attacking iraq...sun tzu and kung fu philosophy

[Stacey]

Do you feel that Iraq is a true threat to us anyway? Or are we simply warlording oil? Is it wise to give one man an imbalance in our "balance or powers" *dictator

As martial artists we would never rush in blindly punching with our triceps without the support of our body.

Yet we also don't wait for someone to pull the trigger before we counter attack.

I think back to Sun Tzu saying to give the enemy an out or else he will fight back with nothing to lose.

Do we know that Sadaam is "evil" any more than the US. I'm sure Iraqi children hear about the evil Bush who does all sorts of evil things. What do we as citizens really know? And if he is evil, then its sad and foolish to play hamlet as we await our deaths.

I'm honestly split on the issue. There is so much risk in action and in non action. Which has more risks? Which will cost us more? I watched/listened to the debates yesterday and no one seems to know. The scary thing is that both sides have people that only see 25 percent of the issue and these are profesional politicians!!!

any imput would be great. The rest of the world seems to think its a bad idea. This WILL be viewed as a crusade against Islam/imperialism whether it is or not in reality. This could be like stamping out napalm. Then again who wants to pull a hamlet or have their legs (eg democrats like myself) go out on them when they need to punch.


While your at it, could someone please tell me how you tell if your liberal or conservative? I think I'm a conservative democrat...is this a non sequitor? Please help, I'm really asking for some info.

*Dictator was originally a Roman land owning man who would lead people to battle and then ideally relinquish his powers. One of the few men to do so was Cincinatus. (Whom George Washington patterned his life after.) He was rich, but worked his field to build his character. When called for war, put down his farming equipement, went, conquered. Then he rode home. Picked up his where he left off even though he could have ruled. Very Taoist sage of him.

[rogue]

Then we may just apply pressure in the right place and let his own loyal henchmen take him out.

[Suntzu]

u talkin bout Bush or Saddam… were evil, they're evil… whatever... in the end its all about OIL… but Bush is getting a lil too much power… but superman is the man with the biggest gun so what can u do… some say vote… but u see how much that worked… I need to see how my congressperson voted when they gave Bush the power to push the war button... i might have to write a letter...

[ewallace]

I really don't think I nor anyone without access to specific intelligence ie: government employes can form a truely solid opinion one way or another. There is probably a ton of info that we will never know about the situation that if leaked could jeopardize operational or national security.

Based on what I know right now, no...I don't think we should attack Iraq. But they are a threat to us, just not a direct threat. I am not very concerned about a scud making it to Texas.

Bottom line is that Iraq has refused to conform to U.N. requirements. Now all of a sudden they are saying "no way, we will not honor any new resolutions. We already agreed to resolutions a few years ago and shall stick to those". But they already violated those. A new resolution that allows military force to be used as a mean to enforce non-compliance should definitely be put into place.

If they have nothing to hide they won't mind the U.N Inspectors looking EVERYWHERE, with no given notice.

Iraq put itself in this situation. What did they expect to happen, they invade another country and the world just says to go back home and try and play nicee-nicee with your neighbors?

[Stacey]

good points.


another question.

Why do we have to do it?

BTW. Germany's prime minister criticized Bush. Bush asked some of the largest companies to slow business with Germany and hurt their economy as a result. Bottom line...Europe is in Bush's pocket.

Ok...that being what it is....can't we make Switzerland or Turkey do our dirty work for us?

I have a great idea....we could fund a small right wing sect in Kuwait to do it....we'll give them the best weapons and training and let them kill Sadaam. What do you think....I think I just stumbled onto a winner.

:rolleyes:

[Suntzu]

tru… I don’t have gov't type access to info and its all just my opinion… but the US isnt as depended on Iraqi oil as other countries and I don’t know how other countries relationship with Iraq and friends are… but if we attack and subsequently occupy Iraq we already know other countries dont like dealing with us the US so that could cause a whole 'nother pain in da azz situation... either way its gonna be ugly for the next few years...

[ewallace]

I think the oil theory is more or less a conspiracy theory. Think about it. Colin Powell is retired military. He is wealthy. Do you honestly think that he would knowingly send men to their deaths...some he probably would know personally...just so he and W could get some cut-rate oil?


I have a great idea....we could fund a small right wing sect in Kuwait to do it....we'll give them the best weapons and training and let them kill Sadaam. What do you think....I think I just stumbled onto a winner.

I think you stumbled onto CIA 101.

[yenhoi]

Yes, blast Iraq.

Some people truely think this is the beggining of something, and cant look back 10-11-20-45-100 years and see that this is just one piece of a very long and very large ordeal.

Some people truely think this is the beggining of something, and are having a very difficult time looking ahead 1-2-30 years, and seeing that even though we are the big tuff strong 'super-power' that the world is huge and lots of things are happening all the time.

quote poster:

The scary thing is that both sides have people that only see 25 percent of the issue and these are profesional politicians!!!

--

Profesional politicians typically _know_ less then even 25% of the game. Unfortunatly there is no ruler big enough to measure the game, so how does anyone know anything really?

America is lashing out and taking care of some loose strings. The people around the world seemed for the last 10 years to like having a big, huge, helpful giant around that they could wake up and get to lumber over and do stuff sometimes. Now they get all shaky when someone ****es off the giant. Good. Im not happy, Im not happy my nation was attacked, I wasent _directly_ affected by 9/11, and either were alot of people here, or elsewhere on the globe. I wasent _directly_ affected during any part of my short life when there were American politicains making political decisions that obviously affected other people in other places..................... bleh who cares, my country was attacked for whatever reason, and for me thats not right, I dont care about the whys and whens over wheres, so now, regardless of whatever variables, America is being a big, angry giant, maybe making some people around the world angry, jealous and afraid, those are good things right now, for Americans, and thats all I worry about, Americans.

On whatever you said about Crusading:

The culture of 'the west' and the culture of 'Islam' have been at odds for many, many decades. Concerning the thousands of years of recorded human political-worldy interaction - these types of large culture conflicts have rarely ended because of some abstract thing called diplomacy, or some abstract thing called policy. War - physical, violent conflict has always been a usefull and viable tool for enforcing or defending nations, countrys, and groups of people's viewpoints, needs, wants, whatever. Its a part of a country or nations tools, and if you live in a country or nation, you should hope that that government is looking out for it's people, not other governments people.

[Suntzu]

this countries runs on Big Business… notice on the new after they talk about dude that shootin people and the guys they suspect as being terrorist it about the economy… no cash flow no US… what else are we fighting for??? Freedom ??? Naw dude McDonalds... look at Viet Nam... we just gotta make sure Starbucks can get in on the market share... the Economy IS the American way...
I'm not flag bashing… shiiiit, I love my chicken from Popeyes…

[Radhnoti]

And if "taking control of the oil" was so important, why didn't we do it the first time? I don't think that argument holds much water either.
The comments of Germany's leader was...pathetic and inexcusable, in my opinion. He compared Bush to Hitler to stir up deep seated German fears and secure his re-election. If I were given the option and know-how, I'd do my part to hurt the German economy in protest myself.

Here's a link to another part of the forum where this discussion is already ongoing:

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=16242

Warning...it's already long and involved...and has more comments by me than I'm proud of... :o

[Suntzu]

I wonder how the US will act when the UN wants to be all in our business…

[Suntzu]

and i'm not sayin oil is the be all to end all... but it is a helluva perk... and to some other second world country starts callin iraq from some more oil and US answers the phone how will they react??? thats all i'm sayin... the US can do what it wants...

[neptunesfall]

I have a great idea....we could fund a small right wing sect in Kuwait to do it....we'll give them the best weapons and training and let them kill Sadaam. What do you think....I think I just stumbled onto a winner.
[/B]

i think you just stumbled onto another bin laden.

[ewallace]

Do we know that Sadaam is "evil" any more than the US
Well, when is the last time we attacked our own people with chem/bio weapons just because our leader did not like their ethnicity? And no infilitrating neighborhoods with crack from the CIA doesn't count. :rolleyes:

When is the last time we invaded another country with intent to take it over?

When is the last time we launched missles into the heart of another nations' city because we did not agree with their religion?

The U.S. is by no means any kind of a saint. But it's going to take a whole lot more than the same typical paranoid college-level-protest arguments to influence my opinions.

[ewallace]

While your at it, could someone please tell me how you tell if your liberal or conservative? I think I'm a conservative democrat...is this a non sequitor? Please help, I'm really asking for some info.

I really don't get into the whole liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican thing. I will vote for whoever I believe is the least dirty of the pack, and has views similar to mine on a wide range of issues. It was great the other day when a Democrat from Texas who had lost in the primary offered his support to the incumbant governer of Texas, Rick Perry, who is republican. Perry's challanger initiated an extremely dirty campaign. Of course Perry fired back with one of his own. I can just feel that Perry's opponent is dirty. I can't stand negative campaigns, but they will always exist. I just usually go with the least dirty player. Anyways, the Democrat just said flat out that Perry is the best man for the job, and the best choice for the interest of Texans, regardless of party line.

[Suntzu]

Well, when is the last time we attacked our own people with chem/bio weapons just because our leader did not like their ethnicity? uhhh … remember nuclear testing and stuff like the Tuskeegee Experiment…

And no infilitrating neighborhoods with crack from the CIA doesn't count. y not???

no the US is not a saint… but evil is relative… they are not threatening us cuz they think we are too goody 2 shoes… we are both(US and Iraq) evil in our own ways… the one who is most(maybe I mean less) evil will win…

... and my congresswoman voted NAY...

[KC Elbows]

1) Oil is not a conspiracy theory, but a valid and major part of all middle eastern dealings.

2) Not all middle eastern conflicts have anything to do with the bible.

3) Whoever said that oil couldn't be the issue cause we could have just taken over Iraq the first time doesn't seem to recall that Bush Sr. couldn't even get reelected, much less get popular support for a land war in the middle east. In addition, the military at that time didn't have anywhere near the training in urban warfare that they do now, and critics are still saying that it may not be enough, so that argument really doesn't apply here.

4) Bush is not America, and should not punish other country's leaders for having the same disagreement with him that many of his countrymen have, much less punishing the economy of the country whose leader says such.

As for the conservative liberal thing, I just read something the other day suggesting that, by the original definitions, a conservative is a socialist who likes the status quo, and a liberal is a socialist who wants a new status quo. Make of that what you will.

[Ford Prefect]

uhhh … remember nuclear testing and stuff like the Tuskeegee Experiment…

Not to put them in a better light, but these were all things that we had no idea what the effects were. The chemical weapons Saddam attacked his population with had effects that were wide known. Those weapons were used meliciously.


I wonder how the US will act when the UN wants to be all in our business…

THe UN is a joke that would have probably crumbled without the US just the way the LON did. Iraq showed just how powerful the UN was when they didn't think twice about screwing around with weapons inspectors.

Ewallace has made some good points here. The US is no saint, but we act with human rights in mind. It's easy to criticize the one with the power when you don't have any. Do you think it's a coincidence that the only European country with a competant military continually sides with the US?

The oil thing is a joke as well. I guess there was tons of oil in Bosnia/Kosavo right? How about Somalia? That is one oil-rich nation as well. Look out for the war mongers who try to stop famine and genocide.

[yenhoi]

No one in thier right mind could seriously belive the dynamics of all worldly affairs hinge on what powerful men want oil from iraq?

True, no one in thier right mind could seriously believe that oil doesnt play a huge role in decision making, or that its not one of the largest influences in any decision making in that part of the world, but please.

Same thing applies to Germany...... I can see how someone who doesnt know better would glean that everything that is going on now or recently has something to do with Iraq, but again, c'mon....... go take a look at Germany now, and what has been happening there domestically and politically and then come back and tell me that the US and Germany dont get along as best buddys so well purely because of Iraq? Purely because of recent Iraq events..... get real.

Not everything you see on TV or read about in the newspapers and magazines is centered around whatever whoever is making into the biggest deal at the time.

Not only Germany, but nearly the whole of Europe has been trying to pry itself from the 'orbit' and 'control' and 'influence' of America. They have been doing it in large steps here, and small steps there. Anyone who has been actually paying attention to world events, rather then just watching them, before sept 11, and iraq II, and this and that, would be able to recognize these sorts of things.

Funny that we now start mentioning the UN and "international law" - who decides international law? Who enforces "international law"? Without getting into the nitty gritty... 'international law' is a joke, and doesnt really exist, not at all on any level similar to any other laws that the US or people in the US abide by. The United Nations is not to the world what Congress is to the United States, by any means.

The world doesnt rotate around Iraq. The world doesnt rotate around 'the war or terrorism' - the world does however rotate around America. Open eyes, listen more, worry less.

[premier]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
The comments of Germany's leader was...pathetic and inexcusable, in my opinion. He compared Bush to Hitler to stir up deep seated German fears and secure his re-election. If I were given the option and know-how, I'd do my part to hurt the German economy in protest myself.


OK.. Just how much do they teach you about european history in school? I think I was on 7th grade when they taught that the reason why hitler got hold of power was that he took advantage of the shameful peace agreement of the 1st world war. Germany was really put down after the 1st world war and that was easy way for Hitler to promote his nationalist ideas. He promised people jobs, better economy and powerful Germany, and to be honest he actually accomplished that. But of course he never told people about his plan to take over the europe and the holocaust.

So what's happening in USA at the moment? Let's see. You got attacked. That's a shame. That's a reason for Bush to promote war on terrorism and his plans to overthrown Saddam. Those are not bad thing, I agree. But still there's alternative motives for this. Economical mostly, nothing comparable to holocaust or something like that.

When it's laid out like this, don't you agree it does look a lot like Hitler's political tactics?

You also mentioned re-election.. you too have elections coming in few years, so I have to ask.. What has Bush's campaign done to his popularity? It has increased a lot, right? he was elected eventhough Gore actually got more votes, but hey, that's old. He's now more popular than ever. So your president is starting a little war to secure his re-election.. so what.. it's only a war. you're only attacking to a foreign country without any evidence to show. Good luck. I guess it's worth the re-election.

And I'm not trying to be anti-american. I know you are nice people. I just happen to hate your president and the way he handles things.


premier

[yenhoi]

Alot of domestic patriotic mobilizations look like what Hitler did, he was a smart guy afterall.

[Chang Style Novice]

http://www.salon.com/politics/featu...tark/index.html

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'

"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

"Well then, who will pay?

"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.

"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our president.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us."

[Braden]

"...could someone please tell me how you tell if your liberal or conservative?"

"As for the conservative liberal thing...by the original definitions, a conservative is a socialist who likes the status quo, and a liberal is a socialist who wants a new status quo."

Liberal == democrat. Conservative == republican.

I don't know where you got that 'original definition'. Socialism is extreme liberalism; and neither of them explicitly has anything to do with the status quo, although it so happens that the status quo leans towards liberalism. (Although I suppose that depends on which status quo you mean.)

It's all a gradient. The bare bones of it is that, the more liberal you get, the more you want the wealth to be controlled by the government.

[Braden]

premier

"When it's laid out like this, don't you agree it does look a lot like Hitler's political tactics?"

No.

[Braden]

Chang

"This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus."

Incorrect. For example, Clinton did it.

The difference is that Bush is up-front about it. Clinton had Monica keep our attention.

"For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy."

This is purely an ad hominem, and has no place here. The same is true of the following seven paragraphs.

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay."

Logically incorrect. Despite aforementioned tax cuts, aforementioned wealthy individuals and corporations still a) will pay a larger percentage of their income than others, and b) will contribute, in total, more than others.

Moreover, the speaker's purpose in bringing this up is clearly to bias listeners who agree with liberal economic policy into agreeing with his fundamentally unrelated thesis. This kind of argumentative strategy, again, is deplorable on such a serious political issue.

The following three paragraphs are even more disgusting examples, abusing, as they do, the listeners bias for such remarkably foreign topics as gender rights and environmentalism.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability..."

Me too, particularly after reading the above.

[diego]

Originally posted by ewallace

Well, when is the last time we attacked our own people with chem/bio weapons just because our leader did not like their ethnicity? And no infilitrating neighborhoods with crack from the CIA doesn't count. :rolleyes:

When is the last time we invaded another country with intent to take it over?

When is the last time we launched missles into the heart of another nations' city because we did not agree with their religion?

The U.S. is by no means any kind of a saint. But it's going to take a whole lot more than the same typical paranoid college-level-protest arguments to influence my opinions.

Did bush and raegan have noriega on the cia payroll?...if so how far fetched would it be for white texans to get some browns to give some white to blacks!?...and remeber this is raeganomic era not the slick willy decade.

i dont believe any conspiracy theorys but i dont doubt them either...it goes agianst logik and science, no matter how illogical they appear!.

[diego]

Artist: Geto Boys
Album: Grip It! On That Other Level
Song: City Under Siege
Typed by: jostmatt@bluewin.ch

[ Scarface ]
I like to teach the world to be
A dope mayn just like me
I like to front the world some coke
And let them sell for me

Born in the ghetto as a street thug
At age 16 I started sellin cheap drugs
Extacy will cost you three
A year later I robbed a dope house and stole a ki
36 is what I count
Now multiply 36 with 700 a ounce
Bag it up and make my profit
But some ***** mutha****a and officer's tryin to stop it

[ Bushwick Bill ]
And the ******* that's stoppin the bus
Is the same mutha****a that delivers to us
He's payin off the cops
Triple-crossin the middle man tryin to get the smaller pusher popped

[ Willie D ]
The politicians are players
Reagan and Bush were cuttin tough on Noriega
Now the juices are sour
Remember politician means schemin for power

(You know what a hossa is?
That's a pig that don't fly straight) --> Tony Montana

[ Scarface ]
Now let's go back to the past
The mutha****a who needs to be tried is Ronald Reagan's ass
Appointed Bush to the C.I.A.
(That **** was cold
Put Noriega on the payroll)
All of a sudden **** changed
Right after '88 (Yeah, yeah, yeah)
Hm - ain't that strange?
Some think I'm goin too far
But if you wanna go to war, I take you to war

[ Bushwick Bill ]
They don't care about niggas on welfare
As long as their kind ain't there
You've got my ki's on a freeze
Mutha****a, my city's under siege

(Today's special
Is ghetto dope)

See this track came out in 89, and blacks been saying cia brought in crack years before that i think san diego newpaper report wich the feds refuted...Regardless its hard not to be curious, if you give an ounce of a fuq...but the feds refuted it and noone can prove it...but was noriega working for bush? etc.

[diego]

Hm, also wasnt bush's son...yalls prez a cokehead in the mid 80s?...would it be so farfetched he was dipping into daddys Seceret Stash?:p :( :D

[diego]

final thought, and i would love for you educated conservatives to disprove this for me...the shtick why blacks say us redneck and corporate whites brought crack, was to kill the black power movement. Thier list of white tyranny goes back to nam, they say the cia transported heroin through the i think golden triangle. its known before nam, in the ghettoes the only junkies were bums...like in the 40s and 50s early 60s. then they say after nam, heroin junkies were all over the ghettoes, but the blacks just went through the civil rights movement and had political charachters like the black panthers, martin luther king, malcolmx, and even around this time the blood and crip gangs were still working for thier community.

"you see in will smiths movie ali, the feds are following malcolm...Why?.
is the whitemale american government worried the blacks might riseup and want some sort of reperations for building the country?..can anyone answer why the feds were so nervous on these black leaders...even john lennon?...were they worried about commies or they were just ****ed womenslib popped off...wich was the only real succsess from the civil rights era= Women in power changed the game...america to the late 50s was strictly a elite-white mans world..So were they worried they would lose power "thier moneys" wich they did....You see john Wayne characters strictly anymore in movies?, etc."

So, after the seventies crack came out and killed america...brought the ghettoe to the suburb...Now we have guys like eminem or whatnot...So if this really is real, they ****ed up, because they little white daughters liked the black gangster, now the suburbs arent clean conservative american atmospheres anymore...wich all changed in 88.

Truely it all changed then in the sense aids popped off, crack ****ing bloomed, and the fox network went on air, peeps went from bill cosby ethics to ****ing al bundy...in the 80s you would never see the jerry springer show.

so the cleanliness of what we remember about north america in the early 80s if you were rich or middle class...died with the symbolism of crack, aids and the gulf war televised on fox, mixed with the rodney king beating and the la riots...this is what killed americas innocence...Now rap outsells country, and some of yall used to call it a fad and crap:mad: :D

So, clinton definatly finished the job of killing the lie of wholesome jon wayne american bigman rules the world...but how much of a hand did the repubs have in starting it!?.

why were they monitoring rockers and black activists? in the 60s and 70s...i cant think of a positive reason!

besides maybe they didnt goto school through Integrationism...lwich if you watch that denzel washington movie When we were Titans? or something called like that, were he is a football coach teaching blacks and whites...its 71, and these white folk in whatever town they were in, are like **** you
ni%^&r...this is 71, a whole town!.

So, im sure not everyone got down, in fact i know they didnt...look at that time pic of the chicago white college students stabbing that black lawyer with a ****ing flagpole in his gut!...is it farfetched to imagine guys like nixon and his peeps could care less about some disenfranchised kids in the bronx.

also, according to many raegonomics meant **** in the ghettoes of the 80s, they say it was actually a hindrence, something like they cut out welfare?...Clinton actually did alot to continue integrationism.

I remember the kfo member Rogue i think in a thread about that movie gangs of new york, they say the cops used to be a strictly irish gang or something!?...When did the color lines disappear?.

Like was thier black female police chiefs in manhattan in the 60s?, maybe!...Texas= FuqNo

Please grab anything and counter it or had more facts...this is just things i picked up throughout the ages, ****ted out for you all at kungfuonline in 15 minutes!;) .

and im not editing or proofreading so deal with it}..

[KC Elbows]

Braden,
I believe what the original author(****, my typing skills suck after beer) was trying to say is that, functionaly, or at least to the generation that first defined liberal/conservative politics, the present republicans would be liberals to them, not conservatives, and the democrats would be other liberals with a different agenda, and both would be far enough on the liberal side to be considered socialists, by their estimation, and thus, the original definition.

However, where I read it was a much more effective explanation thanthe prresent, drunken explanation that comes after a wedding reception. If you have any difficulties with that, I suggest you pick up a nice set of dictionairies, and quit bothering me when I'm drunk.:D

[diego]

So, after the seventies crack came out and killed america...brought the ghettoe to the suburb...Now we have guys like eminem or whatnot...So if this really is real, they ****ed up, because they little white daughters liked the black gangster, now the suburbs arent clean conservative american atmospheres anymore...wich all changed in 88.

Truely it all changed then in the sense aids popped off, crack ****ing bloomed, and the fox network went on air, peeps went from bill cosby ethics to ****ing al bundy...in the 80s you would never see the jerry springer show.

so the cleanliness of what we remember about north america in the early 80s if you were rich or middle class...died with the symbolism of crack, aids and the gulf war televised on fox, mixed with the rodney king beating and the la riots...this is what killed americas innocence...Now rap outsells country""

Just as one could say the crack conspricay is farfetched...the others could say it is not.
Reading my quote above...maybe the feds and nixon were worried the blacks would keep going i mean they made it so they could ride at the front of the bus...what if the indians and blacks got together and made the un make the us give back what is more thiers then nixons ancestors nor bush's.

so lets set up thier leaders like the bps, lets assassinate thier spirtual leaders like malcolm and martin...and all in the meanwhile we will feed them crack and heron all at a cheap price...to break they moral will and stop them from speaking on our demons bieng white devils!.

isit that farfetched...its not like whiteman brought up the idea black boys should be going to school with white girls!.

Yall see, how this fascinates Me!?!..Also im only posting this because i love the offtopic potentialities of this main kf forum, as i love rap and cant stand country but im sure thiers a 50year old doctor on this forum who hates rap and loves hick muzak:) ...but we all love martial art culture..so i think this forum can be great as for instance the 911 threads...one can get so much perspective

also i just took the conspiracy out the theory..most start getting into illumanattie and all that crap like they are religious or spiritual..i just broke it down to the facts the perps may have just been gangsters...and conspiracys end to beginning can look like the white devil was reading oracles plotting world takeover 500 years ago...but begginning to end, its just this guy knew this guy...they ****ed over that guy and then they got over; Or some shiats!!!.

[FatherDog]

The vast majority of the actual generals and military personnel do <i><b>not</i></b> want to go to war. The President, the Vice President, and other members of the Cabinet, <i><b>none</i></b> of whom have ever actually been in real military service, are the ones who are pushing the resolution through.

In my opinion, when the civilians want to go to war and the actual professional warriors don't, you listen to the professional warriors.

Of course, I'm an inveterate cynic, and think that Bush is pushing us into war in order to distract the country from the state of economy and ensure he gets reelected, as well as get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his father, and possibly pump up oil prices for his various oil companies (http://www.accuracy.org for a rundown of Bush's economic ties, as well as a good deconstruction of his recent speech.)

[yenhoi]

Why would a professional 'warrior' want to go to war ever?

[Merryprankster]

Wow.

I really wish I had time to write here. I could probably knock out a 10 page paper on this.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. It's a common bit of advice given to medical students, but applies nicely to analysis work--which would include the VERY bad analyses commonly called "conspiracy theories." Those of you who believe it's all about oil can go back to studying the Illuminati.

[David Jamieson]

americans can vote bush out if they disagree with his foreign policies... oh wait, that didn't work the first time :D

While I believe Saddam Hussien is a psychotic, I also believe that w is a tinge shaky in the brain space.

Afterall, where did Saddam get all his weapons from? All the research material to create these weapons? hmmmmnn.

Do what ya gotta do I guess. It's a sticky wicket to be sure.
A thousand points of light it is NOT.

peace

[Stacey]

as martial artists we rarely attack without intelligence gathering...even making contact, we use listening jing and before contact, with eyes and intent etc.

We know where factories and missle sites are in the same way you can know the human anatomy. We don't know what kind of fire power they have.

So we and going to punch and kick, not knowing if we are dealing with someone pathetic like Iron Kim or someone who will hurt us like Ken Shamrock.


also...concerning the taoist book of strategy and leadership, which are the correct things to do.

If Bush want support, he should go to war himself..Who wouldn't back him if he put himself in equal danger with the men fighting? I would even have his back, and I think he's a gentrified waste of oxegen and a startling example of the dangers of an ascribed status. I think he also represents a lack of education in our country.

Its dangerous that a madman like Sadaam can have a nuke. How about a foolish prince with an IQ or 65 who rules with raw egotistical patriotism. When a country is afraid, patriotism grows. I love my country, but fear based patriotism is ego. Its a reaction. If you understand where you come from, you become naturally tolerant.

That being said, the American people didn't impeach him, so this republic is stuck with our own consequences. By our indifference and fear of the Terrible Turk, we want to hand over more power to him. I think Germany's prime minister wasn't off in calling him die furrer.

This whole thing is being compared to Germany rearming, but both men are acting as conquerors and that reminds us of Hitler. It should, we were supposed to learn something from that.


Concerning Oil...something to think about. Read up on US policy with the middle east before the 1920's. We didn't give a **** about the problems in the Mid East. As gasoline became more of an interest, we waited for our turn to colonialize the middle east. This was shortly after we had warlorded the west, hawaii (a sovern monarchy).

When the rest of Europe was fighting for bits, we were looking for a piece too. This comes from a long line since the crusades. If you don't believe in the connection, read "Orientalism" by Edward Said. He's yippy little man, but its a classic and is very profound. Their values have always been different and the west has always been appauled first at their backwardness and then that they can be civilized and wealthy challenges our own notions of what is correct. This is latent in who we vote for and still exists in our cultural soup.. Remember Aladin "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face, its barbaric, but hey, its home"

Its quite easy to point the finger and call them "Evil" Just as they can watch Baywatch and say the same thing. After all, without Russian, whom can we project our evil shadow on?

We have Anthropoligists and historians, we should read sometime, so we don't repeat history. In the mean time, Switzerland needs to take out Sadaam.

[guohuen]

Nice Beach Conger quote MP. Bag Balm and Duct Tape is a good book.

[yenhoi]

So we and going to punch and kick, not knowing if we are dealing with someone pathetic like......


-- Quote Stacy.

How do you know what "we" know?

The fact is YOU have no facts. Let your elected peeps worry about random **** you obviously are just spouting about unknowlingly.

I dont know if your an American, or if you were raised here or anything, but you might want to actually read your history instead of just listening to what other people have to say about history. Why do I flame this? Look what you said about the 1920-1930's and oil. That makes no sense, your talking silly-buisness. How would the United States possibly been able to afford or convice its people to get involved in the Middle East before the end of WWI, or even the beggining or WWII? America was a fledgling 3rd world country until about 1901 (and thats when it STARTED not being a 3rd world country) - would you expect El Salvador to be over in Palestine peacekeeping in modern times? No. Why would you expect super power action and attention from non-superpower countries?

I suppose we Americans should have been fighting the Mongols out of Europe back in the middle ages too, or keeping the muslims out of spain - and what was our deal during the crusades?

You make very silly assumptions about people and places you have never been or met. I have never met President Bush, and even though the sound bites that are shown on TV dont always make him look like a saint or spelling bee winner, I have no basis to make random personal remarks about him. I dont like some of his ideas or some of his administrations policys.

What do eastern lit. classics have to do with American Imperialism? Those books and words can only be conceptualized in VERY BROAD and GENERAL manners, much less applied any less broadly or anyless generally. Ive read the books you like to quote - they arent even in english, and I have yet to find any mention of America or Terrorism in them.

Your posts sound like you are a serious victum of some very slanted rhetoric.

[Stacey]

in other words, you don't need to read any silly books about Orientalism because I have no facts.


that makes sense.



Disney's Aladin was an example of manifest Orientalism in our culture. This has been driving our votes and foreign policy for a long time now. Its as bad as mammy or tar-baby who loves flapjacks and honey. These ideas make it easy for us to say, "Nuke em all" and back a moron who might actually do it. Just as notions of black inferiority justified slavery.

We inherited western cultures distain for the East that began durring the crusades.

Yes the US was a 3rd world country, but we still sent Ironclads to Istanbul. Why don't you read some books. I havn't been the victim of Rhetoric, but education.

Movies like Die Hard, Midnight Express, plays like "A Christian Turned Turk" books like Vathek. Other than Said, I suggest Andrew Wheatcroft's "The Ottomans" Dissolving Images"

Bush is a moron. Look at our country in those corrupt evil Clinton years of prosperity and surplus and now look at our strengthened patriotic times or reccesion. Yes its the stock market, its also stupid tax breaks that hurt us in the long run.

I have no facts, but then, no one but intelligence agencies do. What "facts" do you have?

[yenhoi]

Quote Stacey:

in other words, you don't need to read any silly books about Orientalism because I have no facts.

--

No. Im saying you have no facts, or at least havent shown where your surpreme knowledge comes from when you say things like:

I have no facts, but then, no one but intelligence agencies do

--

My comments on 'Orientalism' were meant to mean something like: 'those' books have no bearing on the current international situation unless quoted, applied, and thought about in extremely broad and general manner.

Quote Stacey:

We inherited western cultures distain for the East that began durring the crusades

--

I think "our" disdain for the East has to do with "our" dealings with them in the last 50-100 years. The crusades have little bearing on what "we" are doing to "them" in modern times. The crusades might have some bearing on how "they" are talking about what "we" are doing.

Quote Stacey:

Yes the US was a 3rd world country, but we still sent Ironclads to Istanbul. Why don't you read some books. I havn't been the victim of Rhetoric, but education.

--

Again, something else random that seems to have little to do with what you wanted to talk about. How does this entitle the Middle East to massive United States attention during the 1920s and so-forth? "We" didnt get involved heavily over there until it came time to kick German ass in the 1940's.

Quote Stacey:

Just as notions of black inferiority justified slavery.

--

Public justification usually has little to do with why things are really done. Black slavery during that time period was unique, becuase it was really one of the first times in -recent- history where people were justified as being enslaved just because of thier race - slavery exisited thousands of years before Europe re-discovered Africa. Societys enslave other societys people because its cheap labor. No one got together in a smoke filled room and decided to go find black people to enslave, and I also dout the slavery of Africa was much related to oil, but maybe so!

Quote Stacey:

Bush is a moron. Look at our country in those corrupt evil Clinton years of prosperity and surplus and now look at our strengthened patriotic times or reccesion. Yes its the stock market, its also stupid tax breaks that hurt us in the long run.

--

Huh? Back this one up there dude/dude-et. This looks like pure silly-talk. How is Bush a moron. What does your media-fed opinion of Bush have to do with anything? How do you go about saying the Clinton years were prosperous, based solely on how the US stock market did? How about Asian and Europe markets? During the Clinton years the entire world has taken two steps back as far as globalism and free-trade, human rights, hunger, science, you name it, its like the Soviets stoped playing so everyone decided to rewind back to the 70's.

I can understand someone saying 'stupid tax breaks hurt us in the long run' but I dont think you have any real reason to say such a thing. How do you suppose to explain why tax breaks hurt us in the long run?



I dont claim to have any facts to back me up. Im all opinion.

[Cyborg]

Liberal: someone who wants change/is open to new ideas.
This word is now commonly misused by all.

Conservative: favors the status quo.
Also misused.

Both parties (Rep. & Dem.) are socialists by my standards. The question is one of extent. The Rep. move to the left a little slower than Dem's.

Ahhh, oil. Is it or isn't it about oil? Yes and no. Really I think it's about big business which includes but isn't limited to oil. America spent 61 billion on the Gulf War and the lobbyists would like us to do it again.

IMO, we simply need to stop meddling in other peoples business. It was this meddling that created Saddam in the first place. Kung Lek was right when he pointed out that America is the one who supplied Saddam. Of course we also supplied and trained Bin Ladin back when he was fighting the Russians.

Many people the world over think of the USA as an arrogant bully who meddles far too much. I tend to agree. I have done a fair amount of traveling throughout the world and have had people tell me that, so please don't waste my time asking for verification. If New Yorkers came down here and bullied me I'd be pretty p'd.

Wow Stacey, I thought I'd never agree with you on anything! But I love your statement about fear based patriotism. That's exactly what's going on now, and it's why I despise it. If people were really patriotic they'd have had flags out before 9-11.

OK that's enough hot air blown for the quarter.

PS, this is no longer a Republic, it's a socialist mobacracy with some tyranny thrown in, ie; Bush's power grab to declare war on his own. What happened to the checks and balances? That's supposed to be Congress' job.

[Braden]

Cyborg

"Liberal: someone who wants change/is open to new ideas.
This word is now commonly misused by all. Conservative: favors the status quo. Also misused."

I'm pretty sure the question about what liberal and conservative meant related to their meanings as political belief sets. While it may be logically accurate to point out their definitions in other contexts, it's misleading in terms of this conversation.

In the political sense, the definitions you apply above are incorrect.

"Both parties (Rep. & Dem.) are socialists by my standards. The question is one of extent."

This may be true, but it would still be misleading to refer to the republicans as socialist. For that matter, it would also be misleading to refer to the democrats as socialist.

[Merryprankster]

Every now and again I like to read some of stacey's posts just to remind myself why s/he's on my ignore list.

"Meddling," is an inevitable result of globalization. Get used to it.

[Cyborg]

Braden, I object to changing the definitions of words, unfortunately it's one of those things that's inevitable. You are correct when you say that's not what they mean, now. I was pointing out that they used to mean something totally different.

According to Webster, socialism is a: an intermediate step between capitalism and communism or b: society or government owning the means of production and distribution. Ever heard the slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Sounds remarkably like the USA's welfare program to me. Haven't you ever heard of a major company having to ask the government for permission to merge with another?

The Dem's are undeniably socialist in their agenda. The Rep's are no better because while their platform is different, they really don't accomplish anything to counteract the Dem's. The Dem's move the country left and when it's the Rep's turn they don't move us back to the right. They simply seek to get re-elected and being a Rep. is a good way to do it. Bush & co. have passed some legislation that a Dem. could never get passed because the Rep's would have to oppose them to make it look good, after all, that's their job!

How would you refer to the Dem's and Rep's?

MP, are you saying that "globalization" is good or bad?

[Braden]

Cyborg

Words are entirely arbitrary symbols. Yet I too object to changing their definitions, as doing so impairs their function. How? Their function is to imply their definition. The definition most commonly identified with the word will mostly commonly be taken to be it's function. Changing the definition necessarily implies a new definition which is in the minority, rather than majority. Thus, this new definition is not likely to be recognized as it's function, and miscommunication will occur. Moreover, this new function will decrease the majority of the old function, causing more confusion when the word is properly used. However, I recognize that the relativistic nature of words means their definitions will inevitably change, and these changes will not stay in the minority forever. When a change becomes the majority, to stick to the old definition has becomes faulty, for the exact reasons mentioned above. In other words, you are guilty of the very thing you sought to avoid. It's worth noting that this situation is more complex, as words are contextual; this situation is magnified as 'jargon', words used in isolated technical fields. This is one of the things that makes discussing unfamiliar technical fields difficulty, and is part of what is happening here. I have tried to be sensitive to this to the beginning, stressing the difference between usage in this isolated technical context versus usage in colloquial language.

*whew* I bet you'll never bring up semantics with me again. :D

"According to Webster, socialism...Sounds remarkably like the USA's welfare program to me."

This is exactly the confusion I tried to address. We have both identified the situation as a continuum, permitting (in all but extreme theoretical cases) any potential position to have other postions which would deem it both 'more conservative' or 'more liberal' to them. However, this does not justify calling the democrats socialist any more than my pale scottish complexion justifies me calling other europeans black. It gets back to the relativism of words. When you say the word 'socialism', you imply, through comparison, a certain set of political beliefs (eg. classical french socialism). While american economic policy may be 'more liberal' than you, it would be entirely inaccurate to suggest it's analogous to classical french economic policy (or any of the other classic examples of socialist states). Doing so is a terrible miscommunication; moreover, it happens all the time. In other words, I should not call europeans black and you should not call americans socialist, because in both cases, the meanings most oftenly aroused in our listeners by these words will be contrary to the reality of the situation. Most people, I've found, with strong stances on their political leanings, do not actually grasp the political situation, and it is largely because of confounded messages like this.

For the other issue, consider defining conservativism by it's usual definition of an adherance to older values. Would this cause remarks about the 'new conservative policies in the chinese government' to be understood? Quite the opposite. The conservative evolution in chinese policy is, relatively speaking, a reasonably radical rejection of the older values. This is a dramatic example, but it's an example extremely pertinent to voter's perspective on the conservatives in north america, who are often inaccurately percieved as representing adherence to older values.

"How would you refer to the Dem's and Rep's?"

By none other than the names most often used to describe them, with necessary clarifications to those who insist on doing otherwise, and those who have been confused by them. As discussed above, I find any other approach to communication untenable.

[iron thread]

Might I remind you guys to throw in the general picture here, Bush can declare "war"--not a couple of battles fought in Iraq. Both sides can gather allies and coalitions, they can fight on US territory or Iraq territory. Although the US is strong, I thought we were attacking Iraq because they have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities? If so, what stops Saddam from launching it in our soil, in our very own backyards? Everybody knows that Bush may start war, and I'm sure including Saddam Hussein. Isn't it possible at this moment for him to make his pre-emptive strike to make sure we don't strike him all the same? War involves more than soldiers, civilians may very well be involved and affected.

[Merryprankster]

While I personally think it's a good thing, I wasn't commenting on its value. I was pointing out that as this globalization phenomenon increases, there is going to be more meddling between countries. As affairs become somewhat intertwined, interests will span borders, increasingly.


Iron-- Can Iraq project their force? That's the question.

[LEGEND]

This is not the early 1900's...no country can go thru ISOLATIONISM. We did that twice...didn't accomplish much accept get us involved in two world wars! The US policy has since change...during the war of ideology( vs. communism )...the cold war was established! Nobody wanted real war! USSR included...but man they tried to sneak some nukes into CUBA. Most of the money back then was build up are arms and force the USSR to buildup there's spending their own money. At the same time we were conducting uhhhhhhhhhh FREEDOM FIGHTERs funding. The same tactics the USSR and CHINA used to fund the VC were used by the USA to fund Afganhnistan peeps and S. American govs. Nowadayz...the only real threat for us...is the MIDDLE EAST. Most of the time we have attempted containment policy. All that changed with 9/11. Now we're in the middle of it! Iraq unfortunately will be an example of the US military power. Nothing more. We will go there...take over...put in a friendly gov. It's really really unfortunate; but thru out history it has been done. The real problems does not lie in the MIDDLE EAST countries joing forces to attack us...hell they can't even take on ISRAEL together. The real problem is future terrorist attacks. I believe more KICKBACK money will be supplied to numerous MIDDLE EASTERN gov. to encourage counter terrorism...with the mutual understanding that we'll loosen some debt strings or support that friendly gov. The 2nd cold war will be fought in a smaller playing ground folks...the middle east!

[diego]

Originally posted by yenhoi


I suppose we Americans should have been fighting the Mongols out of Europe back in the middle ages too, or keeping the muslims out of spain - and what was our deal during the crusades?



Nah...Yall should have just left the Natives be, and ya should have stayed the **** out of Africa!!!...Just Playing






























sortof

[diego]

Originally posted by LEGEND
FREEDOM FIGHTERs funding. The same tactics the USSR and CHINA used to fund the VC were used by the USA to fund Afganhnistan peeps and S. American govs. Nowadayz...the only real threat for us...is the MIDDLE EAST. Most of the time we have attempted containment policy. All that changed with 9/11.

You mention S.America...Can you tell me why they had the drugkingpin on the cia payroll, and was NORE a Politition also?.
I was a kid at the time so i missed that!.
peace

[Cyborg]

Braden, thank you for that long post! :D Actually, you clarified what I was trying to say about the definition of words. I agree completely that it's a relative thing and is always changing over time. And this is why I asked what you would call the Rep's and Dem's. The Republicans obviously no longer believe in the Republic, while Democrats according to their name believe in a pure democracy - the rule of 50% + 1 telling the rest what to do. Or taking the rests stuff. I'd still like to know where YOU think they are on the political scale.

"While they might be more socialist than you" hmmm, I believe that you either are, or you aren't. There are degrees, but even a little makes you one. Kinda like being a "little bit pregnant". You either are, or you aren't. 1 month pregnant, or 9 months, you are still pregnant.

"Isolationism will not work" "Get used to it" Tell that to the Swiss. They just last year joined the U.N., making it through the two world wars is impressive. "But they're isolated geographically" you say. We have more resources and people to offset that. It is a viable option.

Legend, what got us involved in the 2nd WW was our protection of the Communist Russians. Our gov. preached peace until Germany attacked Russia. As for our funding sedition in other countries, it's a dangerous path to tread. I've already pointed out that we were the ones to put Saddam in power. Remember Haiti? We installed a socialist dictator who's no better than the last dictator on the human rights issues. But politically, he'll do what we tell him to.

To get back on topic, if Bush and his children were going to war I could actually take him seriously.

MP, to answer your question about Iraq, I think that they can. There was some news recently about the USA's war games. The Pentagon hired a Marine Gen. (Ret) to lead the Red forces (obviously Iraq) against the Blue forces. He sunk most of the US fleet with small boats and passenger planes! The Pentagon cheated and raised them back to life and the cheating only got worse from then on. I don't have the link handy, run a search on it. And the Brit's say that Saddam has already threatened to perform a pre-emptive strike.

I gotta go, if y'all can't find that, I'll try.

[yenhoi]

Isent Iraq projecting its 'power' now, whether or not it wants to?

[LEGEND]

Diego...unfortunately back then they had every BAD guy on the payroll...Noriega, Bin Laden, Hussein etc...fear of COMMUNISM was the threat those leaders or administration feared back then! Hell when JFK ordered Castro demise the CIA tried to work with the 5 families of NY to get it done. Back then it didn't matter who u USED or WORKED with...as long as they fought the COMMUNIST threat. However, now that ended and the military streamline itself and the CIA had NOTHING ELSE to do until 9/11! Saddam threat??? Not sure if he can do jack...I think the reason BUSH wants him so bad is take away the SPITWAD effect=if he makes a small nuke...and gives it to some terrorist grp...plus I think BUSH wants to make an example out of him. You "F" with US u die type thang. It doesn't fit the conventional thinking of WESTERN CIVILIZATION I know. But the MIDDLE EASTERN peeps think differently...they respect VIOLENCE etc...it's been predicted that there will be tension in the middle east for the next 50 years. Overall those guys will alwayz be a problem...eventually the focus of hate on the US will be gone...then they'll have another hate focus...Israel again or perhaps IRAN.

[diego]

Originally posted by LEGEND
Diego...unfortunately back then they had every BAD guy on the payroll...Noriega, Bin Laden, Hussein etc...fear of COMMUNISM was the threat those leaders or administration feared back then! Hell when JFK ordered Castro demise the CIA tried to work with the 5 families of NY to get it done. Back then it didn't matter who u USED or WORKED with...as long as they fought the COMMUNIST threat.

This is where my facts go ignorant:) ...Who exactly is they?.
Integration was passed by kennedy right?...around 64 and didnt take full effect until the early 70s!?.
They took the coloredsigns off water-fountains either in the 20s or 40s...I imagine they before the twentys was rascist whites!?.

Can someone break down the History of Americas caste system..and do the people "voters" today really have the power?. Meaning bush is passing laws as he wishes, etc!.

I watched a movie recently on one of kennedys mistress's. In the movie the actor who plays kennedy calls Hoover a Fhag :)...Where the feds watching kennedy too?...who calls the shots in america, president, congress, fbi or the cia?. I imagine congress, but did they ok the cia seeking to use the ny 5familys?.

Many more Questions, but Who The Fuq is They!?.:cool:

and has it always been them, or has the Order of America had key points of change within it's Hisstory?.

[Souljah]

The Middle East DOESNT need another war, Its already got the Isreali-Palestine war (ahhheeemm, caused by the west!), The afgan war, and now bush wants to rage war against someone who they "think" has nuclear capabilities.....?
Why arent people scared of bushes nuclear 'reality' as he has the world in the palm of his hand and weapons of mass destruction (which no1 else is allowed to have?).
Now of course im not saying saddam hussien isnt wrong, but as has been said before bush and bushes intentions are far from saintly. He will kill thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands.
(of innocents)
Saddam may be a harsh dictator but bush is already responsible for the termination of thousands lives in a***anistan on supposed 'accidental strikes'.
DO you americans really have a say? I dont thinks so..... what a democracy where a guy gets in cause of his brother....and not cause of the peoples voting.


To me its probably part of the wests ongoing fight to put a firm grasp on the muslims and any possible threat to the US.
The US always has to have an enemy, and since russia is no more and their many attempts to assasinate Castro have failed they need someone to assert their dominance over. And 'convieneintly' Saddam was left by bush snr.

In my view bush is also trying to draw peoples attention away from the so called reccession you guys are facing and a war could be something to boost national 'moral'.

These are just my views

soul

[Merryprankster]

Souljah--it's not a recession, actually, anymore. A recession is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. That happenned. It isn't any longer.


MP, to answer your question about Iraq, I think that they can. There was some news recently about the USA's war games. The Pentagon hired a Marine Gen. (Ret) to lead the Red forces (obviously Iraq) against the Blue forces. He sunk most of the US fleet with small boats and passenger planes! The Pentagon cheated and raised them back to life and the cheating only got worse from then on. I don't have the link handy, run a search on it. And the Brit's say that Saddam has already threatened to perform a pre-emptive strike.

Where? My point being did "Saddam," do this in open ocean or littoral waters. MORE importantly, did they do it in the "Middle East?" Or was it speculated that he got his equipment to the U.S. Coast? IE--how do you get small boats and passenger planes across the ocean. THAT'S force projection. Kinda like "China has the largest sized ground forces in the world, and that's a threat to the U.S." Well, not really. It's a threat to our forces if we invade. But, considering that China has almost no blue water capability they can't actually project that Army anywhere. As a tool of global international relations, it's almost useless. It's a regional force.

Contrast this with carrier battlegroups, and troop ships--now we're talking force projection!

And that's my point about Iraq--can Saddam actually project his force abroad in a meaningful way? Terrorist attacks don't count. They are awful, but from an operational perspective, mostly just annoying. Don't get me wrong--loss of life sucks, but most terrorist attacks do little to hinder the operational capability of any nation's forces.

So again--can Iraq project his force? He can manipulate regional conflicts or situations possibly to his gain--not the same thing. And when that happens, you run the risk of intervention. But can he actually project?

[Merryprankster]

The Middle East DOESNT need another war, Its already got the Isreali-Palestine war (ahhheeemm, caused by the west!),

Man, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of the implication that Western culture is dirty, filthy, soulless, unclean, impure, evil and generally bad, whereas everything else is so much better. Don't like the rathole life you've got? Blame it on the west! Have a horrible dictator to deal with, but as a nation you lack the sense of outrage to band together and fight him? Blame it on the west!

[guohuen]

There were still "colored" and "whites only" signs on water fountains in the fifties and early sixties.

[Cyborg]

The war game simulation was in the Persian Gulf. And I disagree that terrorist attacks aren't projection of force. I suggest you read the book "Unrestricted Warfare" by two chinese colonels whose names I will not attempt to type. Their thesis is that they no longer need and should not try to tackle the US in the traditional military fashion. We are the best in the world technologically and they realize they can't destroy us that way. What they are proposing is "asymmetrical warfare", using everything from hackers, stock exchanges, funding terrorists etc.
The point is to damage us without letting us strike back, just wearing us down making us spend outrageous amounts. Our greatest strength is our freedom, with enough terrorist attacks of various sorts we'll lose those freedoms one by one.


And no, I don't blame the west for all that's bad. But without us the Palestine - Israeli war would have ended one way or the other. We support both sides with cash and lots of it.

[PLCrane]

Here's an interview with Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, who explains why it is very unlikely that Iraq has chemical, biological or nuclear capabilities now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html

Here's an article about the ramifications of oil production reaching its peak. We've used about half the oil on the planet, and production will gradually decline. http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html

Regarding the mantra we keep hearing about Saddam gassing "his own people," here's a story about gassed Kurds.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/grahamstrachan/more_truth.htm
"According to Jude Wanniski, who hosts the website SupplySideInvestor.com, whatever else he may have done, there is no possibility that Saddam gassed his own people and no evidence that he did. Bush and Cheney are relying heavily on a recent New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg which is based on 14-year-old hearsay, offering no evidence other than quotes from various Kurds who seem to remember gas being used [Jude Wanniski, www.SupplySideInvestor, Memo on the Margin, March 25, 2002, Re: Saddam Did Not Gas the Kurds].

Wanniski refers readers to a book by Stephen Pelletiere entitled ‘Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf’ (2001). Pelletiere, who was chief of the CIA Iraq desk at Langley in the 1980s, left the CIA in 1987 to become a lecturer at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., and was subsequently sent in 1988 to investigate the alleged gassings which took place at Halabja.

He concluded that the ‘several hundred Kurds’ who died at Halabja must have been killed by Iranians. Why? Because the deaths were caused by cyanide gas, which Iraq had not used in the war against Iran (it used mustard gas), and which, says Pelletiere, it had no ability to produce. The Iranians blamed the deaths on the Iraqis and won the public-relations war that followed, even though journalists at Halabja could see clearly that the symptoms had been caused by cyanide gas.

The US government itself later confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds. A Pentagon report, ‘Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East’ published in 1990 states (Chapter 5): “In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.” [United Nations: No Proof Saddam Gassed the Kurds: http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html]."

Here's a story about the alleged assassination attempt on George Sr. in Kuwait: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02



Why is anyone surprised that we're going to have an oil war when we have an oil president???

PLC

[PLCrane]

Here are some stories about the CIA and drugs:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/index.html

[Merryprankster]

Cyborg,

I disagree with that thesis, almost in its entirety. While asymmetric warfare has its places, the bottom line is that warfare is about putting well-trained people and equipment where you need them when you need them. A good example might be the old idea that air power would make ground forces obsolete. It didn't--primarily because you can't control strategic places with airpower. Don't get me wrong--it has its place, but it's more about battlefield space awareness and tactical advantage. Terrorism is similar--you can't control strategic points with it. The only hope that terrorism has is upsetting the population to a point they are so tired of living in fear they capitulate to the stated demands of the terrorist organization.

Then too, you have another problem. Terrorism in pursuit of a specific goal, in order to have a REAL effect, is going to have to be well coordinated, not unlike a military campaign. Otherwise, you just get a series of attacks, which, while generally obnoxious, are not a real deterrence to military activity--which might be directed against you if you don't cover your tracks properly. The solution is to make your operation cellular and decentralized. The problem with that is that now you run the risk of non-coordinated attacks, and further, it reduces your ability to focus on specific dates and times--you give the go ahead for the attack--and then you wait. You have to if you want your operatives to succeed--they are the only ones who know when everything would be vulnerable and in place and ready to go.

In short, the ability of terrorism to really damage capabilities, economic, military, political, etc is pretty small. The WTC is probably the greatest terrorist disaster to date, and it's overall effect on the U.S. and even the world has been relatively small. My quality of life certainly hasn't been changed, and that is very likely true of 99% of the world's population. Very few lives, on a comparative scale, were significantly changed, and while there was a short economic dip, consistent with the effect from most major negative news, I'd hardly call the blow crippling. You'd have to line a bunch of them up in a row. And that's not easy to do without geographic proximity (Israel and Palestine, for instance).

Finally, there is a real difference between capabilities, vulnerabilities and threats. Capability is what can you do? Vulnerabilities are what holes you have in your security. A threat is "what is the chance that their capabilities can take advantage of your vulnerabilities?" Cleverness is wonderful, but it takes more than one, or even a few acts of cleverness to change the course of events.

So, to outline asymmetric warfare as the key to defeating the U.S. is all well and good. To put it into practice is well another.

Terrorism is like an ant bite. It's painful and it itches, but unless you get a bunch of them all at once, it doesn't really change things all that much.

[Souljah]

Man, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of the implication that Western culture is dirty, filthy, soulless, unclean, impure, evil and generally bad, whereas everything else is so much better. Don't like the rathole life you've got? Blame it on the west! Have a horrible dictator to deal with, but as a nation you lack the sense of outrage to band together and fight him? Blame it on the west!

Merryprankster----- I never said anything about the west being dirty, nasty and soul less, if I felt that way entirely I would have left a long time ago. But it is a fact that the palestine- isreali war was caused (indirectly) by the allied forces after the 2nd WW when they dumped the jews there.....

And at the recession statement, shareprices are continuing to drop and more and more companies are declaring bankrupcy, I dont care what 'special definition' you have fo recession, whether it has passed or is still going on, the effects are still felt and its an embarresment to bush and alot of his butlers (tony blair included!)

[Braden]

Re: The recession. Hypothetical example: If people A are in power for years Y, people B are in power for years X, and people A are back in power for years Z; and you see a recession in Z, and a strong economy in X -> who's economic policy do you conclude for being responsible for the recession, and whose for the strong economy?

If you decide 'tax cuts hurt as in the long run', as Stacey explicitly put, do you go out and look for the economic hurt the day the tax cuts are announced? Jimmy James from NewsRadio once said, "We're dealing with international business here, not magical gnomes, Matthew."

Re: We, as a people, have a natural disdain for the cultures of the east. Oh, the irony of this thesis being said on a forum of promoting eastern culture in the west. Turn on the TV. Hollywood is obsessed with the east. There are ****ing t-shirts you can buy that say "I want a japanese girlfriend." Show me one that says "I want a scottish girlfriend"; come on, show me. The fact is, you guys are making up your beliefs based on whatever you want, and then going on and making observations to see if they're right. This isn't how the process works. First you observe, THEN you make your beliefs. Try it out sometime.

If popular culture doesn't work, try studying a history of war and/or foreign aid. Go someday to a graveyard filled with unmarked gravestones further than you can see, under each lying a western man, who, as a child, voluntarily threw his life away in the most wretched manner imaginable to feed and protect these lives you imagine they disdained. That's what it was about, boys. Yeah, there were other themes. There were themes of war-by-proxy with Russia. There were even economic themes. But don't delude yourself into thinking the presence of these themes overrides all others. Study some history. Read about John Paul Vann in Vietnam (eg. "A bright shining lie" by Neil Sheenan). I'm not being facetious; you wanna hold beliefs - inform yourself.

Re: Stacey says, "We inherited western cultures distain for the East that began durring the crusades." You are not just wrong, you are at the utter polar opposite of what is correct. The crusades began the global village movement and planted the seeds of tolerance that (really are) still spreading like wildfire (if you'll let me mix metaphors) today. You're making the same mistake here you made with your statements about the recession. You don't look at an event and use it to characterize the culture AFTER the event; you use it to characterize the culture BEFORE the event. That's just the nature of time. The Crusades made people who had not travelled more than a couple miles for several generations, get up and see the rest of the world. Post-crusades, the exchange of knowledge and culture was incredible.

Re: the war. Out of curiosity, were you guys up in arms back when the US and the UN made demands of Iraq?

I'm not being rhetorical, I'm interested in the answer from people.

[Ford Prefect]

Lots of poor brain washed souls out there. People, try to read up on the topic (ie more than a few news paper articles or 5 minutes of news) before coming to conclusions or attempting to debate.

Cyborg,

That war games thing was BS. The general relied on ramming small boats packed with explosives into war ships to win. Could you please tell me that after the USS Cole, why a US vessel would let an unidentified vessel anywhere near itself? They shoot first now and this isn't even war time. Like many computer systems trying to represent the real world, this system was flawed and the general found it. No big deal. BTW, just clarifying this. ;)

[Souljah]

Merryprankster, when you say the effect of terrorism can do little to damage economic power.... I may not be correct in saying this, but since the 9/11 attacks the national indexes like the DOW & FTSE are at like 50% of thier value prior to the attacks, due to lack in consumer confidence etc.... now I dont know a whole bunch about the stock market, but im sure some1 will school me if im way off the mark...

[Merryprankster]

Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc, have little to do with 9/11. A great deal of inflated stock value "hollow force," tech stocks and accounting failures have, as near as I can tell, almost nothing to do with Al Qaida or Bin Laden. Or are you suggesting that we had terrorists running the books at Enron?

I might also point out that we had two consecutive quarters of GROWTH not recession. It's just that it's not the 4 and 5% growth we got used to in the 90's *shrug*.

The stock market returned to the same level roughly, in three weeks after 9/11, that it was at three weeks PRIOR to 9/11. So yeah, I think it's safe to say that 9/11 didn't do **** to the U.S. or global economy, other than the downward spike. Go look at a chart of the Dow Jones, and you'll notice the sharp upturn after 9/11.

[Souljah]

ok your right, i can admit that.
looked it up , though you are right the dow jones did have a 'realtively' tough time shortly after the attacks which it took 3 months to recoup from. this was mainly due to short term 'impulsive' trading, however nothing is long term.

Back to what I said earlier, the point not being about the attacks in my 1st post on this thread but about the other companies decllaring bankruptcy and the general fall in the DOW jones' power recently, how bush is helping draw attention away from this "crisis" and helping boost moral with the nationalist vibe he promotes

[KC Elbows]

Earlier, I made a comment about conservatives/liberals being socialists. I had not meant for it to be a cornerstone of an argument or anything, just was saying I had read it and found it to be an interesting concept. Sorry to derail the conversation for a page or two there.:D

As an aside to what the conspiracy theorists and the realists are saying, oil is intrinsic to middle eastern relations, this is not conspiracy theory, but the reality of modern geopolitics. Discount it all you like, but at some realistic level, oil is involved. And when you're talking about a world leader with substantial ties to oil, it will be even more involved than otherwise.

Not saying it is the only motivator, but it is one.

When Israel takes palestinian land, we ignore it because that's our major ally. When Iraq did it they became our enemy, even though they are less fundamentalist, and WERE less anti american than others in the region.

Would it be going out on a limb to say that we would not ignore any of our western allies taking over their neighbors? Yet Israel, we'll ignore. Because they're our most reliable ally in the middle east. And we need a reliable ally there why? To keep the price of sand down? To help keep demand up for Houghton-Mifflin versions of the Koran?

Not saying oil is the only important part of this discussion, but there wouldn't be a discussion if it weren't for oil, because we wouldn't have funded sadam, we wouldn't have fought him, all that jazz. At the risk of sounding redundant, the dominant political force in the middle east is oil.

To say that oil is irrelevant to this topic is like saying Switzerland's neutrality in WWII had nothing to do with banking, or France's predicament had nothing to do with location.

It's ok to say that it has something to do with oil. That doesn't mean that you have to then involve the trilateral commission in the discussion. I'm willing to say it's a mix of national security issues caused by shortsighted us policies that still need to be changed, poor education replaced by extremist religion in the middle east, PR caused by the western world's behavior in the middle east, and, of course, the need for oil, among other things. Is that really a conspiracy theory?:)

[Stacey]

wow, great stuff all around. Keep it commin.

I don't agree with all of it, but I appreciate the diversity in opinion. I think this is fun.


Don't disregard old ideas. They are still latent in our culture. This is why we love israel because we (at least culturally) grew up with the stories from the christian bible.) In the same way we inherited the mythology of christiandom, we took with it the hate for the middle easterner and projected (and still do) all of our evil onto them.

I didn't make this up. This has been shaping our views of "Them" since the middle ages.

They are lustfull, terrible, ****sexual. In our literature such as "Vathek" all of the horrible things such as eating children and lesbian harems of one eyed negresses and evil Caliphs take place in the East because people wouldn't accept such stories with a European backdrop.

[LEGEND]

DIEGO...best answer to your question isssssssssssssssssss...THEY=PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. Each presidential administration that comes to power represents 4 or 8 years of changes! FDR had the most powerful administration in our HISTORY. Second may have been NIXON...yes NIXON...even though many know him as a TRICKY *******...reading numerous books on how he ran the presidency...I admire the SOB! He managed to negotiate with both the RED CHINA and USSR...truly a man that they respected if not feared. The FBI under Edgar Hoover was quite powerful...the NY 5 families are suspected to have something on Hoover...that's why he never declared Organize Crime existed in US. I think they had pics of him being ****sexual. Rumor...unknown if it's true. When Hoover died...organized crime was FUKED! Whoever u vote for know this...they are smarter than US...they have more INTEL. then we do...they may not make decisions that we agree with BUT that's cause we operate with a WESTERN mindself. In the Middle East...and other third world countries...military might is more respected than Ghandi like skills. How many democratic wannabe leaders you see in CHINA??? in IRAN??? in Saudi Arabia??? They have all been SHOT or IMPRISONED! That's why the US should UNFORTUNATELY flex their muscle...FEAR is our best deterent! Now regarding TERRORIST GROUPs...they are exactly like ORGANIZED CRIME...they can be destroyed...they're more easily destroyed! Why??? Organized Crime can get away with loopholes...the LEGAL SYSTEM. TERRORIST GROUPs...well no real LEGAL SYSTEM once the ORDER has been given to terminate them. Terrorist Groups sometime work hand in hand with Organized Crime group...they need $$$ or weapons...the difference is Terrorist Group=ideology...OC group=profit. The truth is if the US wants to take these groups down...they need to get informants that love the $$$$$$$$$$...and we all know how the almighty MONEY can cause peeps to rat out their own family members! Anywayz...international relation was a strange major...**** u had to think like SPOCK( no feeling ) to do good in it!

[Braden]

KC You're vividly over-simplifying the Israel-Palestine situation. Yes, Israel was put there unfairly and this caused alot of the problems. But, first of all, the "we" that put Israel there is not the US, even though that's how it's being played now. It's also worth keeping in mind that the placement wasn't arbitrary - there would be Israeli-Pakestine conflict in that area right now even if "we" hadn't put Israel there, by the very definition of how Israel defines itself. Now, and here's where it gets complicated, basically as soon as Israel was put there, everyone around them attacked, and somehow Israel came through with a sort of victory. What you're calling their siezing of land was a defensive response to being attacked. I'm not drawing any conclusions here, except to say that you've oversimplified your analysis. This would be excusable if done in isolation of anything else - except you oversimplified in order to draw a conclusion in order to provide evidence for a different matter (US ignoring their allies conquests). This argument is simply untenable.

Stacey Really? I thought we had a deep-rooted hatred of the Jews for killing Christ. No wait, that only applies when it's conveniant. Now it's the opposite, we have a deep-rooted identification with them; gotcha... More examples of drawing conclusions first, and looking for evidence second. It's the other way around, people!

"In our literature...all of the horrible things...take place in the East because people wouldn't accept such stories with a European backdrop."

Right. The proof of this is right in our classical literature. Like how Grendel came from the East and Baba Yaga did and so did St. Peter's dragon, oh and McBeth's witches; Hansel and Gretle got lost in Libya when they were eaten right? Hey, no, wait a second...

[LEGEND]

The issue of ISRAEL is just plain sad! It's all about IDEOLOGY...they either need to have a BIG ASS WALL to seperate those two or just one or the other has to go. That conflict will never die.

[KC Elbows]

On Israel, I was not discussing the reasons that Israel has for seizing land, nor speculating on the morality of such action. I was saying that we basically ignore it, regardless of whether it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In fact, we ignore a whole lot of assassinations that Israel has taken part in for the same reason. I'm not talking about Israel's actions, nor the UK's at this point(as I am well aware that the uk had more to do with the placement of the disenfranchized jewish population to Israel than us). However, to ignore that people were moved to make room for a people is still ignoring the facts, and my point is that we DO NOT ignore political assassination, land takeover, etc. from other middle eastern nation as much as we ignore it from Israel, and we do this because of oil, period, end of story.

There's nothing else about that region we really care about. Nothing. I made no moral judgements on Israel. However, they got attacked because someone took someone else's land and gave it to them(regardless of what the bible says, possession is nine tenths of the law). When they took that land, I'd imagine that they knew what was coming. In fact, I'd imagine that the british had a good idea what was coming when they gave the land to them. And I'm willing to bet that they pictured an ally in an oil rich land to help protect their interests who was also, conveniently, dependent on them for military reasons.


If that was not the case, not only were the british leaders total and complete morons, but so are our leaders.

Or is war suddenly an adjunct of philosophy more than politics?

All I'm saying is oil is part of it. I'm not saying anything moralistic about the palestinian-israeli issue. Frankly, I think they should agree to get along and boot us out of their politics, but it doesn't look likely.

[Braden]

They're not ignoring it. You think politicians, the military, etc. don't say a peep about Israel in their meetings? Come on; I know you don't believe that.

My point, as I said, wasn't to debate rights and wrongs in various issues, but rather to point out what a complex situation it is. Do you think you and I see this, but military officials who spend their lives studying it don't? Come on; again, I know you don't believe that.

You're choosing ad hoc to call it ignoring to defend your argument. That doesn't fly. There's no reason to call it 'ignoring' unless you buy your argument; and there's no reason to buy your argument unless they're 'ignoring.' This is probably why your position seems logically consistent to you. But is also the exact reason why it is not.

"I'd imagine that they knew what was coming. In fact, I'd imagine that the british had a good idea what was coming...And I'm willing to bet that they pictured an ally in an oil rich land to help protect their interests..."

You're mostly right on the first two points. You're wrong on the third point. I'm not sure how to explain why... you're mixing events seperated by several decades.

"All I'm saying is oil is part of it."

And, no doubt, it is a concern. Not the only one, and even if you think it's an important one, you're ignorant to think it's the only important one. However, that's not all you're saying. "Oil economy is a part of the decision making process here" is not the same statement as "The US supports military conquest by oil-rich nations and not oil-poor nations." That anyone confuses these to be equal is a big part of the propaganda problem in the first place.

[Cyborg]

I'm not trying to say that the terrorist attacks will be the "be all, end all" of warfare. Just that that is one way of "projecting power". I believe, as you do, that there will never be a substitute for the man on the field with a gun.

Gotta go, post the rest later.

[Merryprankster]

1st post on this thread but about the other companies decllaring bankruptcy and the general fall in the DOW jones' power recently, how bush is helping draw attention away from this "crisis" and helping boost moral with the nationalist vibe he promotes

While the war on terrorism might be a distraction of some sort, I hardly think it was a concious effort. Nobody got together and said "hey! You know what a good idea is? A good idea is to talk about invading Iraq so people forget about the Dow."

I think that's a bit weak on the face of it, and much weaker once you start looking at evidence.

I also happen to believe oil is far less of a factor than people would like to think. Both arguments are convenient if you don't like the administration because it allows you to regard the decisionmakers as "bad guys," when, in reality, they are people who struggle to make the right decisions for the right reasons every day. It doesn't mean you agree with the decision or even the reasoning. But to paint a picture of scheming oil barons or wag the dog type theatrics strikes me as conspiracy theorist.

[Souljah]

i didnt say that that was the deciding factor, jus one of the points that may be in the decision. Mock it all you want, it is a debated point.
I also think the oil point made by KC is very valid, but i've got pretty similar views to braden (although im not as historically knowledgable :rolleyes: )
what are your views merry, you've criticised everyones views but not stated your own, perhaps i've missed it.

[Stacey]

newsflash, we do hate the jews, we hate the muslum middle easterners more.

We'll fight those Arabs down the the last Israeili.



Actually, Those included in our orientalist fanstasy change based on how convinient it is for us. Russia was thrown into the group as well. Rather than simply saying "no its not, we love Jews, you might try at least skimming those books I mentioned.


Watch the 700 club sometime, they want the US to "Do the right thing" and destroy Palestine because Israel is of course important to us biblically.

These same Republican voters that watch this, vote based on these prejudices and lies. It goes right up there with "Familly Values." The sad thing is that the far right is the closest the US has to the Al Queda. The only difference of course is that we are good and they are evil.

[Braden]

If you're referring to Said's Orientalism, there's no reasonable presumption that I should read the one book you're interested in, in order to be informed on a topic.

Moreover, this presumption should be even more absurd for a book as widely critiqued as Orientalism.

Moreover, Said's major thesis in Orientalism is not what you represented it to be, but rather that Orientalism itself is a myth; a thesis which refutes your argument rather than supporting it.

"Watch the 700 club sometime..."

The 700 Club is an utterly inappropriate place to look for the truth about American foreign policy.

P.S. You've repeatedly made allusions to 'one thousand and one arabian nights' as being a work of western culture. It is not.

[LEGEND]

The 700 club...hahaha!

[Stacey]

The 700 club is scary, that where people with no education, get their "facts"

And exemplifies the prejudice that still exists.


Please tell me what Orientalism is? I had a class in it last semester, but maybe after reading all of those books, I somehow missed the point of it.

After 9-11 US News and Time both were singing with Orientalism. Luckilly, this is just some outdated product of English imperialism and doesn't have any affect on us.

[Merryprankster]

Souljah,

I apologize for my seeming hmm--how shall I say it? Vagueness on this thread. You'll notice that I've been painting in broad brush strokes.

I'm a terrorism analyst for the U.S. government. I can't afford to offer more exact opinions for a variety of reasons, including (mostly) security. I like my job and would like to keep it.

Consequently, I feel bound by my job and my word to limit myself to broader brush strokes.

I personally think you can tell an awful lot about my overall views based on my responses. I also think I stated pretty clearly that I believe Bush and his administration are trying to "do the right thing." Whether or not you agree with their actions and reasons, I believe they come by them honestly. I have far less distrust of people, as a whole, than most seem to. I would point out that in the history of presidents, we've had 3 impeachments--only 3, and only one resignation. While there have been scandals of a sort in every administration, that's politics. When compared to the 99% of daily operations that are conducted in good faith, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a bit like the "government can't acount for 'x' amount of money, my god they are so irresponsible!" Turns out if you actually run the numbers (I did once) it's less than one penny on the dollar that is unaccounted for. I wish I could have a 99+% accuracy rate for trillions of dollars--I should be so lucky.

I would also tend to believe that we have far more honest administrations today than we did 100 years ago for a couple of reasons: 1. Media are no longer party organs. With a degree in government I can tell you that what passed for journalism in the 19th century has a far worse bias than what is claimed now-so much for the fabled good old days :rolleyes:. 2. The Viet Nam war, then Watergate fostered an adversarial relationship with the media that changed them from simply journalists to fact-finders who butt heads with the government, rather than go along with whatever they're given.

If you want my opinion about Iraq/Terrorism and what we should do, if anything, you're not going to get it. Pure and simple.

[Souljah]

lol.... i was actually gonna suggest you worked for the governmernt but then I decided not to.....

No prob about the opinion, i think I can get your general ideas from your numerous posts on this thread.

[KC Elbows]

OK, Braden, you've nitpicked my terms enough, what I mean by "ignore" is we do not refer to Israeli atrocities as atrocities in our leadership, in our news, and in our foreign policy, except long after the fact when we need to look sensitive to the atrocities, or when it is so blatant and so in the forefront of the news that our leaders cannot appear aloof to it. And I know we do this with other nations, but generally because we have economic interests in those nations, similar to our interest in oil, and that is as it should be, provided our interests also include a touch of the altruitic at times.

In addition, I never said that our military was inactive in the whole process, though you took that to be my meaning from the use of the term ignoring. When the Israeli's launch missiles into palestine, I would imagine our arms sales go up a little bit, to replenish their stockpile. I am not putting any moralistic light on this, I'm saying we sell them missiles and such, and they launch them. Is this somehow untrue? I'm sure our leaders do other things during these times. We back out of all peace processes occassionaly while continuing arms sales, but have we ever backed out of arms sales while continuing peace processes? So arms sales are also involved in that situation in addition to oil, there's another element so that you don't think I'm saying it's all about oil. Now, call me a utopian dreamer, but I tend to think we choose to sell the nice arms we have to others based on what we view to be a genuine need for those arms by those people that, hopefully, also has our best interests at heart, including, but not excluded to, our oil interests in the middle east.

And I NEVER said oil was the only major issue, I said oil was a major precipitating factor because without it, we wouldn't have had the major interest we've had in the middle east that led to these events, our enemies in the middle east wouldn't have to money purchase weapon tech that scares us, etc.

It amazes me that oil is somehow a prohibited topic in a debate about the middle east. Are we assuming that sadam hussein is buying weapons with money made from girl scout cookies? Oil IS the source of our enemies' economic power. Oil is the reason we have a stronger interest in the middle east than in africa.

As an aside, the british needed oil after WWII as much as anyone needs it now. Exactly why would you think that they didn't examine the middle east and their actions in it in terms of oil, among other things? Why did they help establish the state of Israel then? It couldn't have been solely for humanitarian reasons, as they solved the problems of one disenfranchized people by creating another. Not exactly progress in a utopian sense, really. This is why I said they would have been idiots to not see the oil interests. I don't think they were idiots. The british understood the value of exploiting their enemies' weaknesses for their own gain, and helped someone else out in the process by exploiting their enemies, or at least those who weren't with the plan.

Hopefully my terms are closer to my meaning. Oil is involved, and has much to do with anything in the middle east, whether our immediate interests are in oil or not, since we are not the only ones involved in the process.

However, personally, I think our president is as above oil exploitation as our last president was above exploitation of the secretarial pool, but that's just my opinion, and I'm willing to say that's all it is.

Merry,
"1. Media are no longer party organs."

Know any good books that cover the topic? A hobby horse of mine since travelling around the country has been observing the difference between news in one newspaper towns(KC being a good example, St. Louis a better, or worse, one, depending on your views), and 2+ newspaper towns(Chicago), as one newspaper towns tend towards uniformity in political view in their coverage. Boring I know, but hey, I get punched at a lot, I need a boring hobby too!

And yes, you are an optimist. I would think you would have to be in government work, or else you'd go totally insane.

Or have you?:eek: :D

[Cyborg]

Wow Stacey, I wasn't aware that "we" hate the Jews and all other middle easterners. Thank you for giving me my opinions.
To use your term, NEWSFLASH - the only people I know that hate those people are the same ones that hate blacks, mexicans, yankees etc. In fact, they hate (or at least despise) everyone who doesn't live within one hundred miles of them. Please don't tell me what "we" think. And didn't you say that we loved the Jews just a few posts ago? At least be consistent.

As to the link I had for the war game scenario, it's expired. It was a UK site, I still have it as an email, don't know if I can attach it here. (I'm technologically incompetent) I'll be happy to email it to anyone that's interested.

MP, I think a good analogy would be the Ali/Foreman fight. "The Rumble in the Jungle". Most people thought that Foreman would win, after all he had size, strength and experience. Ali had speed and said that Foreman wouldn't be able to touch him. Yet when the fight came he went up against the ropes and let Foreman pound him and even egged him on. Foreman ran out of gas and the Ali KO'd him. If the US has to continue to spend the amount of money that they are now this WILL hurt our pocketbook. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. Over enough time they may wear the American people down to the point that we insist that the troops come home.

[Merryprankster]

Cyborg--and look at what winning in that manner cost Ali....

I do understand your point. I just happen to think one set of possibilities is more probable than the other--no biggie! :)