S. began to develop new military operations plans for the Persian Gulf region to prepare for possible intervention in a conflict with Iraq and, in early 1990, General Schwarzkoft notified the Senate Armed Services Committee that these new plans were designed to protect U.S. oil interests in the event of any conflict.

By July of 1989, General Schwarzkoft was running computerized war games between U.S. and Iraq.

All this time the tensions between Iraq and Kuwait were growing, as Kuwait was engaging in slant oil well drillings of underground pools shared with Iraq, extracting excessive amounts and violating OPEC oil production agreements. Iraq began making threats against them and when Saddam Hussein asked the U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain the U.S. position on the matter, she told him that the U.S. considered it a regional dispute and would not intervene.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.

Right up until the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. Department of Defense training manuals spoke positively of Saddam, saying his regime was one of the most enlightened and progressive governments in the region and that he had vastly improved education, medical care, and the standard of living of his people. Now, he was demonized by the Bush Sr. administration as worse than Hitler.

On August 6, President Bush sent Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf to Saudi Arabia to warn King Fahd that Iraqis were amassing on his border, intent on invasion in as little as 48 hours. Although, Fahd did not believe Iraq had any intentions to invade, he was convinced otherwise by this delegation. The delegation claimed that satellite images indicated that 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks were on the border of Saudi Arabia. Based on this claim, King Fahd allowed the U.S. to use his country as a staging ground for the coming war against Iraq.

As the Christian Science Monitor reported, regarding evidence from satellite images of the area later obtained by the St. Petersburg Times in Florida; "...no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert."

Jean Heller, the journalist who broke the story, said; "It was a pretty serious fib."

"That was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," she said.

In the propaganda campaign before the war, there were tearful testimonies of Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from incubators in a hospital and being "left on the cold floor to die." (Seven congressmen cited this testimony as part of the reason they gave Bush Sr. authority to wage war - the resolution passed by five votes.)

Later, it was learned that the testimonies were produced by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, who had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.

The witnesses had been coached and included - as the primary witness - the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington, who had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

President Bush used multi-million dollar bribes and threats of economic retaliation to coerce United Nations Security Council to pass resolutions, giving power for the creation of a coalition to use any means necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Yemen, for example, who voted against the U.S., lost millions of dollars of aid as a result.

Osama bin Laden, who had recently returned to Saudi Arabia, offered to defend his country with his mujaheddin fighters in the case of an invasion by Iraq but was refused. Bin Laden became enraged when the Saudis allowed 300,000 U.S. soldiers and a U.S. base to be established on Saudi soil and left the country to launch his career as a terrorist.

The resulting Gulf War removed Iraq from Kuwait but stopped short of removing Saddam from power since none of the resolutions called for the defeat of the government of Iraq.

After the war, President Bush encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, implying that they would receive support from the U.S.. The resulting Kurdish uprising failed when U.S. support did not materialize, resulting in some of the mass graves which are now being cited as how "evil" Saddam was. It was the Kurds' Bay of Pigs.

In 1998, Bush Sr. would write; "Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Daniel
08-09-2005, 04:41 PM
Advocatus Diaboli, you're right. Western nations have done many things to the Middle East and other parts of the world in the past 200 years. But does that mean we now, in the present time, do nothing? We could debate back and forth about whose fault it was that there is great resentment over there towards us, but how does that solve our problems now?

I'll give you an example. It's agreed on by most historians that the main thrust of World War II was the reparations we wanted Germany to pay after World War I. Great Britain, France, and the United States created the conditions for Germany's decline after WWI and horrible inflation. Because of that inflation many people in Germany were quite resentful of GB, France, and the US. When Hitler came to power one of his slogans was "Lebensraum"--room to live. They had good reason to be pissed off. Should we have done nothing and allowed the Germans to do what they were doing out of a sense of national guilt?

I would hope our foreign policy becomes more enlightened (although I'm not betting on it). But we can't allow the past to hold us back.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-09-2005, 05:52 PM
I was about to go into the story about the rise of Hitler in the last post. That is another example of something we didn't learn from. I think you could look at the sanctions we imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War as a similar thing, and see how that might have played a part in giving bin Laden ammunition.

Let me work up to answering your question....

The people who are in charge right now had a previous agenda to take out Iraq before they even came into power to a greater extent than you may be aware. It was something they were talking about before they came into power and it was something they were talking about as soon as they came into power. I can give you enough evidence to convince you of this if you want me to, but I won't go into it all right now.

They basically felt that it was important to have an American military presence in Iraq and they felt they could use Iraqi non-compliance with sanctions as a pretext. However, they felt that the American public wouldn't get behind their plans absent something like a "new Pearl Harbor" (this is in their own words). I can even demonstrate how there were ideological aspects as well as corporate oil concerns and personal reasons that all dove-tailed into this administration's policies.

It was al Qaeda that attacked the US, not Iraq. One thing had nothing to do with the other, but it gave them their ticket to ride.

By declaring a war against an abstraction (or a tactic) instead of just going after the people responsible, it gave them the excuse they needed to do something they had already planned. And the reasons they had planned to do this had nothing to do with defeating terrorism and everything to do with some neo-imperialistic agenda that had already been outlined. (The "war on terror" is just as dumb as Roosevelt launching a war against "sneak-attackism" after Pearl Harbor.)

The administration then proceeded to launch a campaign of misinformation, fear-mongering, and lies in order to get public support for their little war with Iraq.

By every objective measurement, terrorism is on the rise, so what they are doing is not working.

These people have mislead Congress and the American public into war. They have been wrong about everything so far - except that we could defeat a country with the military capacity of Idaho - they were wrong about the threat, the WMDs, the yellow cake, the drones, the chemical and biological weapons, the link to al Qaeda, the cost, the time it would take, the aftermath.....

Whatever we need to do, we need to have some other people doing it.

To tell you the truth, I did everything I could do to stop us from going into Iraq. I felt that if we did, we may have made a mess that couldn't be fixed. Now, I'm not sure there is any good way out of it. I hate to keep pounding on the mistakes of the past, but someone needs to be held accountable. You don't just walk away from a murder and say we can't worry about who committed it or we should only focus on the future and forget the past. I admit, I'm bitter and upset about what has happened and I don't have the magic solution for what we should do now. The ideas I have would never be implemented anyway.

If I had to take a shot at a solution, I would say that we should divide Iraq into three states in loose confederation and get out ASAP or sooner, that we should stop supporting dictatorships and start trying to help the people in them. That we should start trying to play even-handedly and threat other nations as we would like to be treated. That we should increase our foreign aid and peace programs. That we should reassess our military bases across the world. That we end the "war on terrorism" as far as waging it as a literal "war" and try to reengage our allies in coming up with ways to address this problem instead of our attitude of our way or the highway. That we ditch the PATRIOT Act, try all detainees as prisoners of war in open court. Close Gitmo and all other detention centers ASAP. That we withhold aid to Israel unless they tear down the wall they are building and retreat back to their original borders, and so on. Oh! and I would refocus on bringing bin Laden to justice with the same vigor that we started with.

Let me know it you want references to any of the issues I brought up. I've spent thousands and thousands of hours researching this and I can back up anything I've said with sources and links so you can see for yourself.

vheltrite
08-09-2005, 09:56 PM
really???

Daniel
08-11-2005, 08:20 AM
Advocatus Diaboli,

You sound very sincere in your desire to want to do something and have a better world for all of us. I think most of us would agree with that position. And I'm glad you said what you did, because most people just shout without caring about what's going on, but merely to prove how much better their position is. I don't agree with everything you say or all of your solutions, but I think we all want the same things. I would love some recommendations as to what to read concerning these issues, as I feel that I haven't read enough about all this stuff and you seem to know what you're talking about. If you could send some links, names of books, articles--anything that is easily accessible--I'll try and find some stuff for my usual pastime of reading. I'm in L.A. so if I have to I can go to the very large library downtown which has quite a few resources.

Downslide
08-11-2005, 06:58 PM
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world ...
Religion is accomplished by way of indoctrination from birth - generally, the more you practice it, the stronger your belief becomes, this is why terrorist training also has a strong component of it. It is psychological programming.

(side note: pepsi, coke, mcdonald's.. all those targeted commercials - those companies have life-long customers by the age of two these days, or at least, that's what studies have shown)

The Cure to it is simple, but easier said than done - it has to objectify religion & examine/study it from an etic perspective: it has to begin small, like an infection and will take generations. The best way is through school, and starting at an early age - i think that religion should never be practiced at school except during breaks, and on a personal level. Given the global community in which we live, where countries are finding new levels of religious mixing, it's important to educate all sides. Cultural mixing also helps.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-11-2005, 07:58 PM
Daniel,

OK, I'll start off with....

PART 1 - PRIOR INTENTIONS

SECTION 1 - THE NEOCONS

In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby drafted a report outlining the role the U.S. should play in the 21st Century which was called; "Defense Planning Guidance." It suggested an aggressive, preemptive, and unilateral approach that would "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" and wanted to make sure that America would maintain dominance in the world "by force if necessary."
When the draft was leaked, it met with plenty of criticism and was quickly withdrawn and denounced by Bush Sr., but the ideas it contained did not die with it.

During the Clinton administration, a group of like-minded neoconservative imperialists - funded by right-wing foundations, energy companies, and the military-industrial complex - continued the strategic planning outlined in the report, evolving into a group called; "The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC).

The group's former and current members and contributors include; Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Stephen Cambone, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim

In September 2000, before the election and one year before the "attack on America," the PNAC released a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", from which Bush's new National Defense Strategy derives. (You can go to pnac.org and click on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and read it for yourself.)

The report is a blueprint for an American empire and goes a long way to explain some of the actions of the Bush administration.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report says, "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Iran, Iraq and North Korea are identified as potential targets in the same sentence, hence explaining the "Axis of Evil" remarks from Bush. "Past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power" it says.

It speaks of a "Pax Americana" where we will have to perform "constabulary duties" and act preemptively and unilaterally to obtain our goals. This requires "American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

Both the National Defense Strategy and the PNAC report have the stated objective of insuring that no country will ever present a challenge to the United States and both recommend almost exactly the same increase in military spending which has now occurred. This is so we can "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars."

The report recommends that the U.S. establish permanent military bases "within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops" in addition to the roughly 130 nations where U.S. troops are already deployed. It refers to our troops as "the cavalry on the new American frontier" and our bases as "outposts on the new American frontier." It says we need new bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia.

The report recommends the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, a strong commitment to a global missile defense system (otherwise known as "Star Wars") and the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

But pay attention to this part: The report calls for control of the world's energy resources and the targeting of Iraq to achieve our goals because "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The report laments that the climate in America was not such that they could hope to achieve their goals in the near future without "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

The attack on 9-11-01 is just what they were looking for.

These people are now in power, in key positions, with the event they needed to accomplish their goals. They came ready with the blueprints for empire already in hand, and they have been following those blueprints to the letter.

The PNAC report soon became the outline for our new National Security Strategy.


Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 Fiscal Years (Draft), Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1992

"Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 Fiscal Years (Revised Draft)," Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1992

"Defense Strategy for the 1990's," Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1993

"Defense Planning Guidance for the 2004-2009 Fiscal Years," Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2002

"A Clean Break - A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a memo to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and others, July 8, 1996

PNAC: Letter to President Clinton, Jan. 26, 1998

PNAC Report: "Rebuilding America's Defenses," Sept. 2000

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002

------

NPR: Fresh Air interview with Joseph Cirincione, April 1, 2003 (Reference Audio Link for 04/01/03)

"Origins of Regime Change in Iraq," Carnegie Issue Brief by Joseph Cirincione, March 19, 2003

"Why We Are in Iraq," Speech by Carnegie Senior Associate Joseph Cirincione at American University Teach-In, March 23, 2003 (pdf)

Frontline: "The War Behind Closed Doors," Feb. 20, 2003

Frontline: "The War Behind Closed Doors - Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine," Feb. 20, 2003

"Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a Plan for Global Dominance." David Armstong. Harper's Magazine, Oct. 2002.

"The President's Real Goal in Iraq," by Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Op-Ed, Sept. 29, 2002

"Promoting Democracy In The Middle East - The Problem of U.S. Credibility," Carnegie Working Paper by Marina Ottaway, March 2003

"U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2003

"First Stop, Iraq," Time, March 25, 2003

"Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become 'GloboCop'," by Jim Lobe, IPS-Inter Press Service, June 10, 2003

"Blood Simple" By Chris Floyd, The Moscow Times, Sept. 13, 2002

"A Bush vision of Pax Americana," by Gail Russell Chaddock, The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 23, 2002

"George Bush & the World," by Frances FitzGerald, The New York Review, Volume 49, Number 14 ∑ Sept. 26, 2002

"Manifesto," by Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, Issue of 2002-10-14 and 21 Posted Oct. 7, 2002

"Our Way," by Fareed Zakaria, The New Yorker, Issue of 2002-10-14 and 21, Posted Oct. 7, 2002

John Pilger Commentary: Dec. 12, 2002

"Intoxicated With Power," by Leon Fuerth, The Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2002;

"I Am Not For World Empire," Norman Mailer interview with The American Conservative, Dec. 2, 2002

John Pilger Commentary: Dec. 12, 2002

"An American Century," by Marty Jezer, Common Dreams, Jan. 4, 2003

"Is America's day in the sun over?" by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 6, 2003

"After Iraq," by Nicholas Lehmann, the New Yorker, February 17, 2003

"The Madness of Empire," The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell, Feb. 24, 2003

"Gaining an empire, losing democracy?" by Norman Mailer, Feb. 25, 2003

"Blood Money," by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, Feb. 27, 2003

"George Packer: Dreaming Of Democracy," The New York Times, March 2, 2003

"Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible," Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2003

"Quick Transformation to Democratic Middle East is Fantasy," by Tom Carothers and Bethany Lacina, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 16, 2003

"Ideologues Reshape World Over Breakfast," by Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, March 22, 2003

"The Next World Order," by Nicholas Lemann, The New Yorker, April 1, 2002

"Traffic Jam On The Road To Pax America," by Bill Berkowitz, Working For Change, April 2, 2003

"Emperor George," by Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, April 2, 2003

"From Republic To Empire," by Roger Morris, The Globe and Mail, April 14, 2003

"A Nation at War: Parallels; Europe Seems To Hear Echoes Of Empires Past," by Richard Bernstein, The New York Times, April 14, 2003

"How American Power Girds the Globe with a Ring of Steel," by Ian Traynor, The Guardian, April 21, 2003

"Postmodern Imperialism", by Daniel Vernet, Le Monde, April 24, 2003

"Real American agenda now becoming clear," by Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star, May. 4, 2003

I have more, but that should get you started regarding the first part of the first section. Let me know as soon as you are ready for the next bit.

NEXT....

PART 1 - PRIOR INTENTIONS

SECTION 2 - THE CORPORATE OIL CONCERNS

Advocatus Diaboli
08-11-2005, 08:06 PM
OH!

I forgot to add these about the neocon philosophy:

Boston Weekly Dig: "Neocon Men", by Brian Giles, July, 2003

Inter Press News Agency: "Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse", by Jim Lobe, May 7, 2003

New York Times: "Leo-Cons; A Classicist's Legacy: New Empire Builders", by James Atlas, May 4, 2003

God, my arse
08-11-2005, 08:30 PM
FOr centuries before, Christians nations, now the west, invaded and began something very provoking that continues now, it was understood at the time, that the Muslim religion was not so extreme as it is now. THe religion is far to dangerous to get involved with the people, by and large brainwashed. And that is why an isolationist policy is the best, just stay away, I mean the soviets were isolated, and what do we have now? Any people wishing to migrate away should be welcomed.

Daniel
08-11-2005, 10:21 PM
Advocatus Diaboli,

Thanks. I'll see what I can find and try to digest. You're the first person to actually give me some actual information I could look up to see what I think, instead of just a bunch of rhetoric. I'll be vacationing soon so I won't have as much time to look at this stuff, but as soon as I can I am interested to know what I'll find out. Just like in religion, if given the facts it's your responsibility to use them, and not just ignore them like a political ideologue would, or a fundamentalist Christian.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-11-2005, 10:55 PM
Daniel,

Just let me know somehow when you are ready for the next bits. Email me or something. I've barely scratched the surface with what I've given you so far.

Cap'n Awesome
08-19-2005, 01:16 AM
Yes Cap'n Awesome, I do believe that the main reason that they are attacking us is because of our imperialistic mucking around over there. I know it is more convenient to cast our enemies as forces of pure evil that hate us for our "freedoms" to justify our actions but if you actually read their rhetoric, you will see that one of the main reasons bin Laden decided to go after us is because he didn't like the idea of an American military base on the soil of Saudi Arabia and he thought that our sanctions on Iraq resulted in the death's of thousands of children -- this is all aside from our support for Israel.
Oh well of course, if Bin Laden said it, it must be true.
I would disagree with your reasons for why they are trying to kill us. This is an area with a long long memory, that puts much more value into history then we do. Where people still learn about the terrible mongolian masacres committed on them 800 years ago, where the crusades are fresh in mind. (Just remember the reaction Bush got when he called it a Crusade against terrorism) They don't hate us because of our freedom, they don't hate us because of some base in Saudi Arabia that's been there for half a dozen years. They hate us because we are the Infidels, we will always be the Infidels until we either convert to Islam or Die.

Maybe they are like Christianity 600 years ago, but it may be best not to go around poking at them with a stick and treating them unfairly regardless.
For the life of me, I will never ever ever understand Atheists who say we have to have tolerance for Islam, but hate Christianity so much. (I find Christianity a irrelevant annoyance for the most part) How are we supposed to treat them fairly? Let them have nuclear weapons because Isreal does? That's not treating them fairly, it's just being retarded. This is a religion that still enslaves (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/slavery-sudan-islamic-fundamentalists.html) people at an alarming rate. We are supposed to tolerate these people? Just leave them alone and let them do their thing, hoping that by removing a military base, it's going to make them forget a 1000 years of history? Islam is not a victim of the West, and I'm tired of people making it out to be. Never has the west expanded and held a single piece of Muslim terriotory in all of history. The same can hardly be said of Islam, which conquered Egypt and the other mediterranean countries that were originally much more part of the western christian world (http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/christian_egypt/christian_egypt.html) then of the Arab world. Muslims also view atheists as 'kafirun, a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer." The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. As the Sharia punishment for apostasy in Islam is death, atheists (as well as converts to other religions) in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief.' link (http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism)
Islam is the bigger threat then Christianity.

Jennifer
08-19-2005, 06:40 AM
For the life of me, I will never ever ever understand Atheists who say we have to have tolerance for Islam, but hate Christianity so much... This is a religion that still enslaves (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/slavery-sudan-islamic-fundamentalists.html) people at an alarming rate.
I agree with this Cap'n but I think its a mistake to assume that Christianity won't be every bit as bad if things keep moving in the same direction. Remember, people once used the Bible to justify the enslavement of Blacks in the US. Their nuts aren't any better or worse than our nuts, they've just had more time at bat.

And anyway, we aren't chasing Bin Forgotten. We spent all our resources on a completely unrelated nonthreat and now we need to come home and clean up the big fiscal mess created by George. Because of George, all of us will soon be living in dirt huts and making toys and cheap electronics for the Chinese. Iran is the least of our worries.

RedRob
08-19-2005, 07:54 AM
Oh well of course, if Bin Laden said it, it must be true.
Thanks for this ignorant statement. No one said Bin Laden was right and making statements like this is just a covert way of you trying to get people to agree with you not because of any facts you've presented but because of you common fear. Beautiful, you should be a politician, try the current presidents staff he seems to prefer people like you, ooo everyone is out to get us.
They hate us because we are the Infidels, we will always be the Infidels until we either convert to Islam or Die.
:lol::lol::lol::|
Right that's way the Islamic terrorism started after 1967 war in which Israel expended its borders and colonized more Arab land. Why don't you look at the facts before you make uneducated ignorant statements like this? Once again you should be a politician since your expertise seems to be fear and misinformation.

For the life of me, I will never ever ever understand Atheists who say we have to have tolerance for Islam, but hate Christianity so much. (I find Christianity a irrelevant annoyance for the most part) How are we supposed to treat them fairly? Let them have nuclear weapons because Isreal does? That's not treating them fairly, it's just being retarded. This is a religion that still enslaves people at an alarming rate. We are supposed to tolerate these people? Just leave them alone and let them do their thing, hoping that by removing a military base, it's going to make them forget a 1000 years of history? Islam is not a victim of the West, and I'm tired of people making it out to be. Never has the west expanded and held a single piece of Muslim terriotory in all of history.
Atheists talk shit about Christianity so much since most were Christians at some point. I personally have more against Islam but what you are saying is not the same treatment of Muslims as Christians. You are preaching violence against all Muslims; I don't see you preaching violence against all Christians because of the Christian extremists in the world. So once again stop inverting the facts and twisting what Rhinoq, AD and I are trying to say. You are only presenting your self as a bigot by saying what your saying, I hope you understand my point a little better now. I just like you am trying to look out for the best interests of my home (New York, USA). All our past policies have reflected your views (or something close to it) perhaps it's time for a change in the way we deal with that region.

The same can hardly be said of Islam, which conquered Egypt and the other Mediterranean countries that were originally much more part of the western christian world then of the Arab world. Muslims also view atheists as 'kafirun, a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer." The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. As the Sharia punishment for apostasy in Islam is death, atheists (as well as converts to other religions) in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief.'
Islam is the bigger threat then Christianity.
Egypt was part of the Christian world only because it was conquered by the Romans which are, last time I checked, EUROPEAN and later CHRISTIAN.

Most Muslims that I've dealt with are not as close-minded as what you describe above. Most things that we are discussing above are political not religious interests and acts. Also you are constantly blurring the line between religion and race as if all Muslims in the world live in the Middle East and are Arab.

PS
IF you want to list places that Islam conquered that were previously European Christians you should list Spain and the Balkans not Egypt.
Capín, sorry if I missed anything, Iím currently at work but just had to respond to your email due to the inaccuracy of your statement.
:D

Cap'n Awesome
08-19-2005, 08:39 AM
RedRob, please, don't interupt an intelligent debate if you are just going to call me a dumb, uneducated, redneck who (Dispite the fact I try my best to link to sources of information, or cite sources of information) However, I will try my best to respond to some of the legitimet points you make.

Thanks for this ignorant statement. No one said Bin Laden was right and making statements like this is just a covert way of you trying to get people to agree with you not because of any facts you've presented but because of you common fear.
That wasn't my intention at all, what I was trying to portray was that Osama isn't exactly going to present himself in an honest light. He's trying to rally people to the cause, so he'll say what he thinks will get the most people on his side, not what actually is.

Right that's way the Islamic terrorism started after 1967 war in which Israel expended its borders and colonized more Arab land. Why don't you look at the facts before you make uneducated ignorant statements like this? Once again you should be a politician since your expertise seems to be fear and misinformation.
You honestly believe that there was no confrontations between the west and Islam before 1967? Right, and I'm uneducated and ignorant. Listen, I don't support the state of Isreal, I think they are a dangerous agressive government squabbling over a tiny worthless patch of desert (The Holy Land!!) with dangerous agressive people. But they are a micronism is terms of reasons between western and Islamic confrontations. A drop in the bucket of history so to speak. People who think the Muslims hate us just because we support Isreal aren't looking at the larger scope of History between the west and Islam.

Atheists talk shit about Christianity so much since most were Christians at some point. I personally have more against Islam but what you are saying is not the same treatment of Muslims as Christians. You are preaching violence against all Muslims; I don't see you preaching violence against all Christians because of the Christian extremists in the world.
I have NEVER preached violence against all muslims. Futhermore, I would absolutely never judge an individual because of actions of a larger group. I am against that and people who do that totally and absolutely. What I dislike is the Muslim Governments in the world. what I hate and would like for us to get rid of all the Islam run governments because I feel there is nothing more dangerous then a religion, particularly this religion, running a state. Of course, because of over-sensative so called 'tolerant types' (Because we have to be tolerant of wonderful governments like the one in Sudan, which is the most vile, racist, anti-female, anti-human rights government in the world. In case you didn't check out the link now here is another chance. Mind you, it's a statistics based site too. link (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/slavery-sudan-islamic-fundamentalists.html) But liberals and such are never going to because they preach that we have to be 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs. (Iraq on the other hand, I find to be a complete waste of money and lives, after all the democracy we installed just voted in a Shiite muslim theocracy Iran-style government to replace the secular (Although still awful) government they had there)

IF you want to list places that Islam conquered that were previously European Christians you should list Spain and the Balkans not Egypt.
No no no, you are just used to Egypt, Morrocco and such being Islamic countries, because you view it from the very narrow scope of what's been going on in your own lifespan. For hundreds of years before Islam, they were christian countries. The point I was trying to make, historically, Islam has done just as much agression, if not more, against the west, as the west has done against it. Like I said before, this is an area with a long memory, and a grasp of history that we don't have here. You are looking at reasons why they hate us on too narrow of grounds, using western thought, 'what's happened in my lifetime, that's causing these people to try to kill us' But they don't think on the same narrow thought that we do. You have to think using the same historical spectrem that they do, 'What has happened in the last 50 lifetimes, that causes these people to hate us'

You are right though, I don't treat Islam and Christianity equally, but why should I? I view Islam as the more dangerous of the two (At the momement) The same as I don't treat Buddists and Christians equally, the same as I don't treat Atheists and Buddists equally. They are diffrent groups, which I am completely in the right to judge thier actions as a group. (not individually)

I hope that answered most of the problems that you were having with my post.

Cap'n Awesome
08-19-2005, 08:51 AM
I agree with this Cap'n but I think its a mistake to assume that Christianity won't be every bit as bad if things keep moving in the same direction. Remember, people once used the Bible to justify the enslavement of Blacks in the US. Their nuts aren't any better or worse than our nuts, they've just had more time at bat.

And anyway, we aren't chasing Bin Forgotten. We spent all our resources on a completely unrelated nonthreat and now we need to come home and clean up the big fiscal mess created by George. Because of George, all of us will soon be living in dirt huts and making toys and cheap electronics for the Chinese. Iran is the least of our worries.
Oh I agree that fundementalist Christians could become as big of a threat as Islam (Or much larger, considering the weapondry they have behind them), especially if they try to usher in The Rapture and end of days times with a confrontation over the 'Holy Land' (Which may happen, I keep my radio tuned to the Christian Broadcast Network 24/7, it's sometimes frightening what these people say. Also embarrasing when I get in my car with somebody for the first time, and turn it on and the Christian network comes on, and they go "Oh, your a Christian, I love Jesus too!" Then I have to explain how I'm a hardcore Atheist)

The out of control spending combined with the war on Iraq is going to play havoc on our economy in the next decade and I share your concerns. I more honest government would just raise taxes to pay for the war, if they were that honest however, and people realized the cost to our economy that the war is going to cause, then people wouldn't have supported it in the first place. If anybody is interested, here is video (http://www.house.gov/paul/) of two really great right-wing congressmen who have been against the war from the start, giving the most persuasive agrument against it I've ever heard.

RedRob
08-19-2005, 10:16 AM
RedRob, please, don't interupt an intelligent debate if you are just going to call me a dumb, uneducated, redneck who (Dispite the fact I try my best to link to sources of information, or cite sources of information) However, I will try my best to respond to some of the legitimet points you make.
I will answer the other parts of your reply later but I just had to comment on this part. I did not call you dumb or a redneck. I called your statements uneducated and ignorant and I stand by that still. <<< YOUR STATEMENTS NOT YOU.
By the way I was in this debate long before you, but I guess you did not bother to read previous posts, so youíre the one interrupting.

PS
Your link is to a politically motivated site and although it does have a legitimate article about Sudan it is still a very poor source to list. There is modern day slavery in the US if you did not know so your stand on the Muslim world would be hypocritical. Are you sure youíre not a Christian? I say fix our problems here before we go and try to ďpreachĒ to other countries, itís that simple. Besides we have tried your way (removing unfavorable governments) and it has not worked for us, so why do you insist on using the same fucking method that has failed over and over again.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-19-2005, 04:21 PM
Cap'n,

I'm just going to jump back in here and try to respond in general since I don't have much time this evening....

Yes, it is true that bin Laden might be lying about his reasons to - as you say - recruit others to join him. Well, if what I said wasn't part of why they hate us, how would he be able to use it to recruit???

Yes, they are historically aware and I'm sure that that plays a part -- but recent events might add to and reinforce this historical awareness don't you think???

Being a Philosophy and Religion major, I have studied their religion and read their Koran and I am aware of how they view Christians (and Jews) and I have to say you are wrong about how you think they feel about them. They see Christians and Jews as "people of the Book" and have no animosity toward them unless they screw with them. Their religion is a kind of an eye-for-an-eye religion and they believe it is not right to screw with others unless they are screwed by them, then it is tit-for-tat.

Yes, I believe that all religions are bad for their promotion of the irrational over the rational and Islam is no better than any other religion and worse than most, but my point is that by our actions we are exacerbating a problem by acting in ways that do not appear to be even-handed or fair - regardless of their religion (for example, Israel isn't supposed to have nuclear weapons any more than any of these other countries - that doesn't mean I'm suggesting passing out WMDs to everybody that wants one, it might just mean that I think we should put pressure on Israel to give up the ones they have). We are also doing things that make it appear that we are engaging in a Crusade against Islam and we are causing the moderates to become more radically opposed to us.

Do you even know why we went into Iraq? It wasn't because of Sept. 11, but that is what gave the neocons in this administration their ticket to pursue a previous agenda -- to have military force presence in the Middle East for our strategic (energy) interests. I refer you to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC at pnac.org). There is a report there called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that you can read their own words. It was published one year before 9-11-01 and before they came into power. It calls for everything we are currently engaged in including the removal of Saddam. It says: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and it laments that the climate in America is not such that they could hope to achieve their goals absent "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Well, they got into power and they got their "Pearl Harbor" event, and they proceeded to do everything outlined in the report. Do you know who the PNAC is???

Project for the New American Century (PNAC): Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Stephen Cambone, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim

The report is a kind of neo-imperialistic document. It calls for a "Pax Americana" where we will have to perform "constabulary duties" and act preemptively and unilaterally to obtain our goals. This requires "American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
The report recommends that the U.S. establish permanent military bases "within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops" in addition to the roughly 130 nations where U.S. troops are already deployed. It refers to our troops as "the cavalry on the new American frontier" and our bases as "outposts on the new American frontier" and it says we need new bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia.

According to CBS News, immediately after 9-11, Defense Secretary (and PNAC member) Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and began pushing the intelligence community hard for some link between the attack and Iraq. According to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time. Not only UBL (Osama bin Laden)." "Go massive," the notes say; "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Lacking hard evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attack, The Bush administration began effectively conducting a campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation, and dissemination regarding the threat by Iraq to the United States of America.

(We can get into the Downing Street Documents and other evidence at another time.)

I personally don't like being lied to and I don't recall any Democratic-Republican empires in the past (see Rome 101). I consider their ideology to be a threat to America.

I have more....

Remember the Energy Task Force meetings that PNAC member Cheney doesn't want to talk about?

It actually may be possible to guess what was discussed and suggested by the oil company representatives which attended at the secret Energy Task Force meetings by looking at a report that was submitted to Cheney in April, 2001 (during the time of the meetings). The report, called "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century", was commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations and James Baker, former Secretary of State under President Reagan and was linked to a "veritable who's who of U.S. hawks, oilmen, and corporate bigwigs," according to the Sydney Morning Herald. The report made the argument that there is a need of U.S. "military intervention" in Iraq to "secure control of its oil" and thereby address the coming energy crisis. It says that the U.S. should "investigate whether any changes to U.S. policy would quickly facilitate higher exports of oil from the Caspian Basin region...the exports from some oil discoveries could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly." [Emphasis mine]

Later, when the results of the Task Force meetings were announced in Cheney's national energy plan, it contained the suggestion that the U.S. could no longer depend on traditional sources and would have to obtain supplies from the Caspian regions and that the U.S. would have to overcome foreign resistance to the current limitations of American energy companies.

(I can even show how Enron plays into this, but I'll hold back tonight.)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many countries in the Caspian Basin region came open to big oil businesses for the first time and they promptly acquired interests in these countries. The problem was getting the oil out. Until a pipeline could be built through Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq, oil companies had to pay fees to Russia to use their pipeline, making the oil more expensive and the companies less profitable.

Once Bush Jr. came into office, his administration began negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline deal through Afghanistan. Their desire to obtain a deal led them to back off investigating Osama bin Laden or other Saudi royals financing al Qaeda and to make other policy decisions that caused them to take their eye off the ball with regard to the threat from al Qaeda.

In the summer of 2001, the administration was becoming increasingly irritated with how the talks were going and, according to some sources, threatened the Taliban with carpets of gold (money from a pipeline deal) or carpets of bombs (a war).

It appears that some time in the summer, the pipeline deal fell through.

A Reuters reporter interviewed bin Laden in late June and reported that; "There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?"

On the day before 9-11, a CIA plan to attack al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - with support for the Northern Alliance, including a U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan - was put on Bush's desk, awaiting his approval and signature when he returned from Florida.

There is more, but that is enough for one email tonight. This is not some wild conspiracy theory, this is their own words and deeds that you can check out on-line.

The bottom line is that we are screwing with them for our own interests using 9-11 as a pretext. And if you want to talk about history, I'll be happy to get into how we've been screwing with the Middle East and Iran and Iraq in particular since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

OK, that's enough and I'm gone for a couple of days.

Cap'n Awesome
08-19-2005, 11:36 PM
RedRob, please, don't interupt an intelligent debate if you are just going to call me a dumb, uneducated, redneck who (Dispite the fact I try my best to link to sources of information, or cite sources of information) However, I will try my best to respond to some of the legitimet points you make.
I will answer the other parts of your reply later but I just had to comment on this part. I did not call you dumb or a redneck. I called your statements uneducated and ignorant and I stand by that still. <<< YOUR STATEMENTS NOT YOU.
By the way I was in this debate long before you, but I guess you did not bother to read previous posts, so youíre the one interrupting.

PS
Your link is to a politically motivated site and although it does have a legitimate article about Sudan it is still a very poor source to list. There is modern day slavery in the US if you did not know so your stand on the Muslim world would be hypocritical. Are you sure youíre not a Christian? I say fix our problems here before we go and try to ďpreachĒ to other countries, itís that simple. Besides we have tried your way (removing unfavorable governments) and it has not worked for us, so why do you insist on using the same fucking method that has failed over and over again.
Forget it, it's clear you don't want to debate, you just want to name call the same way you do everytime you respond to one of my posts anywhere on this message board. Get it into your head that people who's opinion isn't a mirror clone of your own aren't dumb and uneducated. (Oh I'm sorry, thier opinions are dumb, racist and uneducated, which isn't implying anything about the person) I would never insult someone just because they have a diffrent political opinion then me. You however I will insult because you are fucking moron who can't throw together what we call an 'argument based on facts' You always break down to name calling because you don't have any facts or are too stupid or lazy to go get some. I'm done trying to debate you, I don't want to change your opinion, in fact, I would be ashamed to have a moron like having the same political views I do. (And believe me, there are) I'm not insulting you're because your a liberal, I'm insulting you because you're a stupid asshole.

Cap'n Awesome
08-20-2005, 12:02 AM
Cap'n,

I'm just going to jump back in here and try to respond in general since I don't have much time this evening....

Yes, it is true that bin Laden might be lying about his reasons to - as you say - recruit others to join him. Well, if what I said wasn't part of why they hate us, how would he be able to use it to recruit???

Yes, they are historically aware and I'm sure that that plays a part -- but recent events might add to and reinforce this historical awareness don't you think???
RedRob, you should take note of Advocatus Diaboli's excelent post, it's called 'how to state an opinion without sounding like a moronic asshole who is so entrenched in spewing mindless propaganda, he never includes a single fact in his argument'

Oh I agree that recent events reinforce the negative tensions between the west and Islam, and I will have it known that I disagree with the War in Iraq (for various reasons). I would just pose the query, do you feel that if we left the muslims alone, that they would be content to leave us alone? If we ceased at this moment, all our mucking around in the middle east, all our support for Isreal, would the Muslims also leave us alone? My answer to this would be a loud No. They are not the reactionaries that people try to paint them as, the countries they control are agressive expansionists the same that they have been for 1500 years.

Being a Philosophy and Religion major, I have studied their religion and read their Koran and I am aware of how they view Christians (and Jews) and I have to say you are wrong about how you think they feel about them. They see Christians and Jews as "people of the Book" and have no animosity toward them unless they screw with them. Their religion is a kind of an eye-for-an-eye religion and they believe it is not right to screw with others unless they are screwed by them, then it is tit-for-tat.
The Koran says Christians and Jews are people of the book (Refering to the Torah and Pslams and New Testement, Which they consider still holy books but corrupted by man) but what the Koran says, and the actions of Muslim fudementalists doesn't exactly line up. I would note the Koran also forbids Suicide, clearly the suicide bombers aren't following thier book. Prehaps you have more trust in Muslim extremists then I do, but I simply don't trust that if we left them alone they would be faithful to the Koran any more then I trust Jerry Falwell is going to follow the bibles teachings and give all his money to the poor and become a penniless pilgrim. (Also as one of my previous links points out, even if they weren't hostile to Christians and Jews, (which they are) they are very very hostile to Atheists, many muslim countries having the death penality for being an Atheist, I've never heard any of the Christian fundies, dumbfucks that they are, advocate the death penality for Atheists)


As to the rest of it, it's a lot of information to digest and I assure you I'll look over it. But for the moment, when I ask myself, who is more likely to get me killed, Radical Christians or Radical Muslims, the answer has to be Radical Muslims

Advocatus Diaboli
08-21-2005, 10:40 PM
Cap'n,

I'm back from my "break" and I'm glad to see that you responded without bringing Clinton into the discussion in some way. This is about the best response I have received from the "right-wing" in some time. I suppose it is because you have a bit of libertarian blood in you (something I picked up on in another of your posts in another thread).

I don't have a party that I feel totally supports my viewpoint, but I might be located somewhere between Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Independent (if you can imagine that). I tend to oppose Republicans for their association with the religious right, anti-abortion stance, and their cronyism with corporations over people and ideals.

I believe this country was attempting to throw off the saddle of kings and churches when it was founded, so that the People might rule. Now, I think that the Republicans are helping corporations put the saddle back on our backs so that they can rule. It is a clever scheme that is well marketed and keeps most Americans distracted and laying on the couch with their remotes wondering who the next American Idol might be, what celebrity is in trouble with the law this week, or where the latest white woman went missing.

All I'm after is the truth about what is going on and I am well versed in American history and what ideals this country was founded on - being the patriot that I am. I am really afraid we are headed down the wrong path, as quickly as they can push us, using 9-11 and jingoistic propaganda to milk the emotional fervor of the shallow and superficially involved/aware populous as much as they can get away with.

As much as I dislike this administration, I am as equally upset with the Democrats and the media for not having a spine to stand up to what is going on.

I have literally spent thousands and thousands of hours researching what is going on and there is a lot more to it than you might think. I was only skimming the top of the iceberg with my earlier post and I want you to know that I am not going by every nutty conspiracy theory out there. Being an atheist is a result of a skeptical nature and I take nothing at face value and I refuse to blindly follow anyone or any person's ideas. All that I am saying comes from spending WAY TOO MUCH time researching this. I am always open to be proven wrong with factual evidence, but I have spent so much time on this that I could literally bury you with enough solid reference material to keep you occupied for the next few years.

I was writing articles (that were published locally) on why we should be skeptical about every claim this administration was making about Iraq prior to 9-11 well before we invaded. Every single last thing I said before the invasion turned out to be true afterwards. I don't mean to pat myself on the back about it, the point I'm trying to make is that the truth was out there for anybody to see, if they wanted to spend the time to find it, and it is really a slap in the face to anybody that should have known that some guy with a computer and internet access, working on it in his spare time, was capable of knowing more than they did.

Sorry, I had to blow off some steam because it pisses me off and because I expected more from certain quarters than I got (especially from the supposedly "liberal" MSM).

Now, to more directly address your response....

While I probably harbor as much of a distaste toward religion as you do, I am putting all that religion aside (in some respects) to look at the fairness issues. Aside from the religion, how has the West been treating these people in the Middle East over the past... say 100 years (as a footnote to the whole history between "them and us" if you wish). We (the West) promised autonomy for all of these regions if they would help us in the first world war (that includes "Palestine"). Instead, we decided to establish ourselves as protectorates over them because of their resources and the Middle East was carved up into "zones of influence" between the UK, the US, and France that lasted for decades afterwards (depending on which country we are talking about).

For some examples..... We promised the Palestinians a homeland and we ended up building Israel where they thought they would be, we set up puppet governments in these other countries and overthrew them if they got out of line. The first "king" of Iraq was crowned to the tune of "God Save the King" by Britain. In fact, we (the West) have probably either installed or removed (or both) every leader Iraq has ever had since WWI. Britain even occupied Iraq for several years during WWII. When Iran decided to nationalize their oil, we installed the Shah, who had one of the worst human rights records the world has ever seen. We have supported and abandoned the Kurds two or three times now and we played both sides of the Iraq/Iran war hoping they would destroy each other. We even gave Saddam - a man we helped put into power - the green light to invade Kuwait and then punished him for it afterwards. It is probable that Iraq has never had a chance to determine their own fate outside our (the West) influence since they were first formed.

(I can send the details if you like.)

Now, take a look at Turkey. They managed to avoid becoming under the influence of the West after WWI. Since then, they have become increasingly westernized/modernized and less of a threat, while at the same time, those countries that we have mucked around with most - Iran and Iraq - became more of a threat.

So, what I'm doing is assessing the results of our mucking around vs. not mucking around with Middle Eastern countries and it looks to me like the more we mucked around, the more radically opposed to us they became. This would seem to make the most sense regardless of the religion question. Granted, they can use their religion and the whole long history to help make their case and drum up support, but I consider that our actions might be causing them to become more radical in their religion because of our not treating them fairly.

RedRob
08-22-2005, 08:32 AM
Forget it, it's clear you don't want to debate, you just want to name call the same way you do everytime you respond to one of my posts anywhere on this message board. Get it into your head that people who's opinion isn't a mirror clone of your own aren't dumb and uneducated. (Oh I'm sorry, thier opinions are dumb, racist and uneducated, which isn't implying anything about the person) I would never insult someone just because they have a diffrent political opinion then me. You however I will insult because you are fucking moron who can't throw together what we call an 'argument based on facts' You always break down to name calling because you don't have any facts or are too stupid or lazy to go get some. I'm done trying to debate you, I don't want to change your opinion, in fact, I would be ashamed to have a moron like having the same political views I do. (And believe me, there are) I'm not insulting you're because your a liberal, I'm insulting you because you're a stupid asshole.
:lol::lol::lol::|
I still have not called you any names but once again you have called me names. Anyone that reads your post can see that you have called me plenty of names while I have not called you any and I don't plan on it.

Your views are derived from mainstream patriotic catch fraises abundant in the American political world, that's why you list politically motivated news sources rather then actual news sources for your references. "Actual news sources" pertains to those sources where just the facts are reported without the insertion of the reporterís opinion unlike the site you've posted.

I admit I have low tolerance for people with your state of mind but it's not my fault you are unable to step away from mainstream opinions and political affiliations. I'm not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal or anything like that all I need to form my opinion is to look back at history and current events and make the link between them. No need to read the conservative or liberal propaganda papers to know what I (should) think, or what is happening in the world and why. Itís all written in time my friend, you are just ignorant of it and you will always be if you keep tagging yourself with these group names and placing yourself in these groups. Itís not a matter of different political opinion as you state, itís a matter of the truth, I called your opinion ignorant and uneducated because it is not based on facts and the truth itís based on a political groups ideology.
Have a nice day!:D

Rektruax
08-22-2005, 10:52 AM
Been following the thread. I must say it does appear that the Muslim extremist are a lot more motivated and ready to force their will. However, I wouldn't put it past more extreme Xtians to do the same in similar circumstances. In dealing with people who hold irrational beliefs, anything is possible. A mob mentality has resulted in chaos from complacency before here in the US. With the right (or wrong as the case may be) leader, there could just as easily be Xtian suicide bombers as any other. There are plenty of bazaar little sects and cults out there who on a regular basis commit mass suicide. To me, that introduces the potential for them to also take as many bystanders as possible with them. What was Koresh stockpiling for? What if Jones instead of telling his followers to drink the kool-aid, told them to shoot 'em up, then drink the kool-aid. Mind control is such a dangerous thing, and that's pretty much what religion is. A close eye needs to be kept on all of them. They're such children. Children with a lot of money and power.

Rektruax
08-22-2005, 11:16 AM
Also I must speak up in support of my fellow a-politicals. Who ever's in charge is bossman Charlie, and not to be trusted. I'm afraid the battle is lost guys. Nixon talked about religion on occasion, but that was just because he had to. It's grown worse and worse since then though. I predict (as the trend goes) our first amendment will be entirely gutted in the next 2 or 3 administrations. I see no reason for the Xtains to stop until their invisible friend is law, and as long as the only political parties with any real power are kissing JC ass, it will be so.

psyadam
08-23-2005, 12:28 AM
well i guess Iraq became an Islamic republic today. Good going Bush.

Rektruax
08-23-2005, 05:53 AM
I didn't vote for him.

Advocatus Diaboli
08-23-2005, 03:56 PM
Cap'n,

Just wanted to add this to my last post (which you may have overlooked).

This is from a paragraph in an article I read today:

Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has examined every act of suicide terrorism over the past 25 years. He refutes the assumption that suicide bombers are mainly driven by "an evil ideology independent of other circumstances." He said, "The facts are that since 1980, half the attacks have been secular. Few of the terrorists fit the standard stereotype ... Half of them are not religious fanatics at all. In fact, over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are not about] religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel the United States and other western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula and in countries they view as their homeland or prize greatly ... The link between anger over American, British and western military [action] and al-Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us could not be tighter."

I read about a report he had done on this awhile back. I'll have to hunt it down.