Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next

Good Post... I must have missed that Margolis collumn. I always like to hear his perspective, since he seems to have his thumb on what's really going on over there.

   

Actually, the issue begins with the Zionists asserting that they have a "historical claim", based on the fictional history supplied in the bible beginning in the "Book" of Exodus and on from there. Almost all of the last part of the bible has been proven as either false or, if based on truth, as having happened to other nations, groups or cultures, and then co-opted as part of Hebrew history. Of course that means that Christianity (and Islam) are subsequently invalidated too. So we have the Euro-Christian countries supporting the creation of a modern Israel in the belief that it validates our worldview.



I'm not a big fan of "abstaining" when your name is called. It's like saying, "I know this wrong, so I won't vote for it, but I don't dare stand against it."



I like Burroughs too (check the sig), at least when some drug-fuelled psychotic-episode didn't reduce him to babbling incoherence. However, you posit the same question(s) I was hinting at. Are the Lebanese uniting to do something about Israel? Will the rest of the Arab world continue to do no more than talk? Will the rest of the world stand by if this becomes a larger conflict, considering how world opinion is turning against Israel and the fact that the Arabs (especially the Saudi's) hold a potent trump card?

   

Absolutely! Part of the problem, is that GWB is not a very good public speaker to begin with, and when it's compounded even further by him not having a clue about the content of what he's saying... he comes off looking like a fool often at times.



I can't say that I have a lot of historical knowledge on my side to have an opinion relative to this war on "Wahhabist Islam"... but clearly these conflicts have a long history. That being said, I can't support wars of religion, or "culture based" conflict. It's pointless, and doesn't best serve the interests of the masses. On the contrary, these conflicts only add fuel to future conflicts, and the cycle repeats itself.



I would agree... only that I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the Iraqi people would be dissapointed to see the Americans pack up and leave. (We both know that's not going to happen anytime soon). I don't think you are giving the Iraqi people enough credit. At the end of the day, I ask myself... Would Iraq be better off with Saddam (No American involvement from the beginning)? or without him, with an American occupying force. I find it hard to imagine how things could be any worse than they are today... I can't see how it could get any worse if the Military were to leave... based the rate of deaths that are being reported out of that country. If anything, it would force them to get their shit together. I can't see how a prolonged military occupation serves the interests of the Iraqi people.... some perhaps... but not the majority.



Which people? Are you talking about the majority, or the minority? I believe in democracy just as much as you do... but is it not up to the Iraqi people to make this happen? At the end of the day, a US military occupation isn't the answer. And this is where I raise my eyebrow when Americans feel an obligation to "help". This invasion was never about "helping" in the first place... we all know that. It was about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, establishing a military presence in the country, then ushering in the big oil conglomerates (those close to the Bush, Blair group...ie. BG) to do some "bidness". I know that you might not like to hear the last part of this... but it is, what it is.



If only it were that easy...



Those first 5 words say a lot... I hear that often. It's a form of admittance to the fact that it shouldn't have started in the first place. Feel free to argue that point if you wish.

I have no doubt that you have served with honor, and helped many who are fighting for "freedom" and "liberty". Inherintly though, this was not a war that was initiated with "clean hands"... In a court of law, if a plaintif has a case against a defendant, but doesn't have "clean hands"... regardless if the defendant was guilty, the plantif doesn't have a case. That is a fundamental basic in a court of law, and one of which that could be applied in this scenario. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things here a bit, but it's one way of looking at it.

[/quote]

There is no doubt now, that the US is committed. To leave without attempting to repair the damage done would be an even bigger crime. If the US had their hearts in the right place, they would kick this into gear... since the longer they languish, while building more Pizza Huts, the harsher the critisism will be... more people will die... and more people will believe that their intentions weren't in the right place to begin with.

As you well know, there are many "tin-hat" theories that I could incorporate into this argument, but I will refrain from that in the interest of keeping it simple.

   

It's not so much a matter of right or wrong; it's a matter of interests, at least from my perspective. We have no control over the region. Apart from minority constituencies in Canada, there's not much interest for Canada. Why spend political capital when it's not necessary?



Yes, I wish he'd written more. Loved the whole idea of Interzone.

I don't see what the Arab world can do except talk. Only Iran remains a military threat and its days are numbered (unless they can ally themselves with China or Russia). Arab countreis can --and do--launch terrorist attacks, but these are more or less just an annoyance.

As for Saudi Arabia, they've little incentive to change (except through revolution). The ruling class is inconceivably wealthy. A non-representative government that serves western interests is a demonstrably more successful model than democracy for Arab countries.

   

So explain why knocking-off Hussein was the priority. The only two countries where Wahhabism (Salafism) has any influence are Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Hussein's Iraq was arguably the most secular regime in the Middle East,... not anymore.

And what do any of those countries have to do with defeating Wahhabist Islam. Seems what you're really preaching is a war on Islam, regardless of the sect.


Leaving Iraq will lead to a full-scale civil war, which could reasonably be expected to be won by Iraq's Shiite majority. And since they are not Wahhabists (which is a sect of Sunni Islam), their victory should be a good thing in your estimation. Except,... Iran and Syria also have Shiite majorities and you can bet your bottom-dollar they'd make Iraq's oil (which can be extracted for as little as a dollar/barrel - or about $14/bbl cheaper than Saudi crude) off-limits to America and it's allies.


And what about the twenty million Iraqis who didn't ask to be saved or to have a puppet-democracy forced on them? What about the millions of Iraqis who have died as a result America's feud with Hussein (who tired of playing the part of proxy for America's foreign policy)?


Funny (and timely) because there are places in the Mid-East where "brave, self-sacificing people" are fighting to make democracy succeed. Unfortunately, America and Israel seem determined to see democracy fail in Palestine and Lebanon.

Like Ahmed Chalabi and Hamid Karzai?
Puhleeeze!


And millions more who've tasted American-style freedom and are thinking Saddam Hussein was the lesser of two evils.



Perhaps you could explain how a Muslim can simultaneously piss-off Wahhabist Sunnis and Radical Shiites at the same time?

And there we have it folks,... the pseudo-noble retreat. When the last chopper is departing from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saig,...errrr,... Baghdad, it will be the fault of anyone who didn't support American arrogance and greed, or share in it's dream of Empire

   

Without the continued support of the Anglo-Saxon sect of Euro-Christianity, Israel would not have survivied as long as it has. In fact, the Zionists would have been kicked-out of the "holy-land" around 1920. The problem, today, is their beneficiaries really don't have the surplus military or diplomatic (political capital?) resources to be involved in a third front of the anti-Muslim crusade.

Anyone of the major Mid-East "Arab" states (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran) could become a military threat to Israel. The fact that Israel's wars against Palestine and Lebanon are shaming them, in the eyes of other Muslims, could make the possible threat into the reality. That Sunnis and Shiites are uniting in common cause in Palestine and Lebanon will only increase the shame for the "Arab" states that use sectarianism as an excuse not to defend their Muslim brethren.

NEWS FLASH: Iran and China are already closely allied and have been so for over a decade. And if the situation in Iraq devolves to a total civil war, the Chinese will back the Shiites and try to reclaim the $80 Billlion in assets they lost when Iraq was invaded (between 1991 - 2003, only Russia invested more in developing Iraq's oil production).



The House Of Saud may have little or no incentive to change the way it governs, but it can be increasingly choosy about who it sells oil to. And if realigning it's cutomer base eastward (China and India) also allows them to play the part of Defender Of Islam and Protector Of Arabia, so much the better (for them).

   

He might not be an idiot but he took a big wad of cash from Saddam, he's as corrupt as they come.

   

Well the Senate had the opportunity to demonstrate this and failed to do so. They were not only unable to provide a shred of evidence to their charges, they were summarily undressed in a scathing indictment of their McCarthyite tactics. Hopefully the wiser of those on the Senate learned a lesson about unchecked arrogance adn about messing with Scottish people!

   

Gunplumber,

I've always enjoyed your posts... and that one was a doozy!

   

I think we've already addressed that in earlier posts... those claims were based on forged documents, and the US Senate were made to look like fools when Galloway faced them with both barrels loaded.

   

I saw the webcasts of her interview by Donnie Deutsch. I'd like to report that he thoroughly undressed her, but when it comes to undressing Ann Coulter, it's not exactly like she makes it difficult,... (the frothing neo-con wannabe's will be Super-sizing this image soon enough, I expect).

   

There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole and there will be no such thing as neutrality if we end up with WWIII. We can't afford to sit in Afghanistan and hope everything will turn out ok but we don't have much choice either. None of this justifies needless killing and that is what this is. There will be no winners and only losers. We will lose cities over this because the tempo will get out of hand and it is because of the simple truth that for every action is an equal and opposite reaction. Israeli response was a long time in planning the retaliation will have fallout that could be over our cities. Saying we were neutral will be cold comfort. I don't like the idea of putting Canadians in between two warring tribes that only want to kill each other but if they are not separated this will only spiral till it engulfs us all.

   

hmmm yes they believe they hold an historical claim but yet when you look at the history of zionism the first zionists were content to live among muslims and then when the muslims started killing them they wanted state based on where they re-settled in modern times.

very few say we can hold the land simply because we lived here less than 2000 years ago, they might say that is why they desire to live there and hold the land. If the majority of zionists believed that they owned the entire land compromises would not have been accepted in 1937 or 1948. based on areas with jewish majorities.

The arab reasoning for rejecting these compromises was just as absurd as the historical claim. We don't accept the partition because the areas used to have an arab majority.

And i know people will mention the settlements and such after 1967. I reality these settlements were driven by security in one part, a small clique of ministers who hardly had to worry about loosing elections and small groups of extremists.

And then the UN masde the Zionism is racism statement and attempted to expel israel. Logically ( to them at least) they saw this as being cut off from the rest of the world and simply believed peace would not come and that they would occupy the terroritories permantly.


And to gun plumber. are you part of the Black Hebrew movement that considers Jews evil and imposters?

sure sounds like it mister

Jews stole everyone else's history.

I bet they secretly control every non-arab government too.

oh and the oil companies as well

lets not forget about how they control the church and every wall mart

   

Hey! Leave my Walmart out of this! Only I control my Walmart! MINE!

HHHSSSSSSSSS!

   

I thought the Chinese owned Walmart.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next