IAP Political Forum

Do you ever provide links to your sources? Or is it too embarrassing to do so?

From the article:

All excellent reasons for voting for Clinton. She would actually support the rule of law in America. What a novel idea.

As for Giuliani anticipating terrorist action in America, he didn't even ensure his firefighters could communicate effectively:


 source (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0732,barrett,77463,6.html/full)

I wonder if the sources quoted in the Dog's article were using reverse psychology, knowing that saying they support Clinton over Giulian would make it harder for Clinton? One can certainly see why they would perfer incompetent, "Let's invade Iran now" Giuliani. 

I don't believe that and I don't think the rhetoric should go in that direction...at all.

comes from here: http://www.hillaryproject.com/

It doesn't get more bull than that site.

Fact is this is just a load of crap...same load they dumped on Kerry. So what? Who cares what you "think" "Islamofascists" are saying? All of a sudden it's time to take their side? To start treating what they say with credence? Osama siad he loved Bush and that invading iraq is more than he ever coulda dreamed.

So if Hiliry is a terrorist because some nobody Imam says shes they approve, what does that make Bush since the Grand Poobah of Terrorists endorses his administration?




Ahk

So, when Al Quaeda tells us that the reasons they attack us is that they're mad about sanctions against Arab children, US troops in their holy cities, and support of Israeli actions against Palestinian civilians, they're lying and they hate our freedom, but when they endorse a Democrat, they're being dead honest?

Seriously, every time I log on here I'm just hoping that Major Burns here has posted something new for me to enjoy.

You'll wish she did when we have another attack that could of been prevented....

I'm not sure if what dogface posted is legit. But the author Deroy Murdock seems to be credible... Look him up.

Stupid article and stupid post.

OswaldTheOsprey

There is a big difference when it's YOUR behind in the big chair. She CAN'T know what she'd do until faced with the real situation. That's why it's so easy to pick Bush apart because none of us are responsible for the weight of our decisions.

I'll take it a step further...I think it will be BETTER for Hillary to get elected because once she is able to evaluate the situation in the ME, she'll see that Bush was largely right with more than he's gotten credit and she'll continue down that path.

The cherry will be that, as a Dem, she'll get a pass from the media and the world at large who will celebrate her brilliance.

Could be a win/win...

Since 1995, these terrorists’ organizations have killed an estimated 162 and wounded 368 others in Israel

While even one death is too much I'd have to say that for an organization built on killing.. only killing 1.22 people per month is, well...
Doesn't organized crime kill more than that?

Why is it convienient to believe terrorists now?

THEY'RE TERRORISTS!

I should probably point out that she's been caught flip-flopping on this issue:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_hillary_flipflops_contradicts_bill___her.html

What else is new?

Funny how some of you say dont believe terrorist because they are terrorist are the first to believe why they are terrorists.

You guys have repeated the same reasons straight from the mouths of terrorists.

Because we are in Iraq

Because we support Israel

Because our policies in the ME

Because the US is the great satan

All straight from the mouths of terrorists yet you guys lap it up like a dog. Then when faced with why they want Americans to vote for someone that will pull US forces out of the ME, what they want, you are the first ones to stick your head in your ass and say why believe what they have to say. FOOLS

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps being in Iraq, supporting Israel and our mideast policies have caused us to be hated. Perhaps we should, as Ron Paul suggests, take a good hard look at these policies. Perhaps we have been the FOOLS you speak of.

OswaldTheOsprey

Middle Eastern extremists would hate us anyway.  Regardless of what we do.  I explained that in a previous post, but was accused of providing too much information for the average poster on this forum to digest.

You're repeating what they say about AMERICAN POLITICS. What do they know? Seriously. I know it's hard for you to think logically , but try it some time. They're obviously saying these things (if they're actually saying them) because they know partisan artards like yourself will fall, hook, line and sinker for it, further seperating this country.

YOU'RE the one "aiding and abetting" terrorists.

Off to Gitmo with ya!


Uhhhh... if you look around, people that talk about American policy in the ME don't get there talking points from terrorists. They usually get it from history.

You, on the other hand prefer, to listen to them.


LOL!

Then by all means, share it here so we can ALL view and commment on it.

P.S. I know what you're talking about.

This one point keeps coming up accusing Hillary of "flip flopping" I will keep refuting it as I did in September. If this is as close as anyone can come to her flip flopping then she has been very consistant!

 This is the third time.

If anyone is a fool with his head up his ass it is doggie boy. If he thinks the terrorists are going to tell the world who they really want to see in the white house he has been lapping up their horse crap with great gusto.

Very well.....

If we do good the Arabs will like us?




I posted this quite some time ago.


Interesting question, and I can already tell most of you are getting ready to hit that reply button to trot out the normal answers (even answers I normally give), you know, fanatacism, or the evil empire syndrome of the US, both sides have their talking heads, blurbs that generally are spewed back at us on a nightly basis in our thirty minute news flash of what is happening in the world. Lately I have been doing some reading. Here are some thoughts to add to those 30 second flashes of news.
For a number of years the US has been villified for several reasons, support of Israel and support for unpopular Arab regimes run by despots. This, many assume came to a boil on 9-11. Now while we know that anti Americanism is fairly widespread it really doesn't tell us why and its seems a bit misleading. I find it difficult to reconcile Arab and Muslim hostility towards the US with US policy. US policy has actually been very very pro-Arab and pro-Muslim so I believe that this anti Americanism is actually a product of self interested manipulation by key groups inside of Arab society. I believe it is important to identify such an action for the following reason:

If Arab anti Americanism is grounded in the domestic issues of Arab society and not the "evil" deeds of the US, then no amount of public relations or any real change in US policy will change that perception. As a matter of fact, changing US policy to meet this manipulation within Arab society will only make it worse. US attempts at meeting the internally designated evils of America will be seen as an "appeasement" of a weaker nation and encourage radicalism to go even farther.

Seems to me that for the past decade or two anti US sentiment has always been the "last resort" of despotic political regimes whose failed systems have tried to prop up their own standing and diverted attention away from their domestic failures. By assigning faults or shortcomings of their own systems on the US many Arab leaders hope to distract their people from the real problems, so instead of pushing for greater privatization, equality of women, democracy, a rule of law society, freedom of speech, due process, (note how lacking all of these items are in the Arab world), it is better to use the US as a whipping boy (think Schroeder doing this over several decades to win elections).

What is so interesting about this tact is how it flies in the face of reality if one were to look at the factual history of US policy. The US has always favored a policy in its own interests, but those interests have also generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and their people.

Kuwait

The US saved Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictator in 1991, mainly to preserve cheap oil to be sure, but it was still in effect a pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim and pro-Arab. It would have been easy for the US to sieze Kuwaitis fields and demand lower prices or even political concessions. Instead we, well, we just left while we sought the highest level of political support for our actions among Arabs and Muslims.

Conflicts in general

When the US has become involved in a regional dispute (often at the pleadings of Europe) it is usually during fights between moderates and secular Arab forces or radical Islamist groups that even most Muslims consider too far in one direction. The US has generally backed groups with a strong claim to Arab or Islamic legitimacy. You can see this going all the way back to the 1950's. Look at Egypt, Syria and Iraq, while dictatorships friendly to Moscow they menaced Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Even during the 1950's the US wanted good relationships with Nassar and we even prevented his overthrow by the UK, France and Israel in the 1956 Suez War. The US continued to woo Egypt, we accepted Syria's hegemony over Lebanon and really during that period the US did little to punish state sponsored terrorism. The US even acted as a protector of Islam during that time since we viewed traditional Islam as a counter to secular communism which had, at the time aligned itself with radical Arab nationalism.

 

Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has pissed all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism[/b], so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (madrasas I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.

Let's look at this logically.  Terrorists are Homo sapiens.  Our species generally serves its own interest, as do all species.  So everything Al Quaeda does should serve Al Quaeda's interest, or at least they should believe it to be so.

1st, they attacked us.  Presumably, since they have no chance of defeating us militarily in direct combat, they weren't trying to kill us all, but rather wanted us to do something for fear that they would attack us again.  That's what terrorism is, making your enemy do something because they're afraid.  That's why we call them terrorists, or at least it was, before the word was overused and lost all sense of meaning.

2nd, if in fact they attacked us in hopes that our fear of being attacked would drive us give in to their demands, they would have to tell us what their demands were.  A kidnapper can't get his ransom until he delivers the ransom note.  Therefore, when Osama sent out that video that listed our ME policies as the reasons for the attack, it only makes sense that he was telling the truth as lying would completely negate any hope of achieving their goal of making us do what they want.

3rd, they know now that we will not give into their demands for fear of an attack, but rather will do the exact opposite of what they want in hopes of making them miserable.  They aren't stupid, heck Osama studied economics, business administration, and engineering.  So when it comes to what they want us to do at this point, do you think they'd tell us the truth?

They use terror to attack our economy, the dead are just bonus propaganda. OBL also believes EVERY single word in the Koran...as does President Iadmitjihad.
If they were not INSANE, then listening, or speaking, or even threatening mutually assured destruction might stand a chance.

another point...AQ, by AQ's own admission, is bogged down in Iraq. If they have any requests of me, they can refer to the USMC.

Well if torture can't be American policy, then that would imply there would be no reason to do it, period. If the president has to use torture, then that would imply that would be American policy would only condone it in certain cases, but it's still condoning it.

So either she is condoning it or she's not.

Ask the Palestinians displaced by Israeli expansion into the occupied territories if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask the Palestinians and Lebanese killed by US-supplied weapons if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask the Iranians, whose democratically elected government was overthrown by a US/British-engineered coup in 1953 and replaced by the repressive regime of the Shah if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask all the Iraqis killed and repressed in Iraq in the 1980's when we were bolstering Saddam's regime if US policy is pro-Arab abd pro-Muslim.

Ask all the Iranians and Iraqis killed in the Iraq-Iran war when we were supplying Saddam with WMD precursors and military intelligence if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask all the people in repressive regimes we've helped stay in power like Saudi Arabia if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask everyone who has suffered as a direct result of the current fiasco in Iraq if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.


Is the United States indeed the "Great Satan"? Of course not. Like all major powers, we act in what we perceive to be our self-interest. We make mistakes, quite often because we fail to understand the people and the foreign lands in which we intervene.

Part of understanding the political dynamics in the Middle East is knowing that tyrants and radicals will try to rally support by casting us as villains. We do ourselves no favors when we pursue policies that reinforce their characterization of us. We'll never be seen as an honest broker in the I/P conflict when we give Israel our unqualified support no matter what they do. We'll have no chance of projecting a better image when Arabs and Muslims see images of their civilians torn apart by US bombs and Muslim men at Abu Ghraib sexually humiliated by American service men and women. As long as our military occupies Arab/Muslim countries, much of the Arab/Muslim world will see us as the same breed of imperialists that have dominated and shamed them so often in their history.

That paragraph is based on the false premise that we have done nothing to add fuel to the fires directed at us. Such a premise is at best willfully blind to the historical record, and likely promoted by those who stand to benefit from our current interventionist policies in the region. The idea that changing such policies would amount to "appeasement" is completely bogus. It casts a pall of cowardice over any legitimate attempt to reassess the value of and motives behind interventionist policies that have significantly contributed to a perpetual "war on terror" that boosts radicalism and transfers ever larger sums of taxpayer money to the military industrial complex.

Excellent post. Many of these same points have been made by Congressman Ron Paul.

OswaldTheOsprey

I suggest you both read my post rather than rely on your rhetoric.  You both rely on perception rather than reality, which pretty much supports my position.  It doesn't matter what the US does.  The content and argument will change since it is quite simply anti Americanism and not clearly content based.

By the way, Ron Paul is an idiot when he doesn't realize the same.  Either that or he thinks the people who believe him are idiots.

I read both your posts and found the overall conclusion based on a false premise that disregards much of the historical record. While correct in some of the details of how that record is manipulated domestically for political purposes in the Muslim world, the attempt to disconnect anti-Americanism from American policy falls far short. On the one hand you minimize the negative effect of our interventionism in the region, while on the other you assert a non-interventionist policy would have a greater effect.

Also, you're not advancing your arguments by calling Ron Paul or anybody else an idiot.

Had you read my post:



You two are doing the same.  Revolutionary Iran by the way has a far worse record than the Shah ever had.


Also addressed.

We don't reinforce it, I suggest you read the number of times the US has actively backed Arabs and even moderate Arabic powers.  That you your somewhat milabeled pap smear of Abu Gharib (the poster child) which in effect you use to literally justify every other Arab and oppressive regime with one small incident where the people by the way were duly punished and what they did was no where near the level provided by others.  The comparison pales when put against Iranian actions, Libyan assassinations, and Afghan depridations.  Imperialists?  A trite word used by wannabe isolationists who think "kumbayah" is just around the corner.  When you two actually, really, get out in the world and do some real, actual business, with these cultures.  Come talk to me.  Its one hell of a wake up call, I will tell you that.

I really hate it when people use the stupidest arguments to justify the greatest atrociites.  If you don't want to read my post, or can't or don't think you understand it, then say so, but please, dear god, spare us the mothers milk of rhetoric and self hand wringing.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (madrasas I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.


Pretty damn stupid statement and its ignorance pisses me off.  Not even relevant.  Military industrial complex?  My god, when will you people leave the 1950's behind.  The so called military industrial complex, which during the 1950's was perhaps an important 20% of the economy has shrunk to less than 4% of the gdp today.  Not only is it less important, it has less influence when compared to the just about any other industry.  Hell, Walmart alone has more employees than the US army does.  That alone makes your argument irrelevant to the point of being laughable.

Again, it doesn't matter what the US does, no matter where we pull away, because the static will still be there, the organizations that hate the US will still be there and the only change will be the content of the hatred.  As I have shown, the US by and large (not perfectly, but definately by and large) has indeed helped the Arab nations.  But of course based on you two and what I find to be a rhetorical isolationist policy that does nothing for the US and everything to enjoin chaos in the regions, US involvement in anything abroad is bad.  

I have made my points clearly, I have shown how the vast majority of US policy has indeed been favorable to the Arabic/Muslim nations, indeed, has benefitted them.  And you two state that all that work has simply failed to impress anyone.  You two have gone a long way towards proving my point.  It doesn't matter what the US does, the somewhat ignorant masses who escaped the eugenics program that osprey seems to want (did it ever occur to him that he wouldn't qualify in the brave new world), are easily manipulated and cannot see the content of large numbers of facts for the rhetoric of a few instances.

If I am a doctor that saves lives, but I happen to step on a fly, that does not make me a killer.

In effect, it doesn't matter what the US does, we follow our policy of self interest and support our allies.

So you want me to ask the populations?  In other words, you want me to see their perceptions in their controlled news media?  Or did you miss this part:



Or are you attempting to tell me the media aren't tightly controlled in most of those nations?


Perceptions versus fact.  Wonderful.  No wonder you guys are so bankrupt.  The US bolstered Saddam's regime to stop Iranian hegemony.  No one else was doing it and frankly, Iran was doing a pretty damn good job of undermining and destroying Saddam Hussein.  So tell me.  Do you actually believe that the Arabs in general wanted a Persian leadership in Iraq?  Are you two that ignorant of the cultures?

My god people, try to THINK for once in your lives.  I just can't believe you guys.

I calls em like I sees them.  And yes, he is an idiot, almost as stupid as Carter who was also morally bankrupt.  I understand your penchant for a Europen America and how you hate US policy.  But frankly I have made my point.

Your counter when you ask me to "ask" people, is that somehow in your wold naivete, you believe that the Arabs in nations with closed media, closed internet, and watchful regimes, is somehow fully informed as to the history of what has happened?

I am reminded how a Palestinian professor carried out a survey which showed that most Palestinians didn't care about the right of return, Palestinians ransacked his office and burned his documentation. 

Yeah, ask the Palestinians, thats right.  They really know whats going on....  ::)

So anything we do is OK? And anyone who disagrees is an idiot?

OswaldTheOsprey

I didn't say that eugenics boy.

I stated that you two with your arguments and the endorsement of said arguments are idiotic in your content.

Being called an idiot by you is like being called ugly by a wart hog, establishment boy! :P

OswaldTheOsprey

Don't really care.  My content was factual and all the two of you had to counter it was "ask a Palestinian".  Well hell, ask a Mexican and he'll tell you to give him citizenship.

The fact is that you two have given, in your "best effort" the idea that perception alone is the reality and all we have to do is leave and "kumbayah" everyone is happy and everything will be just oh so hunky dory.  Yeah, that would pretty much make you an idiot.

No. The truth is the truth. There is nothing pretty about our decades of international interventionism. An idiot to you must be one who minds one's own business.

OswaldTheOsprey

What truth?  In fact US interventionism has generally helped the Arab nations obtain their independence.



The truth is the truth and your counter is what?  Oh yes, talk to a Palestinian in an area with heavily controlled media and schools.

Yeah, great way of finding the truth.  ::)

Why don't you stuff the rhetoric and do some real research and come up with some salient facts.  If you don't think the majority of the US policy has not been helpful to Arabs, please show me the vast majority of times the US has specifically countered Arabic/muslim interest?

You stuff your rhetoric and your slanted facts. :P

OswaldTheOsprey

All of the other ones in the list are good things, I must say, but how's number 17 working out for us?

Every one of my "Ask" examples cited facts in the historical record that you purposely ignored in your failed attempt to disconnect anti-Americanism from American policy.

Your replies, as usual, are based on misrepresenting the statements of others. Show me where I argued everything would be "just oh so hunky dory" in the Middle East if we changed our policies. It's one screwed-up place -- more than a little because of interventionism by foreign powers, including us.

You may not think we're spending much taxpayer money on the military and that a few hundred $billion for Iraq is chicken feed, but no doubt you squeal like a stuck pig when it's suggested that some of your tax money be used for some social program for Americans.

OK, so let's spend a few hundred $billion to oust Saddam, open the door to jihadists and sectarian civil war, and pave the way for eventual rule by the 60% Shia (Persian) majority in Iraq. ::) ::) ::)

It always amuses me when you write crap like that, as if trying to assume an aura of superiority and frustration at dealing with people who can't understand you somehow bolsters your flawed arguments. Don't flatter yourself. You and your rhetoric are more transparent than you think.  ;)

No, you haven't disproven a single point, all you have done is call it rhetoric.  They aren't slanted, indeed you haven't even shown them to be.  Sorry eugenics lad, batman and robin could do a better job.  And they are more believable than you are.  ;D

You simple minded little leftist.  You provide no facts and expect all of us to immediately assume your "slant" of "ask palestinians is accurate, factual and historical" without any real content to the overall policy of the US in the Arabic world.  Yeah right.

Here is what I mean about your somewhat limited understanding and scope.


Sigh, very limited.  At least you pulled away from the stupid "industrial military complex" argument when it makes up so little of our present economy as to hardly be noticeable.  I never argued it was chicken feed, I argued you are a political hypochondriac that squeals and converts a cough to a black plague in your mind.  You want me to simply side track and speak of social programs (which take up much more money empirically than the military does).  That is irrelevant to the conversation.  I have simply pointed out that your view of the vast (snicker) industrial military complex is little more than the imaginations of a self martydom complex of a leftist that doesn't have enough to complain about.



Oh thats right, you would have supported Saddam Hussein, or am I wrong that your opposition is not in effect supporting Saddam Hussein?  Maybe you are against democracy and majority rule (after all those Arabs, they just don't have the genetics to rule themselves, its been common knowledge since before the Ottoman empire), or wait maybe, just maybe you don't like the idea of majrity rule in a constitutional government and therefore no such chance should be given?  Not sure where you are coming from, but perhaps you can tell me why your opposition in effect did not support Saddam Hussein (whom you roundly criticized) and then now you seem to support him?  Is this the equivalent of the "I was for the war before I was against the war before I was for it again?"



It wasn't crap, it was toilet paper to the fecal matter you tossed here.  My arguments weren't flawed, otherwise you would have shown where.  All you did was say "ask the Palestinians".  Now are you telling us the Palestinians have free press and that their people can write whatever they will without consequence and they have free and open dialogue and discourse?  If you do, you are more ignorant of the situation in the middle east or Palestine than even I assumed.  Everything you have thrown up has shown a massive misunderstanding of the real politik in the middle east, I would even willingly set aside that you confuse Arab and Persian issues.  You simply don't have the wherewithal to present solid facts that would counter my position.

"Go ask the Palestinians"  ::)  Yeah sure

This is a glaring example of just how screwed-up your thinking is and how convoluted your arguments. I'm consistent in arguing against the consequences of interventionism, whereas when you are caught with your pants down you'll twist your argument into knots trying to hide the stains in your undies. You argued our support for the tyrant Saddam was a good thing because it was a counter to Iranian influence, but then you find yourself in the awkward position of defending a costly intervention to oust Saddam (Iran's arch enemy) that will to lead rule in Iraq by Iran's Shiite brethren.

You're the flip-flopper here, but you try to twist out of it by ascribing to me positions I haven't taken or by implying I'm a bigot or anti-democracy. Wrong on all counts.

In 1953 we intervened in Iran and replaced a democratic government with the repressive Shah, who was overthrown 25 years later in a popular revolt led by Islamic revolutionaries. Unintended consequences which led us to support the murderous tyrant next door who waged a bloody 8 year war against Iran that accomplished little but death for both sides. Then we tell the tyrant we don't take sides in Arab/Arab conflicts but he goes too far in his invasion of Kuwait, threatening our chief client in the region, the Saudis. We kick his ass out of Kuwait, impose 12 years of debilitating sanctions, then invade on cooked intelligence so we can switch Iraq's oil purchases from euros back to dollars and install permanent military bases. Now we're rattling sabres against Iran, laying the groundwork for a more costly war.

You keep arguing for more of this interventionism, and continue twisting yourself in knots. I'll be disappointed if the first word of your next reply isn't ... "sigh"

As I have stated.  Not all hunky dorey.  More to the point you use the idea that somehow I have flip flopped?  Care to show me where?  Or is this some secret formulae that you dreamed up in your debate style?

No need to sigh, you have provided no real facts, oh wait, an instance in which the US supported the overthrow of a government that was about to pull a Castro (gee we should have allowed Iran to fall into the Soviet sector).  Hmmm... wasn't that by the same "fear the industrial complex" guy, President Eisenhower?  And you call me a flip flopper.  ;D  But hey, the Iranian left had its hands clean, I mean they certainly did not really assassinate the pro western leaders.  But you see, the leftists usually forget that, but really, it is a side point when you consider that Persians aren't Arabs and that Arabs generally don't like Persians.  So did the coup begin with the US?  Or the leftists who killed the earlier prime minister and then later the dean of law, not counting several other groups.  Yeah, I guess those facts once again escaped you.  How characteristic your ignorance of such facts are.

Overall, you have stated lets see.

1-Ask the palestinians, in other words, a group of people whose dialogue is closed by their leaderhip, who aren't allowed to argue the points, and whose leadership, hamas or take your pick, fatah, have continually robbed the Palestinians of the money to improve schools and infrastructure and who allow no debate.

2-Look at the 1953 coup, all without understanding of the context that led up to it, including the assassination of the prime minister by minority leaders and foreign influence.  Which was a coup before the US even entered.  It was years of assassinations and killings.  And then the US entered the scene?  Not the proudest moment of the US.  But only an idiot would forget the context of the times, just as you seem to have done.

What I am arguing, and you my benighted uneducated little leftist, is that we shouldn't care what the Arab nations state since reality will always be offset by the static of the anti Americanism, no matter what the US does.

As I have stated, and you have apparently misread (not a surprise).



Now lets see if you can read.

The way this question is phrased is outrageously unlikely giving an unprecedented set of circumstances and a "no time to fool around" timeline. The question belabors the extremes of possibilities. She caved to this one special set of circumstances and correctly agreed that an exception to policy may in this exceptional instance be necessary.
 Its not as though she said one day torture is out of the question as a matter of policy, and another day said torture is OK as a matter of policy. That would be flip-flopping.
 Allowing for an executive decision that is an exception to a policy of no torture and condoning a policy of torture any time are very different stands to take. It is a huge stretch to call them the same. To say this is flip-flopping is calling them the same, and that is incorrect.

So you believe that radical Islam simply HATES the US without rhyme or reason? That there is no justification for the way they represent the US within their borders? That all we do is give, give, give... and all they do is hate, hate, hate?

I know this. There weren't 10 people in the world who would have come up with the novel idea of responding to 9/11 by invading an uninvolved third country...

...and then totally screwing up the invasion...

...while letting the invasion that made sense, Afghanistan, go to hell and letting bin Laden escape.

It's easy to pick Bush apart? Yeah, it's really easy. Child's play, you might say.

Even for Dog Face, this is amazingly incoherent.

Did the nazis have a rhyme or reason for hating jews?  

But the truth is you mischaraterize and assume (as some other shallow thinkers have) that I have stated that all the US does is for the common good of Arabs.  I haven't said that.  I have stated that the US has, by and large been more beneficial for Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East than is justified by the constant attacks.

Great post. Thanks.

Circle jerk, go ahead and smoke your cigarrette jpn

So why aren't these moved to the joke section?

There were reasons Hitler didn't like Jews. Social, economical, religous. The Nazis didn't like Jews cause Hitler didn't like Jews.

Nothing is for nothing.


Actually, that's exactly what I said.

We help them and they hurt us. That's what you're saying. I'm not misrepresenting you or mischarecterizing your opinion. Simply restating your belief.

However, even at the elementary level, your theory is flawed. To say that Muslims hate us, despite our apparent benevolence, is denying all understanding of reality and human interaction.

I don't look at a group and just hate them. It doesn't make sense.

The Three Stooges could do a better job than you. And they are a hell of a lot more believable! :P

OswaldTheOsprey

Apparently you have taken your cue from them given you haven't been able to raise a descent point to counter.