Iran aided warship attack

[Ash]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13875121/[/url]
Not good

[FringeNC]

Of course they did. Hezbollah is an part of the Syrian and Iranian military. Any attack by Hezbollah is an attack by Iran and Syria.

[memyselfI]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13875121/[/url]
Not good

No need to worry. We've been working hard in the ME for almost four years now. We are safer because we removed SH, the imminent threat.


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[mlyonsd]

No need to worry. We've been working hard in the ME for almost four years now. We are safer because we removed SH, the imminent threat.


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thank God Clinton had the Israel problem nailed down. Otherwise the ME could be in for total war.

[Lurch]

I know the situation is complicated, but both sides appear unable to really compromise on the issues. Sometimes I think we should just say fukk it. All that sand and a nuclear explosion or two would rid the world of a lot of problems.

But then my humanity kicks in and I think, those poor camels.

[SBK]

I know the situation is complicated, but both sides appear unable to really compromise on the issues. Sometimes I think we should just say fukk it. All that sand and a nuclear explosion or two would rid the world of a lot of problems.

But then my humanity kicks in and I think, those poor camels.

ROFL Funniest post of the day!

[CHIEF4EVER]

OK, D_enise, come out and tell us now how Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel is Bush's fault. I am sure you already have your spin ready made for this one.

[alanm]

I know the situation is complicated, but both sides appear unable to really compromise on the issues. Sometimes I think we should just say fukk it. All that sand and a nuclear explosion or two would rid the world of a lot of problems.

But then my humanity kicks in and I think, those poor camels.
What about the sheep and goats?

[memyselfI]

Thank God Clinton had the Israel problem nailed down. Otherwise the ME could be in for total war.

Seems to me Clinton had the leaders of Palestine and Israel talking face to face and shaking hands. Seem to me that the US was not occupying two different Muslim countries in wars. Seems to me Iran wasn't flaunting nuclear weapons in our face. Seems to me gas prices were not $3.00. It even seems to me that Russia was actually on our side a bit more than they are now even with W looking deep into Putin's eyes...

You can argue till you are blue in the face (or red in your case) but the world was not on the brink of WWIII when Clinton left office.

[stevieray]

You can argue till you are blue in the face (or red in your case) but the world was not on the brink of WWIII when Clinton left office.

We were on the brink of something, considering AQ attacked Americans numerous times while he was in office.

[chagrin]

Seems to me Clinton had the leaders of Palestine and Israel talking face to face and shaking hands. Seem to me that the US was not occupying two different Muslim countries in wars. Seems to me Iran wasn't flaunting nuclear weapons in our face. Seems to me gas prices were not $3.00. It even seems to me that Russia was actually on our side a bit more than they are now even with W looking deep into Putin's eyes...

You can argue till you are blue in the face (or red in your case) but the world was not on the brink of WWIII when Clinton left office.


Clinton rode Papa Bush's and Reagan's coat tails through all of what you just mentioned, he was not responsible for any of it.

Try again dipshit - oh, and answer the question that was asked of you, don't try and pull rank by saying you choose not to answer it because you've been here longer either.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

You can argue till you are blue in the face (or red in your case) but the world was not on the brink of WWIII when Clinton left office.

Let's see, let's start in 1993, I believe that Clinton was in office when the U.S. was attacked by Al Queda, he was president when the Marine Barracks was bombed, he was president when the embassy was bombed, and he was president when the USS Cole was attacked. I fail to understand how you can say that Clinton left office with a clean slate as to the current state of affairs. His inaction was the precursor to the continued attacks.

Had he done something other than scratching the surface there might not have been the attacks on 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around but to say that Clinton is free and clear of that blame is ludicrous.

[banyon]

Why isn't this more widely reported?

I think this general may be mistaken.

It seems now pretty certain that a portion of the weapons were made in Iran. But 100 Iranian troops directing Hezbollah in Lebanon seems unlikely.

[banyon]

Let's see, let's start in 1993, I believe that Clinton was in office when the U.S. was attacked by Al Queda, he was president when the Marine Barracks was bombed, he was president when the embassy was bombed, and he was president when the USS Cole was attacked. I fail to understand how you can say that Clinton left office with a clean slate as to the current state of affairs. His inaction was the precursor to the continued attacks.

Had he done something other than scratching the surface there might not have been the attacks on 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around but to say that Clinton is free and clear of that blame is ludicrous.

exactly. That's not WWIII. This could be.

[Bowser]

Let's see, let's start in 1993, I believe that Clinton was in office when the U.S. was attacked by Al Queda, he was president when the Marine Barracks was bombed, he was president when the embassy was bombed, and he was president when the USS Cole was attacked. I fail to understand how you can say that Clinton left office with a clean slate as to the current state of affairs. His inaction was the precursor to the continued attacks.

Had he done something other than scratching the surface there might not have been the attacks on 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around but to say that Clinton is free and clear of that blame is ludicrous.

I say it's Truman's fault. If he had just used a few more nukes in tactical locations around the world, everyone else would have fallen in step with us way back when.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

exactly. That's not WWIII. This could be.

You cannot be saying that the world situation we are currently enduring is the blame of one administration. The point in time this whole mess began taking shape was the attack on America in 1993. We are only now witnessing the fruits of the labors of Bill Clinton. If he had been more worried about the security of the United States than he was with the activities he was involved in we might not be in as bad of shape as we are now. The land mark of the beginning of this situation can be attributed to inaction by your president from '93-'01.

[the Talking Can]

You cannot be saying that the world situation we are currently enduring is the blame of one administration. The point in time this whole mess began taking shape was the attack on America in 1993. We are only now witnessing the fruits of the labors of Bill Clinton. If he had been more worried about the security of the United States than he was with the activities he was involved in we might not be in as bad of shape as we are now. The land mark of the beginning of this situation can be attributed to inaction by your president from '93-'01.

hey, Kotter...what's up?

[banyon]

You cannot be saying that the world situation we are currently enduring is the blame of one administration. The point in time this whole mess began taking shape was the attack on America in 1993. We are only now witnessing the fruits of the labors of Bill Clinton. If he had been more worried about the security of the United States than he was with the activities he was involved in we might not be in as bad of shape as we are now. The land mark of the beginning of this situation can be attributed to inaction by your president from '93-'01.

Why is Clinton 'my president'? I never voted for him.

I am not saying Clinton didn't contribute, only that 'your president' is responsible for most of the clusterf***.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

Why is Clinton 'my president'? I never voted for him.

I am not saying Clinton didn't contribute, only that 'your president' is responsible for most of the clusterf***.

I disagree, but you have your opinion and the rest of the world has theirs.

Just in case you might be interested, I did not vote for Bush.

[Cochise]

Iran is actively engaging in terrorism - who knew! :rolleyes:

[stevieray]

He is our President, regardless if you voted for him or not.

[Adept Havelock]

He is our president, whether or not you voted for him.

From all the bumper stickers, I thought Charlton Heston was my president from 1992-2000. ;)

[banyon]

I disagree, but you have your opinion and the rest of the world has theirs.

Just in case you might be interested, I did not vote for Bush.

yeah, that's why I used quotation marks. Because I wanted to falsely assume as you had who you voted for.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

yeah, that's why I used quotation marks. Because I wanted to falsely assume as you had who you voted for.

I thought more it was your blind support of most everything he did.

[memyselfI]

exactly. That's not WWIII. This could be.

Exactly. Clinton definitely made some foreign policy errors that contributed to the building of a fire. It is DUHbya's foreign policy errors that have caused the region to become an inferno.

MANY, MANY, MANY people warned DUHbya that his actions in Iraq would further destabilize the ME. He seemed to think that action would be an unintended consequence of making the US more secure. The idiot did not comprehend that a destabilized ME could lead to WWIII. Or worse, he realized it and didn't care because his neocon friends and him believed their mission (using 9/11 to 'spread democracy) mattered more. :shake: :banghead: :cuss: :mad:

[banyon]

I thought more it was your blind support of most everything he did.

WTF are you talking about?

:bong:

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

Exactly. Clinton definitely made some foreign policy errors that contributed to the building of a fire. It is DUHbya's foreign policy errors that have caused the region to become an inferno.

MANY, MANY, MANY people warned DUHbya that his actions in Iraq would further destabilize the ME. He seemed to think that action would be an unintended consequence of making the US more secure. The idiot did not comprehend that a destabilized ME could lead to WWIII. Or worse, he realized it and didn't care because his neocon friends and him believed their mission (using 9/11 to 'spread democracy) mattered more. :shake: :banghead: :cuss: :mad:

I think your position has more to do with your intense feelings toward Bush. Any president should have reacted the way he did to the perceived threat. Clinton had an actual happening and did nothing to quelch the proceedings.

As stated before there is plenty of blame to go around.

As for the instability of the middle east; that region has been unstable from the days of Christ and before. Tagging it to current events is just an excuse to bash the president.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

WTF are you talking about?

:bong:

I take it you are smoking dope and didn't understand.

You were generalized along with the other more notable liberals on the board.

Continue without me, I have a plane to catch.

[banyon]

I take it you are smoking dope and didn't understand.

You were generalized along with the other more notable liberals on the board.

Continue without me, I have a plane to catch.

It wasn't generalized, it was directed specifically at me.


I thought more it was your blind support of most everything he did.

I have never supported Clinton and won't vote for his wife either if, God forbid, she wins the nomination.

[patteeu]

Seems to me Clinton had the leaders of Palestine and Israel talking face to face and shaking hands. Seem to me that the US was not occupying two different Muslim countries in wars. Seems to me Iran wasn't flaunting nuclear weapons in our face. Seems to me gas prices were not $3.00. It even seems to me that Russia was actually on our side a bit more than they are now even with W looking deep into Putin's eyes...

You can argue till you are blue in the face (or red in your case) but the world was not on the brink of WWIII when Clinton left office.

Using similar logic, Bush and Clinton have both been great Social Security presidents because during their terms the program ran a surplus. Nevermind the ultimate and forseeable consequences of their inaction (Clinton) / ineffective action (Bush).

Clinton wasn't alone, but every administration of both parties from at least as far back as Carter has contributed to the lack of real peace in the middle east between Israel and her neighbors. They meant well, but their efforts were doomed to failure because when you get down to it, the islamists don't want peace and the moderate arabs can't/won't control the islamists. Bush decided to try a different approach. Let's give his approach a few decades like we gave the fake stability approach and then we can judge it.

[patteeu]

We were on the brink of something, considering AQ attacked Americans numerous times while he was in office.

I suppose memyselfi thinks that al Qaeda only attacked us after recognizing that Bush was a cowboy, unilateralist, armageddonist. If Al Gore had been elected, they would have been sitting at a negotiating table across from Ehud Barak with Gore holding both of their hands. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Exactly. Clinton definitely made some foreign policy errors that contributed to the building of a fire. It is DUHbya's foreign policy errors that have caused the region to become an inferno.

MANY, MANY, MANY people warned DUHbya that his actions in Iraq would further destabilize the ME. He seemed to think that action would be an unintended consequence of making the US more secure. The idiot did not comprehend that a destabilized ME could lead to WWIII. Or worse, he realized it and didn't care because his neocon friends and him believed their mission (using 9/11 to 'spread democracy) mattered more. :shake: :banghead: :cuss: :mad:

Destabilization was one of the goals. That's what happens when you replace a regime. When you criticize the fact that we armed Saddam, you are criticizing the policy that holds stability above almost all else. That was the policy of both Republican and democrat presidents alike for decades. Bush and the neocons broke from that failed approach. They intended to shake up the status quo in an effort to solve the middle eastern problem instead of just paper it over while the people of the region continued to resent their authoritarian masters. There are always unintended consequences. Whether or not these consequences can be managed to success of the overall goal remains to be seen, but IMO the situation is far more promising than it's ever been before during my adult life. My biggest fear is that Bush will lose his nerve and give in to his critics who prize stability and who are calling on Israel to be proportionate in it's response to provocation.

[patteeu]

Why isn't this more widely reported?

I think this general may be mistaken.

It seems now pretty certain that a portion of the weapons were made in Iran. But 100 Iranian troops directing Hezbollah in Lebanon seems unlikely.

Here's a report from the NY Post:

Israeli officials charged that elite Iranian troops operating in Lebanon were involved in the Hezbollah offensive, and were responsible for firing an Iranian-made, radar-guided C802 missile - not the unmanned bomb-laden drone originally reported - that struck the warship on Friday, killing four sailors.

"There are Iranian officers belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard among Hezbollah and they operated the missile," said Israeli Vice Prime Minister and elder statesman Shimon Peres.

more... (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/israel_strikes_belly_of_beast_worldnews_uri_dan_______mideast_correspondent.htm)

[Nightwish]

Destabilization was one of the goals. That's what happens when you replace a regime. When you criticize the fact that we armed Saddam, you are criticizing the policy that holds stability above almost all else. That was the policy of both Republican and democrat presidents alike for decades. Bush and the neocons broke from that failed approach. They intended to shake up the status quo in an effort to solve the middle eastern problem instead of just paper it over while the people of the region continued to resent their authoritarian masters. There are always unintended consequences. Whether or not these consequences can be managed to success of the overall goal remains to be seen, but IMO the situation is far more promising than it's ever been before during my adult life. My biggest fear is that Bush will lose his nerve and give in to his critics who prize stability and who are calling on Israel to be proportionate in it's response to provocation.
Translation: Bush and the neocon dumbasses who pull his strings were not content just to remain in the frying pan. They decided to jump into the fire without a fire extinguisher.

[Nightwish]

Here's a report from the NY Post:Israeli officials charged that elite Iranian troops operating in Lebanon were involved in the Hezbollah offensive, and were responsible for firing an Iranian-made, radar-guided C802 missile - not the unmanned bomb-laden drone originally reported - that struck the warship on Friday, killing four sailors.

"There are Iranian officers belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard among Hezbollah and they operated the missile," said Israeli Vice Prime Minister and elder statesman Shimon Peres.

more... (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/israel_strikes_belly_of_beast_worldnews_uri_dan_______mideast_correspondent.htm)
"Israeli officials charge ..." Well, I guess that settles it.

[mlyonsd]

My suggestion right now would be to expell every Iranian national that is enrolled in our Universities or Colleges. That's a good place to start.

[patteeu]

"Israeli officials charge ..." Well, I guess that settles it.

Settles what?

[Nightwish]

Settles what?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[memyselfI]

My suggestion right now would be to expell every Iranian national that is enrolled in our Universities or Colleges. That's a good place to start.


And you'd be ensuring that any revolution within Iran is another 25 years off. The only hope the world has for regime change in Iran lies with it's young people...

especially those educated outside of the country.

Talk about brains being eaten... :shake: :rolleyes:

[Iowanian]

What the US is losing, is respect.

We're losing respect, because our govt is too afraid of offending the peacenics and the soccer moms who don't have the stomoch to let them do what needs done.

The next time, a leader of a foreign country makes a direct threat against the US, like Iran and NK have multiple times....They country should be left in burning ashes, minus all its valuables, resources and soverniers of our troops.

Letting other countries slap us in the face without serious consequences is bad, bad mojo.

There needs to be some serious restructuring of our defense department and intelligence. We have to be believable in those areas.

I'm very disappointed our govt isn't working actively with some of the rioting students in Tehran, expelled disadents....whatever we can do to incite a revolution and support it to victory.

I think a sniper with a 1 mile clear line of sight to Kimjong Il is the best sollution in NK.

[SBK]

What the US is losing, is respect.

We're losing respect, because our govt is too afraid of offending the peacenics and the soccer moms who don't have the stomoch to let them do what needs done.

The next time, a leader of a foreign country makes a direct threat against the US, like Iran and NK have multiple times....They country should be left in burning ashes, minus all its valuables, resources and soverniers of our troops.

Letting other countries slap us in the face without serious consequences is bad, bad mojo.

There needs to be some serious restructuring of our defense department and intelligence. We have to be believable in those areas.

I'm very disappointed our govt isn't working actively with some of the rioting students in Tehran, expelled disadents....whatever we can do to incite a revolution and support it to victory.

I think a sniper with a 1 mile clear line of sight to Kimjong Il is the best sollution in NK.

Bah, that's the easy way to get rid of the dog eater. I think they should stick a cherry bomb up his butt and then send him over to a wonderful weekend with Elton John.

[Nightwish]

What the US is losing, is respect.

We're losing respect, because our govt is too afraid of offending the peacenics and the soccer moms who don't have the stomoch to let them do what needs done.
Do you have any sources for these peaceniks and soccer moms whose all-powerful cries of "No war with North Korea" and "No war with Iran" are cowing the government into inaction with regard to those nations? No, it isn't the peaceniks and soccer moms cowing the government that is losing us respect. It is the willingness to engage enemies who can't fight back, coupled with our unwillingness to engage enemies who can.

Letting other countries slap us in the face without serious consequences is bad, bad mojo.
Agreed, which is why we need someone in the White House who has the guts to take on an enemy that actually has teeth. We haven't had that since Reagan.

There needs to be some serious restructuring of our defense department and intelligence. We have to be believable in those areas.
We need some serious restructuring in the White House and the government. We need to be believable in those areas.

I'm very disappointed our govt isn't working actively with some of the rioting students in Tehran, expelled disadents....whatever we can do to incite a revolution and support it to victory.

I think a sniper with a 1 mile clear line of sight to Kimjong Il is the best sollution in NK.
Well, whaddaya know, not only did you finally say something that I agree with, you said two things in a row! Does this mean something?

[the Talking Can]

What the US is losing, is respect.

We're losing respect, because our govt is too afraid of offending the peacenics and the soccer moms who don't have the stomoch to let them do what needs done.

The next time, a leader of a foreign country makes a direct threat against the US, like Iran and NK have multiple times....They country should be left in burning ashes, minus all its valuables, resources and soverniers of our troops.


this is a joke, right?

we invaded TWO countries....Afghanistan and Iraq...we can't control either...we have no troops left to threaten Iran with...and you're blaming "soccer moms?"

Bush, Commander in Chief = not responsible

Soccer Moms = responsible

every day a new excuse...next it will be "those damn skateborders!"....

[Radar Chief]

Translation: Bush and the neocon dumbasses who pull his strings were not content just to remain in the frying pan. They decided to jump into the fire without a fire extinguisher.

Translation: I have nothing for a response on topic so I’ll deflect with weak sarcastic spin. :thumb:

[Iowanian]

Uh no...

When in pure war fighting mode....Our troops rolled over a military the Russians were defeated by for a decade, in a matter of months. Then crushed one of the largest militaries in the world in a matter of weeks.

At that point, our troops were handcuffed and followed by CNN cameras where every unpleasantry was documented, on the air before the guys got back from their mission. Its not that much different than not showing 911 clips, because its "too terrible" for too much of the American public. The civilizations our troops are trying to stablize don't tend to view acts of mercy as kindness...but weakness. Get sniped at and attacked, but not annhialating the enemy for fear of public opinion.

You've seen it here yourself......Our troops, have been accused of "killing the enemy TOO Dead".

I guess you'll have to understand, that I'm not talkign about nation building...I'm talking about a policy with very severe retribution for threatening the United States directly. I'm not talking about making NK a nicer place to live.....

Allowing Iran and NK to do what they're doing is terrible policy.

I'm not blaming soccer moms....but that mentality is why our troops are fighting an alley fight with boxing gloves. Allowing our troops the brutality required to do the things that really need to be done would go a long ways.

If you'd wipe the shit from your eyes, you might see that I'm not very pleased with alot of our foriegn policy.

I think of a scene in Josey wales....where he talks with 10 bears. "there is Iron in your word of death, therefor there is iron in your words of life"

US policy has to be believable, if we say something, we have to back it up. If we say we'll help someone, we should....If we say we're not taking anymore bullshit without consequences....there need to be concequences.


this is a joke, right?

we invaded TWO countries....Afghanistan and Iraq...we can't control either...we have no troops left to threaten Iran with...and you're blaming "soccer moms?"

Bush, Commander in Chief = not responsible

Soccer Moms = responsible

every day a new excuse...next it will be "those damn skateborders!"....

[Iowanian]

Israel pretty much proves that they say what they mean and mean what they say.

I don't blame them one bit for hitting back "too hard" like some countries(and a certain segment of ours) are whining about.

[Nightwish]

Translation: I have nothing for a response on topic so I’ll deflect with weak sarcastic spin. :thumb:
Nope, I meant exactly what I said.

[Radar Chief]

Nope, I meant exactly what I said.

So did I.

[Nightwish]

So did I.
Well, it's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion, and you're free to be wrong as often as you like.

[Radar Chief]

Well, it's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion, and you're free to be wrong as often as you like.

:rolleyes: At least you quit do’n exactly what I pointed out. :thumb:

[Nightwish]

:rolleyes: At least you quit do’n exactly what I pointed out. :thumb:
Just which part of my comment did you think was wildly spun? I said that BushCo has taken us from a bad situation to a worse situation. They have taken a nation where terrorism was kept to a minimum, and what terrorism was there was directed against Israel (only after we made clear our intention to invade) and Iran, and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. We let 'em in, and they took that ball and ran with it. Their less-than-insightful actions in Iraq have made the US an even bigger target for aggression than it was before (unless you want to try to ply that tired old "now we're safer" garbage on us). Perhaps you could demonstrate just how much better off we are now than we were before Curious George decided to play cowboys and indians in real life?

[Radar Chief]

Just which part of my comment did you think was wildly spun? I said that BushCo has taken us from a bad situation to a worse situation. They have taken a nation where terrorism was kept to a minimum, and what terrorism was there was directed against Israel (only after we made clear our intention to invade) and Iran, and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. We let 'em in, and they took that ball and ran with it.

First off, the point is that if you wanna play the petty little insult game we can do that all day long.
Second, it’s “weak sarcastic spin” not “wildly spun”. I’m surprised that someone so arrogantly convinced of their superiority would make such a simple mistake. :Poke: But since you bring it up, AQ was already in Iraq before we invaded. You know it cause we’ve been through this conversation before.

Their less-than-insightful actions in Iraq have made the US an even bigger target for aggression than it was before (unless you want to try to ply that tired old "now we're safer" garbage on us).

That’s why the US has been attacked so may times since, right? :shrug:

Perhaps you could demonstrate just how much better off we are now than we were before Curious George decided to play cowboys and indians in real life?

Economy’s do’n pretty good. This was the sole measure for success during Clinton’s tenure. ;)

[patteeu]

Blaming the US in general, and GWBush in particular, for breeding terrorists is a lot like blaming the girl who likes to dress nice for the actions of the rapist isn't it?

[Adept Havelock]

Blaming the US in general, and GWBush in particular, for breeding terrorists is a lot like blaming the girl who likes to dress nice for the actions of the rapist isn't it?


A more accurate comparison would be like blaming the guy who walked into a kitchen, saw a grease fire, and decided to try to extinguish it by chucking gasoline onto it. JMO.

[patteeu]

A more accurate comparison would be like blaming the guy who walked into a kitchen, saw a grease fire, and decided to try to extinguish it by chucking gasoline onto it. JMO.

That analogy seems to embrace the islamist position that the conflict (including 9/11 and previous terrorist attacks against our interests) is the fault of the US in the first place. I don't subscribe to that view.

[Adept Havelock]

That analogy seems to embrace the islamist position that the conflict (including 9/11 and previous terrorist attacks against our interests) is the fault of the US in the first place. I don't subscribe to that view.

:BS:

Gee, there goes that pesky "Utter and Complete Balderdash" meter of mine, yet again.

I can certainly understand why you would want to spin it that way. That's a good job of leaving yourself an out by saying it "seems" to embrace that view.

Nice to know your training as a shyster is still paying dividends.

Did I say who started the grease fire, or make any statement that implied the person that "saw" a grease fire also started it? Does discovery=invention? I certainly don't think so.

My analogy as presented: Someone walks into a kitchen, discovers a grease fire in progress, and goes about extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner.

My analogy as patteeu spins it: Someone walks into a kitchen, starts a grease fire, leaves, and then returns later to attempt extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner. :hmmm:


Perhaps you can elaborate on how my analogy supports the view you claim it "seems" to. Preferably, without completely discarding Occam's razor.

[BucEyedPea]

Havelock,
You might like this op-ed...by a traditionally conservative group: The INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE. It is NOT NeoConservative and is very well reasoned out. It will fill in some omitted facts by our media.


Israeli-Arab War: Terrorism on Both Sides (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1767)

The news, this administration, even the Dems and in particular Fox use this label too broadly.We need less appeal to emotion and more level heads.

[Adept Havelock]

Havelock,
You might like this op-ed...by a traditionally conservative group: The INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE. It is NOT NeoConservative and is very well reasoned out. It will fill in some omitted facts by our media.


Israeli-Arab War: Terrorism on Both Sides (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1767)

The news, this administration, even the Dems and in particular Fox use this label too broadly.We need less appeal to emotion and more level heads.

Thank you kindly, BEP. Some interesting thinking there. "Terrorism" is a label being flung about a bit capriciously, IMO. I've watched this conflict for a long time, and it seems to me that Israel and it's enemies are both willing to use terror tactics to achive their ends.

I heartily agree with your last point as well. Sadly, the 24 hour "news cycle" is designed to appeal to and encourage a visceral response, instead of a reasoned one. Again, JMO.

[patteeu]

:BS:

Gee, there goes that pesky "Utter and Complete Balderdash" meter of mine, yet again.

I can certainly understand why you would want to spin it that way. That's a good job of leaving yourself an out by saying it "seems" to embrace that view.

Nice to know your training as a shyster is still paying dividends.

Did I say who started the grease fire, or make any statement that implied the person that "saw" a grease fire also started it? Does discovery=invention? I certainly don't think so.

My analogy as presented: Someone walks into a kitchen, discovers a grease fire in progress, and goes about extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner.

My analogy as patteeu spins it: Someone walks into a kitchen, starts a grease fire, leaves, and then returns later to attempt extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner. :hmmm:


Perhaps you can elaborate on how my analogy supports the view you claim it "seems" to. Preferably, without completely discarding Occam's razor.

So what did start the grease fire as it pertains to us? It appears from your analogy that you accept the notion that US action creates islamist terrorism. That's what Osama's been saying all along. US presence in the Arab states, US propping up authoritarian regimes, US exploiting Arab oil, US providing a lifeline to the Zionists, etc.

[Adept Havelock]

That analogy seems to embrace the islamist position that the conflict (including 9/11 and previous terrorist attacks against our interests) is the fault of the US in the first place. I don't subscribe to that view.
My analogy as presented: Someone walks into a kitchen, discovers a grease fire in progress, and goes about extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner.
My analogy as patteeu spins it: Someone walks into a kitchen, starts a grease fire, leaves, and then returns later to attempt extinguishing it in a spectacularly foolish manner. :hmmm:
Perhaps you can elaborate on how my analogy supports the view you claim it "seems" to. Preferably, without completely discarding Occam's razor.So what did start the grease fire as it pertains to us? It appears from your analogy that you accept the notion that US action creates islamist terrorism. That's what Osama's been saying all along. US presence in the Arab states, US propping up authoritarian regimes, US exploiting Arab oil, US providing a lifeline to the Zionists, etc.Damn, that detector is getting a workout. I may have to run to Mar-Becks to get it serviced sooner than I thought.

I see a rehash of your previous statement, but nothing suggesting how my analogy, as stated, suggests that US action created Islamic terrorism. Only a repeat of your belief that it does.

Wait! Now you say "it appears" instead of "it seems". Progress! ROFL

So I await a response as to what in my analogy (aside from your obvious desire to spin it as such) supports your misapprehension.

When I've got an actual reply to my question, instead of another rehash of your initial response, then I'll be happy to discuss what started that grease fire. Here's a hint. I certainly don't endorse the position you seem to wish to attribute to me. ;)

[patteeu]

Damn, that detector is getting a workout. I may have to run to Mar-Becks to get it serviced sooner than I thought.

I see a rehash of your previous statement, but nothing suggesting how my analogy, as stated, suggests that US action created Islamic terrorism. Only a repeat of your belief that it does.

Wait! Now you say "it appears" instead of "it seems". Progress! ROFL

So, I await exactly what in my analogy (aside from your obvious desire to spin it as such), supports your misapprehension.

When I've got an actual reply to my question, instead of another rehash of your initial response, then I'll be happy to discuss what started that grease fire. Here's a hint. I certainly don't endorse the position you seem to wish to attribute to me. ;)

I see nothing in your statements indicating another possible source for the original fire. Forgive me if I'm too unimaginative to come up with an alternative to the "more of the same" theory that I'm presenting. Occam's Razor, you know. That's why I've invited you to disabuse me of my allegedly erroneous supposition.

[Adept Havelock]

I see nothing in your statements indicating another possible source for the original fire. Forgive me if I'm too unimaginative to come up with an alternative to the "more of the same" theory that I'm presenting. Occam's Razor, you know. That's why I've invited you to disabuse me of my allegedly erroneous supposition.So, you are saying that you can't possibly imagine another cause other than the one you want to attribute to me. You can't possibly think of any other possible cause for the fire than "the guy who saw it must have set it off all by himself". Gee, you seem to be a very imaginative, intelligent guy. That's very, very sad. What a selective and unfortunate failure of intelligence. My sympathies. :p

Then again, you could just possibly be acting supremely obtuse because of my suggestion that a good chunk of the US response to the attacks has been a bit counter-productive regarding the goal of diminishing the growth of militant Islam and it's supporters. :spock:

I'll be happy to discuss "what started that fire" in depth in the near future, if you like. I'm a bit too wiped at the moment for the whole thing, but suffice it to say that my underlying cause is the economic "divide" between the reqions which developed primarily from the various inefficent authoritarian political models that govern most of the ME nations. Also, the inherent tension that inevitably develops between rival Fundamentalist relgious groups, or in the West's case, a predominantly secular/non-fundamentalist society. Then there's a few thousand years of bad blood between the ME and Western World, going all the way back to a man named Alexander.

That said, acts like the creation, funding, and support for organizations like SAVAK seemingly tend to leave people with long and hostile memories. Not having lived in a nation with a secret police where one fears the knock at 2:00 AM, or worse, I can't claim to know the long term effects on a populace, but I imagine it's not exactly an endearing one. I imagine I wouldn't look too fondly on those that I was told sponsored their activities, either. No one I've met that lived behind the Iron Curtain ever had anything good to say about the Secret Police, with the exception of a former member of the Komitet who gave a lecture I once attended. Like it or not, believe it or not, hell, even true or not, that is one of the main Iranian grievances against the US. We backed the Shah, and he wasn't a popular king. That wasn't the only time or place. The French/British/Israeli military response to the nationalization of Suez is another example. When you combine all of that with a regional religious/political authority willing to exploit all of this to further their own radical agendas...:shrug:

I think there's a hell of alot more to it than "the US is the debbil" as you are alleging. I'm also pretty sure that you know that already, and are just being obtuse. No harm, no foul. I do it myself.

What started that fire? A thousand different threads, all tying together in the damnable mess that's on our plate. Cheers.

[Nightwish]

First off, the point is that if you wanna play the petty little insult game we can do that all day long.
So you're saying you just wanna play in the sandbox, too?

Second, it’s “weak sarcastic spin” not “wildly spun”. I’m surprised that someone so arrogantly convinced of their superiority would make such a simple mistake. :Poke:
Did you suppose that the distinction is an important one?

But since you bring it up, AQ was already in Iraq before we invaded. You know it cause we’ve been through this conversation before.
Yes, they were already in Iraq. They were in Iraq in two different ways. There was an active contingent in Kurdish territory, where Saddam's reach was curtailed, thus allowing them to thrive there. And there were scattered members who were largely impotent and unable to do much of anything in other parts of Iraq, at least until we cleared the way for them to become active. You know it because we've been through this conversation before.

That’s why the US has been attacked so may times since, right? :shrug:
So what's your excuse for why we weren't attacked between 1993 and 2001? And don't bother bringing up tired examples like Kobar Towers and the USS Cole. Those attacks were nothing out of the ordinary. I doubt there's been a decade go by without at least one or two attacks against US interests or US military targets in some part of the world by some enemy or another. If you wish to show that Clinton was weak and left us open to attack, then you couldn't choose weaker examples to support it.

Economy’s do’n pretty good. This was the sole measure for success during Clinton’s tenure. ;)
Correction: economy is on an upswing, but it's still got a looooooooong way to climb to even approach coming back to pre-Bush levels.

[banyon]

Here's a report from the NY Post:

Israeli officials charged that elite Iranian troops operating in Lebanon were involved in the Hezbollah offensive, and were responsible for firing an Iranian-made, radar-guided C802 missile - not the unmanned bomb-laden drone originally reported - that struck the warship on Friday, killing four sailors.

"There are Iranian officers belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard among Hezbollah and they operated the missile," said Israeli Vice Prime Minister and elder statesman Shimon Peres.

more... (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/israel_strikes_belly_of_beast_worldnews_uri_dan_______mideast_correspondent.htm)

Why isn't this more widely reported?

[Lurch]

Why isn't this more widely reported?
Because then some people would accuse them of being too pro-Bush and pro-Israel. Too bad they aren't as concerned when people accuse them of the biases and agenda pushing they are guilty of.

[banyon]

Because then some people would accuse them of being too pro-Bush and pro-Israel. Too bad they aren't as concerned when people accuse them of the biases and agenda pushing they are guilty of.

So...It can't be the case that the NY Post jumped the gun?

[Lurch]

So...It can't be the case that the NY Post jumped the gun?With verifiable proof? Sure. But do you seriously doubt the truth? Or the possibility?

[banyon]

With verifiable proof? Sure. But do you seriously doubt the truth? Or the possibility?

If this story had legs, then CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, the BBC, and even Fox News should be all over it. I haven't heard a peep from them.

here's Fox : Fox story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203754,00.html) and they, like the rest of the MSM, just mention that the rocket was Iranian-made, but nothing about the 100 troops.

[patteeu]

So, you are saying that you can't possibly imagine another cause other than the one you want to attribute to me. You can't possibly think of any other possible cause for the fire than "the guy who saw it must have set it off all by himself". Gee, you seem to be a very imaginative, intelligent guy. That's very, very sad. What a selective and unfortunate failure of intelligence. My sympathies. :p

Then again, you could just possibly be acting supremely obtuse because of my suggestion that a good chunk of the US response to the attacks has been a bit counter-productive regarding the goal of diminishing the growth of militant Islam and it's supporters. :spock:

I'll be happy to discuss "what started that fire" in depth in the near future, if you like. I'm a bit too wiped at the moment for the whole thing, but suffice it to say that my underlying cause is the economic "divide" between the reqions which developed primarily from the various inefficent authoritarian political models that govern most of the ME nations. Also, the inherent tension that inevitably develops between rival Fundamentalist relgious groups, or in the West's case, a predominantly secular/non-fundamentalist society. Then there's a few thousand years of bad blood between the ME and Western World, going all the way back to a man named Alexander.

That said, acts like the creation, funding, and support for organizations like SAVAK seemingly tend to leave people with long and hostile memories. Not having lived in a nation with a secret police where one fears the knock at 2:00 AM, or worse, I can't claim to know the long term effects on a populace, but I imagine it's not exactly an endearing one. I imagine I wouldn't look too fondly on those that I was told sponsored their activities, either. No one I've met that lived behind the Iron Curtain ever had anything good to say about the Secret Police, with the exception of a former member of the Komitet who gave a lecture I once attended. Like it or not, believe it or not, hell, even true or not, that is one of the main Iranian grievances against the US. We backed the Shah, and he wasn't a popular king. That wasn't the only time or place. The French/British/Israeli military response to the nationalization of Suez is another example. When you combine all of that with a regional religious/political authority willing to exploit all of this to further their own radical agendas...:shrug:

I think there's a hell of alot more to it than "the US is the debbil" as you are alleging. I'm also pretty sure that you know that already, and are just being obtuse. No harm, no foul. I do it myself.

What started that fire? A thousand different threads, all tying together in the damnable mess that's on our plate. Cheers.

Thanks. I stand corrected. ;)

Now, about your analogy. I still think it misses the mark because it's too short-sighted. Sure the hornets will get stirred up if you start knocking their nests down and spraying the area with insecticide. But eventually they won't have anyplace left to live and they'll either move on or die. I can only hope that we will finish the job (not only in Iraq, but throughout the region) and not run away just because the hornets are a little more agitated than usual. Some people want to just avoid agitating the hornets by avoiding their nests as much as possible, but if you really want to get rid of them, you have to risk a few stings.

[patteeu]

Yes, they were already in Iraq. They were in Iraq in two different ways. There was an active contingent in Kurdish territory, where Saddam's reach was curtailed, thus allowing them to thrive there. And there were scattered members who were largely impotent and unable to do much of anything in other parts of Iraq, at least until we cleared the way for them to become active. You know it because we've been through this conversation before.

Still clinging to the myth that there was no cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, eh?

So what's your excuse for why we weren't attacked between 1993 and 2001? And don't bother bringing up tired examples like Kobar Towers and the USS Cole. Those attacks were nothing out of the ordinary. I doubt there's been a decade go by without at least one or two attacks against US interests or US military targets in some part of the world by some enemy or another. If you wish to show that Clinton was weak and left us open to attack, then you couldn't choose weaker examples to support it.

Have we had a Cole or Kobar outside of our two primary war zones since 9/11 or is GWBush doing an extraordinary job of fending off terrorism against our interests?

Correction: economy is on an upswing, but it's still got a looooooooong way to climb to even approach coming back to pre-Bush levels.

You must get your economic news from tech stock speculators.

[patteeu]

Why isn't this more widely reported?

It is.

From the AP (and as you know, it doesn't get much more "widely" than the AP): Israel: Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500189.html)

From the Jerusalem Post: Iranian troops assisted Hizbullah in firing a radar-guided missile (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886004498&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

[Radar Chief]

So you're saying you just wanna play in the sandbox, too?

What? You think you’re the only one that can do it? :shrug:

Did you suppose that the distinction is an important one?

Aside from completely whiff’n on the :Poke: smiley, I was just point’n out a mistake to Mr. Perfection. Sorry that bug’s ya so much. ROFL

Yes, they were already in Iraq. They were in Iraq in two different ways. There was an active contingent in Kurdish territory, where Saddam's reach was curtailed, thus allowing them to thrive there. And there were scattered members who were largely impotent and unable to do much of anything in other parts of Iraq, at least until we cleared the way for them to become active. You know it because we've been through this conversation before.

Yet another conversation we’ve been through before, and it might bear some relevance to actual events had you not chosen to ignore that some flee’n AQ received medical attention in Iraq. One of the more notable ones, Zarqawi, even received help at Uday’s hospital.

So what's your excuse for why we weren't attacked between 1993 and 2001? And don't bother bringing up tired examples like Kobar Towers and the USS Cole. Those attacks were nothing out of the ordinary. I doubt there's been a decade go by without at least one or two attacks against US interests or US military targets in some part of the world by some enemy or another. If you wish to show that Clinton was weak and left us open to attack, then you couldn't choose weaker examples to support it.

I’m not make’n excuses, apparently that’s your shtick. :shrug:
And I didn’t even bring Clinton into this conversation, ‘till the last sentence in reference to the economy, apparently that’s your straw man. ROFL

Correction: economy is on an upswing, but it's still got a looooooooong way to climb to even approach coming back to pre-Bush levels.

And maybe if you’re lucky another whiney Lib’ll get elected next so’e can take credit for what was done before’im also. :Poke: ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

How 'bout the WHOLE truth...not just the tail end of events.
We’re just being set up for a wider war and as usual we’re not being told everything.

Yep! All the news that’s fit to print.

The US and British have already been in Iran doing covert de-stabilizing activities via a terrorist group called MEK. This allegedly began to be set-up when we first went into Iraq. If anyone believes that we’re not in a country at some level before overt hostilities begin then they’re just naïve. We expect the Iranians to just roll over when we wouldn’t?

NeoCons intended to go after Iran and Syria years ago.

This Hezbollah outbreak as a reaction was predicted three months ago.
It’s all going according to script:

(1) Prior attacks in Iran linked to British Intel (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6379)

• Attacks on Iranian Govt convoy
• Bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005.
• American and British security officials have had meetings with certain leaders of bandits and have encouraged them to carry out terrorist attacks [in Iran]”, he said.
• Other escalating unrest in Iran

The Iranians KNOW it.
(2) US has been in Iran (http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/tehran-insider-tells-of-us-black-ops.html)
"The president hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran," said Sam Gardiner

(3) May 11, 2006: US agititation in Iran underway BEFORE recent attacks (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html)
You can say what you want about RawStory as a source due to its predictions on Rove being indicted. They were half right on it. But this is based on Hersh who has many scoops to his credit including Abu Graib

According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.

(4) Iran Plans: April 2006 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

Recent Events with Iran/Hezbollah were Predicted
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies. “The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines.

Sure seems to me like the PNAC NeoCon's intended all along to provoke Iran into an attack to get public opinion on their side.

[BucEyedPea]

It's Our War (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp)
I always felt that Iraq was the [i] Weekly Standard's war and that it was done for the benefit of securing Israel. Never felt it was for oil...that's a left-wing anti-capitalist view imo.

This recent article by those who brought us the rhetoric for going into Iraq, despite how wrong they've been on major facts.

Mr Trotskyte NeoCon Kristol, it’s NOT our war…it’s Israel’s.

Not all our enemies are foreign...some are domestic.
These guys need to be weeded out.

Propaganda!

[banyon]

It is.

From the AP (and as you know, it doesn't get much more "widely" than the AP): Israel: Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500189.html)

From the Jerusalem Post: Iranian troops assisted Hizbullah in firing a radar-guided missile (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886004498&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

Better, though AP>Jerusalem Post. :)

[patteeu]

Trotskyte NeoCon

Despite the fact that the Neocon faction was started by liberals who grew uncomfortable with the dovishness of the McGovern democrat party, I don't understand why you insist on labeling the modern-day movement as Trotskyte. Part of my problem might be that I don't really know much about Leon Trotsky's theory of communism, but I really don't see anything close to a 1 to 1 relationship between foreign policy neocons and those Republicans who have become comfortable with big government domestically much less with communism. In fact, the bigger problem the Republican party has with big government advocates is with the so-called Rockefeller Republicans (who are generally not neocons) and some branches of the social conservatives (who may or may not be neocons) afaics. I'm sure there are some neocons who still retain the liberal roots of the movement founders, but I'm equally convinced that most do not. Ronald Reagan was as much a neocon as most of those you'd call neocon today.

Maybe I'm missing something? Could you explain to me how Bill Kristol (who I know is the son of one of the original neocons) or the neocon movement in general is following a Trotskyte path? Is this really just an interventionist versus noninterventionist thing?

[Iowanian]

I'm sure the US HAS intelligence and spec ops on the ground in Iran. They have to find where the shape charges and EFPs are being manufactured somehow.

I know a marine intelligence guy who spent several months in Syria over the last couple of years. what exactly was being done, I'm not sure....but I know that we know where alot more assholes are hiding than is ever let on.

[go bowe]

I'm sure the US HAS intelligence and spec ops on the ground in Iran. They have to find where the shape charges and EFPs are being manufactured somehow.

I know a marine intelligence guy who spent several months in Syria over the last couple of years. what exactly was being done, I'm not sure....but I know that we know where alot more assholes are hiding than is ever let on.then why don't we just take their asses out?


on a related note, some of the news outlets are reporting that israel spent the last 6 years identifying and locating the stores, depots, and leadership of hezbollah so they know exactly what they are shooting at and exactly where it is...

i think this explains why there has not been any cross border incursion by israeli ground forces...

[BucEyedPea]

Despite the fact that the Neocon faction was started by liberals who grew uncomfortable with the dovishness of the McGovern democrat party, I don't understand why you insist on labeling the modern-day movement as Trotskyte. Part of my problem might be that I don't really know much about Leon Trotsky's theory of communism, but I really don't see anything close to a 1 to 1 relationship between foreign policy neocons and those Republicans who have become comfortable with big government domestically much less with communism. In fact, the bigger problem the Republican party has with big government advocates is with the so-called Rockefeller Republicans (who are generally not neocons) and some branches of the social conservatives (who may or may not be neocons) afaics. I'm sure there are some neocons who still retain the liberal roots of the movement founders, but I'm equally convinced that most do not. Ronald Reagan was as much a neocon as most of those you'd call neocon today.

Maybe I'm missing something? Could you explain to me how Bill Kristol (who I know is the son of one of the original neocons) or the neocon movement in general is following a Trotskyte path? Is this really just an interventionist versus noninterventionist thing?
You might wanna read his own father's book on
NeoConservativism. He admits to it. Amazon.com carries it, as well as various other books on it.
You will even find a lot about their dubious roots (Trostky's belief in permanent warfare to create revolutionary change...in this case democratic and use o Stauss) on the web particularly on libertarian sites like Rockwell and Raimondo. Even the Christian Science Monitor has some data on them including a quiz to see if you are really one. Although it's not all that in depth. I think you're intelligent enough to do these things.

“Many of the top chieftains of the War Party are ex-leftists of one sort or another,” explains Justin Raimondo. “They owe more to Hegel, Marx, and Leon Trotsky than to Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises. The ‘godfather’ of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol, was a Trotskyite in his youth, and the kibitzing that went on in Cubicle B at City College of New York has achieved the status of legend. The official line, of course, is that this was all just a youthful indiscretion and that any such allegiances have long since been put away in a trunk somewhere.” In essence, the Straussian neocons are Marxist reactionaries with a deep and long Jacobin streak.-- Justin Raimondo-Libertarian
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=366

[go bowe]

Thanks. I stand corrected. ;)

Now, about your analogy. I still think it misses the mark because it's too short-sighted. Sure the hornets will get stirred up if you start knocking their nests down and spraying the area with insecticide. But eventually they won't have anyplace left to live and they'll either move on or die. I can only hope that we will finish the job (not only in Iraq, but throughout the region) and not run away just because the hornets are a little more agitated than usual. Some people want to just avoid agitating the hornets by avoiding their nests as much as possible, but if you really want to get rid of them, you have to risk a few stings.not me...

i'd hire an exterminator...

[FringeNC]

You might wanna read his own father's books on
NeoConservativism. Amazon.com carries it, as well as various other books on it.
You will even find a lot about their dubious roots (Trostky's belief in permanent warfare to create revolutionary change...in this case democratic and Stauss) on the web particularly on libertarian sites like Rockwell and Raimondo. Even the Christian Science Monitor has some data on them including a quiz to see if you are really one. Although it's not all that in depth. I think you're intelligent enough to do these things.

Rockwell and Raimondo are embarrassments to libertarians. They are no different from the blame-America-first Chomskyites. They assume all evil in the world is caused by the United States government (as opposed to the typical hard-leftist who blames U.S. capitalism), and that United States is always the first mover (using game-theory lingo). How about an alternative explanation: Islam has been engaged in jihad against the West for 1300 years and we are now the face of the West. We must certainly are not the first-movers. In other words, there are forces at play other than the evil U.S. government, something the Rockwells and Raimondos of the world fail to acknowledge.

I find the Randian libertarians much more persuasive on foreign policy than Rockwell.

[BucEyedPea]

I find the Randian libertarians much more persuasive on foreign policy than Rockwell.

You're entitled to your opinion but I feel it's the other way around.

I can see how you'd feel this way because you're for this part of the war. The Objectivists have simply bought into the half-truths and hysteria. If I believed them I'd be for it as well. I do believe there are times we must fight. But I am not about to fight Israel's war for them. It's only been a lessor amount of libertarians that have supported Iraq...64% opposed from the get-go per what I read. The Randian Objectivists have abandoned their philosophical roots. In fact they've been called out for this by other right-libertarians and have been asked to return home. I think it's time they do.

[FringeNC]

You're entitled to your opinion but I feel it's the other way around.

I can see how you'd feel this way because you're for this part of the war. The Objectivists have simply bought into the half-truths and hysteria. If I believed them I'd be for it as well. I do believe there are times we must fight. But I am not about to fight Israel's war for them. It's only been a lessor amount of libertarians that have supported Iraq...64% opposed from the get-go per what I read. The Randian Objectivists have abandoned their philosophical roots. In fact they've been called out for this by other right-libertarians and have been asked to return home. I think it's time they do.

Whether the war was an optimal response or not, I cannot take those two seriously when they always treat the United States government as the only force that actors respond to. If I am not mistaken, they blame us for 9/11.

And if you think the objectivists are hawks try reading open-source guru / libertarian Eric S. Raymond.

[Nightwish]

Still clinging to the myth that there was no cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, eh?Still clinging to the myth that there was, eh? Let me spell it out for you: a few members of Al Qaeda existing in Iraq does not equal "cooperation" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. A couple members of Al Qaeda receiving medical treatment in Iraq is not tantamount to "cooperation" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. Evidence that someone from Al Qaeda beseeched someone from Saddam's regime for help, especially in the absence of evidence that Iraq agreed to provide said help, does not elevate the nature of that interaction to "cooperation" or "collaboration." Have we had a Cole or Kobar outside of our two primary war zones since 9/11 or is GWBush doing an extraordinary job of fending off terrorism against our interests?To the first, no. But that's hardly relevent, as they don't need to go to the extra effort to plot against us abroad, when they have so many of our targets conveniently right in front of them in the two primary war zones. Would that particular record be different if we were not currently at war? You can't say. As to the second, the answer is a resounding no.You must get your economic news from tech stock speculators.I get it from the real world, you know, the one in which the national deficit is not ignored as part of the economy? I get it from the world in which I don't forget that I'm paying nearly $3 a gallon for gasoline. You should try it sometime.

[patteeu]

You might wanna read his own father's book on
NeoConservativism. He admits to it. Amazon.com carries it, as well as various other books on it.
You will even find a lot about their dubious roots (Trostky's belief in permanent warfare to create revolutionary change...in this case democratic and use o Stauss) on the web particularly on libertarian sites like Rockwell and Raimondo. Even the Christian Science Monitor has some data on them including a quiz to see if you are really one. Although it's not all that in depth. I think you're intelligent enough to do these things.


http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=366

Instead of a family tree, I'd rather hear what philosophical similarities there are between 21st century neocon foreign policy preferences (e.g. PNAC) and Hegel, Marx, or Trotsky. If you're telling me that they just want war so that they can achieve some nefarious socialist objectives on the domestic front, I'm not buying it. I don't know whether Irving Kristol's book will answer this question, but I'm really not looking for a treatise on the subject.

Ronald Reagan was an FDR fan.

David Horowitz was a radical leftist.

John Kerry was against the war, then for the war, then against the war.

People change. (The John Kerry one was TIC as he's still the political opportunist that he's always been)

Irving Kristol said of himself that he was a liberal mugged by reality.

People change.

From Raimondo quoted in the source you provided:

The neocons retain the methods as well as the ideology of the left: party-line politics, periodic purges, and the nasty habit of smearing their opponents rather than engaging them in debate.

It occurs to me that that description could be just as easily applied to those who are smearing the neocons as it could be to the neocons themselves.

We're all Trotskytes now?

[patteeu]

To the first, no. But that's hardly relevent, as they don't need to go to the extra effort to plot against us abroad, when they have so many of our targets conveniently right in front of them in the two primary war zones. Would that particular record be different if we were not currently at war? You can't say. As to the second, the answer is a resounding no.

So you're admitting that the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" approach is working? Sounds extraordinarily successful to me.

I get it from the real world, you know, the one in which the national deficit is not ignored as part of the economy? I get it from the world in which I don't forget that I'm paying nearly $3 a gallon for gasoline. You should try it sometime.

Those are some pretty narrow measures of economic health you've got there. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your analysis.

[BucEyedPea]

Whether the war was an optimal response or not, I cannot take those two seriously when they always treat the United States government as the only force that actors respond to. If I am not mistaken, they blame us for 9/11.

Well that's not EXACTLY what they say. Although, I admit they can be like that at times as they believe it across the board. I don't agree with that view of theirs for the Cold War or not entirely.

It's more they believe that an interventionist foreign policy results in blow back. As does the Conservative Independent Institute which is less emotional, and less ad hominen in their analysis of what's going on. Lew, Craig Roberts, Brovard, Justin feel our entangling alliances over there have set us up as a target. Side with someone take the hit by their enemies so to speak. Just a natural consequence. I have to agree when it comes to the ME...although I don't believe, and don't believe they think, that we originally created the ME conflict.

None of these views are hardly out of line with Washington, Jefferson and Madison in going abroad seeking monster's to destroy.

And if you think the objectivists are hawks try reading open-source guru / libertarian Eric S. Raymond.

I saw hawk sentiment on the Ayn Rand site where they were advocating going into Iraq.Those to me are the Objectivists.

[Nightwish]

So you're admitting that the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" approach is working?Depends what you mean by "working." Working, for the moment, to keep them off our shores and from US targets away from the Middle East, perhaps. Working to stem the tide of terrorism, in general, or even to stem the tide of anti-American terrorism? Not by a long shot.Those are some pretty narrow measures of economic health you've got there. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your analysis.By "narrow," you mean "doesn't quite fit with the way I want to spin it." Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your tendency to redefine terms and cherry-pick factors to support your penchant for pro-Bush spin. For the record, I didn't say those are the only indicators of economic health. In fact, in case you've already forgotten (you forget things rather easily, when it isn't convenient for you to recall them), I said the economy is on an upswing. In fact, what I implied by listing those two factors was not that they are the only two measures of economic health, but that they are measures which you are intentionally omitting in your measurement of economic health. Omission does seem to be your bent these days. Why is that?

[FringeNC]

Well that's not EXACTLY what they say. Although, I admit they can be like that at times as they believe it across the board. I don't agree with that view of theirs for the Cold War or not entirely.

It's more they believe that an interventionist foreign policy results in blow back. As does the Conservative Independent Institute which is less emotional, and less ad hominen in their analysis of what's going on. Lew, Craig Roberts, Brovard, Justin feel our entangling alliances over there have set us up as a target. Side with someone take the hit by their enemies so to speak. Just a natural consequence. I have to agree when it comes to the ME...although I don't believe, and don't believe they think, that we originally created the ME conflict.

None of these views are hardly out of line with Washington, Jefferson and Madison in going abroad seeking monster's to destroy.



I saw hawk sentiment on the Ayn Rand site where they were advocating going into Iraq.Those to me are the Objectivists.

I know a guy that works at the Ayn Rand institute. He wasn't for the Iraq war, but couldn't stand the Rockwell crowd's anti-Americanism, or whatever he may have called it. He was so disgusted that he wanted no part of being called a libertarian anymore.

Aren't those guys you mentioned associated with Pat Buchanan? Buchanan is a little too anti-Semitic for my taste. (Not to mention his stands on trade, and many other things.)

[BucEyedPea]

I know a guy that works at the Ayn Rand institute. He wasn't for the Iraq war, but couldn't stand the Rockwell crowd's anti-Americanism, or whatever he may have called it. He was so disgusted that he wanted no part of being called a libertarian anymore.

Aren't those guys you mentioned associated with Pat Buchanan? Buchanan is a little too anti-Semitic for my taste. (Not to mention his stands on trade, and many other things.)

I love the way association with Pat get's used as a smear even when they agree on one single issue. The whole anti-semite defamation of Pat comes the the NeoCons of course. They're famous for that ad homimen. Many of Pat's alleged anti-semite comments have been taken out of context, not to speak of the fact that a Rabbi headed his prez campaign. Twice I believe. These guys say the same of Justin...it's usually a sign of a NeoCon or and idea originally put out by a NeoCon to discredit their critics. It's not anti-semitic to criticize Israel.

No they are not associated with Pat. They only agree with him on the WoT and Iraq. Sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows. Obviously, they disagree with him on trade, as they support free trade ( but real free trade...not the Nafta farce) and they are not with him on social values. Certainly you'd know that judging from what I see you read.

But what about the guys at the Mises Institute they in the same camp.

NeoCons are responsible for the resurgence of big gov...it's big govt with a vengence...and that's true on non-war issues too.

BTW I have met Mr Buchanan and he is not at all anti-semitic. He's actually very tolerant of non-mainstream religions too. He just an isolationist and he'd say the same about any other country that gets the amount of financial aid or leads us into war. He's also a Roman Catholic who believes in the Christian Just War theory which Pope John Paul relied on to condemn the war in Iraq.

[FringeNC]

I love the way association with Pat get's used as a smear even when they agree on one single issue. The whole anti-semite defamation of Pat comes the the NeoCons of course. They're famous for that ad homimen. Many of Pat's alleged anti-semite comments have been taken out of context, not to speak of the fact that a Rabbi headed his prez campaign. Twice I believe. These guys say the same of Justin...it's usually a sign of a NeoCon or and idea originally put out by a NeoCon to discredit their critics. It's not anti-semitic to criticize Israel.

No they are not associated with Pat. They only agree with him on the WoT and Iraq. Sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows. Obviously, they disagree with him on trade, as they support free trade ( but real free trade...not the Nafta farce) and they are not with him on social values. Certainly you'd know that judging from what I see you read.

But what about the guys at the Mises Institute they in the same camp.

NeoCons are responsible for the resurgence of big gov...it's big govt with a vengence...and that's true on non-war issues too.

BTW I have met Mr Buchanan and he is not at all anti-semitic. He's actually very tolerant of non-mainstream religions too. He just an isolationist and he'd say the same about any other country that gets the amount of financial aid or leads us into war. He's also a Roman Catholic who believes in the Christian Just War theory which Pope John Paul relied on to condemn the war in Iraq.

Found this through a search. I am even surprised at the venom level coming out of these Rockwell guys. If these guys are what is considered mainstream libertarians today, I won't no part of it:

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1597980/posts

I'm also shocked at how unintelligable it all is.

[BucEyedPea]

Found this through a search. I am even surprised at the venom level coming out of these Rockwell guys. If these guys are what is considered mainstream libertarians today, I won't no part of it:

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1597980/posts

I'm also shocked at how unintelligable it all is.
That's an opinion piece.
And Bush & NeoCons do want to go to war. Just listen to some of the talking heads on Fox like Hannity.. and worse Gingrich. Claiming that hitting military targets as a "terrorist" act in the case of the Marine barracks bombing. That's a half truth. It's right out of Project for New American Century at the American Enterprise Insitute. Congressman Ron Paul makes the same claims. These guys have hijacked our foreign policy and it is not a Reaganesque one at all. Jim Baker,Scowcroft are not in their camps either...these guys are called the realists.

[FringeNC]

That's an opinion piece.
And Bush & NeoCons do want to go to war. Just listen to some of the talking heads on Fox like Hannity.. and worse Gingrich. Claiming that hitting military targets as a "terrorist" act in the case of the Marine barracks bombing. That's a half truth. It's right out of Project for New American Century at the American Enterprise Insitute. Congressman Ron Paul makes the same claims. These guys have hijacked our foreign policy and it is not a Reaganesque one at all. Jim Baker,Scowcroft are not in their camps either...these guys are called the realists.

Disagreeing with the Iraq policy is fine. Suggesting the invasion is motivated by some off the wall theory is not, at least in my opinion. I mean the neo-con agenda is rather transparent: reform the mid-east by introducing democracy and capitalism. Why do we need a conspiracy theory to explain when it's so transparent?

and this is a new one:

that Southern Baptists and the late Pope John Paul II are responsible for Islamic female circumcision.

If Paul Craig Roberts did indeed agree with that comment, then he needs some Thorazine.

[BucEyedPea]

Disagreeing with the Iraq policy is fine. Suggesting the invasion is motivated by some off the wall theory is not, at least in my opinion. I mean the neo-con agenda is rather transparent: reform the mid-east by introducing democracy and capitalism. Why do we need a conspiracy theory to explain when it's so transparent?

Bingo!
I always say this myself...they're bold and open about it.
It's a mission, an agenda but not a conspiracy.
It's the NeoCon's who've labelled it as such.
Their aims are posted over at the American Enterprise Institute.
What they don't tell ya' is how they're gonna do it. That's where Strauss comes in. And where the leftist idea of the "means justifies the ends."

If Paul Craig Roberts did indeed agree with that comment, then he needs some Thorazine.
Well, I never saw that. I'm saying I agree with these folks on foreign policy today, Iraq and other aspects of the WoT. For all I know he many be anti-Catholic or anti-Papist. I don't really care.

But Bush says some crazy things too. I mean Bush says God told him to invade Iraq as if he's a male Jean d'Arc hearing voices. Bush says he's going to make over the world. That's the link to the permanent warfare and revolution. That is not conservatism and is not Americanism. It's Wilsonianism which is left and progressive. I see the anti-war Left as soft-Wilsonians and the NeoCons (lefties really) as hard-Wilsonians. It's all left.

BTW I do not even consider myself a Libertarian.
I consider myself conservative with a libertarian streak.
So I don't agree with all their stands...but I do on 70% of this war.

I just don't want to see a repeat of Iraq magnified into WWIII for Israel under the rubric of our national security. It isn't.
It's not our fight.


Note They're also not bringing capitalism...they're bringing Third Way Socialism. Cripes! Even Israel is a socialist country.

[mlyonsd]

Still clinging to the myth that there was, eh? Let me spell it out for you

Let me spell it out for you.

Any tie between AQ and Saddam makes him fair game and I would expect any President to have done the same thing after 911.

I know I'm in the minority here but I'd bet money Saddam wouldn't be in power right now if Gore would have become president.

[patteeu]

I know a guy that works at the Ayn Rand institute. He wasn't for the Iraq war, but couldn't stand the Rockwell crowd's anti-Americanism, or whatever he may have called it. He was so disgusted that he wanted no part of being called a libertarian anymore.

Aren't those guys you mentioned associated with Pat Buchanan? Buchanan is a little too anti-Semitic for my taste. (Not to mention his stands on trade, and many other things.)

Pat Buchanan isn't anti-Semitic. He regularly opposes policies that are favorable to Israel, but that doesn't make a person anti-Semitic. Like you, I don't agree with many of the things he says, but I wouldn't go that far.

[patteeu]

But Bush says some crazy things too. I mean Bush says God told him to invade Iraq as if he's a male Jean d'Arc hearing voices. Bush says he's going to make over the world.

How do you know? Do you know where that story came from? You are so willing to believe anything negative you hear about Bush and the "Neocons" that you'll accept the word of an Arab propagandist over the denial of the person to whom Bush was allegedly speaking (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, IIRC)?

[Amnorix]

Clinton rode Papa Bush's and Reagan's coat tails through all of what you just mentioned, he was not responsible for any of it.

For EIGHT years? Through Bosnia? Through various other hotspots?

That is fugging absurd. ABSURD. Give me a break.

[StcChief]

For EIGHT years? Through Bosnia? Through various other hotspots?

That is fugging absurd. ABSURD. Give me a break.
Clinton also dismantled the CIA and crippled our ability to find out intel.
the first attempt at WTC in 1993 should have been a huge wakeup call.
Could say he just became president and it all happened on Bush 41.

Didn't do anything about it, Somolia, Negotiating with NK etc.
Just BS do nothing for 8 years.

Name one thing Clinton accomplished.

[Radar Chief]

Clinton also dismantled the CIA and crippled our ability to find out intel.
the first attempt at WTC in 1993 should have been a huge wakeup call.
Could say he just became president and it all happened on Bush 41.

Didn't do anything about it, Somolia, Negotiating with NK etc.
Just BS do nothing for 8 years.

Name one thing Clinton accomplished.


Welfare Reform.

Oh yea, 100! :rockon:

[go bowe]

How do you know? Do you know where that story came from? You are so willing to believe anything negative you hear about Bush and the "Neocons" that you'll accept the word of an Arab propagandist over the denial of the person to whom Bush was allegedly speaking (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, IIRC)?ahh, bush isn't so bad...

it's that cheney guy... :mad: :mad: :mad:

[go bowe]

Let me spell it out for you.

Any tie between AQ and Saddam makes him fair game and I would expect any President to have done the same thing after 911.

I know I'm in the minority here but I'd bet money Saddam wouldn't be in power right now if Gore would have become president.al gore?

the same al gore who smooched his wife in front of the whole country for like 10 minutes to show that he really wasn't a wooden figure?

the same al gore who helped create the internet?

i'd have to say al gore would have never taken us into iraq...

particularly with a republican controlled congress...

[go bowe]

. . .Name one thing Clinton accomplished.
he got the most famous blow job in all of recorded history, and maybe for all time...






i wonder if she was any good?

well, he went back for more, so she must have been like ok at least...

[go bowe]

Welfare Reform.

Oh yea, 100! :rockon:maaaaaannn...

you get all the good posts... :huh:

[Nightwish]

Let me spell it out for you.

Any tie between AQ and Saddam makes him fair game and I would expect any President to have done the same thing after 911.
I'm sure most of them would, at least with regard to Afghanistan. But not with regard to Iraq. The "ties" that have been discovered between Iraq and Al Qaeda are about equal to the "ties" that have been discovered between the US and Al Qaeda, e.g. some members were living in Iraq (some were living in America), some members benefitted from social services (hospital aid in Iraq, aircraft training in America), both had communications between their governments and Al Qaeda members (we armed and supported bin Laden against the Russians not that long ago). If Iraq is "tied" to Al Qaeda based on such flimsy associations, so are we.

I know I'm in the minority here but I'd bet money Saddam wouldn't be in power right now if Gore would have become president.
Even Madame Cleo couldn't say.

[Nightwish]

Clinton also dismantled the CIA and crippled our ability to find out intel.Incorrect. He didn't "dismantle" the CIA. He revamped the CIA, focusing on a shifting paradigm in intelligence technologies, cutting down on the number of agents in the field, and increasing technological means of intelligence gathering. It was basically an experiment, and it is impossible to say whether or not it worked, since BushCo started stove-piping intelligence (circumventing proper vetting procedures) very soon after they took office. Since BushCo screwed up the intelligence-gathering process so badly, it's really impossible to say how much of the intelligence failures are on Clinton's admin, and how much are on Bush's.the first attempt at WTC in 1993 should have been a huge wakeup call.Right, it's not as if bin Laden was declared Public Enemy #1 after that, and it's not as if the people who were directly responsible for the bombing were hunted, caught, and brought to justice! Oh, wait ...Could say he just became president and it all happened on Bush 41.You could say that, and it would be a spin for the ages!Didn't do anything about it, Somolia, Negotiating with NK etc.
Just BS do nothing for 8 years.Gotta love the right-wing's penchant for BS!Name one thing Clinton accomplished.National surplus, peace in Northern Ireland, closer to catching bin Laden than Bush has ever been (until bin Laden's captors reneged on the deal and let him go before our people could reach him). Name one thing Bush has accomplished, besides record deficits, a constant stream of terror alerts, and a populace living in fear.

[BucEyedPea]

Welfare Reform.

Oh yea, 100! :rockon:

Ya' know I was reading on a Mises Economics site that Clinton's welfare reform has actually moved 58% off the rolls. I thought a lot of that "reform" was lip service; that he wrote a lot back in later, As it turns, such legislation ( as most doesn't) actually had the intended effect. Imagine that.

Bush's presidency comes closest to LBJ's at this point in time including domestic spending. At this point in time, Clinton was more conservative than Bush, if you mean less govt. Many more conservatives are finally awakening to the fact that he's really a lefty.

[Radar Chief]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764035,00.html

The missed opportunities are documented in Blinking Red, an Al-Jazeera series beginning this week to mark the fourth anniversary of September 11.
It describes how Bill Clinton’s administration turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to help to capture Bin Laden when he was living in Khartoum in the early to mid-1990s. It also shows how the Americans “lost” two of the September 11 hijackers despite having them under surveillance. The two men later entered America.
“The Bush administration has still not come clean with the American people about 9/11. Our investigation, which has taken a year to complete, has raised many outstanding questions that urgently need to be answered, not least over the missed opportunities to take out senior leaders of the organisation,” said Al-Jazeera.
The nearest the CIA came to killing Bin Laden was on the hunting trip in February 1999, just a few months before the Predator incident. The site was a camp in the desert south of Kandahar where Bin Laden had gone with wealthy visitors from the United Arab Emirates.
Afghan agents reported the trip to a CIA station. Tracking teams were immediately dispatched and by February 9 they had located the isolated camp, close to a large airstrip.
Richard Clarke, Clinton’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, has written in his memoirs: “When word came through that we had a contemporaneous sighting from our informants, the counter-terrorism security group met immediately by secure video conference.”
An attack on the camp using cruise missiles was the only option the Americans could employ at such short notice. The previous year a similar strike using dozens of missiles had been launched on the Khalden training camp in the east of the country, but there were few casualties and the work of the camp was hardly disrupted. This time, with a smaller, more clearly defined target, the intelligence experts believed they would have more luck.
The attack was planned for February 11, but according to Scheuer the White House stalled. Officials wanted more information about Bin Laden’s movements.

[Radar Chief]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058597_1,00.html


February 26, 2006

Total war: Inside the new Al-Qaeda
Last week’s desecration of a Shi’ite shrine moved Iraq towards civil war. Abdel Bari Atwan, who has had unique access to Osama Bin Laden, explains why Al-Qaeda wants to divide Islam.

From page 3 talk’n ‘bout Zarqawi.

To understand what happened next, and to see how this obscure figure has emerged to such prominence, we have to look at the strange world of pre-invasion Iraq.
In enclaves in the Kurdish north, close to the Turkish and Iranian borders and beyond Saddam Hussein’s jurisdiction, several Sunni organisations opposed to Saddam’s secular regime had set up base. Jordanian contacts in one of these, Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam), smoothed the way for Zarqawi to establish his own camp.
Ansar al-Islam is an important footnote to the invasion of Iraq. Much has been made of a possible connection between it and Al-Qaeda in the course of US intelligence efforts to link Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
I met its leader, Mullah Krekar, in Oslo last year and he vigorously denied Al-Qaeda had helped it in any way. He said he had personally asked Bin Laden for financial help and had been turned down. (It must be added that many sources dispute this was their last meeting.)
Like Zarqawi, many Arabs fleeing American retaliation in Afghanistan after 9/11 found refuge with Ansar al-Islam. But then came an unexpected development. According to Dr Muhammad al-Masari, a Saudi specialist on Al-Qaeda’s ideology, Saddam established contact with the “Afghan Arabs” as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the US once the Taliban was routed.
In this version, disputed by other commentators, Saddam funded Al-Qaeda operatives to move into Iraq with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime. Sources close to the Ba’ath regime have told me that Saddam also used to send messengers to buy small plots of land from farmers in Sunni areas. In the middle of the night soldiers would bury arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.
According to Masari, Saddam saw that Islam would be key to a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion. Iraqi army commanders were ordered to become practising Muslims and to adopt the language and spirit of the jihadis.
On arrival in Iraq, Al-Qaeda operatives were put in touch with these commanders, who later facilitated the distribution of arms and money from Saddam’s caches.
Most commentators agree that Al-Qaeda was present in Iraq before the US invasion. The question is for how long and to what extent. What is known is that Zarqawi took a direct role in Al-Qaeda’s infiltration. In March 2003 — it is not clear whether this was before or after the invasion began — he met Al-Qaeda’s military strategist, an Egyptian called Muhammad Ibrahim Makkawi, and agreed to assist Al-Qaeda operatives entering Iraq.
Makkawi is a shadowy figure. Little is known about him except that he used to be a war strategies expert in the Egyptian army. His greater strategy for Al-Qaeda, revealed on a jihadist website, is to “expand the (Iraqi) conflict throughout the region and engage the US in a long war of attrition . . . create a jihad Triangle of Horror starting in Aghanistan, running through Iran and southern Iraq then via southern Turkey and south Lebanon to Syria”.
With his new role as Al-Qaeda facilitator Zarqawi rapidly gained importance. Newly arrived Arab recruits were dependent on him for contacts and local knowledge, and — as the anti-American insurgency developed after the invasion — he provided the intelligence for co-ordinated attacks that were instantly more effective than random independent operations. As a result he effectively became the emir of the foreign jihadis in Iraq.
I believe that his aim was to drag the Shi’ites into a civil war. His choice of provocative targets bears this out: he was almost certainly behind the massacre of 185 Shi’ite pilgrims who were killed in Karbala and Baghdad in March 2004.
Zarqawi was in negotiations with the Al-Qaeda leadership for nearly a year before they finally announced an alliance and created “Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers” (Iraq) in 2004. Already established as a formidable leader, he waited to negotiate from a position of strength over his insistence on an anti-Shi’ite campaign.
Perhaps he would have preferred to usurp Bin Laden as leader of Al-Qaeda, but he had the strategic sense to realise this was not going to be possible and therefore decided to submit. He needed Bin Laden’s blessing and the Al-Qaeda name to bring him thousands of new recruits from all over the world (not just from Arab countries).
Al-Qaeda needed him, too. At the time of the new alliance its fortunes were lagging. The attacks on Afghanistan and increased security measures the world over had seen its numbers dwindle; its 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia had hit its popularity in the kingdom.
A new presence in Iraq, especially with such a high-profile, magnetic (if terrifying) leader as Zarqawi, promised a new lease on life. The Al-Qaeda leadership was not to be disappointed.

[patteeu]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0Hello - commatard on the loose.2092-2058597_1,00.html



From page 3 talk’n ‘bout Zarqawi.

Yea, but that's not much different then the help al Qaeda got in the US when Dick Cheney personally ordered GW Bush to plant explosives in the twin towers. Isn't that right, Nightwish?

[Radar Chief]

Yea, but that's not much different then the help al Qaeda got in the US when Dick Cheney personally ordered GW Bush to plant explosives in the twin towers. Isn't that right, Nightwish?

:LOL: You guys get off on punch’n each others buttons, done’cha. ;)

[CRONUS]

Destabilization was one of the goals. That's what happens when you replace a regime. When you criticize the fact that we armed Saddam, you are criticizing the policy that holds stability above almost all else. That was the policy of both Republican and democrat presidents alike for decades. Bush and the neocons broke from that failed approach. They intended to shake up the status quo in an effort to solve the middle eastern problem instead of just paper it over while the people of the region continued to resent their authoritarian masters. There are always unintended consequences. Whether or not these consequences can be managed to success of the overall goal remains to be seen, but IMO the situation is far more promising than it's ever been before during my adult life. My biggest fear is that Bush will lose his nerve and give in to his critics who prize stability and who are calling on Israel to be proportionate in it's response to provocation.

If that was the Bush administration goal then they failed miserably. The middle east has never been in worse shape. Typical of the the failed Presidency that we are witnessing.

[Cochise]

Yea, but that's not much different then the help al Qaeda got in the US when Dick Cheney personally ordered GW Bush to plant explosives in the twin towers. Isn't that right, Nightwish?

I heard that "Damnit" Karl Rove had demolitions engineers set to implode the buildings so they would spell out the name of half a dozen CIA agents too.

[patteeu]

If that was the Bush administration goal then they failed miserably. The middle east has never been in worse shape. Typical of the the failed Presidency that we are witnessing.

If you are measuring success in terms of maintaining the status quo stability then destabilization looks like failure. But I'm OK with waiting to see if this destabilization results in a more fundamentally sound stability in the long run and I'm convinced that someone who can swing from extreme to extreme like you've done will be equally capable of swinging back when it happens. :p

[patteeu]

I heard that "Damnit" Karl Rove had demolitions engineers set to implode the buildings so they would spell out the name of half a dozen CIA agents too.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

[mlyonsd]

If you are measuring success in terms of maintaining the status quo stability then destabilization looks like failure. But I'm OK with waiting to see if this destabilization results in a more fundamentally sound stability in the long run and I'm convinced that someone who can swing from extreme to extreme like you've done will be equally capable of swinging back when it happens. :p

ROFL Sorry Jim, but that was funny.

[Iowanian]

Name one thing Bush has accomplished, besides record deficits, a constant stream of terror alerts, and a populace living in fear.

I'll name one.

After seeing Iraq, Libya decided to come to the table, accepted UN intervention and destroyed its Nuclear facilities and weapons ambitions.

[Nightwish]

I'll name one.

After seeing Iraq, Libya decided to come to the table, accepted UN intervention and destroyed its Nuclear facilities and weapons ambitions.
That didn't just start to happen after Iraq. Libya had been in negotiations with the UN for several years, seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement in order to stop their nuclear ambitions. Iraq may have sped up the process a little bit, but the end result was the result of several years of meetings and negotiations, not the result of looking at Iraq and suddenly shaking in their boots.

[Chiefs Minor Satellite]

That didn't just start to happen after Iraq. Libya had been in negotiations with the UN for several years, seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement in order to stop their nuclear ambitions. Iraq may have sped up the process a little bit, but the end result was the result of several years of meetings and negotiations, not the result of looking at Iraq and suddenly shaking in their boots.

What does it take to award credit to Bush for what was done? It doesn't seem like you can see anything with the administration regardless of what has happened and who might have cause it to happen. Your basic comment seems to lend credibility to those that blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks due to his incompetence while he was in office.

[Nightwish]

What does it take to award credit to Bush for what was done? It doesn't seem like you can see anything with the administration regardless of what has happened and who might have cause it to happen. Your basic comment seems to lend credibility to those that blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks due to his incompetence while he was in office.My comment said nothing at all about 9/11. 9/11 wasn't even brought up. Where did you see something about 9/11 in my comment?

As to awarding credit to Bush, he doesn't deserve the credit, though the situation in Iraq may deserve a small share of the credit. For one thing, the argument from the right is that the Libyans looked at what was happening, suddenly got worried it might happen to them, and suddenly decided to come to the table. That argument, of course, ignores the entire history of the negotations between Lybia and the UN, save for that small cross section of that history that begins with the invasion of Iraq. So there are two things that one could argue caused Lybia to reach an agreement wrt abandoning its nuclear ambitions. The first one, which has only the most facile semblance of correctness, is that they did it because of our actions in Iraq, which, imo, doesn't point the credit to Bush, since he's not over there doing the fighting. The second one, which is far more correct, is that it is the outcome of years of negotiations with the UN (which Bush has shoved aside and all but refused to participate with), perhaps expedited by the situation in Iraq. If you used enough circular logic, I suppose one could give Bush a very small percentage of the credit (maybe about 3%), but he certainly doesn't deserve the lion's share, because he simply hasn't done anything wrt to Libya.

[Iowanian]

You asked for an accomplishment...This is a fact that this was accomplished under Bush's control.

That didn't just start to happen after Iraq. Libya had been in negotiations with the UN for several years, seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement in order to stop their nuclear ambitions. Iraq may have sped up the process a little bit, but the end result was the result of several years of meetings and negotiations, not the result of looking at Iraq and suddenly shaking in their boots.

[Nightwish]

You asked for an accomplishment...This is a fact that this was accomplished under Bush's control.
Incorrect. "During Bush's term" does not equate to "under Bush's control." Bush didn't have much to do with it. For that matter, the US didn't have a whole lot to do with it. The UN had a great deal to do with it.

[Rausch]

Incorrect. "During Bush's term" does not equate to "under Bush's control."

[Nightwish]

?

[Rausch]

?

If you believe that the UN has more influence than the POTUS (I don't care who he is) you're nucking futs...

[Nightwish]

If you believe that the UN has more influence than the POTUS (I don't care who he is) you're nucking futs...
It's not a question of who has more influence. It's a question of who had more to do with that outcome. Bush had very little with it. He mostly wasn't involved. The outcome was a deal made between the UN and Libya, not between the US and Libya. At the time, we were trying to distance ourselves from the UN, for good or ill doesn't matter. Our UN ambassador played a role, certainly, inasmuch as he is one of the members of the UNSC and the General Assembly, but the President himself had practically nothing to do with the agreement that was finally reached with Libya. Those negotiations were begun before Bush was even elected. And what does any of that have to do with Jeremy Piven?

[Rausch]

And what does any of that have to do with Jeremy Piven?

He agrees that Libya folds to any POTUS willing to use force and that you're completely misguided about Bush having very little impact on them surrendering before a conflict like the runt of the litter Kadafi is...

[Nightwish]

He agrees that Libya folds to any POTUS willing to use force and that you're completely misguided about Bush having very little impact on them surrendering before a conflict like the runt of the litter Kadafi is...
Oh, well, if you and Jeremy want to ignore the years of negotations at the UN that ultimately led to Libya's agreement with them, and instead pretend that it all started from scratch the moment we invaded Iraq so that you can claim Bush as a hero for something he didn't do, you feel free to do so!

[KCWolfman]

It's not a question of who has mo