Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI'm arriving tonight in Tehran, where I expect I'll get a lot of interesting reaction to President Obama's speech yesterday. (My own reaction was posted here, at length, yesterday.)
But I want emphasize one thing today: that by not mentioning "terror" or "terrorism" in his 55-minute address, Obama has formally turned the corner on the post-9/11 nightmare conjured by by President Bush and his ilk. If Obama sustains this, it has enormous potential not only to improve US relations with the Muslim world. It will utterly alter the discourse inside the United States, which for nearly eight long years has been distorted by the fear-mongering, Muslim-bashing, Osama-inflating, homeland security-worrying neoconservatives and their political allies.
As I pointed out yesterday, Obama stunned right-wing and centrist Israeli and pro-Israeli observers by referring with equanimity to Hamas, describing the Palestinian organization as having legitimate support among ordinary Palestinians and calling on Hamas to join the dialogue. A top Hamas official, Ahmad Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader and prime minister, said:
"The things he said about Islam and the Palestinian suffering and their right to have a state is great. It is a landmark and a breakthrough speech."
Now comes the test of Obama's sincerity, in three immediate senses. We all get to taste the pudding and see if there is any proof in it.
The first test comes tomorrow in Lebanon, whose election will determine whether or not Hezbollah and its allies, including a chunk of Lebanon's Christian bloc, gain a majority and will lead the new Lebanese government. The results won't be known until Monday, at the earliest, and it's a complicated, multi-confessional election that is certain to be marred by vote-buying, intimidation, and sectarian voting en bloc. But if Hezbollah and Co. win, it will be a severe test of Obama's willingness to embrace political Islam. Were Obama to reject any contacts with a Lebanese government under a pro-Hezbollah majority, it will undo much of the positive spin in the Muslim and Arab media that has so far given Obama plaudits.
The second test comes June 12, in Iran. The election there pits President Ahmadinejad against two reformist rivals -- ex-prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi and cleric Mehdi Karrubi, a former speaker in parliament -- and a conservative rival, Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guard. The results there might not be known until after June 19, because if none of the four wins an outright majority, there will be a two-man runoff. If one of the reformists wins, it shouldn't be hard for Obama to welcome his victory and renew his offer to sit down and talk. But, and here's the test, if Ahmadinejad wins -- with his radioactive rhetoric about the Holocaust and his defiant anti-Americanism -- will Obama be able to reach out to Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, for talks? To do so will require Obama to sell the idea of talking to Ahmadinejad to a skeptical US public, already conditioned by Bush, the neocons, and yes, Hillary Clinton, into react in knee-jerk fashion to the Iranian firebrand. But talk we must. No doubt the Obama team is already trying to figure out how to sell that at home. I hope.
The third test, of course, involves Hamas itself. Rather than treat Hamas like it was carrying swine flu, Obama should encourage Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- the two countries he just visited -- to help put the Palestinian Humpty Dumpty back together in a new Fatah-Hamas unity government in advance of scheduled January elections. Announcing, as Bush did, that the United States will have no contact with such a coalition effectively undermines its very creation, since Hamas has no incentive to join one. Obama should gesture, ever more overtly, in support of exactly such a coalition. Yes, the Israeli right will go bananas.
But the neocons and the right, including the Republicans, are already denouncing Obama for undermining Israel, abandoning the holy democracy mission, and ending the Global War on Terror (GWOT). My favorite quote is from the always entertainingly stupid Michael Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute, who foamed at the mouth over Obama's de-emphasis of Project Impose Democracy. "Bush can look in the mirror and know that he liberated fifty million people," wrote Rubin, neglecting to mention that Bush killed about a million of them in the process. "Obama will look in the mirror and admire how handsome he is."
Well. Perhaps the pudgy Rubin can't do the same when he gazes into his bathroom mirror. But the emerging apoplexy on Planet Neocon is a sign that Obama did something right in Cairo. Interesting, isn't it, that with Hamas praising Obama, the only criticism of the Cairo speech is coming from (1) the neocons and their allies, and (2) Osama bin Laden, who is clearly panicking about Obama's play for mainstream and conservative Muslim opinion. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"Not enough hate" is what I am hearing on both the neocon and terrorist sides of the street.
Posted by winyahn at 06/05/2009 @ 06:47am
Nah, not so strange bedfellows, not when one considers that bin Laden was initially trained & financed by the CIA for years to the tune of many millions to recruit, train & lead foreign fighters in Afghanistan v. the Russian invaders.
OBL was & is an apt product of the US rightwing. Assuming of course that OBL is still alive, which may be a very big assumption.
Posted by sloper at 06/05/2009 @ 06:51am
Give Israel and the Palestinians two more years. If they cannot reach settlements (no pun intended), begin pulling aid from both sides. If Israel continues to build illegal settlements, begin sanctions like we would with any other country.
Of course OBL and the neocons are on the same page. Many of their goals are similar, with different names of Gods and slightly different wording for who will be in control. Feminism bad. Gays bad, abortion bad, prayer in schools good, war good, race mixing bad.
They also share a common strateegery, grr kill, grr, hate, kill.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 07:02am
Posted by sloper at 06/05/2009 @ 06:51am
"...when one considers that bin Laden was initially trained & financed by the CIA..."
Unfortunately, this is not true. The author of Ghost Wars looked into the evidence available, and there is no indication that bin Laden ever worked with the CIA. While this does not establish it didn't happen, it does make it so that you cannot make the claim without providing some evidence that it is true.
I agree with the central point of your post. Fundamentalism, whether it is bin Laden or Pat Robertson, is an ideology that looks the same whether the underlying values are Muslim, Christian or U.S. nationalist.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 07:42am
What about the Arab left? Not all of them are so enthused about this speech and the falsehoods within it
http://bit.ly/6Fzkk
Posted by bhaskar at 06/05/2009 @ 07:51am
Check out the reaction of the white trach on the streets of Jerusalem. They call Obama a nigger.
http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=Uxt9HwfPwPo
One of the girls, a so called politicla sciene major, didn't even know who Netenyahu was.
Who would have thought that Isralis were going to become the new white trash? Again this proves whata facist and racist state Israel has become.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 07:56am
"Not all of them are so enthused about this speech and the falsehoods within it"
No one threw a shoe at Obama, so we've clearly come a long way.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 08:04am
>>>Interesting, isn't it, that with Hamas praising Obama, the only criticism of the Cairo speech is coming from (1) the neocons and their allies, and (2) Osama bin Laden, who is clearly panicking about Obama's play for mainstream and conservative Muslim opinion. Strange bedfellows, indeed.<<<
Strange bedfellows?
I ALWAYS have thought that the neocons NEED Osama bin Laden, and this is why we keep getting these fake audio tapes and "no more video" of Osama since Tora Bora.
I believe Osama DIED at Tora Bora, and this is the best kept secret on the right.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 08:32am
>>>Obama has formally turned the corner on the post-9/11 nightmare conjured by by President Bush and his ilk.<<<
More than that, he has SUCCEEDED in wrestling away doubters in the mainstream Muslim community that had written off America under Bush.
Here are some excerpts from CNN:
Still, the majority of the reaction was positive, with people discussing how energized they are by Obama's positive attitude and what Ali Dahmash from Jordan described as "understanding of what it means to be Muslim and appreciating that."
Dahmash's comments on the speech provided all sides, from admiration of Obama's democracy call to criticism of the lack of focus on Gaza's plight. "Never seen such an applause and respect to an American president ever" he wrote to his Twitter followers.
Minutes after Obama finished his historic speech, CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman's phone rang.
It was Walid Batouti, the owner of an Egyptian tour company and, normally, a skeptic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
"Yes, we can!" he shouted, echoing the campaign slogan that brought Obama to power last year. "I've had my problems with the U.S. in the past, but it was a great speech, and we really appreciated it," he said. Video Watch the Egyptian prime minister call the speech a "good first step" »
Reza Aslan, the best-selling Iranian-American author of "No God But God," was also a doubter before the speech. But his first response was a single word: "Wow!"
"If the purpose of the speech was to forge a new beginning between the U.S. and the Muslim world, he did that," he told CNN by phone from London.
"He spoke in terms no American president has done before," Aslan said...
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 08:39am
And specifically on the 'terrorism" versus "extremist" language, he succeeded in changing the focus so that OTHER EXTREMIST who are NOT Muslim or do NOT use terrorist tactics get marginalized as well.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 08:42am
"OTHER EXTREMIST who are NOT Muslim or do NOT use terrorist tactics get marginalized as well. "
We know who that means don't we? Israeli wingnuts.
Brilliant indeed!!
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 08:45am
Curious what the Right attacking Obama, would make of THESE comments?-
"Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation's ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace."
"Over the past month, Muslims have fasted, taking no food or water during daylight hours, in order to refocus their minds on faith and redirect their hearts to charity. Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need. Charity tables at which the poor can break their fast line the streets of cities and towns. And gifts of food and clothing and money are distributed to ensure that all share in God's abundance. Muslims often invite members of other families to their evening iftar meals, demonstrating a spirit of tolerance."
"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."
"Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide."
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:53am
Indeed Mark,
The wingnuts don't know if they're comming or going. For neocons like Krauthammer, and the assorted wingnuts he is parroting, there's a weird disconnect going on: one paragraph, Obama is simply adopting Bush's policies...the next paragraph, he's running the country off a cliff.
RedState:
...the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom.
and then again from RedState:
Barack Obama's ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed.
and
Commentary:
I liked the fact that he put in a Bush-like plug for democracy...I thought he did an effective job of making America's case to the Muslim world.
and again from Commentary:
...if Obama really means it, it is bad news for the Jews in Israel and America, not to mention for American national security.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 09:08am
Again, Dreyfuss is not lying, but rather is not telling the whole truth and thereby distorting and misleading. Obama emphasized in his speech that as a precondition for Hamas to get a seat at the table so to speak, Hamas must renounce violence and accept the Oslo Accord and the peace process, i.e., that the quid pro quo for a Palestinian state is a permanent peace treaty, not a temporary cease fire. Until and unless Hamas changes its position on those fundamental issues, expressly and without ambiguity, Hamas will remain an outcast organization. If an unrepentent Hamas becomes part of the Palestinian government, then the peace process cannot move forward. Obama not only appears to understand that, but would not pressure Israel to reach an agreement with Hamas until it makes such changes.
Posted by gren at 06/05/2009 @ 09:13am
Dreyfuss' claim that Hamas praised Obama's speech is contradicted by news reports, for example:
Likewise, a spokesman for Hamas' leader in Gaza, Ayman Taha, relayed similarly unimpressed sentiments, describing the approach laid out in the speech as "no different from the policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush," the BBC reports.
Posted by gren at 06/05/2009 @ 09:20am
I believe Osama DIED at Tora Bora, and this is the best kept secret on the right. Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 08:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't think this could have been kept a secret.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 09:21am
I agree. Bin Laden was allowd to escape from Tora Bora by the Bushies.
Seyor Hersh wrote about it in his article, The Getaway.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 09:25am
I agree. Bin Laden was allowd to escape from Tora Bora by the Bushies.
Seyor Hersh wrote about it in his article, The Getaway.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 09:25am
No one threw a shoe at Obama, so we've clearly come a long way.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 08:04am
chuckle.
The response from "the muslim world" have been pretty darn positive since Obama became president. I remember an old phrase that used to be used, and has been forgotten in the fear induced paranoia created and spread by the Bush admin...
something about flies, honey and vinegar.
Now, it is possible that Usama been forgotten may want to attack the US BECAUSE Obama is succeeding in marginalizing the extreme factions within Islam.
Instead of seing this for what it is, the war mongers will try to spin it as if Usama attacked because Obama showed "weakness". We must be prepared for this and begin now to place the groundwork to counter their propaganda campaigns.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 09:21am
Then where is the VIDEO footage where we can at least get a lip reader in Arabic to determine if it is from the current period?
With today's technology, if I get a an audio footprint of your voice I can create and AUDIO tape that can make you say anything and it will pass the audio forensics used by the CIA.
I don't think ANYONE could escape the shelling the caves took in Tora Bora, and this ESCAPE MYTH is just a self-serving excuse to continue Bush's war on terror, continue his campaign of fear, and continue fleecing the US taxpayer at the expense of defense contractors and big oil.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am
OOPS!
I meant "..and continue fleecing the US taxpayer [FOR THE BENEFIT] of defense contractors and big oil"
Osama bin Laden has been the GREATEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED from the defense contractor point of view, and they certainly have a HUGE financial interest in making us believe he is still alive.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 12:03pm
Someone should write a book entitled, "In Search of the Permanent Bogeyman - the Defense Contractor's Pipe Dream".
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 12:06pm
METT, do you honestly think that Mr. "We found the wmd's" would have held off the PR campaign bonanza if Usama had been captured?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:12pm
Captured?
I said KILLED IN THE CAVES IN TORA BORA!
What is a better PR campaign for the agents of fear:
(1) A report that bin Laden was killed in Tora Bora and can no longer harm Americans, or
(2) A report that he escaped and is on the loose fomenting more terrorism against America?
Think about it.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 12:21pm
The key fact that no one wants to focus on is that the ONE unnamed source who said he helped bin Laden escaped has never been corroborated by ANYONE (an escape of a 6'5" bin Laden into Pakistan engineered by ONE person?), the person's name was never released, and no indication that he even passed a polygraph if in fact the person exists at all.
Also, bin Laden ROUTINELY issued VIDEO tapes to verify that he was still alive, and these videos ceased after Tora Bora. We are now left with ONLY audio tapes that can be faked using today's technology once you get a good sample of someone's voice.
The character and tone of bin Laden's message also changed after Tora Bora and seemed to take on more of political rather than religious tone, and supported theories pushed by Rove and Co regarding the dangers of his brand of terrorism.
The TIMING of these audio tapes after Tora Bora also appeared to be self-serving for Republicans and defense industry types who were trying to undermine Democratic efforts to change the subject from fear-mongering.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 12:39pm
In the 2004 election, for example, one of these audio tapes surfaced two weeks before the election and seemed to support Rove's assertion that Kerry is supported by the terrorists.
In a close election, this audio tape put Bush over the top by scaring Middle America.
You have to ask yourself, why would bin Laden CARE who the US president is at all, as his view is widely know that American aggression and encroachment in the Muslim world is what he opposes, not any particular political party.
With Obama's recent speech, you would think bin Laden would be jumping for joy since Obama has made it clear that he has no interest in "re-colonizing" the Middle East. But the audio tape, AGAIN, seemed to support Republican theories that Obama is making America less safe.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 12:44pm
yes, Osama alive was useful for Bush. however, a dead Osama would be perhaps even more valuable, especially to the GOP with Bush gone.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 1:05pm
This is a great analysis. Thanks you, Mr. Dreyfuss. I think that if these elections go the way they're likely to and Obama DOES honor his stated intentions, the Israeli left will be in big trouble. All four of them.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/05/2009 @ 1:08pm
<But I want emphasize one thing today: that by not mentioning "terror" or "terrorism" in his 55-minute address, Obama has formally turned the corner on the post-9/11 nightmare conjured by by President Bush and his ilk. If Obama sustains this, it has enormous potential not only to improve US relations with the Muslim world. It will utterly alter the discourse inside the United States, which for nearly eight long years has been distorted by the fear-mongering, Muslim-bashing, Osama-inflating, homeland security-worrying neoconservatives and their political allies.>
Dreyfuss celebrates that Obama submits to the terrorists in Neville Chamberlain fashion.
What will you call them President Obama, if and when the next terrorist attack on the US occurs?
Or how about you Mr Dreyfuss? what will you call it?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:26pm
This is a great analysis. Thank you, Mr. Dreyfuss. I think that if these elections go the way they're likely to and Obama DOES honor his stated intentions, the Israeli left will be in big trouble. All four of them.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/05/2009 @ 1:30pm
Sorry, Crabcakewalk, but you are very much mistaken about the "race-mixing" that you call it?
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/05/2009 @ 1:44pm
There's something fishy about the timing of Bin Laden's alleged tape, for sure. It's highly irrational that Bin Laden would want to derail Obama's very anticipated, long promoted and well publicized Cairo speech ramping up the pressure on Israel. For his many obvious faults, Bin Laden is not stupid. Personally, I think it's far more likely the Mossad wanted to preempt the speech with some good ol' fashioned Arab bashing propaganda to keep the hate level high. The only thing the tape proves is that Israel was / is nervous as hell that their propaganda campaigns are falling apart.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/05/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by DejaVu at 06/05/2009 @ 1:46pm
Okay...so basically...
Mossad is creating bin Laden videos.
Right?
(Stick to you guns...no namby-pamby walkbacks from your theory with "Well, I'm not saying that, but it is suspicious...". Straight up yes or no)
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 2:23pm
I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a Mossad operation, but doesn't this whole bin Laden tape thing seem sort of artificial and contrived to you, MASK?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 2:37pm
Ah, the OBL tapes. About as genuine as the Zimmerman telegram.
Mossad or CIA, doesn't much matter, as the deception is falling flatter & flatter.
And, yes, Israeli propaganda grows increasingly shrill & unconvincing.
So what next?
Posted by sloper at 06/05/2009 @ 2:46pm
Conspiracy theory is cop-out propoganda. You guys gotta lay off the kool-aid and stick to the facts.
Posted by gren at 06/05/2009 @ 3:01pm
"I believe Osama DIED at Tora Bora, and this is the best kept secret on the right. Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2009 @ 08:32am | ignore this person | warn this person" "I don't think this could have been kept a secret (emile duBois)
It's not a secret. The BBC broadcast an interview with Benazir Buttho just before she was assassinated when she said on camera---I saw this myself---that Bin Laden was murdered. Here is the YouTube of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Posted by mystic at 06/05/2009 @ 3:23pm
It's highly irrational that Bin Laden would want to derail Obama's very anticipated, long promoted and well publicized Cairo speech ramping up the pressure on Israel
no it isn't. Osama had to try and steal some of Obama's spotlight. Obama's attempt at an evenhanded mid east policy spells doom for Osama and his influence in the region.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 3:33pm
Conspiracy theory is cop-out propoganda. You guys gotta lay off the kool-aid and stick to the facts. Posted by gren at 06/05/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is good. conspiracy theories are too nice and tidy. real life is not like that.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 3:34pm
Time for the quiz.
LVL proposition: Obama is like Chamberlain just as Al-Qaeda is like Nazi Germany.
You should get a job coming up with wrong answers for the SATs.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 4:32pm
William Walwyn, a member of the Leveller movement in England, which, as a movement, influenced our Constitution, expressed admiration for Mohammed in his writings. While He didn't go into detail about why he admired him, I suspect it was because of his comments as the end of his "Night Visit" to Jerusalem about respecting "People of the Books", meaning Christians and Jews. Walwyn and the Levellers were interested in religious freedom, because Christians were being persecuting by other Christians for their different views of Christianity. Mankind has a tendency to disagree about anything, but religion is a particularly touchy subject. Without Mohammed's guidance, Islam has also splintered. However, based on his comments about the "People of the Books", I believe he would call on Muslims to respect Muslim "People of the Books" and their differing opinions. "People of good will" often have different beliefs, but respect their right to be different. Besides the "Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the various People of the Books need to follow Mohammed's example and respect the religious beliefs of everyone in the Islamic world and work together for peace. Dividing people for temporary advantages may provide tactical victories, but conflicts over religion mean an endless cycles of violence. Nobody wins! There needs to be a dialogue with anyone who is ready to talk!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/05/2009 @ 5:39pm
Dreyfuss celebrates that Obama submits to the terrorists in Neville Chamberlain fashion. What will you call them President Obama, if and when the next terrorist attack on the US occurs? Or how about you Mr Dreyfuss? what will you call it? Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:26pm
Well lets call torture torture then. And lock the hsuB/cHeney admin up and throw away the key.
And while we're at it, lets consider terrorist those that also commit terror here in the US, i.e. anti-choice terrorists. And lock their organization and those that contribute to it up and throw away the key.
And if we are eventually ever attacked again-- lets for sure not start another war with a nation that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/05/2009 @ 6:03pm
As for Hesbollah and Lebanon, VP Biden recently visited and said the future of US aid depended on the outcome of the election. This meddling in Lebanon's internal politics before the election already contradicts some of the greater expectations taken from what Obama said. It would help if the upcoming election there was not portrayed as primarily about Hezbollah which given the sectarian, self serving and zero sum game nature of Lebanon's coalitions is going too far. The same can be said when coalitions are described as pro Syrian or Iranian or pro US. Last time around the results almost turned on the Christian Aoun who in the eighties had been so virulently anti Syrian, he had to leave, while in the last election chose to side with the pro Syrian coalition that included Hezbbollah. More important than who wins could be the recognition Hezbollah will remain probably the most cohesive and powerful political force in Lebanon and should be recognized as an indigenous Lebanonese political and military entity which shouldn't be shunned.
As for Iran, do believe regime change remains official US policy, and Iran's leadership is likely to focus on that before it is willing to negotiate very seriously. Probably would help if after the Iranian elections, the US directly or indirectly made it clear that was no longer policy.
And with Isreal, it would also help if the US and Europe ended the seige of Gaza while encouraging Eqypt or Turkey or Qatar to negoyiate Hamas back into a unity government supportive of elections and capable of governing and negotiating with Israel. It is not for the US to resolve the conflicting national claims of Israel and the Palestinians, but it can stop being an obstacle. As it is.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 06/05/2009 @ 6:22pm
Bin Laden and the neocons strange bedfellows? They both represent fundamentalist religious interpretations of life. They both choose from their Holy Books passages which can be manipulated to support their own views, while ignoring other passages which may conflict. Knowing exactly what God's will is, they are both intolerant of other points of view, because other points of view can only be from Satan. If there are some neocons out there whose beliefs are not rooted in religion, then I apologize. But what is strange is thinking they are so much different.
Posted by rliegfhtt at 06/05/2009 @ 7:37pm
no it isn't. Osama had to try and steal some of Obama's spotlight. Obama's attempt at an evenhanded mid east policy spells doom for Osama and his influence in the region.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 3:33pm
I can pretty much guarantee that unless Obama is the anti-Christ (and I'm not saying he is), his attempts at a peace deal are already DOA.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 8:46pm
Larry, isn't YOUR "peace deal" DOA too?
You really think even Netanyahu is going to get you your "Palestinians move 'back' to Jordan and Israel gets to keep the West Bank and Gaza like the League of Nations said" plan?
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 9:12pm
Unsurprisingly, the Israeli regime has announced after The Speech that they don't care, they're going to go on and on with their "settlements", that is their expropriation (a fancy word that in this case means "theft") of Palestinian lands.
I personally speculate that the Israeli regime is going to do something desperate, soon. They don't want peace, they don't want a path towards peace, they don't want reconciliation. They want the land, and they want the people who live on it gone. They don't care where. Given that the Israeli nation, which voted the Israeli regime in to power, is clearly behind the regime, the regime doesn't face being broken politically within Israel. Netanyahu and Lieberman and the rest all represent the will and interests of the Israeli people, who want the apartheid, the left of land and water, the slow and steady removal of the people who live on the land, along with the deliberate and violent collapsing of that people's political will to resist collectively. So the Israeli regime will be in the position of pulling a game-changer, something that pre-emptively destroys any likelihood of success for the Obama administration in its initiatives to come, for as long as Mr. Obama can be president. The Israelis don't want to work with Mr. Obama, it would seem clear, so they'll have to find a way or ways to hamstring him and his administration.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/05/2009 @ 10:05pm
Pro-Israel=Bush=Limbaugh & the rest of the corporate media
Posted by winyahn at 06/05/2009 @ 10:40pm
antisocialist
"Dreyfuss celebrates that Obama submits to the terrorists in Neville Chamberlain fashion."
That Neville Chamberlain catch cry has been so overused and misused, it is devoid of meaning.
Was Regan doing it in Chamberlain when he met with Gorbachev?
Was Nixon doing it in Chamberlain when he met with China?
"What will you call them President Obama, if and when the next terrorist attack on the US occurs?"
Who's them? All Arab Muslims?
"Or how about you Mr Dreyfuss? what will you call it?"
Dreyfuss will call it what it is. A terrorist attack. We know what you want to call it, a war on Islam.
Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 11:15pm
You really think even Netanyahu is going to get you your "Palestinians move 'back' to Jordan and Israel gets to keep the West Bank and Gaza like the League of Nations said" plan?
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 9:12pm
It's more likely than Obama's peace deal.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:16pm
It is disheartening to watch the Obamanation that makes desolation "ship of fools" sailing on their ocean of appeasement and capitulation. The Islamic terrorist fascist movement will grow and prosper on his watch as he Clintoneskly ignores the real and present dangers to the nation.
He seems ready to pave the way for final destruction doesn't he Anti-socialist?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 11:25pm
I see Israel is really pushing the "natural growth" concept in regard to the question of illegal settlements. This expression sounds alarmingly like "manifest destiny."
So very encouraging to the Palestinian moderates or does the Israeli govt think like anti; that there's no such thing?
Posted by Sorelish at 06/05/2009 @ 11:48pm
BigPasture,
The Islamic terrorist fascist movement has been growing steadily througout Bush's tenure.
Hamas is more powerful than before Bush came to office. Hezbollah is more powerful than before Bush came to office. Iran is more powerful than before Bush came to office.
So who is going to cause this final destruction and how BigPasture ?
That's such a familiar pradox among the right wingers. You pretend to be tough guys, while being frightened of your own shadows.
Did you learn nothing from the Cold War hoax?
Posted by Shingo at 06/06/2009 @ 12:02am
Hey, Richard? You remember in the "close encounters" you had to pretend about something that wasn't there?
I'm sick of pretending...either Israel plays nice with her neighbors, or she is a...I think she'll turn into salt.
Posted by ibsteve2u at 06/06/2009 @ 03:20am
President Obama's speech in Cairo marked a see change in the way the government of the US is going to treat the Muslim world. Change always starts with major changes in understanding first and real substantive change inevitably comes later. The right wing does not want things to change in the Mideast because the conflict gives them the boogieman they need to maintain their extremest ways just like Al Qaeda. How various groups responded to the speech signals whether they are will to negotiate and find middle ground.
Posted by KQuark at 06/06/2009 @ 04:23am
We ain't goin to hate no more - no more. We ain't goin to hate no more.. Well, how the heck can we have our wars, if we ain't going to hate no more?
Posted by VujaDe at 06/06/2009 @ 05:56am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:26pm |
BOO!
---
LVL proposition: Obama is like Chamberlain just as Al-Qaeda is like Nazi Germany.
You should get a job coming up with wrong answers for the SATs.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 4:32pm |
LOL!
Irony abounds in the neo/con/American Taliban crowd. They spent the week proclaiming their "pro-life" credentials, now they call for an endless war against 1.5 billion people that derive their world view from the same Abraham as the neo cons.
the very idea of attempting to isolate the "islamo fascists" from the mainstream Muslims drives the cons apeshit, they want bombs, dead bodies, veins in their teeth, they want to jump on the table yelling KILL KILL KILL.
While being "pro-life".
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 09:17am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 8:46pm
Man, I've got to try that argument. Either I'm right, or that guy's the anti-Christ. I can think of no finer example of "heads, I win-tails, you lose".
Either Kucinich wins the Presidency, or McCain is the anti-Christ.
Either we get single-payer, or George Bush is the anti-Christ.
...
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 09:25am
Well, SR, Luvvy claims that the opposition to Clarence is "racist". I guess if you have other concerns about his credentials and treatment of women, you hate America.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 09:41am
>>>I can pretty much guarantee that unless Obama is the anti-Christ (and I'm not saying he is), his attempts at a peace deal are already DOA.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 8:46pm<<<
Here we go....anyone who is effective at bringing peace to the world is the anti-Christ according to HAP and his Sarah Palin crowd.
This is a PERVERTED view of Jesus Christ's social Gospel of peace. Saint Augustine was correct concerning his doubts about canonizing the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible. He feared that Revelations would be misinterpreted by Christians as an excuse to engage in conflict with other nations, and here we are.
The plain fact is that John wrote Revelations while imprisoned in a dungeon on an island in the Mediterranean, was at a very advanced age +80 when he wrote it, and was searching for some way to make sense of what appeared to be the defeat of Jesus Christ. So he "imagines" some grand victory when Jesus returns as some sort of "war general", slaying all of his adversaries and declaring victory.
It's a nice story, and probably helped John bring closure to what was obviously a rough ride for him personally, but it does NOT fit into the central message of peace of Jesus Christ, and for that reason alone, regardless of its purported link to the Book of Daniel, it should have never been canonized as part of the Bible.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Sorry, I confused HAPPY with Larry (antisocialist) in my above post. Not all conservatives are the same, so I really should distinguish between the "drill-baby-drill" rape the Earth to get rich HAPPYs from the "Obama is the anti-Christ", rapture-oriented, if only Ayn Rand believed in Christ, ANTISOCIALIST.
They really are different, so my bad!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 09:59am
Movie recommendation for anti & hap_
The Day the Earth Stood Still (the first one)
Posted by Sorelish at 06/06/2009 @ 10:07am
How refreshing to have a president who is so good at articulating our fundemental values. He has a way of getting to the heart of matters that have caused profound troubles for years, and to find within them shared strains of community, integrity, and kindness. One can't develop tactical solutions without a clear, strategic vision. Obama consistently provides that vision in ways that are not devisive, but rather adress these serious challenges with balance and inclusiveness. That's the difference between his "pretty speeches", and the fear laden, "us vs. them" agendas of his predecessors. And, its that inclusiveness that offers the ultimate hope for sucess.
Metteyya, interesting take on the Book of Revelations. I've often wondered how it can be so different than the rest of the NT, whose overwhelming message is one of peace and love. Thanks!
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 11:03am
BTW, this is a bit off topic, but I see many similarities between this speech and his race speech given in response to the Jeremy Wright issue. The race speech, in my opinion, was one of the great speeches in American history. In that speech, he talks about moving beyond the battles of the 60's. I've been reading Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland" about that era, and what those battles entailed. Having lived through that era as a (pre)teenager, this book reflects that period closest to my own memory of it. It's balanced in a way that most period histories have not been(either romanticizing or demonizing the left, the right, or the civil rights movement). If you want to understand the foundation of so much that is dysfunctional in our politics (a dysfunction I believe President Obama and our young people may be able to move us past), I would highly recommend this book.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 11:18am
This is a PERVERTED view of Jesus Christ's social Gospel of peace. Saint Augustine was correct concerning his doubts about canonizing the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible. He feared that Revelations would be misinterpreted by Christians as an excuse to engage in conflict with other nations, and here we are.
The plain fact is that John wrote Revelations while imprisoned in a dungeon on an island in the Mediterranean, was at a very advanced age +80 when he wrote it, and was searching for some way to make sense of what appeared to be the defeat of Jesus Christ. So he "imagines" some grand victory when Jesus returns as some sort of "war general", slaying all of his adversaries and declaring victory.
It's a nice story, and probably helped John bring closure to what was obviously a rough ride for him personally, but it does NOT fit into the central message of peace of Jesus Christ, and for that reason alone, regardless of its purported link to the Book of Daniel, it should have never been canonized as part of the Bible.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Like many people who have little knowledge of Christianity and what Jesus taught, you cite only a small part of the message of Christ.
Jesus taught more on judgment and hell than on love. Not that love wasn't key to kingdom life, but that mankind would as they do now, attempt to justify themselves apart from G-d's requirements and the consequences for doing so.
The book of Revelation is essential to Christianity because it shows us the end of things and the new creation to come.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 11:25am
Antisocialist, actually your interpretation has more bearing on the Quran, which is a much less forgiving text in terms of God's judgement, than is the New Testament. In fact, the Quran regularly criticizes the Bible for being too forgiving.
I see these texts within their historic context, and as imperfect efforts to capture God's will. They reflect God's will, in that they offer different avenues of faith to all of humanity. I found Metteya's point interesting, but would have to read more about it. If a literal reading of the Bible is how you obtain your faith, and if you choose to emphasize the judgemental aspects of the text, you have my blessing. I would never criticize the paths one takes to get closer to God. Its only when those paths cause harm to others that I take exception (and I am not making that claim about you here).
Peace be with you.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 11:51am
antisocialist-Although,it makes you feel better to pretend that people who dispute your views have little knowledge, that is not the case.People with far more knowledge than you dispute your views and it is your ego that tells you that knowledgeable people agree with your conclusions.It is impossible to arrive at the vast conclusions that you, and others arrive at, because so few teachings of Jesus and Paul exist and Revelations can easily be viewed as pertaining to that time and place and is,mostly,gibberish.You are arriving at vast conclusions based upon a tiny portion of teachings,none of which that are in their original language,and a book called Revelations that is filled with gibberish.Would you go to a doctor who arrives at vast conclusions based upon little information and gibberish?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 11:54am
antisocialist-We do not know what Jesus spent most of His time teaching since we have so few of His teachings.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 11:59am
I'm nobody, we can, however, appreciate what Jesus's teachings brought about - a radical break from a prevailing Greco-Roman culture that worshipped personal power and glory over everything else. The NT is the most revolutionary text in human history. Concepts of equality, forgiveness, and community simply did not exist in a culture dominated by powerful, oppressive elites. That that text has been used to support similarly oppressive elites is a great tragedy. You raise a good point, though. This is the product of human interpretation. In spite of that, the overwhelming message of love comes through that interpretive fog in a deeply profound manner. That is a reflection of Jesus's true genius. My faith comes not from a literal interpretation of a human text, but from a recognition of its historic context, and its enduring message of love, charity, and community.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 12:07pm
Dwight Wall-I agree with you and there are some common themes that do exist in the Gospels that we can rely upon,but,my guess is,that Jesus knew that most of what He taught would not be included so He told us to seek the Truth which excludes arriving at vast conclusions based upon what little information is available in the Gospels and NT.One must go beyond what little is in there to find Truth.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 12:14pm
Dwight Wall-the other problem that we have is that none of us have met Jesus and it is quite important for humans to know the parent or teacher because their physical presence tells us much about what they are teaching us and how what they are teaching us plays out in their lives and in the real world.It is one thing to listen to someone,like Jesus,who is performing miracles at will that you are witnessing and listening to a preacher who cannot perform miracles at will right before your eyes.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 11:25am
I have A LOT more knowledge about Christianity and its history than you think.
I know, for example, that the Book of Revelations would not even be in the Bible had it not been for Saint Augustine, and he SPECIFICALLY warned that this book should ONLY be interpreted "symbolically". What Augustine did not anticipate is the Protestant Revolution of Martin Luther, and that ordinary Christians would begin "literally" interpreting passages of the Bible for their own purposes.
The idea that a REAL person is the anti-Christ is a PERVERSION, and Christians everywhere should reject this perversion and renew the "symbolic-only" rationale Augustine used for persuading the Council to include Revelations in the Bible.
It would also be helpful for Christians to heed Augustine's general prescription that science and reason should prevail when it obviously conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 12:45pm
Here's Augustine in his own words:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 12:48pm
Would you go to a doctor who arrives at vast conclusions based upon little information and gibberish?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 11:54am |
He voted for a president, and more recently a vice-president, based on those criteria.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 12:49pm
Sorry, Crabcakewalk, but you are very much mistaken about the "race-mixing" that you call it?
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/05/2009 @ 1:44pm
????????????
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 12:53pm
If only the AC can bring peace to the ME, what are the two wars about again?
If Bush had succeeded in actually bringing peace via the Roadmap and established liberal democracies that would spread, would the right wing religious extremists have recognized him as the AC?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 12:56pm
crabby-Right wing religious extremists have ignored the fact that Bush called islam the religion of peace and jumped on Obama for doing so and,like you just point out,voted for Bush to bring peace and democracy to the ME and never said that he can only succeed if he is the anti christ..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/06/2009 @ 1:12pm
What a putz. You can't "talk" to people who have told you, repeatedly, that their plan, their goal, their reason for living, is to commit mass murder. "Let's discuss it over coffee." Right. George Bush killed a million Iraqis? NAME THEM. First it 400,000, then it was 500,000, then it was 700,000, now it's a million. Can't wait for it to be more people than live there. The figures are nonsense, but don't let facts get in the way of your idiotic opinions.
Posted by artoruby at 06/06/2009 @ 1:50pm
How many died to protect you from the connections between Al Qaida and Saddam Husseins stockpiles of wmd's, ARTO?
Do you know?
Do you care?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 2:27pm
It seems everyone is facing existential threats lately. Israel worries that the Iranians/Al Qaida/Muslims/Persians will take them out. The Palestinians worry that Israel will nuke them and the US worries about all these groups. Me, I worry about the banks robbing me blind and then I'll have to become Diogenes again. And then ,I'll have to say the biggest threat to the world is the crazy rich on Wall Street and their enforcers over at the Pentagon.
Posted by hkaplan at 06/06/2009 @ 3:45pm
Metteyya, thank you again for your St. Augustine reference. As I get older, I'm trying to read the major religious and philisophical texts. St. Augustine is one I would like to follow up on (currently I'm reading Neitsche), Marx's Das Kapital is another.
I'm nobody, we agree on our ability to know Jesus. I consider it a mark of his genius that the fundamentals of his teachings came through in spite of these barriers, and was simply raising the historic context of his day to underline how radically his teachings (which built on the Jewish faith's insights) broke with the prevailing culture of the ancient world.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 5:06pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/06/2009 @ 12:45pm
It seems that you know far less than you think. You are citing only Catholic resources. Nor is anyone citing Revelation for person purposes. It is the only book of the Bible that promises a blessing to those who read and keep it's words. Revelations is a true promise of hope for those who believe and trust in Jesus.
The anti-Christ of course is not first revealed in Revelations. He is declared in the Book of Daniel as the opposer of man and the Messiah. The anti-Christ is revealed in Paul's letters (especially 2 Thessalonians) and in 1st & 2nd John.
Augistine whom you mentioned believed in the coming of the anti-Christ.
He wrote "it is uncertain in what temple [the Antichrist] shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church."
As to it's acceptance, it certainly was believed and cited by the anti-Nicene Fathers of the first few centuries following the Apostles.
Justin Martyr, about 155 C.E.:
"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place."
Irenaeus writes with the assumption that John the Apostle was the author of both Revelation and the Gospel which bears his name. The traditional view that John the Apostle wrote Revelation is also contained in the writings of both Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 C.E.) who quotes from Chpt's 17,& 18. Tertullian of North Africa (155-220 C.E.) quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and John the Apostle as author.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 5:38pm
antisocialist, you haven't actually disagreed with anything that Metteyya said. As often happens with your postings, you start posting high volume "facts" that have the same sounds, seem to have something to advance your argument, then on further reflection actually have only the thinnest relation to the point at hand, or are completely out of context. If your point is to disagree with Metteyya's reference to the symbolic nature of the anti-Christ, you haven't actually done that. And the point about John only seems to indicate that you agree with Metteyya. Yet you use insulting language to define his understanding of a topic.
This seems to be pretty thin gruel.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/06/2009 @ 5:55pm
Crabwalk What a silly question. Do YOU know? It's a nonsensecial question with no answer. You think you can give one? And prove it's correct? Ask questions that make sense. And give answers that are TRUE. And can be verified as such.
Posted by artoruby at 06/06/2009 @ 7:56pm
Yes, there was a test for President Obama in Egypt, and he failed it. To his lasting disgrace, and ours. (Granted, not to the disgrace fo Nation paragons.)
Addressing most particularly the Arab world, praising Arab civilization and lauding Islam, President Obama forgot that, as he spoke, a mountain of 300,000 dead and 3 million ethnically cleansed victims of Arab Muslims, was rising higher across the border in Sudan. There our day's gravest humanitarian crisis is ongoing.
He, a black American, wielding the power of the United States, inveighing against hatred and violence, discord and occupation, was afraid to mention, a near genocide in Darfur perpetrated by the brethren of his listeners!
That took courage? That was respect for the truth? That was loyalty to America's core values? Our president feared to stand up for even his own race! He dared not devote a phrase from his 6000 words, to the immense tragedy across the border.
He had the chance to do more than speak virtuously: to act righteously, to oppose a crime of the first magnitude, to urge his audience to turn against the perpetrators. For that he lacked the stomach.
He preferred to appease and flatter a public still incensed after more than sixty years, by the plight of 700,000 Palestinian farmers forced to flee a war their leaders initiated. He dared not allude to the far vaster ethnic cleansing, and the gigantic slaughter of those African farmers, who had done nothing to deserve their fate.
Obama's glowing words illuminated a deep shadow. It made Barack Obama contemptible to those with a head and a heart; he disgraced our country.
But none of that affects the humanitarians who pullulate on this site, nor the humdinger who writes its contorted polemics. .
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/06/2009 @ 8:46pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/06/2009 @ 8:46pm
Bit of sanity there HP. Obama is just another very nice man with the gift of the gab. The other thoughtless thing (amongst others) he said was that we won't force democracy on anyone, an implicit reference to Bush's Iraq war.
Most informed people would have realised that democracy would never have come from inside that country whilst there was a brutal repressive dictator, who brooked no opposition and who ruled by terror through an all powerful secret police force.
The reality is that the form of democracy that is now operating inside Iraq, which is Iraq's own brand (not forced upon it) would never had happened had not Bush in compliance with the spirit of your ILA 1998 removed that impediment to democracy from the scene. Democracy has begun to bud since.
To the claim that in time when Saddam and his vicious psychopathic, chip off the old block sons had departed the scene in say 50 years or so, democracy would have been an option, one just has to observe the sort of terror still being inflicted on Iraqis by some of the same crew that used to get paid by the state to do it. They too are in the process of being swept away.
The removal of the Saddam regime was a moral cathartic event not only for Iraq but for the whole of the Arab world leadership which only since then has put a consideration of democracy on its political agenda.
If Obama with his oratorical skills can further that movement in the Arab world that is good.
However he is only building on the opportunity that Bush provided for Iraq. That decisive action also caused the rest of the Arab world to seriously begin to look at its own short comings in its government and its institutions when measured against the Western democratic model.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 12:36am
"The reality is that the form of democracy that is now operating inside Iraq, which is Iraq's own brand"
BBC-
The verdict is in line with a recent report by Iraq's anti-corruption committee, leaked to the Western media, which reveals the magnitude of the problem facing the Iraqi government.
The report, which is a result of the committee's investigation into some 12,000 complaints of government corruption, says that that among the worst offenders are - in no particular order - the ministries of defence, interior, finance, education and health.
One of the cases, says a defence ministry official, involves tens of thousands of dollars made by illegally charging young recruits up to US $500 each to join the army.
"The report does not even scratch the surface of what goes on. Millions, billions of dollars are being stolen," says Alia Nusaif, an Iraqi MP and member of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee.
...In late April the anti-corruption committee sent a police unit to deliver arrest warrants for senior trade ministry officials, including the minister's two brothers.
But the police were greeted by shots fired into the air by the ministry's own guards. During the brief shoot out that followed, the officials, including the brothers, escaped through a back gate.
" Under Saddam things were bad, but now they are worse... what frightens me most is the effect this will have on the security situation Former dissident" ----
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:41am
"Their own form of government" continued... By Patrick Cockburn, Independent UK. Posted May 29, 2009.
"Iraq plans to arrest 1,000 officials for corruption after a scandal which has forced the resignation of the Trade Minister and is threatening the food supply of millions of Iraqis.
Corruption at the Trade Ministry is an important issue in Iraq because the ministry is in charge of the food rationing system on which 60 percent of Iraqis depend. Officials at the ministry, which spends billions of dollars buying rice, sugar, flour and other items, are notorious among Iraqis for importing food that is unfit for human consumption, for which they charge the state the full international price.
The political crisis over corruption has escalated after a video surfaced showing Trade Ministry officials at a party, apparently drinking alcohol, cavorting with prostitutes, and deriding the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
!!!!!Iraq is deemed the third most corrupt country in the world after Burma and Somalia, out of 180 countries, according to the corruption index compiled by Transparency International.!!!!!"
Although it is an important oil producer, many Iraqis are on the edge of starvation; 20-25 per cent of Iraq's 27 million people live below the poverty line on less than $66 (£41) a month.
I guess they just took what Bush did, and improved on it in their own style.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:48am
""it is uncertain in what temple [the Antichrist] shall sit, -ANTI
Riverside Baptist?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:51am
Right. George Bush killed a million Iraqis? NAME THEM. "-ARTO
k13395-zm1417 24 May 2009 Daughter of dead woman female Palestine, east Mosul
k13393-sk1463 24 May 2009 Wife of dead man adult female Falluja
k13386-sx1401 23 May 2009 Taha Mohammed adult male Shoura, south of Mosul Police lieutenant colonel
k13380-fs1505 21 May 2009 Daughter of dead woman adult female Al-Quds, east Mosul Seamstress
k13377-kb1570 21 May 2009 Cousins of Jabbar Hassan al-Reyashi adult male Al-Rashad, south Kirkuk Awakening Council member
k13377-xm1513 21 May 2009 Brother of Jabbar Hassan al-Reyashi adult male Al-Rashad, south Kirkuk Awakening Council member
k13377-ka1500 21 May 2009 Cousin of Sami Ghayashi adult male Al-Rashad, south Kirkuk Awakening Council member
k13374-nd1516 20 May 2009 Ibrahim Al-Wikaa adult male Mosul Police
k13372-xw1460 20 May 2009 Children of dead woman child unknown Shula, north Baghdad
k13350-sv139 1 16 May 2009 Ali, son of Abdul Khaliq Ahmed 2 male Sadr City, Bagdad
k13343-ns1440 14 May 2009 Son of dead woman adult male Sada, north of Baquba Awakening Council member
k13343-ks1425 14 May 2009 Son of dead woman 20 male Sada, north of Baquba Awakening Council member
k13342-eu1421 14 May 2009 Ihsan Zaboun Hayal adult male Al-Nedhal Street, central Baghdad Newspaper employee
k13335-sr1405 13 May 2009 Son of Abu Ahmed al-Zobaie male Al_Nasr Wal Salam, Abu Ghraib, Baghdad
k13328-kb1578 11 May 2009 Abdulhussein Muhsin al Kathimi / Abdul Hussein Mohsen al-Kadhemi / Abdul Hussain Kadhim / Abd al-Hussein al-Kadhimi / Abdul Husain Muhsen al-Kadhumi adult male Al-Sadoun Street, central Baghdad Police, traffic k13327-xm1505 11 May 2009 Arkan Aziz Al-Ta'ee / R
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:58am
k13312-eb1473 8 May 2009 Sabah Hasan Hussein Houri 25 male Badra, east of Kut
k13308-ua1419 7 May 2009 Sahwan Aido Iesho / Omar Moussa Salih 12 male Ras al Jadda, west Mosul Street vendor
k13325-nw1509 1 May 2009 - 11 May 2009 Tony Edward Shiol / Tony Edward Shawel 5 male Shikhan, north of Mosul
k13282-sa1430 30 Apr 2009 Brothers adult male Tal Abta, Tal Afar
k13274-xm1529 29 Apr 2009 Brother of Aqeel Ali 10 male Sadr City, Bagdad
k13274-ka1548 29 Apr 2009 Husband of Um Batool adult male Sadr City, Bagdad
k13271-fm1520 28 Apr 2009 Father of two policemen adult male Al-Zinjeeli, west Mosul
k13267-nv1607 26 Apr 2009 Azhar Abdul Abbas, wife of Ahmed Abdul Muneim al-Bdeir adult female 14th Tammouz, Kut
k13267-bc1524 26 Apr 2009 Khalid Abdul Munim Abdul Sadeh, brother of Ahmed Abdul Muneim al-Bdeir adult male 14th Tammouz, Kut Police
k13264-kz1603 26 Apr 2009 Brother of soldier adult male Al-Rashidiya, north Mosul
k13262-kv1545 26 Apr 2009 Sister of Eman Latif, daughter-in-law of Nouna Latif Daoud adult female Domaiz, south Kirkuk
k13262-xv1474 26 Apr 2009 Nouna Latif Daoud adult female Domaiz, south Kirkuk
k13261-kr1599 26 Apr 2009 Son of Youssef Saba adult male Wahid Nisan, Kirkuk
k13261-nd1532 26 Apr 2009 Son of Youssef Saba 27 male Wahid Nisan, Kirkuk
k13261-kn1549 26 Apr 2009 Youssef Saba adult male Wahid Nisan, Kirkuk Oil company employee
k13256-sz1581 24 Apr 2009 Mohammed ? male Kadhimiya, Baghdad
k13254-ck1608 24 Apr 2009 son of Sheikh Medlool al Mutlag adult male between Sinjar and Baaj k13253-bw1523 24 Apr 2009 Raad Meki / Ali Mekki adult male Saidiyah, Baghdad Police k13250-xu1640 23 Apr 2009 Haider ?, brother
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:59am
j005-kb218 28 Mar 2003 Hussein Jassim, brother of Ali 18 male Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-xm273 28 Mar 2003 Ali Jassim 20 male Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-ka292 28 Mar 2003 Thamer Aiz 27 male Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-nf343 28 Mar 2003 Najah Abdel-Ridha / Nijah Abdel-Ridha 27 male Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad x028-nh337 27 Mar 2003 Valantina Yonas / Valantina Sallo 2 female Mosul x021-xv234 24 Mar 2003 Sahar Khalil adult female northern Baghdad x021-kr359 24 Mar 2003 Um Aqeel Khalil adult female northern Baghdad j003-ke1302 22 Mar 2003 Fred Nerac adult male Iman Anas, near Basra Cameraman j003-nw1245 22 Mar 2003 Hussein Osman adult male Iman Anas, near Basra Interpreter d3473-zx959 22 Mar 2003 Paul Moran 39 male Sayed Sadiq or Khormal Cameraman x018-vn303 22 Mar 2003 Imran Sreihin / Omran al-Serihaine male Mosul Student x018-db186 22 Mar 2003 Ahmad al-Bath / Ahmad al-Enezi male Mosul Student x018-eb241 22 Mar 2003 Abdullah Ababneh / Abdullah al-Ababneh male Mosul Student x018-ds256 22 Mar 2003 Sufian Batayneh / Sufian al-Batayneh male Mosul Student j003-hm174 22 Mar 2003 Terry Lloyd 50 male Iman Anas, near Basra Journalist j022-zs212 20 Mar 2003 - 11 Apr 2003 Brother of Thair Mohe el-Din adult male vicinity of Al-Yarmouk Hospital, Baghdad j022-dz233 20 Mar 2003 - 11 Apr 2003 Rowand Mohammed Suleiman 1 female vicinity of Al-Yarmouk Hospital, Baghdad j031-bh120 20 Mar 2003 - 6 Apr 2003 Husband of Metaq Ali adult male near Tallil and Nassiriyah j031-nh137 20 Mar 2003 - 6 Apr 2003 Mother of Zara? adult female near Tallil and Nassiriyah x038b-dv339 20 Mar 2003 - 6 Apr 2003 Driver of City H
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:00am
x032-sw240 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla x032-zc331 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla x032-sr253 31 Mar 2003 wife of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji adult female Haidariya region near Hilla x025-kw295 30 Mar 2003 Nora Sabah Gadan 14 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-ux340 30 Mar 2003 Fatema Zaboon Maktoof 27 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-kx357 30 Mar 2003 Sabeha Awad Merdas 58 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-xd174 30 Mar 2003 Madeeha Abd Kathem 48 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-hv299 30 Mar 2003 Ali Sabah Eadan 4 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-ns336 30 Mar 2003 Malek Sabah Eadan 7 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-ks353 30 Mar 2003 Husham Sabah Eadan 10 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-nm170 30 Mar 2003 Sabah Gedan Karbeet 42 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-sc118 30 Mar 2003 Kameela Abd Kathem 49 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-eu317 30 Mar 2003 Azhar Ali Taher 33 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-su332 30 Mar 2003 Abbas Esmaeel Abbas 7 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-ek239 30 Mar 2003 Muna Taha Abbas 23 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-xc114 30 Mar 2003 Abeer Taha Abbas 9 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-vm313 30 Mar 2003 Muhammed Taha Abbas 12 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-xu328 30 Mar 2003 Esmaeel Abbas Hamza 49 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x027-fw325 29 Mar 2003 Wife of Haytham Rahi adult female central Iraq j014-zm30
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:01am
x025-xc114 30 Mar 2003 Abeer Taha Abbas 9 female Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-vm313 30 Mar 2003 Muhammed Taha Abbas 12 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x025-xu328 30 Mar 2003 Esmaeel Abbas Hamza 49 male Zafraniya industrial area, Baghdad x027-fw325 29 Mar 2003 Wife of Haytham Rahi adult female central Iraq j014-zm305 28 Mar 2003 - 29 Mar 2003 patient in ambulance adult male Najaf
j005-bk335 28 Mar 2003 Cousin of Ali Abed Qassem unknown Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-nz214 28 Mar 2003 Sister-in-law of Ali Abed Qassem adult female Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-bd285 28 Mar 2003 Sister of Ali Abed Qassem 9 female Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-kd288 28 Mar 2003 Mother of Ali Abed Qassem adult female Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad j005-xb347 28 Mar 2003 Mohammed Jassim, brother of Ali 12 male Al-Nasser marketplace, Shula, Baghdad
j016-zx351 31 Mar 2003 Valentina Bashar Faraj female Bartalha region, NE of Mosul j016-dw273 31 Mar 2003 Mahroosa Jarjis female Bartalha region, NE of Mosul j016-ec218 31 Mar 2003 Manal SaadAllah Matti female Bartalha region, NE of Mosul j016-dx347 31 Mar 2003 Hilal Farij Silo male Bartalha region, NE of Mosul x026-hz138 31 Mar 2003 niece of Bakhat Hassan 15 female US Army checkpoint near Najaf and Karbala x026-bv321 31 Mar 2003 Sister in law iof Bakhat Hassan adult female US Army checkpoint near Najaf and Karbala x026-hc239 31 Mar 2003 Brother of Bakhat Hassan adult male US Army checkpoint near Najaf and Karbala x026-fd332 31 Mar 2003 niece of Bakhat Hassan 12 female US Army checkpoint near Najaf and Karbala x026-hu317 31 Mar 2003 Sister in law
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:02am
x032-xc194 31 Mar 2003 wife of brother of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji adult female Haidariya region near Hilla x032-vm265 31 Mar 2003 brother of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji adult male Haidariya region near Hilla x032-xu248 31 Mar 2003 wife of brother of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji adult female Haidariya region near Hilla x032-vs323 31 Mar 2003 brother of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji adult male Haidariya region near Hilla x032-sa206 31 Mar 2003 mother of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji elderly female Haidariya region near Hilla x032-uz261 31 Mar 2003 father of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji elderly male Haidariya region near Hilla x032-dn244 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla x032-uw327 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla x032-xr202 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla x032-zm257 31 Mar 2003 child of Razak al-Kazem al-Khafaji child unknown Haidariya region near Hilla
IBC page Date Name or personal identifier Age Sex Location Occupation x045-zw221 6 Apr 2003 - 7 Apr 2003 Bashar Handi 28 male Highway 1, Baghdad Tannery owner x045-sf236 6 Apr 2003 - 7 Apr 2003 Wadhar Handi adult male Highway 1, Baghdad Tannery owner x039-kb242 6 Apr 2003 Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed 25 male near Irbil, N. Iraq Interpreter x081-zn216 5 Apr 2003 Child of Mahmoud Ali Hamadi 0-11 unknown Rashidiya x081-hn128 5 Apr 2003 Child of Mahmoud Ali Hamadi 0-11 unknown Rashidiya x081-fe187 5 Apr 2003 Child of Mahmoud Ali Hamadi 0-11 unknown Rashidiya x081-dc165 5 Apr 2003 Wife of Mahmoud Ali Hamadi adult female Rashidiya j017-ur366 5 Apr 2
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:04am
ARTORUBY
How is that?
I could go on, there are 199 screenpages on Iraqbodycount alone. Those are only the ones that made it into the news.
There are roughly 1.5 million refugees, over 2,000,000 IDP's in Iraq.
As SHINGO pointed out, Islamic fundamentalists have actually GAINED influence, and in some cases parliament seats, in Arab countries. Not one new functioning democracy has been established, not one WMD has been destroyed, not one nookyular plant has been uprooted. Many terrorists have been killed or captured, but many more have been created, terrorism has GONE UP since the Iraq war started. Even Bush's own State Dept had to admit that.
ARTO, it is pretty damn hard to make the case that the Iraq war had made anybody safer or improved relations between the secular west and Arabs or Muslims.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:10am
By Lisa Schlein Geneva 06 June 2009
Voice of America
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says Iraq is still too fragile to absorb the more than 1.5 million Iraqis living outside the country. The UNHCR says security has generally improved. But, it warns conditions are not ripe for a massive return of refugees.
...Spokesman Ron Redmond says the government must implement a number of measures before the smooth return and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced people can be assured.
"The government needs to make further progress in the implementation of its national policy on displacement and return," he said. "It needs to take decisions on land allocation and property restitution and compensation because a lot of people have lost their homes. It needs to launch a major housing and rehabilitation program that is commensurate with the huge dimensions of the housing problem. So many have been destroyed."
-----
This is 6 years AFTER "Mission accomplished".
Many cons like to compare Iraq war to WWII, Like anti tries to compare Obama to Chamberlain. So, ARTO, why don't you tell us what Germany was like 6 years after the end of WWII. Were there still 3.5 million refugees/IDP's? Were 1000's of government officials being arrested for corruption? Were IED's going off in the streets? Were 125,000 US troops still fighting insurgents?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:18am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 5:38pm
Only citing Catholic sources?
When you study Christian "history" it is obvious that early sources will be Roman Catholic since the Protestant movement is relatively recent - 16th century.
When attempting to understand HOW the particular books in the Bible came to be included, you have to reach back to the first 2 to 4 hundred years after the death of Jesus, and you will learn from this period that it was St. Augustine who "finally" convinced the reluctant Council to include the Book of Revelations.
Here is a brief history of the canonization process from that period:
1. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) - this particular council accepted all of the books of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation.
2. The Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) - this council of chaired by the preeminent early church father and theologian, Augustine. The Council of Carthage accepted all 27 New Testament books.
3. The Council of Hippo (419 A.D.) - this council reaffirmed the Council of Carthage..
As for your specific anti-Christ reference from St. Augustine, he was referring to the "CHURCH" as the anti-Christ because he believed that it would eventually oppose the central message of peace and love of Jesus.
From the Crusades and the current Rapture nonsense that is seeking the acceleration of the end of the world to hasten the second coming of Jesus, we learn that St. Augustine was not far off the mark in thinking that the CHURCH will be the anti-Christ.
The Book of Daniel "connection" to Revelations is an error. In Daniel they do not talk about a SECOND coming of the Messiah, and was referring to the opposition to the MESSAGE of the Messiah, since we all know there were SEVERAL individuals who opposed Jesus when he was alive
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 09:54am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 07:48am
Well Crabs you have quite a bit of information there but apart from corruption being corrosive and bad for democracy you don't seem to know what to do with all that lovely information. Let me help you with a few suggestions:
I read the BBC report from which you copied this info and it noted that the 12,000 complaints of government corruption came from the public. I wonder how many complaints of this nature were made to the government when Saddam was running it and siphoned off, say about $10.1 billion of UN funds when the UN Food for Oil program was up and running, for his favorite charity?
No idea? Just have a guess. While you're making up your mind, do you remember what happened at that Cabinet Meeting when one of his ministers disagreed with him? No? He invited him outside the Cabinet room, shot him in the head and returned with: "well where were we gentleman?" or words to that effect. How many complaints did he get from the public say about them not getting their food the UN was supplying? What's your guess? Apart from say a handful with a death wish, mine's a fat zero.
Now there is also that small matter of 1,000 corrupt government officials whom you tell us, "democracy Iraq style" intends to arrest. Sounds like someone in the government is getting the idea of what democracy "our style" is like?
Suppose you noticed the bit about the alcohol and the "working ladies" sounds a bit like some of your own Senators and house members have been giving lessons. What I like is that they were ridiculing Maliki. A good sign Maliki is probably a clean skin and is on the level about rooting out corruption.
Your info contains good signs that Iraqi parliamentarians as a whole know that corruption and democracy are inimical.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 5:38pm
So my basic point about deferring to Augustine's warning about "literal" interpretations of the Bible generally, and Revelations specifically, is still valid.
If it weren't for him, there would be no Book of Revelations in the Bible, so why not heed his advice on how to interpret this book?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by crabwalk
Here's how it works without a dictator:
BAGHDAD
AP
Iraq's prime minister has accepted the resignation of his trade minister, shortly before a move in parliament to oust him over alleged corruption in his department, the government said Monday. Trade Minister Falah al-Sudani submitted his resignation May 14. But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki delayed accepting it to allow parliament to review the allegations, a government statement said. Those allegations include claims that the minister's two brothers skimmed off tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks on food and other goods imported by the Trade Ministry.
One of his brothers, Sabah al-Sudani, was arrested this month allegedly trying to leave the country. The other brother, Majid al-Sudani, remains at large. Both were members of the minister's security force.
Al-Maliki has promised a major crackdown against corruption, which opinion surveys have identified as one of the major public complaints against the government.
Security and corruption are emerging as the major issues ahead of next January's national elections. Al-Maliki's supporters scored major electoral successes in January's provincial elections by promising to tackle the two issues.
At least nine officials of the Trade Ministry - including the minister's two brothers - have been charged with corruption. Last month, a gunfight broke out in the ministry when authorities went to serve the warrants.
Falah al-Sudani has not been charged but has been accused of tolerating widespread corruption and mismanagement in the ministry, The head of parliament's integrity commission described the office as "a remarkable source of corruption and squandering of public funds." Lawmakers planned to call a vote of confidence in al-Sudani this week.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:10am
Crabs just a bit on Saddam's little gold mine. The corrupt Australian Wheat Board contributed about 300 million of that to secure wheat sales contracts with Iraq.
If you do a bit of googling you will find that during this time Iraq children suffered terribly in terms of malnutrition and other associated diseases.
GAO investigation
After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent Coalition victory over the Iraqi army, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was given the task of finalizing all Oil-for-Food related supply contracts made with the now-defunct regime as well as tracking down the personal fortunes of former regime members. [20] During the execution of this task, the GAO found weaknesses in the programme that allowed kickbacks and other sources of wealth for Saddam Hussein.
The GAO estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues. This figure includes $5.7 billion from oil smuggling and $4.4 billion in illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:33am
>>>He, a black American, wielding the power of the United States, inveighing against hatred and violence, discord and occupation, was afraid to mention, a near genocide in Darfur perpetrated by the brethren of his listeners!
That took courage? That was respect for the truth? That was loyalty to America's core values? Our president feared to stand up for even his own race! He dared not devote a phrase from his 6000 words, to the immense tragedy across the border.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/06/2009 @ 8:46pm<<<
HUGO,
READ the ENTIRE speech!
Here is an excerpt on Darfur:
"And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
-Barack Obama, Cairo Speech"
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 10:40am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:01am
Hey, that's great LR, that the new Iraqi govt, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the ethnic cleansing of cities towns and villages, and the displacement of millions...isn't QUITE as bad as it was when our former ally ran the place.
You brought up the point that we couldn't know how Saddam would have been replaced via internal struggle. We don't know whether it would have been worse than doing it via a Christian countries Army, but we can look to prior precedent in Romania, Poland and the Soviet Union. As bad as the transition phase was in those dictatorships, it pales in comparison to Bush' "Hearts and Minds".
OK, Ok, OK, it is not as bad as transitions in some African countries, where millions have perished, but the constant comparison of "well, ya know, Abu Graib wasn't as bas as when Saddam ran it, and only low hundreds of thousands have died, not the 800,000 Saddam killed in the Iran/Iraq war (who did you support in that conflict, BTW?), so we are not as bad as Saddm." falls pretty damn flat.
6 years after the fall of Saddam, all you have is.... HOPE for the future of Iraq. It is still a chaotic, incredibly corrupt, dangerous place. I notice that you have not yet built a new chemical factory there.
In your reading of the stories I used, did you notice that Iraq is the 3rd most corrupt country in the world? Does comparing the corruption in the US, which has a Transparency Intl Corruption Perceprion Index rating of 18th VS Iraqs 178 make your argument somehow MORE valid?
They didn't make the list in 2002, but where do you think they would have been? 3rd to last is pretty bad, so at best you could say that your plan took them from 180th place to 178th. Heckuva job LeeRoy!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 11:11am
The goals of the Iraq war:
1: remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
2: establish a liberal democracy in Iraq.
3: bring stability to the region.
4: reduce global Islamic centered terrorism.
5: set the conditions for the establishment of more democracies in the Middle East,
6: Reduce the threat to Israel.
7: counter the rise of Irans power in the region.
8: Make Iraq the center of the fight to end Islamic terrorist attacks, fight them among the populace of Iraq so that we won't have to fight them 5,000 miles from their homes.
How many of these goals have been met?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 11:19am
Hey Crabwalk. You're a little short of a million. By alot. And I have it on good authority that George Bush was in Texas for most of May in 2009 - your list starts there. By your reasoning though I assume that Obama killed the ones in May. And April, and March. Are you keeping a tally for him? Your list doesn't include how people died. Do the ones that died in car accidents count? I'm sure your delusions include the belief that George Bush made the highways in Iraq more dangerous.
Posted by artoruby at 06/07/2009 @ 11:37am
Following the write up mon the elections in Lebanon in the NYT and even here it is really amazing how little is devoted to what the Lebanese themselves might find important. Nearly nothing about the nature of Lebanese society and economics. Nothing about the hold of all the sectarian groups over who works and at what, patronage, the antagonisms between clan chieftains even within the same sect and group, their rivalries, at times violently lethal, the lingering effects of the very long civil war, and what "pro Western" or "pro Iranian" translates into local economic policy and social and political integration, if any. All that seems important is the strategic consideration, what it means for the US or Israel or Hamas. Nothing about Lebanon and local considerations, which is how we would describe elections here.
There is something patronizing about this and willfully ignorant. As is after the Doha agreement, election districts have been arranged so absolute victories are highly unlikely, and the need for two third majorities for approval of anything significant is likely ro remain, and Hezbollah will remain as is.
There are great needs for constitutional reform, an independent judiciary, clear legislative and executive powers, a clearer and more direct voting reform, but I understand the election will depended on like the results of 20 districts. The Lebanese governing by consensus is likely to remain, and with it all the corruption of every sect getting its share and dependence on external allies is the likely result regardless of which coalitions gains an edge.
It would help if progressives focused on Lebanon itself and the aspirations of the Cedar Revolution's for true democratic and economic reforms.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 06/07/2009 @ 12:46pm
ARTO, George Bush owns the conditions in Iraq. It is his will that created the situation that exists on the ground today in Iraq.
No, Chimpy McFlightsuit did not go out and actually kill a million, or 30,000, or 700,00. He couldn't even find the time to fly jets in Texas when his country called him. I don't think he has the balls to actually face a threat. He just decided that he would send upwards of a million Americans over to Iraq to establish a liberal democracy at the end of a gun. What followed is his.
i will ask you the same question I ask the other war mongers: When are you going to visit the peaceful country of Iraq? Are you going to go fight the terrorist? If so, how do you tell them from the other population? Or, are you going to go for a vacation soon?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/06/2009 @ 5:38pm
So my basic point about deferring to Augustine's warning about "literal" interpretations of the Bible generally, and Revelations specifically, is still valid.
If it weren't for him, there would be no Book of Revelations in the Bible, so why not heed his advice on how to interpret this book?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 10:06am
Augustine was completely wrong as was his theory of Amillinialism.
Daniel indeed references both first coming and the 2nd coming of the Messiah. Messiah is revealed and then cut off (his appearance, death, and resurrection in chpt 9. In Chpt 11, the anti-christ is defeated forever (vs 45).
And then of course Zechariah 12-14 we have the return of the Messiah (the one whom they pierced).
And all would do well to heed the warning at the end of the book of Revelation.
Rev 22:19,20 (Amplified Bible)
"And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these predictions relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book.
He Who gives this warning and affirms and testifies to these things says, Yes (it is true). [Surely] I am coming quickly (swiftly, speedily). Amen (so let it be)! Yes, come, Lord Jesus!"
There is no Christian hope with the revealing of the resurrected Jesus and the future promise for those who believe and trust in Him contained in this book.
Revelation is the climax of the NT because of it's truth, not because men voted it's inclusion.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 4:42pm
Metteyya at 06/07/2009 said:
>> READ the ENTIRE speech!
"And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience."<<
I read the NY Times transcript of the entire 6000 word speech. Your sentence brackets Darfur between Bosnia where the US came to the aid of Muslims, and the claim Darfur is everyone's fault.
That is not confronting the Arab world with the crime of Darfur, but rather helping it fudge and evade looking at that crime. When the screams of murder and rape are bending the walls and blood streams in from next door across the threshhold, you don't beat your chest and say violence is our collective fault, you point a finger and say: you guys are up to your ears in crime and mayhem, stop it.
That all you can do, Metteyya, is point to Obama's pitiful extenuation, when you should be condemning that outrage, and the silence of such as Dreyfus and the entire Nation crowd, professional humanitarians, who make justice and the defense of the innocent, their brief, but have not a word for Darfur and against the Arabs, that shows what a moral swine you and your friends here are.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/07/2009 @ 4:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 4:42pm
If you think the Messiah being "cut-off" means he will come again, then I see why we are having this fundamental disagreement.
The plain fact is that Revelations was written by a DIFFERENT John, than John the Apostle - unless you are contending that John was 130 years old when he wrote it.
There is also THIS problem with the single author theory from Wiki:
"Modern scholarship[12] suggests that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos refer to three separate individuals. This can be determined via new means of inquiry such as textual criticism. Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb when referring to him--the Gospel uses amnos, Revelation uses arnion.[13] Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author."
Revelations is a FRAUD, and its "war general" image of Jesus should be enough - without all of the other evidence above - to convince any rational person that is not an authentic story written by an Apostle of Jesus.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 5:39pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/07/2009 @ 4:49pm
What Obama was attempting to do is suggest to Muslims that just like we came to the defense of Muslims in Bosnia from being slaughtered by Christians, America will come to the defense of Christians that are being slaughtered by Muslims in Darfur.
Since this is NOT an announced official policy yet, I'm sure you can understand the brief treatment in the speech.
But make no mistake, Obama believes STRONGLY in preventing the bloodshed in Darfur. He said as much on the campaign trail, and will eventually commit US resources to deal with this tragedy.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 5:44pm
There is no Christian hope with the revealing of the resurrected Jesus and the future promise for those who believe and trust in Him contained in this book.
Revelation is the climax of the NT because of it's truth, not because men voted it's inclusion.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 4:42pm
typo..
<there is no Christian hope without the revealing of the resurrected Jesus>
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 5:39pm
Absolute nonsense.
It was attested to by those who knew the Apostle John.
Most scholars date the book between 70-95 AD with real scholarship leaning towards around 70 AD.
Even the very liberal NT scholar A.T. Robinson admitted that liberal scholarship had misdated the NT.
<John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919 in Canterbury, England–December 5, 1983) was a New Testament scholar, author and a former Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, England. He was a lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge, and later Dean of Trinity College until his death in 1983 from cancer. Robinson was considered a major force in shaping liberal Christian theology. Along with Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, he spearheaded the field of secular theology and, like William Barclay, he was a believer in universal salvation.
Robinson concluded that New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction.>
<Gentry lists 145 scholars who advocate an early dating of Revelation, including the great church historian, Philip Schaff, and others such as Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, F.F. Bruce, Alfred Edersheim, John A. T. Robinson, and Milton Terry.
The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches. Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) places John's banishment in conjunction with Peter's and Paul's martyrdom (A.D. 67/68). Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) twice states Revelation was written under `Claudius [Nero] Caesar.' The Syriac version of Revelation (sixth century) has as a heading to Revelation: written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."
http://tinyurl.com/25rxea
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 6:08pm
More evidence on John the Apostle as the author of the book of Revelation.
<we have the direct testimony of many of the early fathers. Justin Martyr, who flourished from forty to sixty years after the death of John, says, ‘A certain man, John by name, who was one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied,' etc. Melito, bishop of Sardis, a contemporary of Justin, wrote a book concerning ‘the Apocalypse of John.' Apollonius, a distinguished writer of Asia Minor, in a book against the Montanists, appeals, in like manner, to ‘the Apocalypse of John.' Irenaeus, in his work against Heresies (book 4, chapter xx.), speaks repeatedly of John--the same who wrote the gospel--as the author of the Apocalypse. Clement of Alexandria, speaking of the righteous man, says, ‘He shall sit among the twenty-four thrones, judging the people, as John saith in the Apocalypse.'
Tertullian, the first of the Latin fathers, speaks often of the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle John. In his book against Marcion, referring to Rev. 1:16, he says, that the apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes the sword proceeding from the mouth of God.'
Hippolytus, bishop of Ostia, testifies abundantly to the Johannean origin of the Apocalypse. In his book, ‘De Antichristo,' section 9, he says, ‘Blessed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord, tell me what thou didst see and hear respecting Babylon?' and then he quotes Revelation, chapters 17. and 18., as the testimony of the apostle.
Origen, the most learned of the early fathers, who was born only seventy-eight years after the death of John, speaks continually of this apostle as the author of the Apocalypse. I hardly need quote passages. In his commentary on Matthew, he says, "John has left us one gospel. He also wrote the Apocalypse.'
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 6:12pm
the biggest reason why people like Metteyya reject the book of Revelation is that they don't what it says.
For those who believe, trust, and follow Jesus, it is a book of promise.
For those who don't, it is a book of judgment. For we see Jesus in His glory and as the one who will Judge all mankind exactly as He stated in the gospels.
It is obvious then why despite all the evidence that it is consistent with all of scripture, these critics reject it just as much as they reject Christ the judge of all mankind. Just as they reject the requirement of Jesus that "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20)
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 6:12pm
The problem with old stories and old accounts of who said what is that they are often wrong.
This is where SCIENCE is invaluable.
Linguistic science - yes, it is a science - conclusively demonstrates that the author of the Gospel of John and the author of Revelations were DIFFERENT authors.
Why would you exclusively use "amnus" to describe lamb in "Lamb of God" in the Gospel, and then EXCLUSIVELY use "arian" in Revelations to describe "Lamb of God"?
Its sort of like saying always saying "Son of God" all the time in one article, and then only saying "Boy of God" in a later article to mean the same thing.
And identifying oneself as the author in the body of a writing of God when you never did this before in earlier writings suggests that the author of Revelations thought it was necessary to try to convince others that it is really John who wrote this - something that the "real" John would never need to do.
And how do you go from FLAWLESS Greek in the Gospel of John to third grade Greek full of basic grammatical errors in Revelations unless you are a DIFFERENT author?
And like I said earlier, this war-mongering image of Jesus in Revelations is COMPLETELY at odds with the narrative of Jesus in the Gospel that teaches us to turn the other cheek.
More than any other book, the Book of Revelations is chiefly responsible for the demise of Christianity and the judgmental nature and intolerance some Christians have adopted toward others. When Jesus says "do not judge less thee be judged", what about that did the author of Revelations NOT understand?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 6:42pm
Linguistic science looks at the FINGERPRINT of an author in a written work, and compares it to the fingerprint in another work to see if it matches.
In the case of the Book of Revelations, THE FINGERPRINTS DO NOT MATCH those in the Gospel of John.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 7:14pm
Linguistic science looks at the FINGERPRINT of an author in a written work, and compares it to the fingerprint in another work to see if it matches.
In the case of the Book of Revelations, THE FINGERPRINTS DO NOT MATCH those in the Gospel of John.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 7:14pm
The grammar and linguistic questions have been answered at length by scholars far more adept than myself. The conclusions are diametrically opposite of your own.
Overwhelmingly, except for those liberal theologians who dismiss most of the NT, John is acknowledged as the author.
This paper on the structure of Revelation does an excellent job of framing the argument made in support of John's authorship from the points made by numerous scholars.
http://tinyurl.com/lgg9cz
Trench and Hengstenberg both excellent 19th century Bible scholars support John as author.
Prof Louis Berkhof's Introduction to the NT contains an excellent breakdown in understanding Johannian authorship of Revelation.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/newtestament.xxxiii.html
a brief layman's outline showing that the grammar itself proves Johannian authorship.
http://main.nc.us/spchurchofchrist/RevIntroduction.htm
http://tinyurl.com/outrom
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 8:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 8:23pm
Have to go now to a concert in Oakland....will respond later.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 8:33pm
Crabwalk. "Bush killed about a million..." (Robert Dreyfuss). "No, Chimpy McFlightsuit did not go out and actually kill a million, or 30,000, or 700,00(sic)..." (Crabwalk). Which is it? Don't let the truth get in the way of your delusions......"Even if his claims could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, he would still be wrong..." I'm paraphrasing Keith Olbermann on Dick Cheney.... The truth is what it is, not what you wish it was, and not just the part that fits your opinion..................Don't you dare question other people's willingness to fight. People like me made it OK for people like you to have too much time on your hands and the freedom to sit in front of a computer freely expressing your opinions. Freedom that people like you take for granted, freedom that billions of people still yearn for.
Posted by artoruby at 06/07/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 11:19am
Like your perseverance Crabs but suggest you are flogging a dead horse. Not so sure all those objectives were ever prime objectives. WMD certainly was and gross HR violations as enumerated in ILA 1998 were but I'll give you a second opinion on some of them.
1: remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam will never be producing nerve and mustard gases again or any other WMD. Also given the open democratic style trial of Chemical Ali etc it is also unlikely Iraq will go down that path again. Threat removed.
2: establish a liberal democracy in Iraq.
Iraq is a constitutional democracy. A liberal democracy? Well it has free elections and rights for people (that 12000) to protest government abuse of power. There is political plurality but more yet needs to be done to embrace religious freedom but that is not a constitutional or leadership problem as Maliki has been trying to get a better deal for the Christian and Jewish brand from Iraqis. That is a cultural bias not a result of the form of government. Other minority rights? Let's see what happens.
3: bring stability to the region.
Big a winner here. No more invasions of Iran or Kuwait with the resultant million or so, killed, tortured and many Kuwaiti women raped, during Saddam's 7 month occupation of that country. No more military threats against Saudi Arabia.
Then of course Libya has joined those more stable countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Have you noticed how many of those states are trying to broker a peace deal with Israel and the Palestinians.
Then I notice that Iraq now has friendly relations with Iran. It may have a good influence on Iran in respect of its support for terrorists.
All that shouts more stability in the region.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 11:11pm
More for Crabs:
4: reduce global Islamic centered terrorism.
Bit hard to know what you mean but just off the top of my head let's see what amount of GICT activity has been going on in the last few years:
America-None. Europe-None. Indonesia-None. Russia- not much.
Afghanistan- not much as the Taliban may be many things but global it is not. Al Qaeda may be doing a bit.
Iraq- quite a bit but this is where GICT has taken a terrible pounding and still seems to be the best place to cause it most harm .
Pakistan- on the rise but again it is mainly Taliban not GICT activity.
Summary: GICT lost out big time in Arab Iraq where it should have been a big winner. I think those Iraqi pollies getting on the grog with those loose sheila's is about the best indication that Iraqis have more than a streak of secularism in them and that rather than a love for "our" democracy is one reason al Qaeda lost support big time in Iraq. I'm confident history will prove Iraq to have been its Waterloo.
5: set the conditions for the establishment of more democracies in the Middle East,
There have been stirrings in places like Saudi Arabia for women's rights but if and when Iraq proves an attractive model to other-national Arabs one could expect it to be a bottom up process given the present system of government in a country like Saudi Arabia.
6: Reduce the threat to Israel.
Didn't Saddam send a few armed missiles that way from time to time and 20 grand to suicide bomber's relatives for an Israel hit?
7: counter the rise of Irans power in the region.
The US military camped on its border must be a counter to Iran"s power, insignificant as that power is.
8. See 4. Plus your homeland security.
How many of these goals have been met?
Probably all of them in varying degrees.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 11:59pm
Metteyya at 5:44pm said:
>> Obama was attempting to do is suggest to Muslims that just like we came to the defense of Muslims in Bosnia from being slaughtered by Christians, America will come to the defense of Christians that are being slaughtered by Muslims in Darfur. <<
You made that up out of whole cloth. Nothing in Obama's speech or in that single sentence containing the words, Darfur and Bosnia, sustains your claim.
Moreover, the Darfurians are overwhelmingly Muslims.
It turns out, African Muslim are worth less than Arab Muslims. The Arab raiders, as they shoot the Africans down yell, Allah Akbah. If African blacks were on a murder rampage killing hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and turning millions into refugees, you know the Arab world would be aflame, the Arab League would be hammering at America's doors, and at the UN. Nevermind if the Jews were involved in these killings.
But you and this progressive, Nation cesspool, are so busy weeping over the demise of the nationl-socialist Baath and its Fuhrer, and the failure of Iraq's Islamofascists, and the cruel suppression of Hamas rocket fire into Israeli villages, and efforts to deny Iran nukes, that the mass murder of 300,000 blacks and the ethnic cleansing of 3 million by Arabs, doesn't catch your notice.
You grotesque babblers about morals and decency, are in collusion with pathological liars and genocidal killers. You and your Arabs are as sincere as the Nazis wringing their hands over the Sudetan Germans, while rounding up Jews to be slaughtered.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/08/2009 @ 12:02am
Speaking of making things up out of whole clth, hwo do you know that, "The Arab raiders, as they shoot the Africans down yell, Allah Akbah" Have you witness this? Have you seen footage of wuch an event?
Y0u are as much a liar as any Nazi Hugo_Pirovano.
The Baath Fuhrere was a tool od the West, who beought about his rose to power. Had he not outlived his usefullness, he would still be. There were no Islamofascists in Iraq until the US paved the way for their entry. Iran has no nukes, nor is there any evidence of such. Hamas rocket fire into Israel in a reposnse to every day acts of war perpetrated on Gaza by Israel.
You pretend to care about the mass murder of 300,000 blacks, when 1 million Arabs in Iraq have been murdered. You pretend to care about the ethnic cleansing of 3 million blacks by Arabs, while conveniently ovelooking the 4 million Iraqi refugees.
Talk about grotesque babblers about morals and decency. You are a pathological propaghandist and supporter of the closest explame of Nazi ideology in existence today. 1,400 Arabs were slaugtered by Israel in January because of an Israel election and the desire of a corrupt leader to look tough.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 04:25am
lrjones4,
It appears you are in dire need of some reality, so I will oblige.
Part 1 of 2
1: Nerve and mustard gases are not WMD. Furthermore, The Duelfer Report stated that Iraq was disarmed in 1994. Mustard Gas is old technology. Any university grad in chemistry could produce the stuff.
2: Democracy was never a goal of the invasion. In fact, free and open elections only came about when Sistani mobilized 300,000 Shiites to the streets in demand of them.
3: There were no military threats against Saudi Arabia. That hoax was exposed long ago. Iraq only invaded Kuwait because US Ambassador to Ira, Apil Galsby gave Saddam the green light, care of James Baker. The invasion of Iran was also encouraged and enabled by Washington. Torture continues in Iraq, much of it perpetrated by the US. There also happen to be 1 million dead Iraqis and 4 million refugees thanks to the invasion.
Libya never had a WMD program to give up. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all run by tyrants who we continue to support, so Gadaffi has now been added to the list. 22 Arabs states signed a peace offer 6 years ago to recognize Israel. Israel has rejected the offer.
The reason Iraq now has friendly relations with Iran, is because the majority Shiites are in power. In fact, Iraq has become a client state of Iran.
Talk about an own goal!!
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 04:49am
lrjones4,
Part 2 of 2
4: Islamic centered terrorism. May I suggest you consult statistics, not your gut feelings. The Iraq Effect: New Study Finds 600% Rise in Terrorism Since US Invasion of Iraq http://www.pacifica.org/program-guide/op,segment-page/segment_id,330/
5: The presence of troops in the opposite of a bottom up process for democracy. Of course, the democratic elections in Gaza demonstrated to the world what Israel and the US think of democracy.
6: Reduce the threat to Israel. Let's see. Israel were defeated by Hebollah in 2006. Saddam gave money to the surviving familed of Palestinian suicide bombers, but he only did so to curry favor in the Arab world.
7: Iran's power in the region has risen beyond all expectations. Iran were in favor of the invasion and overthrow of Saddam and most ironic of all, is that Tehran and Washington are supporting the same parties in Iraq. When Bush flew to Iraq, he had to arrive under a cloak of secrecy, and even then, he had shoes thrown at him. When Amadinejad arrived, he got a red carpet welcome.
Also, the US blocked an Israeli plan to attack Israel last year, so the Iranians are probably comfortable with US forces over their border.
8. Homeland security. One word – Katrina.
How many of these goals have been met? None.
I hope that helps with your ignorance on the subjects addressed.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 04:50am
"This paper on the structure of Revelation does an excellent job of framing the argument made in support of John's authorship from the points made by numerous scholars. "
Of course, there is no proof that Jesus existed, therefore no evidence that there was an appostle called John, therefore, no proof as to who John was.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 05:13am
You're funny LR.
You missed the 6 months of Chimpy laying out the very goals I described. Now, 6 years on, you grant the slightest improvement as epoch shattering success. No, Iraq is not a democracy. Maybe in name, but it does not function as the most basic government. It can't protect it's own ministers, let alone it's people. It can't pick up the garbage, it can't supply water.
If you are going to insist that bringing democracy to Iraq was not one of Chimpies goals, can you send me some of your smoke? It must be quite fine.
wmd's- sanctions worked. Saddam produced no wmd's since 1991. So, after 12 years of not producing them, you see victory in him not producing them ?
Stability in the region. Israel at war in Lebanon, continued war in Iraq, Iran closer to nukes, war in Afghanistan spreading into Pakistan. Pakistans leading opposition party assassinated by Islamic radicals from Afghanistan. You call that stable? Was it more unstable when Saddam was in Kuwait? Sure, but he was going nowhere in 2003. He was declawed, had almost no Army, no air force and only contolled 1/3 of "his" country. The fact that you think he might have been a threat shows me that you live in fear and allow that fear to cloud your views.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 06:59am
OK, LeeRoy, here are the goals, in the United States Governments words. Just to remind you, GWB was the Dear Leader at the Time.
Medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Long term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists
# An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
# An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review, National Security Council (January 2007)
"Our strategic goal in Iraq remains the same: A unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror. .. we are in a new phase of the effort …"
Here is the Comptroller General's 4 September 2007 mandated report on the status of the achievement of these benchmarks;:
As of August 30, 2007, the Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 07:04am
"One Year After the Surge: Iraq Benchmark Report Card" by the Center for American Progress (24 January 2008):
* 3 benchmarks accomplished (Baghdad security plan, minority rights legislation, neighborhood security in Baghdad) * 5 partials (de-Ba'athification legislation, military support in Baghdad, empower Iraq security forces, reduce sectarian violence, distribute resources equitably) * 10 unmet. ----
I wonder LR, if you had a group of engineers and technicians working on a program that you claimed in public would take "weeks, maybe months, certainly not years." and 6 years on they had met less than 1/2 their goals, would you give them a bonus or have them out looking for new employment? Judging by your posts here, I would have to think you not only would grant them bonuses, but might just vote them Employees of the Year, give them the keys to your own house and invite them to share Sheila.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 07:09am
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 04:50am
Not even a good try Shingo as I will attempt to show you. Not too sure you really have got to grips with the data but we shall see.
Before your education begins in earnest I noticed this little gem. What on earth were you trying to say, apart from tacitly conceding my point about the US military on Iran's border? If you keep pinching my stuff I'll have to you charge a fee.
"Also, the US blocked an Israeli plan to attack Israel last year, so the Iranians are probably comfortable with US forces over their border."
"1: Nerve and mustard gases are not WMD. Furthermore…Mustard Gas is old technology. Any university grad in chemistry could produce the stuff." (Shingo)
WMD means Weapons of Mass Destruction and that means weapons that kill or disable many combatants or civilians as happened at Halabja in March 1988.
There mustard gas, a CW and a subset of WMD, was used in conjunction with various nerve gases to kill up to 5000 women and children with a numberof air attacks with CW 16th to 19th March 1988.
The following show its capability in the Iraq/Iran war as the sole WMD:
"Some 16,000 Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between August 1983 and February 1986."
http://tinyurl.com/3d98vo
So your waffling nonsense about mustard gas being old technology and how easy it would be for Uni grads to make, indicates, by these irrelevancies, just how far off the pace you are. WMD means WMD and nothing else.
On the next post are some excerpts from one Wikipedia entry and one could google up many more to show that CWs such as mustard and nerve gases are classified, solely by their mass killing or disabling effect, as WMD.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:07am
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (wiki)
"During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program."
"In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[24] Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s.[25][26][27][28][29] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade."
http://tinyurl.com/nffkz
Now Shingo we'll have a look at some real "chemistry" courtesy of the testimony of Dr. Christine M. Gosden, then Professor of Medical Genetics in the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom and worked for the British Medical Research Council, before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 22 April 1998.
Gosden visited Halabja just after the attack in March 1998 and her harrowing report amongst other things indicates that mustard gas was used in the vicious gas cocktail simply because there is no antidote to it as there is for some of the nerve gases.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:08am
Wow guys! look where you have take this.
"Three Tests" All Obama did was tell the world how he thought about the things he considers important to discuss. He did it openly, without apology. This was not a "policy" speech. This was a "come on guys" speech, we all got kids, lets build a better world.
"Three Tests?" tests of what? He just took one rock of the wall down. He already succeeded. "Three Tests" indeed.
Posted by Philosophe at 06/08/2009 @ 08:08am
LeeRoy, you have SHINGO on the techinical term. I can agree with that.
however, I think what he was trying to say was that those toxins don't rate a full scale invasion. It is makes little sense for a terrorist to go to Iraq (especially one from AQ that HATED Saddam) and get a hundred gallons of mustard gas, haul it across the globe and deploy it into a subway in New York. What is more likely is that a "homegrown" Islamic terrorist or one that has been in the country for a while would make some in a home still and deploy it close to where he made it.
If, after 6 years the worst of the worst have not taken the time to do that, why would they spend MORE time and money trying to get it around the world?
An even more likely scenario is that someone from the Army of God would use chemicals to attack US citizens.
OOPS, that happened already. shhh... we don't talk about Christo-Fascist terrorism.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 08:27am
Full Name:
Michael Donald Bray
Claim to Notoriety:
Vocal and violent activist on behalf of a theocratic United States. Convicted of string of bombings against women's health care clinics providing abortion in the mid-1980s. Author of A Time to Kill , a book offering religious justification for the murder of abortion providers.
Notable Attacks:
Bray preaches that abortion clinics "should be put out of the business of butchering babies" (as he put it, in 1994), but he also practices.
In 1985, Bray was charged with conspiracy, following a series of clinic bombings. The Maryland Metropolitan Medical Women's Center, a Planned Parenthood office and also the Washington Office of the American Civil Liberties Union were bombed. At the time, responsibility was claimed by an anonymous caller to the Washington Times on behalf of "The Army of God, East Coast division," a loosely knit collection of Christian militants.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 08:32am
History of war.com
"The Army of God developed a manual to advise members on how to attack clinics using arson, acid and also instructions on bomb making.
The manual demonstrates the core belief of the organisation as being anti abortion, homophobic and highly critical of the US government for not up holding what it sees as Christian values. In 1998 a member of the Army of God (James Kopp) shot and killed Dr Barnett Slepian and it is believed the organisation was linked to many other similar shootings between 1994 and 1997. The Army of God has also attempted to utilise public fears over a terrorist biological attack with one member, Clayton Waagner, sending over 550 letters to abortion clinics in 2001 claiming they contained anthrax and would infect anyone who opened them.
It is believed the group operates a basic terrorist cell system.
Most famously it was associated with bombings at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics which killed one person and injured over a hundred others, the first known reference to the group was in connection with kidnapping in 1980. "
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 08:35am
I want to thank mettya, anti and nobody for clearing up the Revelation.
Clearly it is a common sense approach to dealing with wordly issues and no gray areas exist within the interpretation of scripture. God's intent on allowing Her Word to flow through the vessels of Man without distortion or room for misinterpretation comes through loud and clear. We should continue to use these words of clarity to guide our solutions to the harm caused by an apple.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 08:40am
Shingo:
Here are a few relevant excerpts from Gosden's testimony. I suggest you read it thoroughly and you might get some appreciation of why, apart from the faulty later WMD intelligence, many of your political leaders Dem and GOP voted to approve the removal of Saddam from power:
http://tinyurl.com/nuksym
"I have recently witnessed the long-term effects of the chemical weapons attack on the large civilian population in Northern Iraq, in the town of Halabja. I was shocked by the devastating effects of these weapons which have caused problems such as cancers, blindness and congenital malformations.
My experiences of the devastating power of these weapons have emphasized the importance of protecting individuals and nations against chemical and biological weapons attacks. Having seen and experienced their suffering and heard their pleas for help, I know I must do everything I can to help the people of Halabja and enter into a partnership with them to try to find effective therapies for bodies, minds and spirits which have been affected by the winds of death and destruction wrought by clouds of toxic weapons"
"This journey and the horrifying findings have shocked and devastated me to an extent which I had not believed possible. It is the deliberate use of weapons of this ferocity, which have the power to kill or maim in perpetuity, which I find so terrible."
"The CW attack began early in the evening of March 16th, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs; the chemical bombardment continued all night. According to Kurdish commanders on the scene, there were 14 aircraft sorties during the night, with sevento eight planes in each group, and they concentrated their attack on the city and all the roads leading out of Halabja...."
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:56am
"....The chemical attacks continued until the 19th. Iraqi planes would attack for about 45 minutes and then, after they had gone, another group would appear 15 minutes later."
"Let me emphasize that this was not the firstchemical attack by Saddam Hussein. Previous attacks had been launched by Iraqi aircraft against20 small villages in 1987. However, the scale and intensity of the chemical campaign against Halabja was entirely different -- this was the first time that chemical weapons had been used on a major civilian population of this size. The victims of the attack included women, children and the elderly."
"Saddam Hussein clearly intended to complicate the task of treating the Halabja victims. At a minimum, he was using Halabja as part of the Iraqi CW test program. Handbooks for doctors in Iraqi military show sophisticated medical knowledge of the effects of CW. The Iraqi military used mustard gas in the "cocktail," for which there is no defense or antidote.
And it is also worth noting that Saddam did NOT use the nerve agent SOMAN, but instead used TABUN, SARIN and VX, as I said above. This is noteworthy because it shows that Hussein's experts were also well aware that pyridostigmine bromide -- one of the chief treatments against nerve agent -- is relatively ineffective against TABUN, SARIN and VX, but highly effective against SOMAN, the only agent he DID NOT use."
And so it goes on Shingo. That deals with Shingo myth No1.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:56am
None other than St. Reagan blamed Iran for the killings at Halabja, he was backed by Stephen Pelletiere, former CIA analyst for Iraq at the time of the Iran-Iraq war, who had this to say:
"The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."
Now, who you gonna believe, Reagan and the CIA or some intelectual elite from a liberal college?
(before you "educate me" some more with your positive logicalism LeeRoy, I am teasing. Reagans ally used gas created with the help of western corporations. on "his people". I don't deny it. I just find it interesting that both the President and the CIA did)
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 09:00am
Now, assuming that AQ wanted to use a similar method of attacking the USA, where would they get "a group of eight aircraft " or " 14 aircraft sorties during the night, with seven to eight planes in each group"?
Not only that, but they could not have gotten it from Iraq, now could they?
What was the final tally on wmd's in Iraq?
2 defunct shells.
So, the goal of Chimpy was to keep AQ from allying, with a regime they despised, in order to spread wmd's the regime didn't have.
BOO!
heffelumps and woozles.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 08:27am
Crabs not ignoring you but just felt that Shingo really needs a lot of help. 12 midnight here on a chilly (must be ACC) early winter's evening. So may, if I don't go to sleep, prepare a few more lectures for Dingo, sorry Shingo is no wild dog is he? But will try to look at your stuff before the thread closes.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 09:06am
"apart from the faulty later WMD intelligence, "
Pretty god dmaned BIG "apart from" there mister logic.
The congress critters, in their oh-so-patriotic fervor, passed a resolution based on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE. Lies. Propaganda. Testimony from drunks, forged documents and corrupt Iraqis.
We all know this, we have beaten it till dead. You have theories. I have the reality that Iraq is a fricking mess with no end in sight. You have Hope for Change.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 09:06am
sleep well good Knight, for you have been protected from Saddams wmds and the links between Saddam and Al Qaida.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 09:11am
"2: Democracy was never a goal of the invasion. In fact, free and open elections only came about when Sistani mobilized 300,000 Shiites to the streets in demand of them." (Shingo)
I take it you are an American? Who much of your political history do you know?
Here's a bit of official American foreign policy that was enacted in 1998 so nothing to do with GW. Notice that cheeky little word democracy somehow can't keep its head down. You know the one that was not on the radar till Sistani put it there:
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
(Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime.
Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; .....
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 10:50am
"....and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime."
http://tinyurl.com/22zz
Did Clinton sign the ILA 1998 into law? You bet he did and he did much more as below:
"This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. "
Check out the URL to see which Iraqi pro-democracy organisations he asists.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 10:52am
The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein).
The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
In November 1998 President Clinton stated that "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."[6]"
Also GW Bush got his ideas of democracy for Iraq from this policy document. I mean you'd have to be dumber than even you think Bush is to miss the word democracy. Maybe Sistani read it too.
President George W. Bush often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002 (Public Law 107–243--OCT. 16, 2002)
You will find that George the younger was so impressed with ILA 1998 that he quoted it in speeches not only wrt WMD but also Saddam's gross HR violations as a powerful rationale for his removal from office. Check out his UN address on the 12th September 2002 to get those references.
So Shingo there goes Shingo myth No.2. All the rest can be shot down with a pea shooter or a feather. No need for literary WMD to mothball your stuff but if you're a masochist I'm happy to oblige.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 10:53am
Wednesday 29th April, 2009
"A strong ripple of bomb blasts has gone through crowded markets and a packed minibus in Baghdad.
48 people were killed with 68 wounded in the blasts which occurred within minutes of each other in the Shiite district of Sadr City and other districts
The explosions in Sadr City caused an immediate reaction, with angry residents pouring into the streets to accuse the police and US troops of failing to do their job effectively.
Police fired warning shots at the crowd after stones were thrown.
Locals then sought cover in the charred wreckage of the bomb damaged areas.
A new surge in bombings has come only two months before US troops are scheduled to withdraw from all major Iraqi towns and cities. "
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 12:05pm
"nothing to fear but fear itself"
Mr Dreyfus you jest if you really believe that only right wingers and neocons have criticism for BO.
I am socially liberal...couldn't care what you do with your life, your religion, your kids, your diet, your smoking and drinking....just do it in your space.
But on fiscal responsibility.....the congress and BO are out of control! The state of the financial system is as much a dem caused issue as it is a lack of consumer responsibility...don't buy what you cannot afford.
Excuse me if I have no reason to be sympathetic to people losing their homes because the speculated or being fat because they eat at McDonalds every day!
Out of one side of BOs mouth he says we've been irresponsible and out of the other side of his mouth he is feeding the fire of irresponsibility with the stimulis.....who's he talking about anyway?
Most people bougt what they could afford....
I have sympathy for people who have lost their jobs...not for speculators or people who have irresponsible spent all their equity....a friend of mine is getting 300K knocked off his 900K underwater house loan and he has spent that 900K on refi's......guess he is the poor people we are saving?
That just tells me I am the dumb one...I should have refi'd, invested the million value in my home and then cried I was udner water......good scam
Posted by brianm at 06/08/2009 @ 2:50pm
Shingo at 04:25am said:
>> Speaking of making things up out of whole cloth, how do you know that, "The Arab raiders, as they shoot the Africans down yell, Allah Akbah" Have you witness this? Have you seen footage of wuch an event?
Y0u are as much a liar as any Nazi Hugo_Pirovano. <<
You don't want to know the truth, you want to slander me, for speaking the truth. You deny reflexively what everyone who reads the papers knows, what countless eye witnesses have reported.
You can read about it everywhere. On April 14, at a Columbia University debate about Darfur you could hear people testify whose parents and siblings were murdered, and who saw and heard and felt the Janjiweed sweep through their village shouting, Allah Akbah, as they killed, pillaged and raped.
You can speak to John Prendergast of the Enough Project, who was at that Columbia debate and has lived in Darfur. His own daughter was raped there. He will tell you about those raids and those virtuous followers of the religion of peace.
But your first move is to call me a Nazi, you hopped up jerk, you are about as sharp as a fishy smelling septic tank.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:08am
Your wikipedia entries only serve to prove my case. As teh Duelfer report told us, Iraq was disarmed by 1994.
The US military is on Iran's border, but if the object was to attack Iran, the Bush administration would not have vetoed a request by Israel to attack Iran.
1: Weapons of Mass Destruction is a term used to describe destruction on a massive scale, not a battlefield weapon. The only WMD are nukes. Conventional weapons can just as easily kill 5000 women and children .
"Some 16,000 Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between August 1983 and February 1986."
You'll probably find just a many people are killed in road accidents in America over 3 year period.
Your claim that capturing Chemical Ali would put an end to the production of mustard gas is flawed. The fact that the technology to produce mustard gas is readily available and requires little expertise debunks your premise.
All your Wikipedia entries about Saddam's used of CW date back to the period when the US was supporting him, in the 80's.
Ooops.
Iraq never had nuclear weapons. When Cheney said that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons, he was telling 2 lies because not only had Saddam not reconstituted his nukes, he never had them to begin with.
The case of Halabja is an interesting one. The town is on the border of Iran, and the attack on Halabja took place during the Iran/Iraq war. CIA witnesses observed that a blood agent had been used to kill the residents (i.e Cyanide) and seeing as Iran, not Iraq were using Cyanide at the time, some believe that Iran was responsible for the attack.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 6:59pm
The parties that do not want peace are freaking out about Obama's speech:
1. American neo-cons 2. OBL and al qaeda 3. Jewish extremists (and Bibi) 4. Palestinian extremists 5. other extremists
What do they all have in common? Extremism.
Obama is dealing this hand. It is a well thought out hand, even the timing of the speech (just before elections in Lebanon and Iran) was just about perfect. The military industrial complex believes that war is the only thing that can keep our economy (meaning the world's economy) going. They will continue to play that hand.
I think OBL and the neocons need each other. The neocons needed 9/11 to happen (see PNAC documents) and a boogie man to keep people scared. OBL fit the bill. OBL needed the neocons in power after 9/11 to continue to make America the boogie man and keep his recruiting going. Personally, I think he's dead now (not at Tora Bora), or at least on death's door.
Fanaticism always needs other fanatics on the other side to keep itself alive. Obama's steadfastness and intelligence is the enemy of fanatics; that's why the neocons can't stand him.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/08/2009 @ 7:06pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person |
Here's a bit of official American foreign policy that was enacted in 1998 so nothing to do with GW.
lrjones4
Your arguments are old and easy pickings.
The democracy argument was cited as the rationale for the Iraq invasion when the WMD failed to turn up. Plan A was to airlift Ahmed Chalabi into one of Saddam's Palaces and declare him the new leader of Iraq.
Open and free elections were never on the cards. Elections only came about when Al Sistani ordered a massive demonstration when 300,000 Shiites took top the streets and demanded them.
Paul Bremmer's predecessor, J Garner, made the mistake of believing in the whole democracy BS and upin arriving in Baghdad, called for a meeting of all the tribal leaders in Iraq, and declared that elections would be held within 90 days.
J Garner was ordered by Washington to take the next plane out out Baghdad and was immediately replaced by Paul Bremmer.
The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with Democracy. It's little wonder that you haven't bothered to address the other points, and your answers would have probably been even easier to debunk than this one. Too easy.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:08pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/08/2009 @ 3:57pm "But your first move is to call me a Nazi, you hopped up jerk, you are about as sharp as a fishy smelling septic tank."
Make that a senile too. You seem to have overlooked the fact that you were first to bring up the Nazi canard when you said: "You and your Arabs are as sincere as the Nazis wringing their hands over the Sudetan Germans" while rounding up Jews to be slaughtered.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/08/2009 @ 12:02am |
You haven't reported truth, just vented your bile on this forum.
I haven't denied what has taken place in Darfur, though Darfur has become the go to talking point for the Zionist amen corner when confronted with Israel's atrocities.
Iraqis have also reported being killed and pillaged and raped by US troops.
Unlike, John Prendergast's daughter, Iraqi girls were raped in Iraq and then set on fire.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:18pm
lrjones4,
As crabwalk has pointed out, the attack on Halabja was attributed to Iran at the time. At the very least, both Iraq and Iran were using CW in the region at the time. It took place on a town near the Iraq/Iraq border during the Iran/Iraq war and did so while Iraq was being supported by the US.
"....The chemical attacks continued until the 19th. Iraqi planes would attack for about 45 minutes and then, after they had gone, another group would appear 15 minutes later."
Fascinating, specially seeing as Iraq's CW mainly delivered by US supplied helicopters.
That deals with lrjones4 myth No1.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:36pm
Lrjones,
It should be obvious that facts are like Kryptonite to our young blogger Shingo. Like most youth, facts are merely whatever your bias suggests them to be.
And marxist teachers here in the US do an excellent job of brainwashing these young people to a point where they are unable to do any real indepth analysis of facts.
They are more content with scanning google search results and thus determining that they have made an exhaustive research. It's one of the double edged sword effects of internet information. It often prevents serious investigation of truth and facts.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 7:45pm
lrjones4,
Just to recap.
Your original post claimed that the 2003 Iraq invasion was intended to :
1: remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Setting aside the fact that Iraq had no WMD at the time,that leaves the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about Iraq's WMD.
I'll let these quotes speak for themselves:
"He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt.
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice during an appearance on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:46pm
antisocialist,
I hardly think that someone who's raison d'etre is based on hsi belief in a mythical figure called Jesus Christ shoudl eb lecturing about truth and facts.
Or who claims to hear statements in in speeches , even though they are nowhere to be found should be talking about facts (ie. Obama's promise to destroy Israel).
I was meaning to ask you how someone who is opposed to socialism and the concept of a welfare state is so devoted to a welfare state like Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:55pm
MArxist Teachers!!!!
MArxists everywhere!!!
From the halls of Ann Arbor Pioneer High to the gilded halls of Goldman Sachs, the marxists are coming the marxists are coming.
One if by sea
two if by land
3 if by the fantasies of anti, the guy that thinks flying zombies are a-comin to us.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2009 @ 06:45am
Strange silence on Islamist terror: remain stunningly silent on South Asia's ‘Hindu Holocaust'..??
Obama should have spoken up for the Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh who face terrible atrocities. But he has chosen to remain stunningly silent on South Asia's ‘Hindu Holocaust'
Posted by pramodgupta at 06/09/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:08pm
Shingo you are obviously unable to put two and two together and really seem to be quite a dull person. Obviously you have picked up those points from those who are as intellectually dull as you, are lazy researchers or are dishonest propagandists who manipulate unthinking persons like you.
If you were able to read and understand the ILA 1998 and the associated footnotes on the URL I gave you and realise that 1998 precedes 2003 (at least in most rational people's thinking) you wouldn't keeping drawing attention to your own stupidity by claiming that the establishment of democracy in Iraq was not an essential part of American policy well before Bush came to power but was, according to your ignorant claim, an afterthought after no WMD were found.
Further you would be able to grasp, however dimly, that that policy explicitly stated the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power as a necessary precondition for the establishment of a new democratic Iraq.
This stuff (ILA 1998) is foundational, as is a knowledge of the previous decades, of growing apprehension of American support for Saddam which eventually led to concern and agitation, in your House and Senate and what to do about the shocking HR violations being perpetrated in Iraq under that ruthlessly vicious dictator. That is the history of the Iraq Liberation Act 1998. And the setting for March 2003.
Further without that background understanding there is no reasonable way to explain why Congress voted, in October 2002, so overwhelmingly for the removal of Saddam from power.
There are some pretty bright opponents of Bush and the Iraq war here and they demand our attention. At this stage you are not one of them.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 10:04am
Maybe I missed something; this post says that we're supposed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas? A terrorist organization who's main purpose is to destroy the State with which Dreyfuss recommends negotiating. An organization that has sent suicide bombers into Israel, showered rockets down on Israeli territory, and which has kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
That's mindless -- maybe the luny left can stomach and forgive such actions, but no sane Israeli or American will ever sit down with Hamas until it becomes clear it is not longer a terrorist organization.
It's true: We don't negotiate with terrorists, right up until the time we do. The PLO was a terrorist organization, and Israel and the US ended up sitting down with it.
But that was with substantial change prior to ever seeing leaders of Israel with the PLO sit down together.
If Hamas wants to be taken seriously as a negotiating partner, it must act seriously, and not like some circus clowns in masks wandering around with RPGs.
Obama has proven he's a lightweight, and not ready for prime time, or the intricacies of international affairs.
Bad for the U.S. Bad for Israel.
Posted by J. Saxon at 06/09/2009 @ 10:09am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 7:45pm
Interesting comment Liberty. Read one or two articles over here about the teaching of science, which only advances when it is tested objectively.
Some teachers are complaining that the new teaching of science has been taken over by the principles of subjectivity that have undergirded most of the social sciences. It was suggested the social sciences gave away objectivity when it was discovered the objective approach came up with answers that were not politically acceptable.
It seems that rather than teaching young students underlying theory and an analytical approach on that basis they were asking the students what their thoughts were.
It might be OK to ask a budding Isaac Newton that question but the science teachers were pretty certain that if it was not nipped in the bud, Australia would soon become scientifically illiterate.
Noticed your stuff on Revelation and liked it. Often opposition comes in the same sort of post modern approach. That means one can make any claim without any proper objective basis or more generally little realising that there is a lot literary objectivity in the form of scientific textual criticism etc that supports the orthodox position.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 10:36am
I hardly think that someone who's raison d'etre is based on hsi belief in a mythical figure called Jesus Christ shoudl eb lecturing about truth and facts.
Or who claims to hear statements in in speeches , even though they are nowhere to be found should be talking about facts (ie. Obama's promise to destroy Israel).
I was meaning to ask you how someone who is opposed to socialism and the concept of a welfare state is so devoted to a welfare state like Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 06/08/2009 @ 7:55pm
Well, when you come face to face with Jesus, be sure and tell Him that He's a myth!
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:27am
Noticed your stuff on Revelation and liked it. Often opposition comes in the same sort of post modern approach. That means one can make any claim without any proper objective basis or more generally little realising that there is a lot literary objectivity in the form of scientific textual criticism etc that supports the orthodox position.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 10:36am
Thank LRJ.
I became interested in eschatology many, many years ago. Probably by taking to heart the offer in the book that a blessing was promised to all who read and keep the words contained in it. Seemed a reasonable response.
I enjoy teaching the subject every year. It never grows old and I continue after all these years to still learn new things each year.
I pity those who dismiss it so easily. A rude awakening will come either in it's realization or at their day of judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:30am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2009 @ 07:09am
I noted your point about time lines for engineers building refineries and I guess that isn't a bad place to think about Iraq and its rate of progress in the rebuilding phase after the war.
Though refineries builders do have some interest in the human element one can think in terms of teamwork and believe it or not engineers can generally finish these things on time.
But your demand for that in a project with the complexity of bringing democracy to Iraq and all that takes, is a little misplaced in that you are forgetting that it involves dealing with the human factor in the most difficult circumstances.
That it is progressing, by this engineer's calculus, as well as it has so far is encouraging even if still a little short of miraculous.
I don't know but I get the impression that you are praying, if that's the right word, for this democracy project to fail, possibly because you have a lot to lose in terms of your intellectual and emotional commitment against the war. Perhaps you can give us your reasons for wanting to see it fail?
My support for the goals of the ILA1998 was based on the proposition that the West should have removed Saddam or done something about him once the atrocities from the 1980's were known.
So I have a real interest in seeing Iraq prosper politically and economically and am certain that that is best brought about by Iraq becoming a pluralistic, democratic state. And that in the interest of a better life for all Iraqis.
Given our different interest we are very likely to see progress through a different prism and it is not surprising that we have a different evaluation of the progress of the Iraq project.
Despite the difficulties I see it as a two steps forward, one step back process.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009@ 10:36am
Can I quote you?
"Some teachers are complaining.... It was suggested.... It seems.... It might be OK.... ...but the science teachers were pretty certain...."
Interesting way to build an argument from a bunch of suppositions.
As for all the stuff on the Book of Revelations (Revolutions is more appropriate), I think that we can argue the point endlessly to no good end. Faith is something that cannot be discussed rationally because it is inherently irrational. That is not to say it is bad, but that rationality does not enter into the equation, that's why it's called "faith" and not "science."
As for learned opinions of who wrote what in the Bible, that's exactly what they are: opinions. As we see with today's opinionators (Bill-o, Sean, Rush, etc.) most opinions are worth less that the paper they are written on and based on personal/political agendas. Or do you think Biblical scholars have never had personal/political agendas?
I prefer to believe in a loving and non-judgmental Jesus. Anti (and others) prefer to believe in a semi-loving and judgmental Jesus. That is their prerogative.
However, if we're going to use Jesus' teachings to create a moral underpinning to our laws and ways of life, I hope we will use the loving and non-judgmental one.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/09/2009 @ 12:10pm
Crabs notice Dreyfus has a very good article on presidential Iran's election.
Very informative but interesting in terms of the stability/instability caused by the Iraq invasion.
Iran is a democracy of sorts but given a new saner president it could move along a more pluralistic democracy path with Iraq in a sort of symbiotic partnership.
Hezbollah did not do well in Lebanon either which confirms that Arabs and Persians have a lot more political sense than some of us imagined.
Interesting days ahead.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 12:14pm
I prefer to believe in a loving and non-judgmental Jesus. Anti (and others) prefer to believe in a semi-loving and judgmental Jesus. That is their prerogative.
However, if we're going to use Jesus' teachings to create a moral underpinning to our laws and ways of life, I hope we will use the loving and non-judgmental one.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/09/2009 @ 12:10pm
Your problem would be that to take your route, you have to leave out most of the texts of the 4 gospels. Jesus spoke mor e on hell and judgment than He did on love. And He did so because of love, not in spite of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 10:04am
You seem incapable of thinking for yourself.
Evidently, you're one of the few dead enders who believes that what a government tells you must be true. The drumbeat for the war was based on frightenign the country into beliveing that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.
The fact that the ILA of 1998 preceeded the 2003 invasion does not actually prove anything. Invading Iraq was not an essential part of American policy prior to 911 either.
What is also gralingly obvious, is that the so called "shocking HR violations being perpetrated in Iraq" all took place in the 80's when the US was supporitng the Iraqi dictator. Congress were only too happy ot turn a blind eye to the "shocking HR violations being perpetrated in Iraq" when it suited America's interests. March 2003 had nothing to to do with the ILA od 1998.
The reason that Congress voted overwhelmingly for the removal of Saddam from power in 2002, was entirely because of 911. The Bush administratioon made the absurd claim that that in a post 911 world, Sadddam was a threat. It tied Saddam to 911, to Al Qaeda and threatened that we could not wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
You are proof that there might still be those who believe the earth is flat
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 5:15pm
Shingo at 7:18pm
You're stuffed with stupidity and mendacity. You sizzle and sputter in your own grease. Which does not distinguish you from the other sausages endlessly revolving in these fora, except you are a clear cut nut case.
Talking to mentally disturbed knockwurst is cruel, pointless and not for me.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/09/2009 @ 5:19pm
lrjones4,
You seem to have lost interest in points 1 and 3 - 8.
I take it that you have nothing to add to my rebutall on those points?
Jut to recap.
1. You said that the Iraq invasion was to reduce the threat of Iraq WMD, when no WMD existed. 3: bring stability to the region4: reduce global Islamic centered terrorism. 5: set the conditions for the establishment of more democracies in the Middle East 6: Reduce the threat to Israel. 7: counter the rise of Irans power in the region. 8. See 4. Plus your homeland security.
Your weak and superficial understanding on these issues was exposed, but I woudl have hoped you had more pluck in you.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 5:24pm
J. Saxon
It is innevitable that we will sit down and negotiate with Hamas. We have negotiated with terrorists throughout history.
Like teh IRA and other terrorist groups, Hamas are not a purely mitant organisation, but a political one also. The reason for Hamas sending suicide bombers into Israel, showering rockets down on Israeli territory, and kidnapping one Israeli soldier, is becasue Israel occupy Palestinian land, not to mentino, massacaring Palestinians and sending many more3 adn much deadlier bombs and missiles into Gaza.
Right now, the US suportes terrorist groups. We had OBL on our payroll during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We support teh MEK, a terrorits group that has killed Americans as they set off bombs in Tehran. The same for the Jandalla and Fatah al Islam against Hezbollah.
We have always negotiatiated with terrorists.
Hams are supporting a 2 state solution. They have even given approval of the Arab peace initiative, which offers to recognize Israel.
Hams has been acting seriously. between July and November 4th of 2008, Hamas fired no rockets into Israel. They held to the ceasefire even as Israel were violating it by refusing tolift the blockade as per the agreement.
Israel broke the ceasfire because the longer the calm persisted, the greater the likelyhood of Israel having to negotiatie with Hamas.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 5:33pm
Your problem would be that to take your route, you have to leave out most of the texts of the 4 gospels. Jesus spoke mor e on hell and judgment than He did on love. And He did so because of love, not in spite of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @
When did he speak of supporting Israel right or wrong? When did he mentino anythgn about Israel's creatino being a pretext for his return? I presume that is your reason for being so blindly supporting of Isreal?
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 5:38pm
Jesus spoke mor e on hell and judgment than He did on love. And He did so because of love, not in spite of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
Wow.
I mean...wow.
I actually prefer to believe that Jesus was ALL about love and not judgment and that those men who placed his words into a book might have screwed things up a bit...you know...memory being bad and so forth. I mean, I doubt they were keeping daily diaries. Especially since Jesus was divine and therefore infallible, and they were simply men, and therefore fallible.
So I don't actually disregard (or "leave out") any parts of the NT (including Revelations). But I also don't take it as the literal word of god, although the closest it gets are the words of Jesus (in red). I just prefer to think that the men who wrote the Bible were not perfect. They were just men...like me. Perhaps more attune to Jesus, perhaps less.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/09/2009 @ 5:41pm
The fact that the ILA of 1998 preceeded the 2003 invasion does not actually prove anything. Invading Iraq was not an essential part of American policy prior to 911 either.
What is also gralingly obvious, is that the so called "shocking HR violations being perpetrated in Iraq" all took place in the 80's when the US was supporitng the Iraqi dictator. Congress were only too happy ot turn a blind eye to the "shocking HR violations being perpetrated in Iraq" when it suited America's interests. March 2003 had nothing to to do with the ILA od 1998.
The reason that Congress voted overwhelmingly for the removal of Saddam from power in 2002, was entirely because of 911. The Bush administratioon made the absurd claim that that in a post 911 world, Sadddam was a threat. It tied Saddam to 911, to Al Qaeda and threatened that we could not wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
You are proof that there might still be those who believe the earth is flat
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 5:15pm
Look if you can't read and understand that the ILA 1998 calls for the removal of Saddam Hussein long before 9/11 then you are simply not up to discussing the issue.
It is obvious that you have not read it or Bush's 12th Sept 2002 UN speech which is shot through with calls for Saddam's removal not only on WMD grounds but also human rights violations that kept occurring right up until and after the GH Bush Kuwait war.
We started with your ignorant claim that democracy for Iraq was not on the US agenda until WMD were not found in Iraq. When you're are presented with the evidence viz that it was official American policy post ILA 1998 you still continue with the stupid unsubstantiated nonsense that you began with. Educate yourself ignoramus.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:18pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:18pm
The ILA 1998 never included the use of military force as an option for the removal of Saddam Hussein, for the simple fact that the ILA had no legitimacy in terms of international law. The IL would never have been put to the UN, because it would have been voted down. The only legal justification that US could use to invade Iraq was the pretext of self defense and this false rationale was only made possible by the events of 911.
The 2002 vote to attack Iraq woudl have failed absent the lies about WMD and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and 911.
I am not disputing that Bush mentioned humanitarian violations as a ground for Saddam's removal during his SOTU speech, though need I remind you, that during that speech he also lied about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.
I still maintain that democracy for Iraq was not on the US agenda when Iraq was invaded. One simply has to analyze what the US strategy was during and immediately after the invasion. Were government buildings protected? No, just the oil ministry and oil fields.
That pretty much says it all.
Arguing about what is or is not official policy is irrelevant. It is not official policy to torture or conduct illegal wiretaps, but that hasn't prevented government from doing it.
Your argument is that the ILA is proof of something. It is not.
Speaking of ignorance, are you going to address points 1 and 3 to 8 or is your brain too rattled by sudden exposure to reality?
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 6:30pm
Well, when you come face to face with Jesus, be sure and tell Him that He's a myth!
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:27am
Be that as it may, the fact that you haven;t even tried to prove the existence of Jesus with historical records, but believe in him so emphatically, proves that your belief system is not based on facts or evidence, but due to the indoctrination you were exposed to from the cult to which you belong.
Hence, I repeat my statement that you of all people, should not be lecturing to others about truth or facts.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 6:36pm
I actually prefer to believe that Jesus was ALL about love and not judgment and that those men who placed his words into a book might have screwed things up a bit...you know...memory being bad and so forth.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/09/2009 @ 5:41pm
I think you may find that antisocialist's per-occupation with hell in the NT, stems from his right wing political and idealogical ideology.
Not a day goes by that some evangelical wingnut doesn't litter the blogs I frequent which racist and xenophobic bile, only to end with a statement like "God is love".
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 6:45pm
Be that as it may, the fact that you haven;t even tried to prove the existence of Jesus with historical records, but believe in him so emphatically, proves that your belief system is not based on facts or evidence, but due to the indoctrination you were exposed to from the cult to which you belong.
Hence, I repeat my statement that you of all people, should not be lecturing to others about truth or facts.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 6:36pm
Nonsense. I've posted a number of times during the past few years the declaration of some of the greatest legal minds in Western Civilization who concluded that there is more legal evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus than any other figure in ancient history.
Start with Simon Greenleaf who developed the rules for evidence in the US
Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842-1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
Then John Warwick Montgomery who is an international lawyer before both the US Supreme Court and the Courts of Europe
http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warwick_Montgomery
Or Hugo Grotius who developed the rules of international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius
All have written and debated extensively on the legal evidence for Christ and the resurrection.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:49pm
All have written and debated extensively on the legal evidence for Christ and the resurrection.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:49pm
What does http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/ say about John Warwick Montgomery?
"JOHN WARWICK MONTGOMERY is considered by many to be the foremost living apologist for biblical Christianity."
Wow, that sound promising.
On Hugo Grotius
"While in Paris, Grotius set about rendering into Latin prose a work which he had compiled in prison, providing rudimentary yet systematic arguments for the truth of Christianity"
Semantic arguments are an exercise unintellectual muscle flexing, but do no comprise any evidence. What about historical evidence antisocialist? A legal case can be made for the existence of pink elephants int eh room, but it's proof of nothing.
Cn you point to a historical record of Christs existence given Montgomery's assertion that there is more legal evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus than any other figure in ancient history?
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 8:48pm
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 6:30pm
Your points 3 to 8 are just as false in terms of evidence supporting your conclusions as are points 1 and 2. All are but a rehash of Crabs points to which I've responded. These, as Crabs points out, have been debated here for years and the contributions you tendered add nothing new to the anti-war case. I'm going to post Crabs on Stephen Pelletiere"s evidence which I checked out when I first came across Gosden's testimony years ago.
As one who is not an American I have a perspective on Iraq that was influenced by first hound accounts given to me by Iraqi professional engineers who I worked with in Australia. They fled to Australia because of persecution under the Saddam regime. Some of them came to Australia in the late 1980s and two in the early 1990s. Thus I have followed what was happening in Iraq under Saddam long before Bush came to power.
I did not use ignoramus in the pejorative sense but rather because of your abysmal ignorance of this recent history. Spin never works when the relevant facts of history, through your ignorance I can only assume, don't support it. Your idiosyncratic definition of WMD is but an illustration of that.
Saddam's persecution of his people continued right up to March 2003. Halabja took place in March 1988, Kuwait was 1991, after that the Marsh Arabs then his secret police enforcer goons were still operating right up until the invasion. Here's a bit from the BBC :
"After coalition forces drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in the Gulf War, rebellions spread across the south and north of the country."
"Iraqi Government forces put down the uprisings brutally, bombing civilians from military helicopters. Between 30,000 and 60,000 people were killed, according to the United States. "
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 9:25pm
Crabs I'm not a great fan of Reagan with respect to the Iraq/Iran war. I think duplicity is what best describes US policy at that time. It was not that Iran should have been backed but rather that some support was also being given to Iran wrt to its US warplanes.
The US opposition to Iran's new leadership allowed it to back a person whose H R record should have prevented it.
Gosden was a bona-fide expert in CW and actually got her evidence not only of the type of WMD used and the numbers seriously and some permanetly affected and numbers killed but also got first hand evidence of the Iraq airforce's operations. Read her evidence. Slowly, carefully and think of the implications.
When you place that sort of disinterested, highly qualified and hence credible witness alongside a CIA Iraq "analyst" (oh dear, why not Santa or the tooth fairy), whose country was officially supporting Iraq, not only does one get the idea that he is most likely lying for the cause viz to maintain US support for US policy wrt to Iraq. In retrospect who on earth would now accept that that was credible intelligence. The faulty pre-war CIA intelligence really means Crabs that Stephen Pelletiere is a non starter.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 9:56pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 9:25pm
part 1 of 2
Seeing as you began this thread with making points 3 to 8 without evidence, you don't get to dismiss my rebuttals as false on the grounds that you don;t like the arguments I gave eg. Your assertion that terrorism has been decreased as a results of the Iraq invasion, when statistics prove otherwise.
First hand accounts from those that fled Iraq does not make your case. No one has challenged the suggestion that Saddam was brutal dictator, but his human rights violations had nothing to do with the reason for the invasion.
You might recall that the first Bush Administration had to pull a BS story out of it's hat and train the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to deliver the lie about babies taken out of incubators to sway Congress to vote for desert Storm. The HR violations by Iraq prior to then were clearly were not sufficient to sway political and public opinion. This is further buttressed by the fact that Washington continued to support Saddam during the period of his most egregious crimes, the 80's.
The WMD lies are undisputed. As Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rise said prior to 911, Saddam had not reconstituted his WMD's and was not a threat to anyone. Magically, all that changed after 911, when his arsenal inexplicably came to life.
Sadly it appears that spin does work, though it has a limited shelf life.
The definition of WMD became increasingly broad as the case for the war became weaker. The closets thing Saddam had to WMD was CW and even those fraudulent claims were insufficient too scare the public, hence Cheney's pronouncement that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons and the 16 word that made it mysteriously to Bush's SOTU address (against the advice of the CIA).
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 10:18pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2009 @ 9:25pm
part 2 of 2
Much of what took place in terms of Saddam's repression in the 90's actually came down to crushing opposition and/or stemming potential coups. While Saddam was a monster, the same thing would have happened in the US had there been an armed uprising against Washington. One only need refer to the events at Waco to appreciate what the US government is capable of.
Halabja took place while Saddam was being supported by Washington and what's more, it took place during the war with Iran. Just consider what the US did to Fallujah in 2004 (post presidential election) if you don't believe the US government is incapable of such violence.
Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait, had April Glasby, not given him the green light. Saddam was a thug, but he wasn't suicidal. James baker instructed Glasby to tell Saddam that the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was none of Washington's concern, The Shiite uprising after Desert Storm was a consequence of encouragement from the Bush 41 administration. The Shiites were led to believe that the US would have their backs, but were left defenseless against Saddam's forces.
So yes, Iraqi Government forces did put down the uprisings. What do you think would have happened had there been an armed uprising in Washington post 911? would Dubya and Cheney have come out of the White House holding a white flag?
Last but not least is the fact that the US invasion led to the deaths of more than 3 times as many casualties as Saddam managed in his 30 year reign. That's quite an achievement.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 10:20pm
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 8:48pm
How about Tacitus the Roman Historian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
I suggest you read this paper and see what disputes you can raise.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
Josephus the Jewish Historian recorded some info on Jesus
There are three passages in his writings that are pertinent to Christianity. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, book eighteen, chapter three, in the third paragraph, he makes a comment about Jesus of Nazareth.
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
The third reference is in Antiquities of the Jews, book twenty, chapter nine, paragraph one. This is in reference to the Jewish high priest, Ananius, and the brother of Jesus.
"After the death of the procurator Festus, when Albinus was about to succeed him , the high-priest Ananius considered it a favorable opportunity to assemble the Sanhedrin. He therefore caused James the brother of Jesus, who , who was called Christ, and several others, to appear before this hastily assembled council, and pronounced upon them the sentence of death by stoning.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 10:22pm
Thanks for those links antisocialist. I will indeed look into them.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 10:33pm
In case anyone has any doubt that SHINGO is nuts to the point of resembling a North Korean maniac consider what he says about Saddam Hussein:
>> The Baath Fuhrere was a tool of the West, who brought about his rise to power. <<
Saddam was not the protegee of the US but of the USSR. Yevgeny Primakov, who was both the Soviet ambassador to Iraq and the Baghdad KGB station chief, was his friend until the end.
The Baath came to power in the late 1970s and Saddam rose within its ranks, supported by the Soviets.
The US did not have diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1967, following the Six Day War, to November 1984. Americans were out of the country, enemy #1, and without any influence there. But precisely in those years, the Baath acceded to power and Saddam rose to lead the Baath.
It takes a seriously ill outpatient to claim that Saddam was put in power by America.
As to Iraq being free of islamofascists, before 2003, the leader of the World Trade Center attack of 1993 was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. His uncle was the 9/11 mastermind, Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Yousef entered the US on an Iraqi passport. The man who constructed the bomb for that '93 attack was Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yassin. The day after the attack, Yassin flew home to Iraq, via Jordan. Yassin lived in Baghdad.
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
Groucho Marx heard about Shingo and said: "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 03:00am
Having read through your sources, I think this quote sums it up best:
"Professor C. Stephen Evans[111] writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".[112]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
In other words, there is no historical account of Jesus that isn't inextricably linked to religious doctrine.
Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 03:35am
"the only criticism of the Cairo speech is coming from (1) the neocons and their allies, and (2) Osama bin Laden, "
The only criticism you'll investigate/publish about, yes.
Obama said; "We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can."
He failed to mention the UNSC didn't authorise the invasion of Afghanistan. UNSC Res. 1368 on Sept. 12th 2001 is usually invoked, however it doesn't mention Afghanistan. There is also Res. 1373 on Sept. 28th '01, but that also doesn't mention Afghanistan; "Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws". Meaning prosecute terror suspects if inside your country, and allow other countries to do the same.
The occupation of Afghanistan is illegal. I hereby criticise it and challenge Mr. Dreyfuss to recognise it or retract.
Posted by zebra1 at 06/10/2009 @ 03:38am
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 10:18pm
Shingo all this stuff you are posting is dissembling to hide the fact that you either did not know that the ILA 1998 existed or did not know what it said.
Reading more of your posts I notice that you are a political party hack, fawning over Obama and demonising the Bush administration. I'd missed that on a first reading.
That I think really disqualifies your objectivity. It should be obvious that when the official policy of the US is spelled out in such plain terms as:
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
And for reasons like these (ILA 1998):
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
And you still claim that seeking to establish democracy in Iraq was not an objective of US policy and part of the reason for the invasion? You deceive no one but yourself.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 05:56am
The issue Crabs raised was really to do with the progress of democracy in Iraq. That is why the ILA 1998 was introduced.
This act gave an authority to use all means, except the use of the US Armed Forces to accomplish the removal of the Saddam Regime from power and so set in law the grounds that justify that action. The use of the Armed Forces of course was authorized by Congress's Iraq War Resolution on 16th October 2002.
Significantly in its first clause, ILA 1998 stated the policy was to replace the Saddam Regime with "a democratic government".
You will find that in 2002 Bush referred, more than once, to this part of the legislation as well as mentioning the H R violations as an important reason for that action.
This is the basis of the US intention upon which the nascent democracy operating in Iraq today rests.
And I suggest that it is the future of Iraq that matters, we cannot do anything to correct anything that happened in the past. So it seems a futile exercise to me to endlessly rehash something that cannot be changed. My reading of it is that Iraq has the sort of structures in place and the leadership to fulfill the vision that Congress set before us for it over a decade ago.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 05:58am
My reading of it is that Iraq has the sort of structures in place and the leadership to fulfill the vision that Congress set before us for it over a decade ago.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 05:58am
then you are blinded by ideology. They have had 6 years, and they have almost no control over their country.
I know, you hope for change.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2009 @ 08:02am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2009 @ 08:02am
We shall see Crabs.
The "structures" are:
A reasonable Constitution, given it is largely an Islamic Nation (that is spelled out in the preamble). However religious pluralism, ethnic tolerance, anti-sectarianism, women's and minority rights are guaranteed. In parts it has the ring of a "we the people" document. That is one foundation that gives hope.
A legal system that is giving the impression of being fairly thorough. Saddam and his henchmen got their day in court and some are still being processed through the court system. (Not a quick bullet to the back of the head or a hectoring biased judge as in Saddam's Iraq). I liked the fairly lenient sentence given to the shoe thrower. That to me revealed some maturity by the court. The legal system is a work in progress and though Islam is the state religion there seems little indication that sharia law will get a foothold in Iraq. It is more sophisticated than some Muslim countries.
There is a seemingly free press, at least in the English language papers I've read. I've noticed the government is not treated with kid gloves.
A reasonably well educated and relatively young electorate which means it is likely to be more open to new ideas including those from the West.
There are some negatives including gratuitous and deadly violence against innocents which of course in the case of suicide bombings does not require too many actors to kill a lot of people. But look how long that went on in Ulster and even in England a mature democracy. That is something the Iraqis will have to beat themselves as the Americans move out.
Corruption is a big negative and it probably is a bit of a cultural thing but the government seems to be aware that it is not compatible with democracy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2009 @ 10:38am