As a co-blogger and long time blogident of The Jawa Report I’ve seen a lot of bad examples of Islam. I’ve seen beheadings and Rusty has taught us all the ideology that the terrorists follow. Also I’ve met Muslims here, although they are hard to find, that totally reject that doctrine and call for reform. The recent meeting in Saudi Arabia of Muslim leaders shows that Islamic nations are keenly aware of the perception Islam itself is the problem. They work very hard to disavow the terrorist doctrine and project an appearance of a peaceful intent. I for one have taken every opportunity I’ve had to publish those who call for reform of Islam and for peace. A couple of Muslims I’ve had contact with have stated that Islamic nations need to look inward for the source of their problems. Often times just the opposite happens. Rich western nations are blamed for oppressing the great progress Islam would have could have should have brought. One thing I’ve learned in life if you find yourself in a bad situation blaming others does not solve much. This “victims” attitude leads to hate and violence that only breeds worse conditions. Remember Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The roots of this violent “blame game” are in the scriptures of the Koran.
Christians no longer force confessions and death sentences for “non believers”. In other words we have progressed and reformed. Without a root reform and change in attitude of Islam war is inevitable and Islam itself is in danger of destruction. If it’s a fight you are looking for I’m sure the west can accommodate you. But if peace, reform and progress are Islam’s true nature. If Islam can live in peace with the rest of the world and tolerate all the other faiths I have two words for you.
.
1
Totally agree that a LOT of the problems leading to terrorism and the alienation that breeds it are homegrown. I still think one of the best pieces on this was Fareed Zakaria's article shortly after 9/11. The Politics of Rage
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html
This is why I think we should be supporting what is going on in Qatar, where Al Jazeera is. People here will likely call it the "al Qaeda network" etc. But the fact is they are doing more independent journalism than virtually anywhere else in the Arab world. Also Qatar is moving towards a parliamentary system of government. They are not big, but they are strategically important and having an impact.
We also have to be clear about what is the problem ... it's Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran is not going to get any better once it joins the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
For an example of Muslim non violence that will surprise. I recommend Badshah Khan.
http://www.peacemakersguide.org/peace/Peacemakers/Badshah-Khan.htm
He raises an obvious question: How could the same people who were loyal to him turn into Taliban? Again, the answer includes Pakistan.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 14, 2005 02:37 PM (wsdWU)
2
IRAN - Winning the War of Information
For those interested in Iran developements and we should all be, make Dr. Zin at Regime Change Iran a daily must read.
www.regimechangeiran.com
We must counter the Mad Mullahs before they go nuclear. The easiet was to do this is to win the war of information.
Dr. Zin's site is widely read by those inside and outside of Iran as a valued source of objective information. The Mullahs are actively blocking sources of alternative info from the West. They know that once they are "outed" for their "big lies" their power to control the people will cease.
Please support Dr. Zin's site in anyway you can. Hopefully the Pentagon in it's new realization we must win the war of information in order to win the GWOT will throw a few buck Dr Zin's way instead of trying to re-invent the wheel from the ground up taking several years in the process.
Posted by: Ron Wright at December 14, 2005 02:50 PM (YLg6F)
3
Trained by television, computer technology, the Internet and advertising, Islamist terror now gets higher viewer ratings than any football World Cup.
Suicide attacks are a great strategy, invincible weapons not seen by surveillance satellites and deployed practically anywhere. Also, extremely cheap.
The modern day terrorist is the perfect fanatic, both victim and hero. He combines destruction and self-destruction at the same time as acting out megalomaniac fantasies and self-hate. He can't be fought nor punished, he takes care of that himself.
Muslims are receiving the most destruction. Unless major terror is reaped on the free world aside from the US and Israel, it seems to me our only hope is the Arab world wakening up.
Posted by: Jawapuke at December 14, 2005 03:23 PM (VHx5G)
4
The head choppers are not the radicals. They are simply carrying out the wishes of Mohammed. Anyone who has read the Qu'ran would know this.
The radicals are the moderates. If that makes sense... They are the ones going against the wishes of Mohammed.
Posted by: Ariya at December 14, 2005 03:49 PM (+sjRV)
5
Very true Ariya...the radicals are the beauty queens who shun the burkha, the women who marry who they want to and the men who enjoy bacon sandwiches. Those who follow allah to the point of death are sheep and fools.
Posted by: Jester at December 14, 2005 04:30 PM (wBDaS)
6
The headchoppers are just like our Founding Fathers, I know this because some moonbat told me so and I believe him.
Posted by: total moron at December 14, 2005 05:04 PM (8e/V4)
7
That moonbat wouldn't have been Agent Smith or Brown by any chance?
Posted by: Jester at December 14, 2005 05:08 PM (wBDaS)
8
Moonbats say our Founding Fathers were terrorists. So I guess they must have been radical.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 14, 2005 05:27 PM (8e/V4)
9
Arabian lands were not extremely open to foreigners in the past and have grudgingly opened doors or the doors were kicked in. Japan was much the same way keeping the door to Japan very tightly closed and then instead of trying to let the rest of the world in in dribs and drabs they flung open the door and adapted.
This is the problem that faces the Arabian Peninsula (Lebanon was hamstrung by civil war and Syrian meddling but it seems lebanon was doing very well at one time). Some nations are cracking the door, some are barring their doors, and some are opening. We have yet to see the doors flung wide open willingly.
Visit the UAE and it is obvious Arabic culture (especially that of the influential Gulf Arabic) is having problems coming to terms with the rest of the world. Dubai is a cosmopolitan city with oppulent hotels (one with a great rib joint, yes that is right ribs) and Abu Dhabi is not much different than a bedu village just a lot more of it. These are two cities within the same nation.
Yes, it may be that in the Holy Qur'ran Mohd urges Muslims not to take friends from Christians, Jews, et al and to wage jihad. But so too does quite a bit of Old Testament scripture command Christians (of which I am one) to do nasty things to particular sets of sinners. The Christian world reformed and flourished as a result.
The Islamic world is a state of reform right now but we don't know which group of reformers is going to win out. Right now it appears the Bin Ladenites have the upper hand.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelis at December 14, 2005 06:10 PM (A31HM)
10
Bush is a revolutionary:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 14, 2005 06:58 PM (8e/V4)
11
Are terrorists radical? Naw, they just blow people us and shoot police officers in the head from behind. Blow up a restaurant full of people. Run airplane into buildings.
NOPE nothing radical here.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 14, 2005 08:50 PM (b335s)
12
HEY!!! Where the hell is the Cindy Sheehan bitch? Is she drawing welfare yet?
Posted by: greyrooster at December 14, 2005 08:52 PM (b335s)
13
Radical is an expression of deviation from the norm, i.e., unstable. The trick is to determine whether the terrorists are radicals, or mainstream.
Hint: It's door #1.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 14, 2005 11:41 PM (0yYS2)
14
The "moonbat" who compared "head choppers" to our Founding Fathers was ...... Ronald Reagan. He actually called the contras AND the mujahideen (pre Taliban) the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" And people act surprised when that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass.
On a separate note:
Comparing the insular Arabs to Meiji era Japanese is a bit of a stretch. It was Perry's iron steam ships that woke up the shogunate and forced them to reconsider their insularity. Arabs can buy all the military hardware they want. The only reason the Saudis don't have nukes is they don't need them. They have us.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 12:12 AM (wsdWU)
15
Background: Let us not forget exactly "what" these people fought for, okay? While I don't condone headchopping and blowing up innocents, "what" they fight for is light years apart. So that was a bad analogy or comparison to use.
Posted by: Oyster at December 15, 2005 07:13 AM (YudAC)
16
Oyster: I don't know who you are referring to with "these people"... Taliban? Contras? Founding Fathers? And what is the "what" they are fighting for and why qualify it with quotations? Finally, the lousy analogy was not mine, it was Reagan's.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 08:14 AM (wsdWU)
17
I like roosters comment.
If Islamists want advice on how not to be percieved as a bunch of uncivilized nuts they could.
#1 Stop blowing shit up.
#2 Stop blowing shit up.
#3 Stop blowing shit up.
#4 Stop blowing shit up.
#5 Stop blowing shit up.
#6 Stop blowing shit up.
#7 Stop blowing shit up.
#8 Stop blowing shit up.
#9 Stop blowing shit up.
10 Stop blowing shit up.
Posted by: Howie at December 15, 2005 08:45 AM (D3+20)
18
Background,
no, Reagan said that about the Contras in Nicaragua you ignorant moron.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 09:05 AM (8e/V4)
19
"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers."
--President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985
And now you're going to tell me that Contras are the moral equivalent of jihadis. But that's only because you Libs think your're so fucking brilliant and the truth is you're just incredibly stupid.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)
20
Forget Cindy Sheehan...where's Cindy aka Firstbrokenangel? I miss her clueless, nonsensical questions.
Posted by: Venom at December 15, 2005 09:58 AM (dbxVM)
21
Strike TWO for Jesusland Carlos!
Reagan considered the anti-Communist rebel groups such as the Contras
AND Afghan mujahideen to be freedom fighters and the "moral equivalent of our [America's] founding fathers" fighting against Communism.
In contrast, he considered socialist forces and enemies of U.S. geopolitical allies such as the Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Palestinian guerrillas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
AND left-wing guerrillas fighting right-wing military dictatorships in Honduras and El Salvador to be terrorists.
You need a reference for that as well?
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 10:43 AM (wsdWU)
22
Hey noise, you fucking moron, can't you see that the mujahideen were fighting
against our greatest enemy? If you weren't a moron, you'd know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which is why idiot liberals like you support anti-Americanism and terrorism around the globe. You all need to be taken out and shot, and especially you, for being so stupid despite your apparent intelligence. I hope you live near where the next suicide bomber hits. I really do. You're just too stupid to be allowed to live.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 15, 2005 11:05 AM (0yYS2)
23
You will be interested to know that when Reagan made those statements (1987)... one of the guys he was referring to was Osama bin Laden.
Next time you want to trot out that tired line about how the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" remember this: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he betrays my values.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 11:19 AM (wsdWU)
24
Improbus (
that's a real word in Latin) Max... that would be a more appropriate nick. You want to talk about terrorist attacks?
I know people who lost friends and family at the Pentagon. I know people who died and left behind family at the WTC. I know Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost children. I would never wish that kind of pain on anyone.
I'm always impressed how the people who feel most obliged to sensationalize death are the ones who have never actually watched the lights go out. The voyeuristic and pornographic quality of such overheated rhetoric offends me.
=
Nullus curo pro stulti.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 11:36 AM (wsdWU)
25
IM, is a vet. I bet he's seen his fair share, but thanks for playing!
Posted by: dave at December 15, 2005 11:57 AM (CcXvt)
26
Background,
Reagan in supporting the mujahedin was pursuing a policy initiated by your fucking hero Jimmy Carter, so take your feverish pontificating about "values" and shove it up yer ass.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 12:09 PM (8e/V4)
27
JC.... nice to see you shift the strike zone after you eat two fast balls down the middle. You were claiming Reagan never said what he said.....
Oh...if Carter has done anything to qualify as my hero... it's what he did AFTER leaving office. So we will call that a foul tip .... 0 and 2 baby.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 01:45 PM (wsdWU)
28
Background,
I agree, Carter sure was a shitty president.
But you Libs are in a huge world of hurt if that's what passes for "fast balls" these days.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 02:04 PM (8e/V4)
29
Background: please stop using 20/20 hindsight and acting like we, or anyone for that matter, knew that OBL would turn out to be who he became later on. No one even knew who he was. He didn't begin to form al Qaeda until the early nineties after the decade long war the Afghans had with Russia was over.
We did the right thing helping the Afghans. In my book it's immoral NOT to help. Sometimes it comes back to bite us. They should have prepared for that eventuality, but it was still right to help them.
So take your fast balls and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: Oyster at December 15, 2005 02:46 PM (YudAC)
30
JC.... 0 and 2 and talking trash. That's rich coming from a guy with a hole in his swing who can't even hit meatballs.
Posted by: 8ackground N015e at December 15, 2005 02:52 PM (wsdWU)
31
>>>The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he betrays my values.
background,
I would say it's 1-1. Cause you were right on the quote, but your schpeel about "values" was pure hogwash given Reagan was only pursuing Jimmy Carter's policies.
And I would say my hit was a homerun vs your single. Now go eat your pudding, homo.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 03:05 PM (8e/V4)
32
So noise, you strike me as the typical liberal; young, but not too young, who has seen about, on average, maybe one or two percent of what I have, are considerably younger, and whose scope of engagement with foreign cultures is limited to your favorite Thai restaurant and some paleostinian students, with whom you go on protest marches down at the school where you study art history or some such useless crap. You consider yourself well-read and quite smart, but I'm afraid that what you read isn't very enlightening, though you do have what seems to be a tenable grasp of Latin, (even so, you still missed the point of my name), which is commendable, but still doesn't get you a prize, and you're not quite as smart as you think you are. Don't feel bad though, no liberal ever is, because you're all wrong on pretty much everything, even when your intentions are above reproach.
You see, liberals are unstable, emotional people, given to flights of fancy, and are prone to think that all problems, and people, are very two-dimensional, and so you see the world as rather like a comic book, in which the hero, (yourself, or the murderous scumbag du jour that you adore), is an outcast of an evil, wicked society, and is simply a misunderstood underdog of a good guy. You see the world in black and white, but in your world, black is white, up is down, and good and evil are whatever you decide they are, which is why liberals get so pissy over an executed criminal, yet see nothing wrong with murdering unborn children for the sake of convenience.
In conclusion, you are too stupid to live. Please, if you wish future generations well, I implore you, kill yourself now so that you may not infect others with your weapons grade viral stupidity. I don't say this out of hate, but out of compassion. I can't stand the thought that the greatest obstacle to the freedom of the people of the Middle East is not a gang of murderers and thugs, but those who support them unconditionally. Liberals.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 15, 2005 04:39 PM (0yYS2)
33
Oyster.
Helping the mujahideen made sense ... to a point. We went way beyond that point and helped build the Taliban. That was the problem. Carter certainly opened the door for aid with his finding, but Reagan went FAR beyond that and enabled all sorts of nonsense both in Afghanistan and Central America. The problem is always compounded by lack of oversight.
That's how we wind up in bed with narcotic traffickers and things always go to hell from there.
This isn't hindsight. That was contemporary criticism. The problem is we keep repeating this mistake. Here's a perfect example, after we went in and took out the Taliban why did we officially decide that opium eradication wasn't a military problem? Force protection isn't a strategic issue?
People act all surprised that opium production has shot up and guess what...so has funding for terrorists. People were pointing that out back in 2002 but we are *starting* to get a handle on the problem now? After breeding OBL we start pumping up Rashid Dostum? We just don't learn. I can't tell if he will be the next Felix Rogriguez or Roberto D'aubison.
Look at Iraq and the "Salvador Option"... that isn't just the same program... it's the same guys: Negroponte, Steele, Casteel, Coffman, Goss... I didn't realize we had a statute of limitations on this sort of crap.
And another thing about the "enemy of my enemy" fallacy... it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass "sometimes"... I'm having a hard time thinking when anyone has really benefited from that strategy in low intensity or theater conflicts. Proxy fighting is one thing, but let them go hogwild and that inevitably creates tremendous resentment. We pay for that. We aren't uniquely guilty of this. The Soviets got royally screwed playing the same game. What the hell did Cuba get out of Angola? Castro was lucky the US was foolish enough to take in the Mariellitos.
If you *really* want to see how bad it can get look at how we kept turning a blind eye to Pakistan. Enabling the ISI and AQ Khan because they were "the enemy of our enemy"... except when they aren't.
I don't want you to think I think everything is bad. I think what we are doing with Jordan and Qatar is good. We should do more of that. I think we should have held the Kuwaitis to their promise of democratization after we saved their asses. I think helping the Kurds is potentially a good thing.
Terrorism is a real problem and it needs to be confronted. But it is a piratical scourge, not an ideological battle. Iran SUPPORTED our invasion of Afghanistan. We had a real opening there. This administration (Bolton) didn't want to hear about that. Instead, we paint them as part of this "axis of evil" and drive them into the SCO and their lunatic fringe gets all paranoid and puts a zealot like Ahmedinejad in.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 15, 2005 04:41 PM (wsdWU)
34
background,
Bill Clinton should have taken Osama Bin Laden into custody when given the opportunity, no?
How's that for hindsight. End of discussion.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 04:48 PM (8e/V4)
35
Improbus Max.... I think I got your name just right. I don't see wickedness (even if it is only somewhat) as anything BUT inferior, morally bad and potentially unpatriotic. Maybe you like the oxymoronic quality of the nick... suit yerself.
As for the rest of your armchair analysis. It's always bad form to project. You are wrong on most counts. I've spent most of my life outside CONUS. I've seen the damage up close and the aftermath when our attention moves on to some other "hot spot" or "crisis" for the cameras.
Talk about simple minded.... I point out Palestinians are a mixed bag and deride Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs as much as Kach, Kahane Chai or Temple Mount Faithful... and you can't even keep the players straight.
Nice to be smug ain't it? That way you can always blame others for the havoc. If I was going to paint you in broad strokes, I'd say you were the typical American ... needs a good guy and a bad guy or he can't keep score. That's one of the reasons the meltdown in the Balkans never got much traction here. Same with Angola. American's can't follow a tripartite conflict.
About the only thing you got right is .. yeah Thai food is ok...
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 15, 2005 04:56 PM (wsdWU)
36
Bill Clinton was pro-Taliban, and let Osama escape in Afghanistan too, as well as Sudan. He incubated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for at least three years, despite the fact that it was harboring Osama bin Laden, was responsible for growing 60 percent of the world's heroin and denied basic human rights to the nation, a U.S. congressman charges.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says he was belittled, stonewalled and ridiculed for three years for asserting the congressional oversight role in the formulation of foreign policy toward Afghanistan during the last term of the Clinton administration.
"In 1997, the Taliban overextended themselves," he says. "Thousands of troops were captured in the north. Much of their equipment was destroyed by the Northern Alliance. Nothing prevented the opposition from taking Kabul. The Taliban was more vulnerable than it ever was before."
But instead of seizing the opportunity to support the Northern Alliance, Rohrabacher says the Clinton administration imposed a ceasefire and arms embargo that was supposed to apply to both sides. Instead, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took the opportunity to resupply and rebuild the Taliban army.
President Clinton, Rohrabacher maintains, knew about this but withheld information from Congress and the Northern Alliance.
Rohrabacher contacted the Central Intelligence Agency and asked officials to talk to his friend. A week went by and nothing happened, he says. He called again. Another week went by with no contact. Rohrabacher got in touch with Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who set up a meeting with the Bin Laden Task Force, a group comprised of members of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Rohrabacher met with the task force, which assured him it would get right on the matter.
"It took a month before anyone from the task force ever got in touch with my friend," he says. By then, bin Laden had moved.
Rohrabacher organized several humanitarian relief efforts on behalf of the Northern Alliance, but, he says, he could never interest the Clinton administration in helping. In fact, he says, the administration threw up roadblocks to his efforts on more than one occasion.
During the Clinton administration, the congressman says, Voice of America became known in Afghanistan as the "Voice of the Taliban."
"When I tell people that President Clinton supported the Taliban, they go berserk," he said. "But that is the truth."
http://www.rense.com/general16/pro.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 15, 2005 05:06 PM (8e/V4)
37
BG Noise: I'm not going to spend my every spare moment tearing apart your selection of points to bolster your argument while you ignore those which weaken it. I will say that if you think we
ever had an "opening" with the Iranians, you truly are delusional. As a matter of fact, you are suggesting exactly that which you have shown much scorn for in your lengthy dissertations. Fraternization and interfering in unstable nations.
Do you really think Ahmadinejad's ascension was due to our policies and has nothing to do with the Euroweenies condescending talks with the Mullahs? Do you also think that Ahmadinejad has said anything that they weren't already thinking or hadn't said in so many words before? He just says it out loud. There's nothing new or different in Iran, except that each day they get closer to the bomb. Something they've been working on since long before we called them any names.
Believe me, Ahmadinejad is becoming a huge embarrassment for them. I don't think they put him in there as a result of being called part of the axis. I don't think they knew what they were doing
at all when they put him in. They've worked long and hard trying to build this tough and independent image of themselves and he's further marginalizing and alienating them. We see the same thing here - every time Howard Dean opens his stupid mouth, it makes us smile.
Posted by: Oyster at December 15, 2005 08:15 PM (YudAC)
38
Yeah yeah sure thing, you're a reg'lar Walter Mitty aintcha noisy? Well, for someone who claims to have been so well-exposed to the world, and all the evil done upon it by those big, mean, nasty Republicans, you still come off as a shithouse intellectual. You see everything through the lens of anti-Americanism and anti-anything a Republican does, which of course makes the excesses of every stupid fucktard dimo-crat from FDR to the curret crop of insignificant traitors pale in comparison.
Improbus, indeed. That's almost funny, but not in the way you intended. I'm sorry I wasted the effort, if the only people who are going to go to the trouble to try to figure it out are too stupid to get it. Okay, I'll 'splain it for you: It means roughly
the best of the worst, or the other way around if you prefer. I took the concept of yin and yang and put a Latin spin on it to make it sound dramatic, or impressive, or at least different, but not for halfwits to chuckle at because they think they've discovered something clever.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 15, 2005 09:01 PM (0yYS2)
39
Two comments first to JC who noted that after Clinton froze the arms to the Northern Alliance:
the Clinton administration imposed a ceasefire and arms embargo that was supposed to apply to both sides. Instead, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia took the opportunity to resupply and rebuild the Taliban army.
absolutely correct
Which is why I have been saying this "enemy of my enemy" crap ain't working and is only going to screw us. Iraq has always been less of a problem than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. AQ Khan wasn't working out of Bagdhad.
Oyster, I am
NOT saying that Iran put Ahmadhinejad in
because we put them on the axis of evil. I am saying that we had an opening there which we blew because we were so focused on going after Iraq. Iran was the first Muslim nation to endorse our invasion of Afghanistan. The OIC endorsed our invasion of Afghanistan. But instead of focusing on international terrorism (and I distinguish that from the proxy use of terrorists in regional conflicts) we decided to test the Bush Doctrine.
Iran wakes up with US boots in almost every country it shares a border with and the president says "You're next".... if they weren't paranoid before that might do it.
A rational response is to a) learn the lesson of Pakistan, North Korea and Iraq.... if you don't have a nuke ... get one! b) look for allies.
Who better than the SCO ? We are so busy tying ourselves up in knots in Iraq to restore the petrodollar to that country that a bunch of countries most people can't pronounce got together with Russia and China and formed an alliance. Big deal right? Well except for the fact the countries were Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan , Khazakhstan, Tajikistan. And they account for 1/4 of the world's population. And two of them are nuclear powers. And who is on deck asking for observer status? Pakistan, India, Iran and Mongolia.
Great. Four nuclear powers , two major oil producers, 1 major gas producer, 1/2 the world's population and a land mass from the Black Sea to the Pacific, from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.
Here's the irony... the reason Pakistan and India came close to nuclear war was the fight over Kashmir, which India wants to defend itself from another invasion by China .... and these guys are all getting together.... why?
Because someone scared the crap out of them when he decided we don't need no stinking ABM treaty...and then invaded a country to maintain oil on the dollar standard.
And here's the meltdown scenario... while Gulliver ties himself up in knots repeating the Mesopotamian Campaign, Iran shifts to the petroeuro. Russia diversifies as well and China decides to cut back on the dollars. Venezuela having moved all its reserves out of US banks joins in and the US is caught deep in debt, its dollar down 25% and the cost of fuel up 25%. How you like them apples?
And OBL is still running around.
Think that's just all airy fairy hoo haa... consider this: When was the last time a country kicked out our troops? I mean
before Uzbekistan....
Of course rock hard conservatives who think Intelligent Design is appealing because it makes things easier and the folks who believe there is a "War on Christmas" sponsored by WalMart ... it's just easier to believe the real problem is we need to have a Crusade.
No wonder Rand Beers quit.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 15, 2005 11:08 PM (wsdWU)
40
Improbus.... you need a better dictionary if you think Improbulus means "worst".... its "somewhat wicked"... and Maximus is "greatest" as in "biggest" or "highest" or "loudest" not "best"
You are basically calling yourself "The loudest somewhat wicked [one]" How apropos...well played. I'm impressed... at how feeble you are. Someone should introduce you to a dictionary. How positively Humpty Dumpty of you... I guess you figure it's a dead language who cares right? Sort of like foreign cultures where they don't speaka de eenglish... fuck em.
If you are are
really going for "Best of the Worst" try "Optimus Pessimus" or "Optimus Malus"... and that yin/yang spin... *chuckle* fuggedaboudit... the cosmological point of that symbol is the dynamic tension of duality that leads to creation.... not the mediocrity of being the best of the worst.
Nullus curo pro stultis
-- John Smith/Joe/Sanjuro Kuabatake
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 15, 2005 11:47 PM (wsdWU)
41
ackground proves that if one has lots of time to waste he can argue about anything or on any side. Every country wrong, every president wrong. Bla, bla, bla. But never, NEVER a solution or suggestion to make things better.
Typical democrat for sure.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2005 06:13 AM (kkjRj)
42
Off subject: Transit workers strike in New York City. This is what happens when the union elects a Democrat black Haitian Immigrant to represent your union. He is so grateful to the nation that gave him a home that he will help cause millions of Americans to lose their income. DEPORT THE PUNK!
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2005 06:22 AM (kkjRj)
43
Gee...seems like a lot of misnomers here....greyrooster would rather act like an ostrich. Pretending there is no problem hmmmm....good thing we don't have a president who does that....oh wait.... I forgot... besides trading Sammy Sosa he really hasn't done anything wrong has he?
But hey... if you think everything is peachy good for you, just don't be surprised when you can't afford em.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 08:11 AM (wsdWU)
44
shorter 8ground: I don't just hate America, I hate the whole world.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 08:58 AM (8e/V4)
45
Strike Three for JC
My point...which has been pretty damn consistent... is that this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit is a major source of our problems. We need to change that or we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. If you need yet another example of this look at the election victory by Hamas. Do you realize how Hamas got its start? They were supported by cynical Israeli politicians who wanted to create a competing source of power to Arafat. Well... look how well that worked out.
I have even been clear about where the trip line is "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend if he violates my values." Yesterday was yet another report of yet another torture facility in the Interior Ministry. That most recent find, like the previous one, was made by American soldiers. Supporting death squads makes a mockery of the service of the vast majority of men and women serving in Iraq. The rest of the world is not going to draw the distinction between "good" American soldiers and "bad" American contractors.
I used to be a registered Republican. Reagan cured me of that. However, I would have come back to support McCain but I would never vote for Bush. The difference between Reagan and Bush is Reagan had values, Bush has interests. I didn't agree with a lot of Reagan's values. But he sincerely held them. McCain has values. I don't agree with all of them, but he will listen to reason.
You want to follow Bush with unthinking loyalty and act like a battered housewife, that is your decision. But you won't get a lot of sympathy from people like me if you keep enabling the abuse.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 10:27 AM (wsdWU)
46
>>>"I used to be a registered Republican. Reagan cured me of that."
Because you were a check pants Republican, otherwise known as a RINO. And when a real conservative showed up, you left in favor of your true spiritual home, the Democrat party. This only served to strengthen the GOP and make it the dominant force it is now because the Reagan revolution actually was a net gain to the party.
But now your new party, the Dems, has been hijacked by loons, and everybody in it is being dragged along for the ride. And far from strengthening it, the Howard Dean revolution is a joyride to electoral oblivion. Even some Dems congressmen are having the balls to tell your party loons to shut up. But it's probably too little too late.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 10:38 AM (8e/V4)
47
JC wins the Golden Sombrero
Yeah just like Danforth is a RINO... oh wait didn't he officiate at Reagan's funeral? That lockstep mentality is what's carving a hole in the soul of the Republican Party. So much for "big tent" politics. So much for "majority party" status.
You got a problem when even George Will says:
The president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution."
- George Will (Oct 4, 2005)
George Will chooses his words carefully. He knows that "trust" has been one of Dubya's calling cards. But you want to pretend blind loyalty is the sine qua non of integrity and play the RINO card, go ahead. Just don't act surprised when you find yourself turning to such extremists as Dobson, Roberts and Ahmanson for support. I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I will say it one last time: The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
I realize that talking to you about the importance of values is a waste of time. That conversation assumes you have values.
We're done.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 10:55 AM (wsdWU)
48
background,
but George Will said that in response to Bush's signing onto some Democrat/Rino legistlation, i.e., signing McCain-Feingold. So are you saying you agree with George Will's view of that Democrat legislation? I doubt it. More likely you're just trying to play both sides against the middle. It's a neat trick, but you can't kid a kidder.
It works like this, on the one hand moonbats deride Bush for doing something they don't like, and on the other hand moonbats derides him for NOT doing the very same thing. It means you can't lose, and Bush can't win. That's all you did with George Will's quote. It shows your dishonesty.
And what is it with you Liberals with my hispanic ethnicity? In about 5 years hanging with conservatives, it's only Libs who feel compelled to bring up my ethnicity. That wouldn't be racism, would it?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 11:20 AM (8e/V4)
49
Es obvio que no jueqas béisbol.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 11:32 AM (wsdWU)
50
Oye JC,
Pienso que su niño interno está demasiado sensible. ¿Qué pasa, tiene una conciencia culpable?
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 11:46 AM (wsdWU)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 11:53 AM (8e/V4)
52
Por favor, no insultes mi inteligencia y acto como no sabes de lo que estoy hablando. Estoy hablando de sus malas opciones. Pareces hacer muchos de ellas y después culpar cada uno otro por los resultados. Sabes que es una pregunta válida.
No espero que me contestes directamente. Por lo menos INTENTO a ser honesto con se. Probablemente no harás eso, porque pareces adicto a las malas opciones.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 12:07 PM (wsdWU)
53
No, eres tu quien me insulta. E insultas a todos hispanos.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 12:15 PM (8e/V4)
54
Eso es bastante divertido. Usted oye una referencia del béisbol reÃÂrse de tu habilidad y confundes eso con el racismo. Éste es un ejemplo perfecto como que culpas cada uno por sus errores.
¡Pienso que pulsaste hacia fuera
OTRA VEZ! WOW.... ¡Cinco veces en una fila! Eso tiene que ser un nuevo expediente del mundo.
Por lo menos eres constante. Desesperado, pero constante.
Ése es todo lo que tengo que decir. No estoy perdiendo más tiempo escuchando tu gimoteos.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 12:40 PM (wsdWU)
55
Not "beisbol", but golden sombreros.
Maybe I was being overly sensitive this time, but that happens when Libs can't get over their obsession with my ethnicity. Get the fuck over it already you goddamm race pimps.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 01:03 PM (8e/V4)
56
and ps. guilty about what? Still waiting.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 01:04 PM (8e/V4)
57
JC whined:
Maybe I was being overly sensitive this time, but that happens when Libs can't get over their obsession with my ethnicity.
And like I said:
Éste es un ejemplo perfecto como que culpas cada uno por sus errores.
Lemme translate that for you .... "That is a perfect example of how you blame everyone [else] for your mistakes."
You get up in my grill calling me a racist because your inner child is wounded by something someone else did to you once upon a time.... and
I'm a bleeding heart overly sensitive liberal? Puh....leeze...... now you are just swinging at air.
I don't care what language you whine in, I'm done. It hurts my ears.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 01:48 PM (wsdWU)
58
Hey MR. Sensitive... don't forget your prize:
http://www.enlexica.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?v=golden%20sombrero&d=spbb&s=Q
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 16, 2005 01:54 PM (wsdWU)
59
Still waiting, race pimp.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 16, 2005 03:19 PM (8e/V4)
60
BG Noise. You're all right. The world's all wrong. Why hasn't the Pentagon, the NSA, CIA and every other governmental acronym consulted you? Yeesh. Not one topic has been discussed that your haven't been 100% correct. That's quite a record.
You just don't know when to admit you don't have all the answers or that you could ever be wrong. It must be difficult for you to have to discuss such important matters with we who "just don't get it", huh? You consistently ignore some facets of other's arguments to further bolster your standpoint by actually repeating and expounding on them as if they were your own ideas, and yes, you do, in fact, employ 20/20 hindsight regularly. You're not even good at disguising it or applying it correctly.
This will be the end of any discussion I'll participate in with you. You can't stand to lose even the most minor point in any argument, so it's senseless.
Posted by: Oyster at December 17, 2005 11:50 AM (YudAC)
61
Oyster, I am not always right. I made the mistake of thinking this was a venue for serious discussion. And I am not the only one who the NSA, CIA and White House could have listened to who said that invading Iraq was
going to be a huge mistake.
They could have listened to this list of left wing, limp wristed, terrorist sympathizing, American hating, surrender monkeys:
Gen. Clark (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO)
Gen. Hoar (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Schwarzkopf (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Gen. Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
Gen. Shalikashvili (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Gen. Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff)
Gen. Shelton ( Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Gen. Jones, (Marine Commandant)
Gen. McPeak, (Air Force Chief of Staff)
Gen. Zinni, (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command)
Face it, if the leader of any self respecting banana republic had made such a huge military miscalculation they would have been overthrown in a military coup. It is testimony to the integrity and respect for their oaths to the Constitution that our military commanders have not sought usurp the legal authority of civilian command. But don't confuse that with being right.
==
Now you know why the only generals in favor of invading Iraq
were General Electric and General Dynamics.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 17, 2005 03:13 PM (wsdWU)
62
Ackup: Seeing the good part of the world is not burying ones head in the sand. I know you know better places to live. Just do us a favor and name one and move there.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 17, 2005 09:44 PM (TBvsM)
63
Ostrich,
I like my country fine. I just don't care for the so-called "conservatives" who have taken over and pump up huge deficits,compromise our ability to defend ourselves, squander our natural resources, invade our privacy, meddle with our classrooms, restore dignity and honor to cronyism, and promote welfare for the rich who are so patriotic they move their money off shore.
Besides that, everything is peachy.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 18, 2005 08:37 AM (wsdWU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment