Why Do Republicans Hate The Troops?

[bhkad]

Sorry what Iranian aggression are you referring to?

Sorry, I tend to believe that when terrorists say they want to spread fundamental Islam throughout the world that they aren't just talking smack.

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." Ayatollah Khomeini

Neighboring regimes and the Iran-Iraq War

The Islamic Republic positioned itself as a revolutionary beacon under the slogan "neither East nor West" (i.e. follow neither Soviet nor American/West European models), and called for the overthrow of capitalism, American influence, and social injustice in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Revolutionary leaders in Iran gave and sought support from non-Islamic as well as Islamic Third World causes — e.g. the PLO, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Irish IRA and anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa — even to the point of favoring non-Muslim revolutionaries over more conservative Islamic causes such as the neighboring Afghan Mujahideen.[204]

In its region, Iranian Islamic revolutionaries called specifically for the overthrow of monarchies and their replacement with Islamic republics, much to the alarm of its smaller Sunni-run Arab neighbors Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States. Most of these countries were monarchies and all had sizable Shi'a populations - including a majority population in Iraq and Bahrain. In 1980, Iraq whose government was Sunni Muslim and Arab nationalist, invaded Iran in an attempt to seize the oil-rich predominantly Arab province of Khuzistan and destroy the revolution in its infancy. Thus began the eight year Iran-Iraq War, one of the most destructive and bloody wars of the 20th century.

A combination of fierce patriot resistance by Iranians and military incompetence by Iraqi forces soon stalled the Iraqi advance and by early 1982 Iran regained almost all the territory lost to the invasion. The invasion rallied Iranians behind the new regime, and past differences were largely abandoned in the face of the external threat. The war also became an opportunity for the regime to crush its remaining opponents, mostly the Soviet-backed leftist groups, dishing out harsh treatment, including torture and imprisonment.

Realizing its mistake, the Iraqis offered Iran a truce. Khomeini rejected it, announcing the only condition for peace was that "the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[205] The war continued for another six years with hundreds of thousands of lives lost and great destruction from air attacks. While in the end the revolutionaries failed to expand the Islamic revolution into Iraq, they did solidify their control of Iran.[206]

Relationship with other Islamic and non-aligned countries

Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and solidarity and its spread throughout the world. "Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution." [34] He declared the birth week of Muhammad (the week between 12th to 17th of Rabi' al-awwal) as the Unity week. Then he declared the last Friday of Ramadan as International Day of Quds in 1979.

Despite his devotion to Islam, Khomeini also emphasised international revolutionary solidarity, expressing support for the PLO, the IRA, Cuba, and the South African anti-apartheid struggle. Terms like "democracy" and "liberalism" considered positive in the West became words of criticism, while "revolution" and "revolutionary" were terms of praise[35].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini

 

[Lerxst]

The Iranian aggression had to be stopped and Saddam was no longer reliable or loyal. He had, in fact, turned cancerous. Recognizing the hegemonic nature of the Iranian government how can you say Bush was deceitful? How can you say that the concern for a posible WMD strike on Israel wasn't a real concern? How can you ignore the harm that a disruption in oil supplies might have caused US or our allies?

I can say Bush was deceitful because so much of his rhetoric in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq has proven to be hollow. "Concern" over a "possible" WMD strike is not justification for what we did. And Bush never said this was a war about oil, although the bottom line is that was exactly what it was about. Maybe not Iraqi oil per se, but oil nonetheless.

Iraq was about opportunity. Opportunity to establish a U.S. sphere of economic and military influence in the middle east. But why would we want to do that? For the same reason we sought to do it when the Soviet Union was a threat. China is now our strategic competitor. China is actively competing for the lion share of commodities and that is starting to hurt the U.S. bottom line. Oh we like to trade with them, it's good for corporate America. Cheaply made goods with a high profit margin that don't last? What's not to love? However the Chinese really want those resources, and the money they are making off of our lucrative trade agreements is financing a very healthy military modernization program. Hu Jin Tao has done something Mao could not do...that the Soviets could not do. He has found that fine line which allows him to benefit from capitalism while restricting personal freedoms. Beijing is very shaky despite what our government or the media would have us believe. Rather than taking their new found wealth and improving the lives of their people they are dumping it into their war machine and into mobilizing their economy. Why?

I bring this up because Iraq was simply a new phase of a reborn Cold War. As in the old Cold War we did everything we could to try and spread our influence without directly causing a military confrontation in the middle east. It was a delicate balancing act, keeping the Russians away without firing a shot. We could not afford an overt attempt at creating that kind of imbalance, so we did what we had to do. We identified those who were willing to work with us and we assisted them into power in one way or another. Oh the Soviets tried the same thing, but money talks. Sure the tail wagged the dog from time to time but in the end it worked out, right? For a while anyway. Or so we thought.

So here we found ourselves in the middle of another Cold War. But this time not so much about ideologies, but about economic resources. We couldn't allow the Chinese or the Arab oil countries dictate our economic direction. What to do? In this day and age, we don't have to worry about upsetting another superpower. We saw the Chinese attempting to gather a strategic economic stronghold and we acted. 9/11, while a horrible act of cowardice, was just what the NeoCon's needed. An opportunity to put troops on the ground and get very close to Iran. And they took it. Who was going to stop them? It would be very hard for China to corner the market on middle eastern oil with American military influence in the region. It would also be hard for Iran to spread the fundamental Islamic revolution with U.S. military forces right there on their doorstep threatening a new stone age, not to mention it makes it much easier to assist the dissidents in their play to upset the government. If one looks at the NeoCon agenda as well as the corporate interest, the invasion of Iraq looks very logical. Too bad they didn't really plan for the aftermath all that well.

So what song did Bush play us? One that talked about Iraq having WMD's, case was closed on this. We knew he had stockpiles, we knew it was a slam dunk right? How about the links to al Qaeda and terrorism? The link to al Qaeda was non-operational at best and more likely an unwitting one. The other terrorist connections were simply gone. After the reaction over the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. the links just disappeared. So Bush was dishonest in his messages to America about why went to war in Iraq. Even his own people couldn't make the connections, and intelligence was cherry picked or manipulated in order to fit the story that was going out to the masses. Afghanistan...sure, the connection there was irrefutable. Iraq, sorry...not so much.

Bush did deceive the American people. That doesn't mean we didn't have good reasons, he just knew the American people nor congress would go for them.

 

[MSgt]

I can say Bush was deceitful because so much of his rhetoric in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq has proven to be hollow. "Concern" over a "possible" WMD strike is not justification for what we did. And Bush never said this was a war about oil, although the bottom line is that was exactly what it was about. Maybe not Iraqi oil per se, but oil nonetheless.

Iraq was about opportunity. Opportunity to establish a U.S. sphere of economic and military influence in the middle east. But why would we want to do that? For the same reason we sought to do it when the Soviet Union was a threat. China is now our strategic competitor. China is actively competing for the lion share of commodities and that is starting to hurt the U.S. bottom line. Oh we like to trade with them, it's good for corporate America. Cheaply made goods with a high profit margin that don't last? What's not to love? However the Chinese really want those resources, and the money they are making off of our lucrative trade agreements is financing a very healthy military modernization program. Hu Jin Tao has done something Mao could not do...that the Soviets could not do. He has found that fine line which allows him to benefit from capitalism while restricting personal freedoms. Beijing is very shaky despite what our government or the media would have us believe. Rather than taking their new found wealth and improving the lives of their people they are dumping it into their war machine and into mobilizing their economy. Why?

I bring this up because Iraq was simply a new phase of a reborn Cold War. As in the old Cold War we did everything we could to try and spread our influence without directly causing a military confrontation in the middle east. It was a delicate balancing act, keeping the Russians away without firing a shot. We could not afford an overt attempt at creating that kind of imbalance, so we did what we had to do. We identified those who were willing to work with us and we assisted them into power in one way or another. Oh the Soviets tried the same thing, but money talks. Sure the tail wagged the dog from time to time but in the end it worked out, right? For a while anyway. Or so we thought.

So here we found ourselves in the middle of another Cold War. But this time not so much about ideologies, but about economic resources. We couldn't allow the Chinese or the Arab oil countries dictate our economic direction. What to do? In this day and age, we don't have to worry about upsetting another superpower. We saw the Chinese attempting to gather a strategic economic stronghold and we acted. 9/11, while a horrible act of cowardice, was just what the NeoCon's needed. An opportunity to put troops on the ground and get very close to Iran. And they took it. Who was going to stop them? It would be very hard for China to corner the market on middle eastern oil with American military influence in the region. It would also be hard for Iran to spread the fundamental Islamic revolution with U.S. military forces right there on their doorstep threatening a new stone age, not to mention it makes it much easier to assist the dissidents in their play to upset the government. If one looks at the NeoCon agenda as well as the corporate interest, the invasion of Iraq looks very logical. Too bad they didn't really plan for the aftermath all that well.

So what song did Bush play us? One that talked about Iraq having WMD's, case was closed on this. We knew he had stockpiles, we knew it was a slam dunk right? How about the links to al Qaeda and terrorism? The link to al Qaeda was non-operational at best and more likely an unwitting one. The other terrorist connections were simply gone. After the reaction over the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. the links just disappeared. So Bush was dishonest in his messages to America about why went to war in Iraq. Even his own people couldn't make the connections, and intelligence was cherry picked or manipulated in order to fit the story that was going out to the masses. Afghanistan...sure, the connection there was irrefutable. Iraq, sorry...not so much.

Bush did deceive the American people. That doesn't mean we didn't have good reasons, he just knew the American people nor congress would go for them.

Well said.

The fact is that a democratic Middle East that faces forward and prospers is far better than a fanatical Middle East that is stagnate while reaching back to the past.

 

[bhkad]

I can say Bush was deceitful because so much of his rhetoric in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq has proven to be hollow. "Concern" over a "possible" WMD strike is not justification for what we did. And Bush never said this was a war about oil, although the bottom line is that was exactly what it was about. Maybe not Iraqi oil per se, but oil nonetheless.

Iraq was about opportunity. Opportunity to establish a U.S. sphere of economic and military influence in the middle east. But why would we want to do that? For the same reason we sought to do it when the Soviet Union was a threat. China is now our strategic competitor. China is actively competing for the lion share of commodities and that is starting to hurt the U.S. bottom line. Oh we like to trade with them, it's good for corporate America. Cheaply made goods with a high profit margin that don't last? What's not to love? However the Chinese really want those resources, and the money they are making off of our lucrative trade agreements is financing a very healthy military modernization program. Hu Jin Tao has done something Mao could not do...that the Soviets could not do. He has found that fine line which allows him to benefit from capitalism while restricting personal freedoms. Beijing is very shaky despite what our government or the media would have us believe. Rather than taking their new found wealth and improving the lives of their people they are dumping it into their war machine and into mobilizing their economy. Why?

I bring this up because Iraq was simply a new phase of a reborn Cold War. As in the old Cold War we did everything we could to try and spread our influence without directly causing a military confrontation in the middle east. It was a delicate balancing act, keeping the Russians away without firing a shot. We could not afford an overt attempt at creating that kind of imbalance, so we did what we had to do. We identified those who were willing to work with us and we assisted them into power in one way or another. Oh the Soviets tried the same thing, but money talks. Sure the tail wagged the dog from time to time but in the end it worked out, right? For a while anyway. Or so we thought.

So here we found ourselves in the middle of another Cold War. But this time not so much about ideologies, but about economic resources. We couldn't allow the Chinese or the Arab oil countries dictate our economic direction. What to do? In this day and age, we don't have to worry about upsetting another superpower. We saw the Chinese attempting to gather a strategic economic stronghold and we acted. 9/11, while a horrible act of cowardice, was just what the NeoCon's needed. An opportunity to put troops on the ground and get very close to Iran. And they took it. Who was going to stop them? It would be very hard for China to corner the market on middle eastern oil with American military influence in the region. It would also be hard for Iran to spread the fundamental Islamic revolution with U.S. military forces right there on their doorstep threatening a new stone age, not to mention it makes it much easier to assist the dissidents in their play to upset the government. If one looks at the NeoCon agenda as well as the corporate interest, the invasion of Iraq looks very logical. Too bad they didn't really plan for the aftermath all that well.

So what song did Bush play us? One that talked about Iraq having WMD's, case was closed on this. We knew he had stockpiles, we knew it was a slam dunk right? How about the links to al Qaeda and terrorism? The link to al Qaeda was non-operational at best and more likely an unwitting one. The other terrorist connections were simply gone. After the reaction over the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. the links just disappeared. So Bush was dishonest in his messages to America about why went to war in Iraq. Even his own people couldn't make the connections, and intelligence was cherry picked or manipulated in order to fit the story that was going out to the masses. Afghanistan...sure, the connection there was irrefutable. Iraq, sorry...not so much.

Bush did deceive the American people. That doesn't mean we didn't have good reasons, he just knew the American people nor congress would go for them.

There would have been nothing to gain from telling the enemy all the things behind our strategy. When you spill your guts then the enemy can know how to attack you. There are some things that just can't be told.

What good would it do YOU to know that we installed Saddam in Iraq to combat the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and keep it from exporting terrorism?

None. But it would make you feel good. But by letting you know this on CNN, if that had been around then, the enemy would have known and they might have been able to use that info to defeat Saddam and spread the fundamentalist Islamic philosophy to all parts of that world.

Just so YOU would feel better.

How would you have felt about not knowing that the USA was sending secret U-2 spy plane flights over the USSR in the late 1950's and early 1960's?

I bet you'd have been pissed at Eisenhower & JFK and you'd have thought they were lying to you.

Face it there are some things that you just don't need to know.

 

[Panache]

Face it there are some things that you just don't need to know.

Said the company to the shareholder.

 

[EAGLE1]

There would have been nothing to gain from telling the enemy all the things behind our strategy. When you spill your guts then the enemy can know how to attack you. There are some things that just can't be told.

What good would it do YOU to know that we installed Saddam in Iraq to combat the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and keep it from exporting terrorism?

None. But it would make you feel good. But by letting you know this on CNN, if that had been around then, the enemy would have known and they might have been able to use that info to defeat Saddam and spread the fundamentalist Islamic philosophy to all parts of that world.

Just so YOU would feel better.

How would you have felt about not knowing that the USA was sending secret U-2 spy plane flights over the USSR in the late 1950's and early 1960's?

I bet you'd have been pissed at Eisenhower & JFK and you'd have thought they were lying to you.

Face it there are some things that you just don't need to know.

What good would it do ME to know that we installed Saddam in Iraq to combat the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and keep it from exporting terrorism?

Well it would shed alot of light on the fact that all this rhetoric about 'freedom' and democracy is just poppycock. Easily expendible in the face of the quest/ competition for strategic resources...

Quite alot of people would really like to know that.

 

[bhkad]

What good would it do ME to know that we installed Saddam in Iraq to combat the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and keep it from exporting terrorism?

Well it would shed alot of light on the fact that all this rhetoric about 'freedom' and democracy is just poppycock. Easily expendible in the face of the quest/ competition for strategic resources...

Quite alot of people would really like to know that.

And why is it that we Conservatives understand it but Liberals don't?

Maybe we are just smarter? Or maybe because we are willing to use Google? Or maybe by virtue of the fact that we aren't continually getting our rocks off by blaming the President for everything we are mentally free (liberals would be "emotionally free") to search for the truth and find real answers?

But speaking of freeing our minds to figure things out, why does freedom and democracy have to be poppycockish reasons? They are as true as the need to PROTECT THE FLOW OF OIL COMING FROM THE PERSIAN GULF.

If you would Google the subject you'd find we get less than 20% of our oil from the Gulf. But it would take some in depth research to figure out that our allies, like Japan, get a greater % of their oil from the region. And that if Japan or ANY of the nations who get oil AND NATURAL GAS from the region were denied their supplies for a couple of weeks their economies would be severely hurt. And ALL Western economies are interdependent so if one suffers ALL will be hurt.

And that is JUST what OBL vowed to do. So IN ADDITION to freedom we went to protect the global economies. (Google "Carter Doctrine")

And what is the benefit of freedom? Why not look at what Bush has accomplished? 25,000,000 people in Iraq & Afghanistan have voted for the first time. Each person can be expected in a short time to like this freedom "thing" and once people get freedom and come to like their freedom they will fight for their freedom. Each one of those people is like a freedom seed and in time will become a strong freedom tree and the region will become a freedom forest.

And do you think jihad will be able to defeat a forest full of 25,000,000 freedom fighters?

So, in 20 years when THEY are fighting jihad and our troops don't have to go over there again, who will you credit for this wonderful thing?

Clue: NOT Rosie Odonnell.

But you are so busy blaming Bush that you stopped looking for the truth.

Shame on you all.

 

[bhkad]

Said the company to the shareholder.

Oh, so a nation should be allowed to have secrets? :roll:

 

[Panache]

Oh, so a nation should be allowed to have secrets?

A KFC shareholder doesn't need to know the Colonal's Secret Recipe, but if KFC tells the shareholder that they are going to use the shareholder's investment in order to buy chicken, and the shareholder finds out that they used his investment in order to assassinate Ronald McDonald, saying "Face it there are some things that you just don't need to know." doesn't cut it.

 

[Iriemon]

And why is it that we Conservatives understand it but Liberals don't?

Maybe we are just smarter? Or maybe because we are willing to use Google? Or maybe by virtue of the fact that we aren't continually getting our rocks off by blaming the President for everything we are mentally free (liberals would be "emotionally free") to search for the truth and find real answers?

But speaking of freeing our minds to figure things out, why does freedom and democracy have to be poppycockish reasons? They are as true as the need to PROTECT THE FLOW OF OIL COMING FROM THE PERSIAN GULF.

If you would Google the subject you'd find we get less than 20% of our oil from the Gulf. But it would take some in depth research to figure out that our allies, like Japan, get a greater % of their oil from the region. And that if Japan or ANY of the nations who get oil AND NATURAL GAS from the region were denied their supplies for a couple of weeks their economies would be severely hurt. And ALL Western economies are interdependent so if one suffers ALL will be hurt.

And that is JUST what OBL vowed to do. So IN ADDITION to freedom we went to protect the global economies. (Google "Carter Doctrine")

And what is the benefit of freedom? Why not look at what Bush has accomplished? 25,000,000 people in Iraq & Afghanistan have voted for the first time. Each person can be expected in a short time to like this freedom "thing" and once people get freedom and come to like their freedom they will fight for their freedom. Each one of those people is like a freedom seed and in time will become a strong freedom tree and the region will become a freedom forest.

And do you think jihad will be able to defeat a forest full of 25,000,000 freedom fighters?

So, in 20 years when THEY are fighting jihad and our troops don't have to go over there again, who will you credit for this wonderful thing?

Clue: NOT Rosie Odonnell.

But you are so busy blaming Bush that you stopped looking for the truth.

Shame on you all.

What a load of crap. This is a regurgitation of the same neocon/Bush pre-war fantasy for Iraq. Same BS, except now that the gross flaws in this policy have been laid bare by actual events, it's 20 years instead of 6 months that the Iraqis will embrace us as liberators and eagerly adopt our culture and government.

Shame on us for daring to criticize the Bush Administration? When they mislead this country to a war based upon misrepresentations of cherry picked evidence of the "urgent threat" that Iraq supposedly presented to the US? When they have been completely wrong about almost every aspect of starting and prosecuting this war? When they have squandered and wasted the worldwide support that this nation had after 9-11 and instead made America the object of disdain throughout the world?

Shame on us for criticizing a government that has shamed the American ideals of liberty and justice with its secret torture dungeous and complete disdain for basic human rights that would make a two bit dictator blush?

Shame on us for criticizing a government that is too arrogant and stubborn to admit its "mistakes" and insists on compounding them?

Shame on us? Yep, I am shamed. Shamed to be an American for the first time in my life for what this government has done to this country and how it has sullied its image and what it stands for. Shame indeed.

 

[EAGLE1]

There's some thing you just dont need to know about?

What an interesting concept.

Perhaps you dont need to know about anything either! I suggest you delete Google from your browser and never key those words again. After all why did you find out all this 'truth' as you put it when you obviously didnt need to!

I suggest you just let your gov handle things and leave this deceitful forum to those fools that wish to examine the issues they pay their taxes and are sometimes drafted for.

 

[EAGLE1]

Sorry, I tend to believe that when terrorists say they want to spread fundamental Islam throughout the world that they aren't just talking smack.

Hmm so. What Iranian aggression are we talking about?

 

[Lerxst]

There would have been nothing to gain from telling the enemy all the things behind our strategy. When you spill your guts then the enemy can know how to attack you. There are some things that just can't be told.

What good would it do YOU to know that we installed Saddam in Iraq to combat the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and keep it from exporting terrorism?

None. But it would make you feel good. But by letting you know this on CNN, if that had been around then, the enemy would have known and they might have been able to use that info to defeat Saddam and spread the fundamentalist Islamic philosophy to all parts of that world.

Just so YOU would feel better.

How would you have felt about not knowing that the USA was sending secret U-2 spy plane flights over the USSR in the late 1950's and early 1960's?

I bet you'd have been pissed at Eisenhower & JFK and you'd have thought they were lying to you.

Face it there are some things that you just don't need to know.

So Bush was deceitful. And we didn't install Saddam, he installed himself. Do your homework a little better. We helped the Ba'ath party along. Saddam was a thug we trained early on in this effort, nothing special, just a tool from our early desire to see the assassination of Abdul Qassim Karim in 1963. After that, he took his career in his own hands. We had no intention or plan of placing him in power. It was the Ba'ath party that we were interested in. Saddam gained power of his own action and volition.

This goes beyond national secrets. Iraq was not about containing terrorism, it was about seizing an opportunity to spread U.S. influence. That is the kind of secret that needs to get out. Going to war for something like this needs to be intelligently debated in Congress. But then we never really got to see that happen did we? It was all about WMD's, al Qaeda, and OBL.

 

[bhkad]

So Bush was deceitful. And we didn't install Saddam, he installed himself. Do your homework a little better. We helped the Ba'ath party along. Saddam was a thug we trained early on in this effort, nothing special, just a tool from our early desire to see the assassination of Abdul Qassim Karim in 1963. After that, he took his career in his own hands. We had no intention or plan of placing him in power. It was the Ba'ath party that we were interested in. Saddam gained power of his own action and volition.

Without even checking the accuracy of your statement I'll agree it rings true and I will accept it on face value as a sign of good faith and hope that we can at least agree on this much: a secular government in Iraq helped prevent the entire region from being monopolized/annexed/made subservient to Iran and it's Jihadist goals.

The second branch of jihadism is smaller, and concentrated in the hands of a single regime: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since its inception, Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution has seen itself as universal in nature. And today, flush with oil dividends, it is rapidly expanding its influence in Lebanon, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Similar to its Salafi counterpart, the Khomeinist worldview seeks to erect Islamist regimes, launch radical organizations and expand its ideology. But unlike in Wahhabism, the chain of command is narrow and tightly controlled; Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the unquestioned ideological head, while Iran’s radical president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, decides the time, place and scope of the battles.
The Journal of International Security Affairs | Future Terrorism: Mutant <i>Jihads</i>

This goes beyond national secrets. Iraq was not about containing terrorism, it was about seizing an opportunity to spread U.S. influence. That is the kind of secret that needs to get out. Going to war for something like this needs to be intelligently debated in Congress. But then we never really got to see that happen did we? It was all about WMD's, al Qaeda, and OBL.

This one you can't fudge on. You can't prove it WASN'T about containing terrorism (as I can't definitively prove that it was). But a look at the facts gives MORE reason to assume that containing terrorism WAS a factor in the decision to invade than for denying it as a reason.

I am constantly perplexed by seemingly intelligent people who will rest their case about the reasons for invasion with only one or two factors. It's as if they think the rest of the world isn't as smart as they.

And the reality is that most of the bright fellows who criticize the President are galled to think the President might just have a better grasp of things than they have. Sorry, but it's true. The President probably has close to a dozen reasons for the invasion and most critics can barely come up with three. And even those three are fudged.

WMD's is a B.S. criticism and most of you know it.

You have a gun and you point it at a cop and he tells you to drop it and you don't and he fires and takes you out and then it's found that the gun was empty, the cop goes free. Justified shooting. He couldn't tell. The risk was too great to not take action.

Period.

Are you normally a cheap shot artist?

 

[bhkad]

This goes beyond national secrets. Iraq was not about containing terrorism, it was about seizing an opportunity to spread U.S. influence. That is the kind of secret that needs to get out. Going to war for something like this needs to be intelligently debated in Congress. But then we never really got to see that happen did we? It was all about WMD's, al Qaeda, and OBL.

(I RAN OUT OF TIME WHILE EDITING THE PREVIOUS POST)

Are you normally a cheap shot artist?

The phrase, "spreading U.S. influence" gives a malevolent characterization to what is actually a great thing.

If you had a region where Iran was exporting terrorism and has imperialistic designs...

A region where every terrorist group and nation can gain power, riches and defeat their greatest enemy by controlling or denying oil...

A region where a former ally was now a rogue dictator and a loose cannon threatening parts of Europe and Israel and any number of it's other neighbors with attack or intimidation with WMD's which he had developed before and had been caught in time...

A secular dictator who was supporting Islamic terrorism and encouraging terrorism and trying to make deals with terrorists and planning acts of terrorism...

A dictator who was using WMD's on his own people and committing the very worst human rights violations possible...

A dictator who was boldly contemptuous of the treaties he signed and international resolutions lodged against his regime...

A region where fights and wars and armed conflict was an ongoing reality of life every few months...

A region where many deserving people were fighting to be free against the overwhelming force and intimidation of fundamentalist religious zealots in government and in groups which sought to overthrow moderate governments...

And a region from where we have accepted increasingly greater numbers of immigrants but still can't save them all by bringing them here to the United States, but where if we helped them achieve a secular government, prosperity and freedom that they wouldn't NEED to come here. They could stay there and find the peace, stability, freedom and prosperity without overburdening the US infrastructure...

A region where their home grown freedom fighters could be counted on to oppose radical jihadists if only they were helped to break free from the yoke of tyranny...

And a government which Bill Clinton agreed needed to be changed:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.

And President Bush cited Clinton's Law as at least one justification for taking the actions he did:

President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) [4].

How could you NOT decide to invade? :shock:

 

[bhkad]

Hmm so. What Iranian aggression are we talking about?

In addition to the Salafi surge, the Iranian-led axis of Jihadism from Tehran to southern Lebanon, with the Syrian regime in the center wages its own campaign. Ahmadinejad’s regional offensive –with nuclear ambitions and Terrorism tools - is only the most recent expression of the older Khamanei’s regime. The “axis” has mounted a separate state-sponsored Jihad: Hamas and PIJ in Palestine, HizbAllah in Lebanon, Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq and cells around the Middle East and within the West. The question of Terrorism in the Greater Middle East isn’t confined to the Arab-Israeli conflict anymore. The latter has become a consequence of the region’s Jihadism, not the other way around.

Counterterrorism Blog

The Khomeinists are the Jihadists who emerged in the Shiia community. They aim at establishing an Imamate to reunify all Muslims under their guidance in pursuit of Jihad. (1/13/07)

 

[bhkad]

There's some thing you just dont need to know about?

What an interesting concept.

Perhaps you dont need to know about anything either! I suggest you delete Google from your browser and never key those words again. After all why did you find out all this 'truth' as you put it when you obviously didnt need to!

I suggest you just let your gov handle things and leave this deceitful forum to those fools that wish to examine the issues they pay their taxes and are sometimes drafted for.

Don't be ridiculous while trying to make a losing point.

The government simply can't tell us all it's secrets. We the citizens always want more info but it would be impossible for all of us to have the info we want without the enemy getting wind of this information, too.

So the govt. has a security clearance procedure which assesses a person's suitability to handle secretive materials and it classifies information according to the advantage it would give a potential enemy and by who needs to know this information.

Every govt. has it. Every govt. needs it. Even Iran's.

So stop your fake protests. :roll:

 

[EAGLE1]

Counterterrorism Blog

Right. But you said Saddam was supported in response to Iranian aggression. This was long before Pres. Ahmedinijad came to power. Furthermore, it was Saddam that started the Iran-Iraq war. So what aggression are you talking about?

 

[EAGLE1]

Don't be ridiculous while trying to make a losing point.

The government simply can't tell us all it's secrets. We the citizens always want more info but it would be impossible for all of us to have the info we want without the enemy getting wind of this information, too.

So the govt. has a security clearance procedure which assesses a person's suitability to handle secretive materials and it classifies information according to the advantage it would give a potential enemy and by who needs to know this information.

Every govt. has it. Every govt. needs it. Even Iran's.

So stop your fake protests. :roll:

Seriously though. I cant see why you bother to use Google when your so concerned about the govs ability to keep secrets.

I suspect your talking about operational security right? I dont think anyone here minds operational security within the short time span of the operations. And its no great intellectual feat to defend it.

However, secret or not if you act against your own stated principles, ie you talk of 'freedom' while propping up numerous tyrannical regimes across the world then surely people want to know and should know about that. After all by your logic you can take the need for secrecy anywhere you want!

But you know after mulling it over I think that your final argument is going to be that in matters of national security the ends often justify the means. So I would like you to skip all the guff and get to that please.

 

[EAGLE1]

BTW I'll tell you when Im losing bud.

 

[bhkad]

Right. But you said Saddam was supported in response to Iranian aggression. This was long before Pres. Ahmedinijad came to power. Furthermore, it was Saddam that started the Iran-Iraq war. So what aggression are you talking about?

Google is your friend. I think.

Then again, maybe not.

Aggression not in the sense of marching armies, but in the sense of fomenting discord and revolution and what would come next we nipped in the bud by backing Saddam.

IRAN'S THREAT: Last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to wipe Israel "off the map." So now, there can be no doubt: The Islamist-Fascist dictators of Iran are intent on genocide.

Scholar Michael Ledeen notes that while this may be frightening it is hardly new. The father of the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, made the same promise back in 1979 after he left France (where his hosts did their best to make him comfortable) and took power in Tehran. I was reporting from Iran at the time. I remember.

Ledeen also recalls that the first guest of the new Iranian regime was Yasser Arafat "whose terrorists had trained the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon starting in 1972. (Don't tell the CIA; they think Sunnis and Shi'ites can't cooperate)." :mrgreen:

Hezbollah, an Iranian-controlled terrorist organization based in Lebanon, Israel's northern neighbor, also hopes to exterminate Israel; as does Hamas which has bases in Gaza, the West Bank and Syria.

So if these threats are not new, is there a reason for urgency now? Yes -- because Iran's theocrats are now well on their way to developing nuclear weapons which they could use -- or hand off to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas to use.

With normal enemies, deterrence could be a solution. Soviet leaders believed that if they fired missiles at Washington, Moscow's destruction would follow. They saw that as no bargain.

But Iran's Militant Islamist clerics might be wiling to trade Tehran for Tel Aviv: the psychology of the suicide bomber on a larger scale.

Iran has long seen America as its enemy -- no less than Israel. To the mullahs, America is the Great Satan; Israel is the Little Satan, an outpost of Western values in a part of the world they consider theirs alone.

Iranian Militant Islamists seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and took U.S. diplomats hostage. We did not respond forcefully to that aggression -- thereby encouraging more aggression.

It arrived four years later. In 1983, Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen. Hezbollah terrorists also assassinated our diplomats in Lebanon and tortured to death our CIA station chief, William Buckley. We did nothing to Hezbollah in response.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/archive/archive_newsletter.htm?issue_id=2074

But as of 1920s, a Salafi school of thinking (return to the early stage of the Sunni Islamic state) emerged out of Arabia with Wahabism and of Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 1970s, another ideological school emerged out of Iran under Khomeini calling for the establishment of a Shiia Imamate. Both movements can be defined as "Jihadist."

FP: So what is new about the new ideological school?

Phares: In short, the ideological school that emerged under the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeini has been calling in modern times for the resuming of the "old Jihad." They seek the reestablishment of the Caliphate (Salafists) or establish an Imamate (Khomeinists). This means a relentless campaign to destroy 21 Arab and 51 Muslim Governments as we know today to replace them with an "empire" stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans.

So today's Jihad (as perceived by the Jihadists) is an unstoppable, non negotiable, and relentless campaign to achieve these goals. But while the Jihad of the 7th and 15th centuries was a conflict phenomenon in contemporary historical stages, and while religious wars were practiced by many other nations and civilizations from their own theological perspective, the Jihadists' "Jihad" of 20th and 21st centuries is in full contradiction with all aspects of international law and principles.

[...]

FP: Can we avoid the Future Jihad? Are we ready for it?

Phares: The Jihadists, Salafists or Khomeinists, are determined to prepare for and implement a Future Jihad, should it be via regimes (Iran, alliance with Syria, Sudan, possible others) or via organizations (al Qaeda, neo-Taliban, Jemaa Islamiya, Mahakem of Somalia, Janjaweed in Darfur, Hizballah, others).

They have been waging campaigns and preparing for future ones, within the Muslim world and inside the West. They have the resources (including oil dividends) and the manpower (through madrassas and other endoctrination tools). When you contemplate this whole global and gigantic apparatus you ask yourself: can you avoid the Jihad of the future and how?

Answers aren't easy, especially in view of the fact that Western governments (including the US) who have the resources, lack the will of strategic resistance. And within the East (Arab Muslim world), dissident and anti-Jihadist forces have the will, but lack the resources.

Hence yes, theoretically a future Jihad can be stopped if we can consolidate the will within the West and provide the resources to Muslim dissidents around the world. These measures can stop the holy wars of the future waged against democracies and free societies. But do we have the energies to implement such a revolution in the War on Terror? I am not sure yet. Citizens in the West who have understood the challenge will rise to the level of decisions needed to win the Jihadi wars of the future. But a failure in public education will lead to a disaster in the coming years. For the Jihadists' relentlessness has proven itself several times.

http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=1

But more dismaying was the fact that the public was not informed of the threats against the homeland, precisely because the classrooms, the backbone of the nation’s future, were misinformed and the talents graduating year after year were deprived of the right to learn about the threat and, therefore, to serve their government and nation proportionally to the menace. American graduates of Middle East studies, history and security studies weren’t equipped with the right knowledge. Hence, their final professional destinations suffered from this miseducation. If one reviews the curriculum in place between 1980 (when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran) and 2001 (when Bin Laden attacked America), one can see an inexplicable and immense hole in teaching students about the roots, development, rise, logic, strategies, tactics, methodologies and literature of the movements that targeted the US during those two decades. It was an educational breach of historical dimension. Why did it happen?
http://cicentre.com/Documents/jihad_vs_education.html

I could go on if you'd like. But it would be more satisfying if you tried it yourself, I think. :yes:

Google this: "Walid Phares + Khomeini"

 

[bhkad]

Seriously though. I cant see why you bother to use Google when your so concerned about the govs ability to keep secrets.

I suspect your talking about operational security right? I dont think anyone here minds operational security within the short time span of the operations. And its no great intellectual feat to defend it.

However, secret or not if you act against your own stated principles, ie you talk of 'freedom' while propping up numerous tyrannical regimes across the world then surely people want to know and should know about that. After all by your logic you can take the need for secrecy anywhere you want!

But you know after mulling it over I think that your final argument is going to be that in matters of national security the ends often justify the means. So I would like you to skip all the guff and get to that please.

Is there a reason you can think of to explain why Pres. Bush called it the "War on Terror?"

Why not call it a "War on Islam?"

The reason why is because we are not at war with Islam. If we were the whole umma would rise up in defense of the religion.

So why not call it a "War on Jihad?"

The reason why is because all Muslims must perform Jihad and if we called it a war against what all Muslims must do then the whole umma might rise up to oppose us.

And why didn't the President clearly state all the reasons for the Iraq invasion so you can understand?

Maybe because what he was trying to do was to stop the spread of global Jihad.

Can you imagine what the shik pot stirrers here and in the M.E. could do with a bonanza like that? It could set off WWIII or WWIV (let's make it a rule that after WWX we revert to regular numbers, ok?)

He has very deftly managed to AVOID touching off a larger regional or global conflagration and managed to prevent wholesale attacks on innocent Muslims here and abroad while still making the enemy pay a price for it's terrorist aspirations.

Look, the point has been made that we are creating new terrorists. But these people were in the terror reserve anyway and in the war you would have us delay those fellows would be rising up to oppose us anyway. But by actively fighting them we have been able to learn what works and what doesn't. We have updated our manuals on Jihad and that's just a few of the things that might come in handy one day soon that might help us avoid that BIG one the jihadists dream of.

Frankly, in my opinion, anyone who would want to have revealed to all the world, our national defense secrets and things that might incite the enemy, those people are wide eyed innocents, wild eyed fanatics, shifty eyed traitors or steely eyed jihadists.

 

[EAGLE1]

I thought you liked Google? Didnt you say you wanted everyone who disagrees with you to google?

Ah low key aggression indeed you're against, not marching armies, which you're for.
Probably should have a look at your own government and leave the iranians alone then eh?

Ah the old 'Israel must be wiped off the map' routine. Its used so often here its like an old friend now.
You're right, I should do some googling, here goes;

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map - Does He Deny Te Holocaust?

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source: The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)
It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.

Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.

Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence.

As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:

"They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

(source: MEMRI: The Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets)

The term 'map' to which the media refer at length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American policy.

An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.

Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world".

It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp. 'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be equated and translated (like e.g tagesschau.de published it).



Is that what you were after?

 

[bhkad]

I thought you liked Google? Didnt you say you wanted everyone who disagrees with you to google?

Is that what you were after?

Information Clearinghouse? Well, where else would you find info of such ilk? :lol:

Bottom line, look at the famous picture with the balls in the hour glass. One ball has already fallen and lies there cracked open. On it is painted the American flag. A ball in the process of falling has an Israeli flag painted on it, and it is presumably about to fall and crack, too.

In a picture with the headline, "The World Without Zionism" we can draw our own conclusions about what wonderfully pleasant things are symbolized by the cracked US ball and the falling Israeli ball.

:roll:

 

[EAGLE1]

What bottom line? Is the picture from my link? Couldnt find it myself.

Falling and cracked balls.Huh? Perhaps you're the one thats cracked.

Anyway I thought you wanted people to use Google? Something wrong here?