| Author |
Message |
    
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3546
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:05 pm: | 
|
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."
In a taped message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri said the terrorist organization would not stand idly by while "these (Israeli) shells burn our brothers.
"All the world is a battlefield open in front of us," said the Egyptian-born al-Zawahri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden."The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires ... . It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from the country at the turn of the 16th century.
Al-Zawahri declared that Arab regimes were complicit in Israeli fighting against Hezbollah and the Palestinians.
"My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit...and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies...make yourselves martyrs."
Al-Zawahri wore a gray robe and white turban. A picture of the burning World Trade Center was on the wall behind him along with photos of two other militants. One appeared to be a bearded Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks. The other was Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, a former top lieutenant of bin Laden who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001.
Al-Qaida broadcasts are thought to contain coded messages to members. Three of images on the screen - that of al-Zawahri and the pictures of al-Masri and what was believed to be Atta - were Egyptian.
The Arab satellite broadcaster did not transmit the entire tape, using instead selected quotes interspersed with commentary from an anchor.
"The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon are not only Israeli (weapons), but are supplied by all the countries of the crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price," al-Zawahri said.
The message was al-Zawahri's tenth this year. Bin Laden has issued five messages in a particularly active year of messages from the top al-Qaida leadership.
"We cannot just watch these shells as they burn our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon and stand by idly, humiliated," al-Zawahri said.
Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video posted on an Islamic Web site on the one-year anniversary of the train bombings in London. In the July 7 tape, he said two of the four suicide bombers in London spent time in an al-Qaida training camp, preparing themselves for a suicide mission.
Top al-Qaida leaders paid tribute in June to the slain leader of their Iraq network, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in separate video recordings. Many of their messages this year have dealt with current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.
Another new audio or video message from bin Laden was also expected in the coming days and was planned to deal with Gaza and Lebanon, according to said IntelCenter, a U.S.-based independent group that provides counterterrorism information to the U.S. government and media.
Al-Qaida's media production wing, Al-Sahab, announced the al-Zawahri tape would be ready soon in a message Thursday on and Islamic Web site.
Al-Zawahri said Muslims everywhere must rise up to attack "crusaders and Zionists... and support jihad (holy war) everywhere...until American troops are chased from Afghanistan and Iraq, paralyzed and impotent...having paid the price for aggression against Muslims and support for Israel."
Israel began an offensive on Gaza days after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier on June 25. It opened a second front in Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Since fighting began between Israel and Hezbollah, at least 424 people have been killed in Lebanon, according to figures compiled from the Health Ministry, military and Hezbollah. Fifty-one Israelis have been killed, including 33 members of the military, according to Israeli authorities.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3650
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
One thing I do agree with him on...
"it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit"
Iran and Syria using others as their hammer to bang against the 'westerners' |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
I respect their honesty, while I disdain the position of our liberal-progressives that if we just " be about peace" enough these people will simply go away. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
How many times must this guy call for jihad. He has turned himself into a laughing stock. Kind of like all of you who spent 2005 waiting for Rove's indictment and calling for Bush's impeachment, and Rummy's resignation.
I'll make a bet. In another month or so, this guy will call for another jihad, and then I bet he may call another, and then maybe even another. Maybe he could be a state organizer. Foj, you should send him your number. |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2613
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
"I respect their honesty, while I disdain the position of our liberal-progressives that if we just " be about peace" enough these people will simply go away."
It is a truly frightening disconnect, isn't it? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:04 pm: |
|
JC - there is no disconnect. The sentiment is not to just 'be about peace' but to seek peace through strength. No liberal advocates abolishment of our defenses. We advocate peace through diplomacy and making decisions that are conducive to peace.
The Iraq war is immoral and obscene and a neocon error. Being about peace is not the same as being weak.
What is frightening is that something as basic as being about peace can be misconstrued into something that is perceived as foolish. It makes me wonder about the people who believe in the alternative. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15437
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Very frightening. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:25 am: |
|
J Crohn and Factvsfiction:
Here are some examples thus far that illustrate the consequences of choosing war over the peaceful alternative of allowing the UN to complete its inspections for WMDs in Iraq:
2,600 American soldiers killed in Iraq would be alive today
20,000-plus American soldiers would not have incurred serious injury
150,000-plus American veterans would not be suffering from severe medical and psychological illnesses
American taxpayers would not have been billed for more than $400 billion.
War should always be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction.
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
Liberals advocate peace through any means available but actually fighting and killing to defend ourselves or protect others. Liberals always believe there is another resort. We never actually reach the last resort. When others; who are not interested in peace, negotiation, or diplomacy; are focused on exterminating our civilization, yes, "being about peace" is foolish, naive, and cowardly. Reasonable people can disagree about how this war should be fought but it does have to be fought, and not with speeches and lawn signs. “Being about peace” is the face of totalitarian Islamofascism does nothing but guarantee that evil triumphs. There are things worst that war and there is such a thing as a bad peace.
Here is the peaceful alternative to allowing the UN to complete its inspections:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
Kind of like how peaceful we were when we let the Khmer Rouge butcher 1/5 the population of Cambodia – very peaceful. Or maybe how peaceful we were when all those UN diplomats gave such wonderful speeches at the UN while the Rwandan were butchered – also very peaceful:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/
We are currently exercising great peace in the Sudan:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng
The UN cannot even classify what is happening there as genocide (not to mention still can’t define terrorism) which again illustrates the total uselessness of their “diplomacy”.
Now I’m not advocating going everywhere, but just because we can’t go everywhere does not mean that we shouldn’t go anywhere. Who is going to do it? The UN? The French? The Russians? History has placed our country in a position that puts on our shoulders not only massive power, but the massive responsibility that goes with it. What would be immoral, is not acting while people suffer.
Ladies and Gentlemen – keep debating if we should have gone into Iraq or not. Very productive.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4570
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:30 am: |
|
"History has placed our country in a position that puts on our shoulders not only massive power, but the massive responsibility that goes with it. What would be immoral, is not acting while people suffer. "
That is the messianic view of America, a view to which the rest of the world does not subscribe except when it suits their needs.
More importantly, this is the view of America that periodically tempts us into various quixotic adventures that usually don't work out particularly well. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:47 am: |
|
SpinalTap,
Perhaps you missed this, but the war in Iraq was a war of choice, based on lies, not a war of necessity. Be About Peace expresses a fundamental American value. Your attack on those who seek peaceful alternatives to war is antithetical to American values. War should always be a last resort and should never be based on false premises or flawed analysis.
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Mr. Surovell,
Ultimately all wars are wars of choice. The question is what choice do you have the will to make. Unfortunately, there will always be another resort for some people until it's their family that is being slaughtered, and then maybe.
Also, could you please cite for me any war that didn't include flawed analysis.
And I can't believe we are still discussing this but here it goes - who lied?
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4574
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
In wars, as in football, you can elect to kick or you can elect to receive.
Sometimes, as in the case of Israel in 1967, you elect to kick because you lack the strategic depth to safely do otherwise.
Where there is a choice, it is almost always better to receive. In WW II, the Allies came out looking so good in part because we elected to receive. Of course, the Devil, himself, would look sort of decent compared to Hitler, but that is another issue. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap,
For starters, all those prevaricators who warned the Senate and the American people that we would see a mushroom cloud over America if we did not go to war with Iraq.
Wars of self-defense are not wars of choice.
The first Gulf War was not based on flawed analysis and was conducted within the framework of international law.
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
You mean like these?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
____________________________________________________________________
But regardless of who said what, how is any of this a lie? This is what the entire world’s intelligence community had been reporting for the past ten years. And by the way, in the 1930s, Churchill was considered a provocateur at best and an unhinged war-monger at worst.
Moving right along, what war have we fought that was a war of self-defense? Before you say WWII was that really a war of self defense? Some would argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (which was not part of the U.S. at the time) was provoked by our unilateral steel and oil embargo in response to their aggression in Asia, none of which was any of our business and certainly didn’t threaten us. And what where they going to do? Attack California? Invade and occupy the U.S.? March on Washington? I’m sure you would agree with the statement that our response to Pearl Harbor, total war resulting in the total destruction of Japan topped off with two atomic bombs was “disproportionate”. And what did Germany do to us? Declare war? What day goes by today without someone declaring war on us? After being defeated in the Battle of Britain in 1940 Germany couldn’t project power across the English Channel let alone across the Atlantic. What were they going to do to us? Any other wars you care to discuss? Vietnam? Korea? WWI? The Civil War? The Confederacy didn’t attack the Union. Shouldn’t we have used more diplomacy before launching a war that cost the lives of 600,000 Americans? Surely you don’t think the Mexican or Spanish wars were for self-defense.
________________________________________________________________________
Should I assume then that you were a supporter of the 1st Gulf War? You think there was no flawed analysis in the first gulf war? This is from Wikipedia:
The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." [11] With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East."
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signalling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that she had handled everything "by the book" (in accordance with the US's official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League's Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam's expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.
In November 1989, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to their conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwait's foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA - Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The purported document reads in part:
We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level.
It is interesting to note the ambivalent nature of the note. Critics of the CIA/Kuwait theory of this document being a forgery point out that if were so, it would probably have had a more definitive plan described in it. The ambiguous phrasing and the flexible implications points more towards a policy position that would be implied in a genuine memorandum.
________________________________________________________________________
Our failure to predict Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was an intelligence failure of monumental proportions. Furthermore, how many people did Saddam butcher after we left him in power pursuant to the framework of international law? I wonder what their opinion on the subject would have been?
Here is a link to pictures of more people who wound up on the wrong end of one of the greatest efforts to bring “peace in our time”:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/image s/Auschw02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/&h=304&w=468&sz=45& tbnid=5znmd3dK1E6hSM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dholocaust&start=1&sa=X &oi=images&ct=image&cd=1
Actually, comparing Chamberlain to today’s peace activists is an insult to Chamberlain. After WWII broke out he admitted he was wrong and threw his weight behind Churchill and the war effort. After 60 years of unrelenting attacks by the Islamofascists and their state sponsors, culminating in 9-11, these people still don’t get it.
Fact is – the peace at any cost movement is responsible for the needless suffering and death of untold millions.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 601
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Wait a minute --
Al Qaeda says "no cease fire"
Condi Rice and George Bush say "no cease fire"
And you think liberals are in cahoots with Al Qaeda's agenda?
Speaking of bin Laden, has it occurred to any of you to send an e-mail to your hombre George Bush and insist that he get buddy Musharaf to hand over bin Laden if Al Qaeda scares you so much? Whatever happened to the project "dead or alive"?
Most of the people in this thread telling us they are soooooooooooooooooooo frightened are the same people who told us they were sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo frightened of Saddam (or deer) they screamed and wept and bullied and bawled that we had to invade Iraq because they believe (and 50 percent of them still believe) there was an atomic bomb there. No, it's Musharaf who's building one -- and George Bush is scared of him.
I know! Let's put up something scary about IRAN and watch them lose their heads all over again and start shooting in every direction, especially their own foots.
Folks, do you think you could stop acting and thinking out of fear? This is serious. It's true: America has enemies. Scaring the daylights out of yourselves and running to "daddy" isn't a grown up response.
As Max Hastings, former editor of two London newspapers, wrote the other day:
"The defeat of terrorism is best achieved through an unglamorous cocktail of politics, diplomacy, intelligence, bribery, police work and special forces operations. Above all, a successful campaign offers the society from which the terrorists are drawn a just political dispensation. Contrary to widespread belief, the British did not defeat the 1950s Malayan insurgency by brilliant soldiering, but by shrewd politicking, which included a promise to quit the country. Northern Ireland today may not be a satisfactory place, but it owes its relative tranquillity to politics and economics rather than to 30 years of counter-terrorist campaigning.
"Israel's attempts to quell opponents by the use of superior force may briefly appease its own public opinion, but contribute nothing to the nation's lasting security - indeed the reverse. Bush deserves some sort of award from the erratic and incompetent leaders of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, to name but three, because the force most helpful to sustaining them in power is the raucous hostility of the US.
"It is extraordinary to behold the loud, small people who direct US policy-making today . . . "
1827328%2C00.html,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1827328,00.ht ml
Extraordinary indeed. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 603
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Oh, and before you all sneer "radical commie", take a look at this from the Cato Institute webiste:
"Now, you could marvel at the brazenness of all this: the same people who helped lead us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in 30 years trying to push another war (or wars) on us without so much as a prefatory “sorry about the whole Iraq thing, old boy.” But the current squawking also strikes me as a useful reminder of how very, very important war is in the neoconservative vision. It is as central to that vision as peace is to the classical liberal vision.
"For the neoconservatives, it’s not about Israel. It’s about war. War is a bracing tonic for the national spirit and in all its forms it presents opportunities for national greatness....
"That can be seen in this 1996 Foreign Affairs article by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in which they seem distinctly unsettled by the apparant lack of anyone for the U.S. to fight:
The ubiquitous post-Cold War question — where is the threat? — is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness.
To dispel any notions of weakness, a little therapeutic bombing is sometimes in order. . ..
It could be the Serbs. It could be Iraq. If we’re really feeling our oats, it might even be China. Even now, when the United States faces a genuine enemy in Al Qaeda, some neoconservatives are hedging their bets: If we wrap up this war on terror thing too quickly, let’s give great-power conflict a chance.
"Who we’re fighting is secondary. That we’re fighting is the main thing. To be a neoconservative is to thrill to the sound of gunfire. (From a nice, safe distance, generally.)"
Like central New Jersey.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/19/war-without-end/
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Kathleen the Libertarian. Who'd a thunk it? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 607
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:49 pm: |
|
I've posted many times on MOL that I more often agree with libertarian views than I do with either the Democratic or Republican parties. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 104
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:53 pm: |
|
I've never seen them. I stand corrected. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:39 am: |
|
Spinal Tap,
The fact that Democratic Senators were either duped or too cowardly to challenge the Bush administration's lying about Iraq being a nuclear threat does not change the fact that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people to frighten them into choosing war over peaceful means to resolve the issue of WMDs in Iraq [allowing the UN to complete its inspections].
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Gulf War I and World War II. Are you saying that the US involvement in those wars was based on lies?
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5344
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:43 am: |
|
Spinal Tap has laid it all out for you and you still don't get it.... Get real Paul, the fact is – the peace at any cost movement is responsible for the needless suffering and death of untold millions. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
kathleen,
You should do stand up. Please keep em coming. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 109
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Were they also duped by the Clinton administration? They were saying the same things about Iraq and WMD. And Bush never-ever, said that Iraq was a nuclear threat or even an imminent threat. He said that in the post 9-11 world, we could no longer wait for a threat to become imminent before acting, that by the time a threat was imminent, it was too late.
My points about Gulf War I and WWII were twofold. First, both wars were fraught with considerable strategic miscalculations and intelligence failures, and two, if self-defense, against an imminent threat or in response to an unprovoked attack is the standard for going to war, we may never have gone to war against anyone.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5372
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
The "war at any cost" movement is responsible for far more. The notion of war as a cure-all for nations perceived to be lacking in spirit -- or as a way of jacking up patriotism as cover for more authoritiarian projects -- is as old as civilization itself. Just because saying so went out of fashion in the nuclear age doesn't mean the impulse isn't still there.
Don't fool yourself. Humanity has not outgrown any of this. It's a fundamental part of human nature.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4589
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
In examining any war, you can find countless cases of intelligence failures and tactical errors. The strategic miscalculations are most often committed by the losers.
What Bush did in the case of Iraq was to lower the standard for when a preemptive attack is justifiable.
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 110
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
Libertarianism is tough. If you’re a conservative, you have to love them on guns but hate them on drugs or abortion. If you’re a liberal you have to love them on foreign policy and borders, but hate them on entitlement programs and the minimum wage. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
Was Churchill part of the "war at any cost" crowd in the 1930s? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5373
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hitler was. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Churchill believed in precisely two things as far as I can tell - the entitlement of class and the British Empire. And I believe that he distrusted the Germans, not because of Hitler, specifically, but because he viewed German hegemony on the Continent as a threat to the Empire.
I don't think that Churchill would have sold out Czechoslovkia in 1938 and I think he would have pressed the French harder to mobilize in 1936 when Germans remilitarized the Rhineland. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 114
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Tom - should I conclude from your post that you are part of the "Bush = Hitler" wing of the Democratic Party? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5376
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
No.
"The notion of war as a cure-all for nations perceived to be lacking in spirit -- or as a way of jacking up patriotism as cover for more authoritiarian projects" is perfectly applicable to Hitler. I'm not saying that "peace at all costs" is right, because you have to defend yourself against the "war at all costs" crowd.
My point is that they are still out there -- and don't kid yourself that they couldn't possibly have an influence on our government.
You don't have to be a Hitler; it can be enough to have a Moltke working for you. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 116
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Fair enough - I just wanted to make sure. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Art,
72% of US soldiers surveyed in February said they wanted the US out of Iraq by the end of 2006.
Are they part of the "peace at any cost movement" which you're referring to?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Paul,
You definitely aren't Foj when it comes to stats. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 118
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
I'm shocked because my guess is that 100% of U.S. soldiers, along with Marines, airmen, and sailors, want to be out of Iraq tomorrow. I certainly want them out. Fortunately, they realize that they have a mission to accomplish and will do what they have to do to accomplish it. It would be nice if they didn't have politicians back home telling our enemies they can't do it. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap,
Bush warned of Iraq being a nuclear threat in his State of the Union message in January 2003. The same false message was repeated by Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld.
Powell and Tenet falsely testified that Iraq was a nuclear threat to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 2002. It was this false testimony which convinced the Committee and ultimately the whole Senate to vote for the War Powers Resolution which authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq.
The fact that very few Democrats -- Robert Byrd being the chief exception -- had the courage or integrity to question the false warnings doesn't make the false warnings true.
None of the Democrats that you quoted from the 1990s advocated going outside of the United Nations sanctions and inspections process to address what they thought were the existence of WMDs.
The United Nations inspections process would have revealed that Saddam had no WMDs. The Bush administration knew that, which is why they launched war to prevent the inspections from revealing the truth and derailing their war plans which had nothing to do with US security.
The war on Iraq was pre-emptive in the sense that it pre-empted the UN inspections process from revealing that there was no reason for us to go to war with Iraq.
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap,
My purpose for citing the Zogby February 2006 poll results was to ask Art whether his alleged "peace at any cost" movement includes 72% of US soldiers in Iraq who want us to leave by the end of 2006. Of those, 29% wanted us to leave immediately, and 22% wanted us to leave in six months (that would be August).
Here are the numbers from Zogby International:
Quote:The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5782
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Please tell us when Bush knew that there absolutely weren't any WMD's in Iraq, when he knew what happened to the stocks Saddam had as late as 1998, who told him, in what office building, and was there coffee served?
Why is Bush and the world keeping the evidence that they were destroyed and/or moved from everyone? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10268
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
The coffee was served with yellow cake and some linguistic gymnastics in the state of the union address.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5671
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Quote:Please tell us when Bush knew that there absolutely weren't any WMD's in Iraq ...
Bush orderd the inspectors to get out of Iraq, so that the invasion could get under way in March of 2003. He decided not to wait for them to finish their work.
Why did he do that? After all, the United States government has since decided that there were no WMDs to find. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 322
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 7:33 am: |
|
Kevin Phillips has an interesting take on the WMD arguments in this article:
As for the supposed weapons of mass destruction, these had already played a crucial role. The United Nations sanctions imposed in the early 1990s included provisions that Saddam could not sign over development of the big Iraqi oilfields to foreign companies. On one hand, this gave the French, Russians, and Chinese an incentive to get Iraq out from under the sanctions. But on another, the key allegations that enabled the U.S. and Britain to keep sanctions in place were—what else?—Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Without WMD, the sanctions would have fallen away, and the rivals of the U.S. and Britain would have gotten the “biggie” oilfields.
In short, the weapons of mass destruction drumbeat was substantially tied to oil and had already done its essential job by the time the invasion took place. Accept this logic and it makes mincemeat out of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Blair pretense.
http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4600
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 7:43 am: |
|
3ring,
The problem with theories of this sort is that they don't work without an "accomplice" of sorts, the accomplice being Hussein. If Hussein had groveled sufficiently in the years immediately after 1991, sanctions would have been lifted anyway. Hussein was cunning fox, but I don't think he understood international affairs and the opportunities to drive a wedge between the U.S./U.K. and the rest of the world. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 323
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:43 am: |
|
tjohn,
I'm not so sure that Hussein had to be in on the whole thing. I agree with you that if H had grovelled sufficiently, sanctions would have been lifted, but he couldn't do that because he would have lost face in the Arab world, which might have weakened his position in Iraq. I'm just speculating here. I just think that H was boxed-in and once the decision to invade was made, he was going down.
Phillips makes another point in the above article about VP Cheney's energy task force in the spring of 2001. He says they spent much of their time looking at maps of Iraqi oil reserves. Pretty damning, if true. No wonder they have been unwilling to release minutes and documents.
Cheers |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 481
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
I've read that Hussein considered the threat of WMDs important to his internal security -- probably used it to deter rival tribes, potential renegade army formations, Kurdish militias, etc. His army commanders were expecting the deployment of chem weapons throughout Iraq II, and were surprised when that stuff didn't appear.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4601
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
3ring:
I don't know which image of the Bush Incompetency I prefer - a cynical Cheney plotting to control Iraqi oil reserves or Don Quixote tilting at windmills. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
cjc,
It's not that Bush knew there were no WMDs; it's that he chose to ignore reports claiming there were none. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5383
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
Or it didn't matter to him whether they did or not, it was going to be his reason. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 610
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Southerner,
I also used to do stand up, actually. I prefer to get up early in the morning. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 268
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
It's time again for the Democrats to shut down the business of the Senate until we see the unfiltered, raw intelligence that the Bush Administration reviewed in the run up to the war. That "investigation" has gone nowhere since the tactic was last used (I believe in December). Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas who is heading the "investigation", claims progress is being made but says nothing will come out till after the mid-term elections. Quite convenient. Democrats should hit this issue again and again and again. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
betty,
I wish they would as well. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page