Is 3rd world war close?

[Chuck]

The belief that a war in Europe would be swift, decisive and 'Over by Christmas' is often considered a tragic underestimation — the theory being, that had it been widely appreciated beforehand that the war would open such an abyss under European civilization, no-one would have prosecuted it. This account is less plausible on a review of the available military theory at the time, especially the work of Ivan Bloch, an early candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Bloch's predictions of industrial warfare leading to bloody stalemate, attrition, and even revolution, were widely known in both military and pacifist circles. Some authors such as Niall Ferguson argue that the belief in a swift war has been greatly exaggerated since the war. He argues that the military planners, especially in Germany, were aware of the potential for a long war, as shown by the famous Willy-Nicky telegraphic correspondence between the Emperors of Russia and Germany. He also argues that most informed people considered a swift war unlikely. Moreover, it was in the governments' interests to feature this message widely in their propaganda, for this encouraged men to join the offensive, made the war seem less serious, and promoted general high spirits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_...r_by_Christmas

This parallels so much with what happened over Iraq. Now I hear US has plans to attack Iran. One thing can lead to other as happened before first world war... so again history gonna repeat itself?

[Woodrow]

We were very much closer in October of 1963. Those of us who were in the Military then can now reflect back to that month and see that for 30 days we stayed at the all out launch stage and were just waiting on the final word. We and the Soviet Union were armed, and prepared to launch. At any given moment every major city on earth was within 15 minutes of multiple Nuclear strikes.

Somehow Kennedy and Kruschev were able to come to an uneasy agreement that eventualy resulted in massive cut-backs for both countries.

Somehow war was avoided then. Inshallah it will be avoided again. But, our acts of stupidity will at some point go beyond any turning back, unless we all put forth an effort to end any need for war.

[snakelegs]

We were very much closer in October of 1963. Those of us who were in the Military then can now reflect back to that month and see that for 30 days we stayed at the all out launch stage and were just waiting on the final word. We and the Soviet Union were armed, and prepared to launch. At any given moment every major city on earth was within 15 minutes of multiple Nuclear strikes.

Somehow Kennedy and Kruschev were able to come to an uneasy agreement that eventualy resulted in massive cut-backs for both countries.

Somehow war was avoided then. Inshallah it will be avoided again. But, our acts of stupidity will at some point go beyond any turning back, unless we all put forth an effort to end any need for war.

i remember how scared i was then, but i am even more scared now.
i hope it can be avoided, but have serious doubts that bush has any interest in avoiding it.
may i be wrong!

[Woodrow]

Perhaps there are still enough memories of Viet-Nam to keep us from getting bogged down into another no-win situation. In Viet-Nam we started with good intentions, but overlooked the desires of the people in South East Asia. We are on the edge of making the same error in the Mid East. However, I think there is still enough common sense floating around in the world to show us that we can not tell other areas of the world how to live.

The irony is that so much of the world is convinced it is all about oil. But, with a little bit of effort, no nation needs to be dependent on Mid-Eastern oil. We made a big error in shifting our needs to be dependent on the oil states and it has resulted in bad feelings on all sides.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[karim]

:sl:


i think no but at the same time i think yes because like we know Iraq i sbeing attack all the contry is against them...



:w:

[Woodrow]

Very few people in the USA desire us to be in Iraq. It is a no gain situation and of no benefit. The fear is how to get our troops safetly out of Iraq now that we made the mistake of getting in there. It is sort of like grabbing hold of a Tiger. You know you need to turn it loose, but how do you turn it loose without getting killed.

[Ninth_Scribe]

This parallels so much with what happened over Iraq. Now I hear US has plans to attack Iran. One thing can lead to other as happened before first world war... so again history gonna repeat itself?

History has been repeating... like a broken record. I have documents that are 2500 freaking years old, that make exactly the same complaints I hear about today! Here's an old one from the Middle East concerning the arrival of the Jews in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile:

Be it known to the king, that the Jews that came up from your city have come into Jerusalem; and they're rebuilding the rebellious and evil city, and have finished the walls, and are digging out the foundations. Be it known now to the king that, if this city is built, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, impost, or toll, and this will damage the revenue of the kings. Now because we eat of the salt of the palace, and it is not nourishing for us to see the king's dishonour, we advise the king, that a search be made in the book of the records of your fathers; so shall you find evidence in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; for which cause was this city laid to waste. We announce to the king that, if this city is rebuilt, and the walls finished, by this means you shall have no portion beyond the River.

As you can see, not an aweful lot has changed! But to answer your question about the World War. I'm not very worried. If China gets ticked off... then we have some real problems!

Ninth Scribe

[Keltoi]

The chances of a world war are very slim, primarily because of the nuclear threat involved. China isn't too dangerous as far as their conventional military is concerned, as long as they don't sneak attack or anything like that, but nobody wants to get involved in a conflict so large and chaotic that the nuclear arsenal is considered. I'm afraid the wars we will see will be proxy wars, small countries, insurgent type enemies. The major powers aren't too excited about the possibility of facing each other in an armed conflict.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Very few people in the USA desire us to be in Iraq. It is a no gain situation and of no benefit. The fear is how to get our troops safetly out of Iraq now that we made the mistake of getting in there. It is sort of like grabbing hold of a Tiger. You know you need to turn it loose, but how do you turn it loose without getting killed.

Safe passage has been offered to all the soldiers during their exit from Iraq. It's just that Bush won't sign the **** thing!

4. The length of time to make this withdrawl is only one month and we, in turn, will allow your pull-out without attack.

These terms for disengagement were offered on December 22nd, 2006. I have the full document if you're interested in reading it.

Ninth Scribe

[deen_2007]

i hate war.....i dnt want to be around wen wars happen..........all this scares me....why cnt the world avoid wars! why dnt we all realise we all are the same old human being, wiv same rights & same funtions.......we shud all love each other, help each other & understand each other......(sorry 4 being so emoitinal...but war scares me....imagine ho those at war now r feeling)......my dwa remains with them....

[Keltoi]

Safe passage has been offered to all the soldiers during their exit from Iraq. It's just that Bush won't sign the **** thing!

4. The length of time to make this withdrawl is only one month and we, in turn, will allow your pull-out without attack.

These terms for disengagement were offered on December 22nd, 2006. I have the full document if you're interested in reading it.

Ninth Scribe

Who offered this "safe passage" in the first place? Who has the authority to even negotiate with the U.S. about the future of Iraq besides the elected government? The U.S. military doesn't need "safe passage", what they need is a concrete goal to achieve. That is what is missing in this conflict.

[Jibril]

i hate war.....i dnt want to be around wen wars happen..........all this scares me....why cnt the world avoid wars! why dnt we all realise we all are the same old human being, wiv same rights & same funtions.......we shud all love each other, help each other & understand each other......(sorry 4 being so emoitinal...but war scares me....imagine ho those at war now r feeling)......my dwa remains with them....

Maybe you should toughen up a little sister haha. War is bad ofcourse but as long as humanity survives on earth there will be war so don't let it scare you too much. The best thing we can all do to prevent war is to raise our families with good values and teach them wisdom. That way the following generations will hopefully have more wise men than the current ones. And wise men are the best antidote to war.

[khushnood]

Maybe you should toughen up a little sister haha. War is bad ofcourse but as long as humanity survives on earth there will be war so don't let it scare you too much. The best thing we can all do to prevent war is to raise our families with good values and teach them wisdom. That way the following generations will hopefully have more wise men than the current ones. And wise men are the best antidote to war.

what u r talking about is an utopic world,as only wise families can raise good generations.:'(

[Dawud_uk]

i found the anti satalite missiles tested by the chinese to be very interesting...

after all much of the west's superior technology relies on sat nav, many of the planes, helicoptors, missiles etc would be stuffed as well as all the intelligence used to plan attacks.

i personally think if the US keeps being distracted by iraq, possibly iran and also afghanistan then china might make a play on taiwan and if US tries to stop them they can hit the US satalites and remove most of the US / West's tech advantage.

Abu Abdullah

[Zone Maker]

E-bombs can be effective weapons too.

:w:

[Dawud_uk]

E-bombs can be effective weapons too.

:w:

facinating, so the weapons perhaps the US should be fearing on these e-bombs used in space to take out their technological advantage?

given the results of the jihad in afghanistan and iraq at the moment we can see what the result would be if the west lost most of its technology within a few days... read your kipling.

Abu Abdullah

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ whoah, maybe something like that can be used when Mahdi Comes and then everyones gotta fight with swords and bows and stuff!!!!

[Dawud_uk]

^ whoah, maybe something like that can be used when Mahdi Comes and then everyones gotta fight with swords and bows and stuff!!!!

nope, guns and basic military equipment would work but the electronics wouldnt after such an e-bomb attack so really we are talking about going back to a level of technology in WWII but even then not really so because it would only be over a particular area for a particular time not all the time and not outside the area of the attack.

what are the non nuclear ways of generating such a force?
are they harmful to humans and are there any other side effects? after all we all have electrical impulses running around our bodies and heads also.

Abu Abdullah

[Keltoi]

The Chinese "satellite" attack could theoretically take out a few satellites, but the really important strategic satellites are in orbit outside the range of this test. Anyway, satellite technology is mainly useful in pinpoint accuracy with missiles and real-time intelligence sharing. If one of these anti-satellite attacks actually worked in a war situation, it would probably mean the pilot would have to drop bombs with more blast range.

[Dawud_uk]

The Chinese "satellite" attack could theoretically take out a few satellites, but the really important strategic satellites are in orbit outside the range of this test. Anyway, satellite technology is mainly useful in pinpoint accuracy with missiles and real-time intelligence sharing. If one of these anti-satellite attacks actually worked in a war situation, it would probably mean the pilot would have to drop bombs with more blast range.

i agree,

but it would take years to adapt the technology and take a step back effectively in their use as the pilots, tank commanders etc wouldnt be trained to work that way.

such a gap would mean those who already fight in such a basic manner such as the mujahadeen would have a massive immediate advantage.

such steps would also cripple the West's economy and so cripple their means to pay for such wars in the present and future.

surely better than the alternatives some of the mujahadeen could consider though which is never ending warfare until the west learns to leave the muslims alone and stopping supporting the apostate regimes in the muslim lands.

Abu Abdullah

[SATalha]

i hate war.....i dnt want to be around wen wars happen..........all this scares me....why cnt the world avoid wars! why dnt we all realise we all are the same old human being, wiv same rights & same funtions.......we shud all love each other, help each other & understand each other......(sorry 4 being so emoitinal...but war scares me....imagine ho those at war now r feeling)......my dwa remains with them....

Yeah and ask yourself how did our brothers and sisters end up in this mess. Whether its in Kashmir or Palestine or Chechnya ask yourself why. Its because the people have forgotten the teachings of the Quran and our beloved Prophet PBUH. Wars will remain coz our past is something that certain nations dont want. If we are revived than it spells danger. So the Kufars and munafiks are doing what they can to supress us( e.g by killing Ahmed Yaseen) But they will fail, and remember it will only get worse. Muslims will be killed everywhere. Remember this, and than the general will arive.

[MTAFFI]

Who offered this "safe passage" in the first place? Who has the authority to even negotiate with the U.S. about the future of Iraq besides the elected government? The U.S. military doesn't need "safe passage", what they need is a concrete goal to achieve. That is what is missing in this conflict.

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

[Chuck]

We were very much closer in October of 1963. Those of us who were in the Military then can now reflect back to that month and see that for 30 days we stayed at the all out launch stage and were just waiting on the final word. We and the Soviet Union were armed, and prepared to launch. At any given moment every major city on earth was within 15 minutes of multiple Nuclear strikes.

Somehow Kennedy and Kruschev were able to come to an uneasy agreement that eventualy resulted in massive cut-backs for both countries.

Somehow war was avoided then. Inshallah it will be avoided again. But, our acts of stupidity will at some point go beyond any turning back, unless we all put forth an effort to end any need for war.

I doubt it, because situation of US vs SU was one power against another. There was pride and ego, but things were in check with the size of potential loss too, on both sides. Middle-east situation is similar pre-world-war Europe -- big vs smaller ones. In these situations, there is more potential for longer chain reaction of violence and then violence/war spiraling out of control (read Ivan Bloch theory).

For example, my father is a supporter of Bush, not just morally but also financially, and people like him do have some influence over Bush's party. But my father and his friends don't really fear whats going on in middle-east, not like they feared SU or now EU or China. They see the middle-east situation as small price for greater good. Even if Bush and company attacks Iran or even other countries in the region they don't see a real threat. They do appear to fear terrorist attacks like 7/7 bombings or maybe to the scale of 9/11 but they are like pests being pests in their opinion. So for these people there is not enough motivation to look for non-violent solutions... thus the situation is much similar to pre-world war Europe.

[S_87]

:sl:
the us isnt going to attack iran anytime soon. their butts are getting kicked in afghanistan and iraq, countries they thought had no defence. they wont go to a country they know has defence which iran does

[Chuck]

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

It does sound like pre-world-war Europe except without the religion part. I didn't live in that era but the follow quote do show a similar picture:

It is said that at the Paris Exhibition in 1881, a man told Hiram Maxim, an American, that if he wanted to make a fortune, he should invent a machine that would help these Europeans kill each other.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/arms/arms_history.html

[Kittygyal]

Yeah and ask yourself how did our brothers and sisters end up in this mess. Whether its in Kashmir or Palestine or Chechnya ask yourself why. Its because the people have forgotten the teachings of the Quran and our beloved Prophet PBUH. Wars will remain coz our past is something that certain nations dont want. If we are revived than it spells danger. So the Kufars and munafiks are doing what they can to supress us( e.g by killing Ahmed Yaseen) But they will fail, and remember it will only get worse. Muslims will be killed everywhere. Remember this, and than the general will arive.

:sl:
well said akhi, it's a shame actually we never realise && now look whats happened to the youth :cry:, May Allah subhanwtallah shine thy light upon us all && may allah subahwnatallah forgive us all for our wrong doings! imsad
Ma'assalama

[MTAFFI]

:sl:
the us isnt going to attack iran anytime soon. their butts are getting kicked in afghanistan and iraq, countries they thought had no defence. they wont go to a country they know has defence which iran does

pllleeeeeaaaasssseeee give me a break....it would be wonderful to bury Iran in a REAL war, when you actually know who you are fighting... and actually i wouldnt say the US is necessarily losing in Iraq or in afghanistan either. Lets think about it, Afghanistan isnt run by the Taliban is it? NO mission accomplished. Iraq isnt run by Saddam is it? Mission accomplished.. US isnt even really in a war in Iraq it is trying now to stop Iraq from killing itself, so who is really getting its butt kicked, Iraq is kicking its own butt and the taliban is busy burning down schools.

With that said i dont think the US will attack Iran unless it has to, which is improbable but not impossible, I would suggest to the Iranians to stop testing the waters before it gets itself to wet

[Muezzin]

I wonder what the 'mission' will be in Iran. 'Entered the Country and Killed a Few Soldiers - Mission Acccompished'? Obviously, these things need to be a bit more farsighted than they are, as Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown. 'Mission accomplished' but in practice the countries and the people are no better off than before. And everyone needs to accept that war has changed - you don't know who you're fighting, because if you're a superpower engaging a relatively primitive (yet dangerous) enemy, that enemy can and will use guerilla warfare. It's like trench warfare in WWI - nobody was used to it, that wasn't the 'real' way to wage a war, but the times, they are a-changing.

Anyway, I don't know if WWIII is close, but I flipping hope it never happens.

I also hope people will stop killing each other everywhere for whatever reason, but no.

[Woodrow]

Reminds me of back in the 50's when Ike was still Prez. Somebody asked him what type of weapons would be used in WW3 and his reply was "I do not know, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

[MTAFFI]

I wonder what the 'mission' will be in Iran. 'Entered the Country and Killed a Few Soldiers - Mission Acccompished'? Obviously, these things need to be a bit more farsighted than they are, as Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown. 'Mission accomplished' but in practice the countries and the people are no better off than before. And everyone needs to accept that war has changed - you don't know who you're fighting, because if you're a superpower engaging a relatively primitive (yet dangerous) enemy, that enemy can and will use guerilla warfare. It's like trench warfare in WWI - nobody was used to it, that wasn't the 'real' way to wage a war, but the times, they are a-changing.

Anyway, I don't know if WWIII is close, but I flipping hope it never happens.

I also hope people will stop killing each other everywhere for whatever reason, but no.

the way Iran is going, it might just be destroy it all

War is changing, and the US policy towards it should change too, no more help, once what we need done is done then personally i think we should just leave these countries that are no better off.. you might say this is wrong but it isnt the US who is destroying these countries so why should we continue to be ridiculed and attacked when the primitive people in these countries are the ones who want to destroy it? It isnt our fault they keep killing each other, it is their own, and has been for centuries

You know what they say "You cant help people who cant help themselves"

[deen_2007]

Maybe you should toughen up a little sister haha. War is bad ofcourse but as long as humanity survives on earth there will be war so don't let it scare you too much. The best thing we can all do to prevent war is to raise our families with good values and teach them wisdom. That way the following generations will hopefully have more wise men than the current ones. And wise men are the best antidote to war.

thanks 4 d advice......

[snakelegs]

It isnt our fault they keep killing each other, it is their own, and has been for centuries
You know what they say "You cant help people who cant help themselves"

whose fault is it that a situation of anarchy came into being in iraq?

[dougmusr]

whose fault is it that a situation of anarchy came into being in iraq?

I would have to say that anarchy was a brewing and perhaps even on the lunch menu, but the US removed the lid from the pressure cooker and the pot boiled over.

[Dawud_uk]

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

mtaffi,

sorry but if a group of guys armed to the teeth come to attack me i dont just stand there and take a beating, no i run away get my friends and then we come back and pick em off one at a time if possible.

the 'they dont fight fair' remark doesnt really work, could say the same to the yanks, brits and others. why dont you come fight only with guns and leave your tanks and planes to make it a fair fight? silly isnt it?

you use the advantage you have, try to minimalise your own disadvantage.

Abu Abdullah

[Jibril]

I would have to say that anarchy was a brewing and perhaps even on the lunch menu, but the US removed the lid from the pressure cooker and the pot boiled over.

No offence but the only thing brewing was the thick and steamy BS in your above post. Iraq has always been ruled by strong arm dictators like Saddam Hussein and this would have even continued even if he were ever overthrown or died. What the Americans did, however, was to methodically tear down all the mechanisms of state. Which lead to breakdown in services, breakdown in security, and breakdown in everything. Whats worse,..they didn't even fill in for what they took away. The bombed the power grid, but they didn't fix it. They dismantled the army and police,..but they didn't provide security themselves. So in short,..it was the US that singlehandedly plunged Iraq into anarchy and chaos. Any attempt to deny it is just an exercise in shifting blame to someone else.

[Muezzin]

the way Iran is going, it might just be destroy it all

How glad I am that you do not control US foreign policy. If you did, it would bear uncanny resemblance to Ahmadinejad's wishes to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Genocide is never justified.

[KAding]

I doubt it, because situation of US vs SU was one power against another. There was pride and ego, but things were in check with the size of potential loss too, on both sides. Middle-east situation is similar pre-world-war Europe -- big vs smaller ones. In these situations, there is more potential for longer chain reaction of violence and then violence/war spiraling out of control (read Ivan Bloch theory).

For example, my father is a supporter of Bush, not just morally but also financially, and people like him do have some influence over Bush's party. But my father and his friends don't really fear whats going on in middle-east, not like they feared SU or now EU or China. They see the middle-east situation as small price for greater good. Even if Bush and company attacks Iran or even other countries in the region they don't see a real threat. They do appear to fear terrorist attacks like 7/7 bombings or maybe to the scale of 9/11 but they are like pests being pests in their opinion. So for these people there is not enough motivation to look for non-violent solutions... thus the situation is much similar to pre-world war Europe.

Interesting position. But wasn't pre-world war Europe one of strong dominant nation states with enormous standing conscription armies? I really don't see the parallel with the Middle East, where states appear incredibly weak. The issue with the instability and violence in the Middle East (and many other Muslim countries incidentally, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Southern Thailand, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Algeria, etc) is mostly thanks to the strong position of small privately organized guerilla organizations. The states in the Middle East are simply not in a position to fight any kind of 'world war'. They simply don't have the authority, resources or military means to do so.

These private militias don't have the means to strike outside their immediate area, which is clearly proven by the lack of attacks in the US and the overwhelming and bloody number of attacks in the Muslim world itself on those who are perceived as collaborators. Since you apparently disagree with this view, could you perhaps give me a scenario how you see this war escalating into a 'world war'. Do you mean these private organizations will mount massive attacks within the West?

[S_87]

pllleeeeeaaaasssseeee give me a break....it would be wonderful to bury Iran in a REAL war, when you actually know who you are fighting... and actually i wouldnt say the US is necessarily losing in Iraq or in afghanistan either. Lets think about it, Afghanistan isnt run by the Taliban is it? NO mission accomplished. Iraq isnt run by Saddam is it? Mission accomplished.. US isnt even really in a war in Iraq it is trying now to stop Iraq from killing itself, so who is really getting its butt kicked, Iraq is kicking its own butt and the taliban is busy burning down schools.

With that said i dont think the US will attack Iran unless it has to, which is improbable but not impossible, I would suggest to the Iranians to stop testing the waters before it gets itself to wet

burning down schools? hellllllllllo please give me a break why are troops still going to afghanistan? to stop schools being burnt? you mean the thousands there cant do that? do you read the news??? because the fact is there is still a war in both afghanistan and iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6324409.stm

the us cannot afford to go to war atm

[Dawud_uk]

Interesting position. But wasn't pre-world war Europe one of strong dominant nation states with enormous standing conscription armies? I really don't see the parallel with the Middle East, where states appear incredibly weak. The issue with the instability and violence in the Middle East (and many other Muslim countries incidentally, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Southern Thailand, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Algeria, etc) is mostly thanks to the strong position of small privately organized guerilla organizations. The states in the Middle East are simply not in a position to fight any kind of 'world war'. They simply don't have the authority, resources or military means to do so.

These private militias don't have the means to strike outside their immediate area, which is clearly proven by the lack of attacks in the US and the overwhelming and bloody number of attacks in the Muslim world itself on those who are perceived as collaborators. Since you apparently disagree with this view, could you perhaps give me a scenario how you see this war escalating into a 'world war'. Do you mean these private organizations will mount massive attacks within the West?

i agree a third world war in unlikely,

at the end of the day all the mujahadeen groups want is to secure the muslim lands and live under shariah wherever they are.

if you look at their own stated motivation then you will see they only attack the western nations that are supporting the apostate rulers in the muslim lands.

obl himself asked why they had attacked america and not sweden which is a much more liberal and permissive society?

in other words, we dont like your way of life, but that is not the reason those muslims you consider terrorists attack you and they certainly dont have any means of starting a world war, only the west, china and perhaps india has that capability.

Abu Abdullah

[KAding]

i agree a third world war in unlikely,

at the end of the day all the mujahadeen groups want is to secure the muslim lands and live under shariah wherever they are.

if you look at their own stated motivation then you will see they only attack the western nations that are supporting the apostate rulers in the muslim lands.

obl himself asked why they had attacked america and not sweden which is a much more liberal and permissive society?

in other words, we dont like your way of life, but that is not the reason those muslims you consider terrorists attack you and they certainly dont have any means of starting a world war, only the west, china and perhaps india has that capability.

Abu Abdullah

Well, thats one of the few positive things that might come from this mess we have now. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show that military involvement in the region is an expensive business and not very helpful in achieving your goals anyway. At the same time lets hope the oil age will end as soon as possible, since it another reason for the foreign meddling in the region.

Perhaps in the future both sides can simply disengage and live largely isolated from each other. Peaceful coexistance and all that (dar al-Harb, dar al-Islam). I've actually warmed to HeiGou's idea of simply building a large fence between the two cultures and let either side do what they want on their side. Then maybe the Danes can make cartoons of Mohammed and the Iranians can have their holocaust denial exhibition and hang their convicted homosexuals.

It's tough, but neither side can really expect to 'convert' the other ideologically, let alone on religion. Of course, the Muslim world will have a tough time ahead of them even if Americans and Europeans disengage from the regions. Because clearly the Muhajedeen do not have full support. I fear the battle between Muslims (secular vs. orthodox, shia vs. sunni) is about to get a whole lot more bloody. In a way I think the foreign meddling has been a catalyst in this, but the root causes nevertheless lie within the Muslim world itself. If it were up to me I'd let you guys deal with it however you want, all I would ask is that you leave me be in my jahiliyya and kufr :D.

Side note: Bah, I've become such a cynic lately.

[Woodrow]

Well, thats one of the few positive things that might come from this mess we have now. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show that military involvement in the region is an expensive business and not very helpful in achieving your goals anyway. At the same time lets hope the oil age will end as soon as possible, since it another reason for the foreign meddling in the region.

This may be all that is needed to bring about the rapid demise of petroleum dependency. At the moment any further development of oil in the mideast is going to be very expensive and not very cost effective. The cheaper alternative is to develop existing oil reserves outside the mideast and strive for technology that will reduce the need for petroleum.

I believe the Oil corporations that control the oil market have gotten the message loud and clear, that it is going to be very expensive to use or depend on mideastern oil. It is not a wise choice to invest further money into mideastern oil and it is time for the oil companies to stop oil production in the region.

[Dawud_uk]

Well, thats one of the few positive things that might come from this mess we have now. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show that military involvement in the region is an expensive business and not very helpful in achieving your goals anyway. At the same time lets hope the oil age will end as soon as possible, since it another reason for the foreign meddling in the region.

Perhaps in the future both sides can simply disengage and live largely isolated from each other. Peaceful coexistance and all that (dar al-Harb, dar al-Islam). I've actually warmed to HeiGou's idea of simply building a large fence between the two cultures and let either side do what they want on their side. Then maybe the Danes can make cartoons of Mohammed and the Iranians can have their holocaust denial exhibition and hang their convicted homosexuals.

It's tough, but neither side can really expect to 'convert' the other ideologically, let alone on religion. Of course, the Muslim world will have a tough time ahead of them even if Americans and Europeans disengage from the regions. Because clearly the Muhajedeen do not have full support. I fear the battle between Muslims (secular vs. orthodox, shia vs. sunni) is about to get a whole lot more bloody. In a way I think the foreign meddling has been a catalyst in this, but the root causes nevertheless lie within the Muslim world itself. If it were up to me I'd let you guys deal with it however you want, all I would ask is that you leave me be in my jahiliyya and kufr :D.

Side note: Bah, I've become such a cynic lately.

"jahiyya and kufr" lol @ kAding, you have clearly learnt more about islam than most of the self declared experts on islam who seem to occupy perminent seats on the Western TV networks.

kAding, not sure i would help you build that wall... especially with me me being on the wrong side of it, but on point of view of each not meddling in the others affairs in principle then sure i think we can agree to that. a diplomatic wall where people and trade can come and go but we put each others lands and countries at a distance.

to you your way of life, to me mine. i respect your right to be wrong according to my view point, you respect mine.

so perhaps not a wall, but certainly a healthy distance to let things cool down a bit so cooler heads can prevail and discuss things at a later date and would allow the muslims to put their own house in order so we can clearly say whatever problems are from x date are our own to sort out.

Abu Abdullah

[MTAFFI]

whose fault is it that a situation of anarchy came into being in iraq?

the Iraqis that choose to kill other Iraqis

[MTAFFI]

mtaffi,

sorry but if a group of guys armed to the teeth come to attack me i dont just stand there and take a beating, no i run away get my friends and then we come back and pick em off one at a time if possible.

the 'they dont fight fair' remark doesnt really work, could say the same to the yanks, brits and others. why dont you come fight only with guns and leave your tanks and planes to make it a fair fight? silly isnt it?

you use the advantage you have, try to minimalise your own disadvantage.

Abu Abdullah

But what if no one came to attack you but your oppressive government, would you then fight them off and say "Hey I like being killed in mass numbers and buried in shallow graves"? I doubt it, by talking with you in other post Dawud, I can see you sympathize with certain groups and I, in some ways, understand your positions, you just want your people to have protection and the same rights as everyone else. Please understand mine, I want your people to have the same rights as everyone else too, but how can that be accomplished with the middle man (the terrorist) who is trying to create anarchy so that they can take control and create another dictatorship? You are right also about the unfair fighting, why would these people want to group up and fight, they would lose almost as soon as they tried, this is why I say leave Iraq, then anyone fighting is doing it against the authorities, which would be illegal and give them no just cause to fight, and then hopefully they would lose numbers and the will for resistance.

PEACE Dawud

[MTAFFI]

burning down schools? hellllllllllo please give me a break why are troops still going to afghanistan? to stop schools being burnt? you mean the thousands there cant do that?

no actually they cant which is part of the reason the US is there in the first place, how could civilians stop a brutal armed militia (Taliban) from doing whatever they want?

do you read the news??? because the fact is there is still a war in both afghanistan and iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6324409.stm

There is but the war is civil in both cases at this point, more Iraqis are killed by Iraqis everyday than US troops and the same for afghanistan

the us cannot afford to go to war atm

i bet you think like Iran that the US has just used all of it military might in one spot dont you? Perhaps you should research the US military, there are still plenty of troops, battleships, aircraft and submarines to go around, Iran would take maybe one good slap from the us before it collapsed like a card house

[islamway]

US Air Force Says Israel Has
400 Atomic And Hydrogen Bombs
WorldTribune.com
7-4-2
A United States Air Force report asserts that Israel is building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike by such countries as Iran or Iraq.

It is the first time a U.S. military institution has stated that Israel has produced a hydrogen bomb. The number of purported Israeli nuclear weapons cited in the report is double that of previous assessments.

The report, sponsored by the air force's Counterproliferation Center, asserts that the navy can deploy any of what it asserts is Israel's 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons, Middle East Newsline reported. The center is located in the Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.

In a report entitled "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons," U.S. Army Col. Warner Farr said Israel's nuclear arsenal has grown from an estimated 13 nuclear bombs in 1967 to 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Farr said Israel's navy could deploy nuclear weapons on the fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines.

"Israel will then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East," the report, which Farr said is based on unclassified sources, read. "Israeli rhetoric on the new submarines labels them 'national deterrent' assets."

The report said these nuclear missiles could have a range of 350 kilometers. Israel would try to base its nuclear naval force near Oman, with which Israel has informal relations, the September 1999 report, which was recently published by the center, said.

"The first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, an Arab nation with unofficial Israeli relations, located strategically near Iran," the report said.

The U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center was established in 1998. The center is meant to help prepare air force commanders counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. The report did not deem Israel's purported nuclear arsenal as a direct threat to the United States.

The report said Israel's Defense Ministry has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorization for a retaliatory nuclear strike. Israel could also use Jordanian air space for a nuclear strike on Iran, which the report said could produce a nuclear warhead as early as 2004.

Comment

Josh Greenberg



7-4-2

[Jibril]

the Iraqis that choose to kill other Iraqis

Wrong. They were given no choice at all. When the Americans blasted their way through the country and took apart all structures of a functioning society,..the poor Iraqis were left to fend for themselves cave man style. Its no surprise they started butchering each other. Make no mistake about it,..America is primarily to blame for the situation in Iraq. Iraqis are to blame also, but secondarily.

[Keltoi]

Wrong. They were given no choice at all. When the Americans blasted their way through the country and took apart all structures of a functioning society,..the poor Iraqis were left to fend for themselves cave man style. Its no surprise they started butchering each other. Make no mistake about it,..America is primarily to blame for the situation in Iraq. Iraqis are to blame also, but secondarily.

What drivel. Nobody forced Iraqis to form death squads and kill each other over religious affiliation. Yes, the U.S. is responsible for the destruction of the civilian infrastructure, what little they had in the first place. The "poor Iraqis" weren't forced to act like "cave men", that is a situation made both by design(Iran and Al-Qaeda), and by historical realities. Not saying the U.S. doesn't have a role to play in attempting to repair this chasm, but the U.S. doesn't bear responsibility for Iraqis butchering each other. Especially not in the way they are doing it.

[Woodrow]

US Air Force Says Israel Has
400 Atomic And Hydrogen Bombs
WorldTribune.com
7-4-2

If that is true, it is the most Idiotic thing a country as small as Israel can do. With each nuke in storage the risk of a nuclear mishap greatly increases. It is not a question if a nuclear accident will happen it is just a question of when. With that many in storage, Israel must be suicidal. Their national anthem should be changed to "Will We go Boom Today" One small mishap and it is sayanora Israel.

[MTAFFI]

Wrong. They were given no choice at all. When the Americans blasted their way through the country and took apart all structures of a functioning society,..the poor Iraqis were left to fend for themselves cave man style. Its no surprise they started butchering each other. Make no mistake about it,..America is primarily to blame for the situation in Iraq. Iraqis are to blame also, but secondarily.

what about all of the buildings, etc the insurgents have blasted their way through, leaving the poor Iraqis to fend for themselves? Everyone knows the US could have easily repaired any damage that they caused had these caveman insurgent not come in and caused total anarchy. America is to blame for toppling the government that was in place and that is all, I dont think that it is fair to blame any of the rest of it on the US.. In any case this is getting a little off topic, if you want to start a new thread about this please do and i will be happy to continue this there

[Jibril]

what about all of the buildings, etc the insurgents have blasted their way through, leaving the poor Iraqis to fend for themselves? Everyone knows the US could have easily repaired any damage that they caused had these caveman insurgent not come in and caused total anarchy. America is to blame for toppling the government that was in place and that is all, I dont think that it is fair to blame any of the rest of it on the US.. In any case this is getting a little off topic, if you want to start a new thread about this please do and i will be happy to continue this there

Mtaffi and keltoi,

The difference is that the insurgents didn't pick this battle. The US did. No Invasion of Iraq , No insurgency. Period. So as far as I'm concerned you can chalk that up to the US too. Actually it was American screwups that were responsible for the formation and eventual success of the insurgency. And the Americans had months before the insurgency even began and yet they did nothing but contribute towards its creation. The occupation was bungled from the word go. Day 1 the Iraqi people and the whole world saw as the American soldiers did nothing while Baghdad was looted. I suggest you read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks and then you'll realize how badly Americans have screwed things from the very first day.

As obscene as it is to watch how badly the Americans have messed up, its even more obscene to see some of our fellow citizens try to blame the Iraqis.

[Cognescenti]

If that is true, it is the most Idiotic thing a country as small as Israel can do. With each nuke in storage the risk of a nuclear mishap greatly increases. It is not a question if a nuclear accident will happen it is just a question of when. With that many in storage, Israel must be suicidal. Their national anthem should be changed to "Will We go Boom Today" One small mishap and it is sayanora Israel.

Woodrow;

I can understand being a bit nervous about nuclear weapons, but you are worrying about the wrong things. I am 100% certain there has never been an accidental nuclear detonation. There have been weapons lost (at sea for eg...numerous Soviet subs and lost from airplanes...off Spain, US bomber in the 50's or 60's..subsequently recovered). One time a Titan missile blew up in its silo (chemical explosion) during service and actually ejected the intact warhead a couple of hundred meters.

Israel isn't suicidal...that is exactly why they have nukes..they are trying to prevent their extermination.

BTW..if they really do have a high-yield hydrogen bomb...there can only be one purpose for it...to destroy the capital city of an enemy.

They are also publicly warning western governments to get serious with Iran. Quite possibly, the timing of this report is no accident.

[Woodrow]

I do not beleive there is a single person posting here that knows the how and whys of what is happening in Iraq.

I kind of view Iraq as being a burning building right now and the people are trapped in it. They have no way of knowing who is feeding the flames and who is trying to put the fire out.

we are seeing and hearing the stories of people that are trying their best to bring an end to the situation. It is one thing for us to look in without being bothered by the flames and smoke. It is something else to be in the midst of the flames and the door ways clouded by smoke.

[MTAFFI]

Mtaffi and keltoi,

The difference is that the insurgents didn't pick this battle. The US did. No Invasion of Iraq , No insurgency. Period. So as far as I'm concerned you can chalk that up to the US too. Actually it was American screwups that were responsible for the formation and eventual success of the insurgency. And the Americans had months before the insurgency even began and yet they did nothing but contribute towards its creation. The occupation was bungled from the word go. Day 1 the Iraqi people and the whole world saw as the American soldiers did nothing while Baghdad was looted. I suggest you read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks and then you'll realize how badly Americans have screwed things from the very first day.

As obscene as it is to watch how badly the Americans have messed up, its even more obscene to see some of our fellow citizens try to blame the Iraqis.

It amazes me how you justify this, there was no insurgency because no one was going to say anything about Saddam, to say the Americans are responsible for Iraqis killing Iraqis makes no sense, you are saying that basically if a dictator is taken from his position, then the country that did it is responsible for the maniacs that decide they want to take over the country?!?!

Also please do tell what success the insurgency has had? They have managed to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis! WoW what an acheivement, if the US went in and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis you would call it genocide but because Iraqis are doing it, it is a resistance. Ask yourself this, who are they resisting? Why havent they killed 100,000 US troops? I can tell you real quick why, because they arent even fighting against the US troops, they are fighting against the Iraqis who oppose them so that they can create severe instability and gain political power, they also want a safe haven for their terrorist attacks and a country that they can conduct the operations through. If you do not see this you are blind

As far as miscalculations and mishaps in Iraq by the US, yes there has been many, but it is still not the US's fault that these people cannot act civilized. They want violence and total dictatorship (the insurgents) so that they may do whatever they want.

[Cognescenti]

Mtaffi and keltoi,

The difference is that the insurgents didn't pick this battle. The US did. No Invasion of Iraq , No insurgency. Period. So as far as I'm concerned you can chalk that up to the US too. Actually it was American screwups that were responsible for the formation and eventual success of the insurgency. And the Americans had months before the insurgency even began and yet they did nothing but contribute towards its creation. The occupation was bungled from the word go. Day 1 the Iraqi people and the whole world saw as the American soldiers did nothing while Baghdad was looted. I suggest you read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks and then you'll realize how badly Americans have screwed things from the very first day.

As obscene as it is to watch how badly the Americans have messed up, its even more obscene to see some of our fellow citizens try to blame the Iraqis.

Thomas Ricks aside, it is preposterous to assert that looting in Bagdhad permitted the formation of the insurgency. In reality, the future insurgents were in full retreat after the fall of Bagdhad. They needed time to retreat, reorganize, obtain funding, access weapons caches, gain intel...etc etc etc.
In essence, you are saying, the coalition force won too quickly.

Who do you think started the campaign against the Shia? It was Zarqawi...not the Baathist hardcores. Mistakes were made...just as they have been in every military campaign from pre-history, but to absolve Iraqi sectarian violence as simply an adaptation to uncertainty is just wrong. Where do you think Zarqawi got most of his one-way chauffers? I will answer it...from Morrocco and Yemen and Jordan and Saudi Arabia...et cetera.

If you ask me, the US chief mistake was failing to understand how easily sectarian hatred could be manipulated by troublemakers. We also seriously overestimated the willingness of Iraqis to accept a pluralistic democracy.

[thirdwatch512]

This parallels so much with what happened over Iraq. Now I hear US has plans to attack Iran. One thing can lead to other as happened before first world war... so again history gonna repeat itself?

trust me.. america will NOT attack iran. the democrats won't let that happen. :) :)

israel though has made threats saying that if america doesn't attack, they will. and if israel attacks iran, we can be rest assured a major war will break out. at the same time though, if israel doesn't attack, i wouldn't be surprised if iran used those nukes and a war would still happen.

all in all, i pray that no attacks happen, and then in 2008 hopefully america will get a good, anti war president that will stop all of this genocide nonsense.

[Jibril]

Wow. I can't wait to pick your post apart. Here we go.

It amazes me how you justify this, there was no insurgency because no one was going to say anything about Saddam, to say the Americans are responsible for Iraqis killing Iraqis makes no sense, you are saying that basically if a dictator is taken from his position, then the country that did it is responsible for the maniacs that decide they want to take over the country?!?!

I'm not justifying anything nor do I need to. There was no insurgency under Saddam because there wasn't a 145,000 strong foreign army in Iraqi territory. Dictators are all bad but they are a reality of the world we live in. That doesn't give America the right to go around acting like boyscouts and remove any dictator they want without thinking of the consequences. Americans are responsible for the killings because as an occupying power, the security of the Iraqi people fell on their shoulders. And they failed because of incompetence. PERIOD FULL STOP!!!

Also please do tell what success the insurgency has had?

Success is measured in terms of what your goals are. The insurgency's goals were to disrupt the occupation, thwart the new Iraqi government whom they viewed as colloborators, and establish a wedge between the different sects. In all 3 areas they have succeded quite well. So they have had success everyone and their dog knows this I don't know why you grasp that they insurgency has been successful.

They have managed to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis! WoW what an acheivement, if the US went in and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis you would call it genocide but because Iraqis are doing it, it is a resistance. Ask yourself this, who are they resisting? .

I never once supported the insurgency's methods nor even their goals. You're just assuming I do. Maybe you should learn to actually read my posts.And the insurgency has not killed hundreds of thousands, its all evenly spread between the Americans, the death squads, and the insurgents and all three groups have been butchering people left and right.

Why havent they killed 100,000 US troops? I can tell you real quick why, because they arent even fighting against the US troops, they are fighting against the Iraqis who oppose them so that they can create severe instability and gain political power, they also want a safe haven for their terrorist attacks and a country that they can conduct the operations through. If you do not see this you are blind

Good lord man!!! How naive are you? You think its so easy to kill 100,000 US troops? Are you nuts? They've killed over 3,000 and counting. They've injured 20,000 troops,....of these, it is estimated that about 10,000 had wounds so severe that they would not have survived only 15 years ago. The Iraq War so far has produced more amputees than Vietnam and World War 2 put together. Who do you think is doing all this? Jeez. Talk about me being blind.

As far as miscalculations and mishaps in Iraq by the US, yes there has been many, but it is still not the US's fault that these people cannot act civilized. They want violence and total dictatorship (the insurgents) so that they may do whatever they want.

No. The insurgents don't want to be marginalized, thats why they are fighting. You are completely ignoring the dynamic of Shia domination and the fact that as soon as the war ended, the US occupation totally marginalized the Sunnis. The De-baathification program is a good example of that.


Keep living in a dream where the US is not responsible for the collapse of Iraq. Thats not how I see it, and thats not how 95% of the world sees it.

[Jibril]

Thomas Ricks aside, it is preposterous to assert that looting in Bagdhad permitted the formation of the insurgency. In reality, the future insurgents were in full retreat after the fall of Bagdhad. They needed time to retreat, reorganize, obtain funding, access weapons caches, gain intel...etc etc etc.
In essence, you are saying, the coalition force won too quickly.

Who do you think started the campaign against the Shia? It was Zarqawi...not the Baathist hardcores. Mistakes were made...just as they have been in every military campaign from pre-history, but to absolve Iraqi sectarian violence as simply an adaptation to uncertainty is just wrong. Where do you think Zarqawi got most of his one-way chauffers? I will answer it...from Morrocco and Yemen and Jordan and Saudi Arabia...et cetera.

If you ask me, the US chief mistake was failing to understand how easily sectarian hatred could be manipulated by troublemakers. We also seriously overestimated the willingness of Iraqis to accept a pluralistic democracy.

The looting was just 1 example out of many. The US contributed to the insurgency by

a- Desolving the army. (provided the manpower)

b- being extremely disrespectful to the iraqi population. (helped recruitment efforts)

c- failing to have adequate manpower to do the policing (left a vacuum).

I could go on and on. Again, read 'Fiasco',..its based on the interviews of many highly respected US military officers, soldiers, and decision makers. Everything i'm saying is straight from the book.

Zarqawi and his gang were 1 faction out of many.

[islamway]

If that is true, it is the most Idiotic thing a country as small as Israel can do. With each nuke in storage the risk of a nuclear mishap greatly increases. It is not a question if a nuclear accident will happen it is just a question of when. With that many in storage, Israel must be suicidal. Their national anthem should be changed to "Will We go Boom Today" One small mishap and it is sayanora Israel.

VANUNU AN ISRAELI SCIENTIST WHO HAS EXPOSED THE HYDROGEN BOMB
Vanunu on Israel: “They can bombard any city all over the world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United States, and by this threat what they are doing is to send a secret message to any leader and to any government that they have the ability to use them aggressively and to blackmail them, to blackmail Europe and the United States, every where, in every state around the world. It was Europe and the United States who helped them get this power, and now that Israel has it, she is coming back and saying to them ‘We will not obey any orders that you give us. No international law, no international agreement, no UN resolutions,’ and all because of these atomic weapons that they have.”

Transcript of interview with Mordechai Vanunu on the television program:
Current Issues with Dr. Hesham Tillawi:

TILLAWI. ‘Well, I do believe that we have Mordechai Vanunu with us…Mordechai, are you with us?

VANUNU. Yes.

TILLAWI. Good Morning, I know that it is 4 o’clock in the morning there in Jerusalem. Folks, Mordechai Vanunu has spent 18 years in an Israeli jail for telling Israeli nuclear secrets. He was lured to Rome by Israeli agents and kidnapped and then sent back to Israel where he spent 18 yrs in prison and 11 of those years in solitary confinement. That is true, Mordechai?

VANUNU. Yes, that is right.

TILLAWI Now, Mordechai, I have a question for you. What was it that you really felt that you must tell the world about, what was it about the Israeli nuclear program that you felt to yourself, ‘you know I cannot continue like this, I cannot remain silent on this, I have got to tell the world about it.’ What was it?

VANUNU Well, the most important point is that it was the same situation that we have right now, namely that these people continue to lie and to cheat the world as well as their own citizens by denying the truth, by declaring that they do not have atomic weapons while at the same time I was working there helping to produce them. At that time there were more than 200 atomic weapons, in 1986, and it was at that time that they started to produce the most horrible of all weapons, the hydrogen bomb…all of this in secret, in lying and in cheating the world and all of its citizens. So I said to myself ‘It is impossible to keep these secrets. I must report about them and to try and stop it.’


TILLAWI Mordechai, there are a lot of nations that have nuclear weapons. What is it about Israel having them that makes you so nervous?

VANUNU Because Israel wants to use them, to cause genocide and holocaust on other innocent citizens. It has always been a part of Israel’s secret policy. And also by having them, Israel will use them as a threat to avoid making peace with the Arab world as well as imposing her policies on those peoples. As long as she has them, she will continue on in her policies of not making peace, of occupation and of neglecting the Palestinian suffering caused by the refugee camps that have existed for more than 50 years.

TILLAWI One of the Israeli professors said a few months ago that ‘we have the nuclear capability of hitting every major European city,’ is that true to your knowledge?

VANUNU Yes, it is true. They can bombard any city all over the world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United States, and by this threat what they are doing is to send a secret message to any leader and to any government that they have the ability to use them aggressively and to blackmail them, to blackmail Europe and the United States, every where, in every state around the world. It was Europe and the United States who helped them get this power, and now that Israel has it, she is coming back and saying to them ‘We will not obey any orders that you give us. No international law, no international agreement, no UN resolutions,’ and all because of these atomic weapons that they have.

TILLAWI Where do you live now Mordechai?

VANUNU Since my release in 2004 I am not allowed to leave the country, all this after serving 18 years. So I decided that I wanted to be someplace where I will not see the ugliness of Jewish society, so I decided to stay in East Jerusalem among Palestinians and among foreigners. Right now I am staying in the guesthouse of St. George’s Cathedral, the Anglican Church. I cannot leave Israel, so I am living amongst the Palestinians and under Israeli occupation, because East Jerusalem is part of the occupation since 1967.

TILLAWI Now, you also have converted from Judaism to Christianity, is that right?

VANUNU Yes

TILLAWI Now, I have a question for you, and I do not want to put you on the spot, but two things happened in your life that are profound. The first is that, according to some people, you betrayed Israel and in their eyes you are considered a traitor, but that is not what I want to ask you about. What I do want to ask you is this: What is the process that went through your head twice in your life? One of them is when you decided to expose the nuclear capability of Israel, your own country, and the other one which is also profound was when you changed your religion to Christianity. Now, those two things are profound and I do not think that there are too many people in the world who have two major shifts in their lives like these. What made Mordechai Vanunu betray his country and then change his religion?

VANUNU Yes, this is a very good question and very important. You are right, it is not usual to have a person come to these hard conclusions. As far as my conversion, it started at the very early age of 15 or 16. I was raised in the Jewish religion and in a Jewish family. Israel and Judaism were considered as one nation, one big family, one tribe. I began criticizing and rejecting Judaism over the point of view that these Jews are teaching injustice through their Judaism. In the same way that Jesus Christ also criticized Judaism 2,000 years ago, I was unwilling to accept what they teach, and later converted to the opposite of Judaism.

The Jewish tribe teaches that there is only one Chosen people of God. They teach of their superiority, taking literally word-by-word the writings in the old bible. And I decided therefore that after 2,000 years these ideas were nonsense. There are 6 billion people around the world, and all of them are equal, all are part of the human race. There is no such thing as a super race. We should all respect and love each other, and that was the beginning of my rejecting Judaism and my accepting of Christianity, of following the teachings of Jesus Christ and of accepting humanity.

I am not a religious man, I am not going to become a priest. I did all of this for my humanity and for my beliefs. So, I chose my own way and began criticizing the Jewish faith. Those who teach Judaism run the lives of those under them, telling them what they must do every hour of every day, issuing many orders about everything, from waking up in the morning to going to sleep, but at the same time they do not teach them to respect other human beings, to accept non-Jews and to believe that non-Jews are like them. They teach that only the Jews are the chosen people. So, this is Judaism, a collection of primitive traditions thousands of years old that have not changed.

The world has changed in the last 2,000 years and the Jewish people need to accept and understand this change, and especially if they want a democratic country. You cannot have a state and run it as they did 2,000 years ago. They came to Palestine in the name of the Bible and in the name of their god and took this land that was promised to them thousands of years ago. In the name of this god, they took the land, expelled the people and gave them hard, cruel, barbaric lives for the last 60 years. This way of thinking, this faith cannot exist within this new age, and it was this that also led me to expose Israel’s nuclear secrets.

TILLAWI Mordechai, you have been living amongst the Palestinians for a while now. What do you think, are they the terrorists that we have all been hearing about?

VANUNU I have been living amongst the Palestinians now for 15 months, but I have been following the Palestinian situation now since the 1980’s. Now I am here living among them, watching them, meeting with them, eating with them, enjoying life with them and seeing how the Israelis have succeeded in portraying them all over the world as terrorists. But this is not true. They are very peaceful people and lovers of peace.

TILLAWI What do you think should happen? How do you think that this conflict should be settled?

VANUNU Well, if the Jewish people want a solution, it can happen only by one way, and this is by accepting the Palestinians and by treating them as equal human beings. If the Israelis want peace, then the proof that you want peace is by respecting the people of the other side and seeing them as equals. The Jews must stop seeing themselves as being part of a master race. The only solution is one state, one society where everyone has equal rights and have the same rights in all categories. If the Jews have the right of return based on what happened 2,000 years ago, then the Palestinians have the right of return after 50 years as well. With one state, there will be no more conflict over land and there will be no more enemies. Israel will then not need atomic weapons because she will learn to live in peace with her neighbors instead of trying to live as a racist supremacist state. The Israelis are not willing to accept this though because they want a Jewish state. Therefore, a secular, non-religious state is the only solution.

TILLAWI. Of course, Israel will not accept this option because of demographic concerns.

VANUNU Yes, that is true and has always been part of Israel’s plan. This has been the reason for Israel not accepting refugees and for isolating the Palestinians in places such as Gaza.

TILLAWI. What do you think of the Gaza withdrawal?

VANUNU The Gaza withdrawal was nothing but a big piece of propaganda trying to show how the Jews were being forced off their land. Of course, what they do not say is the fact that this land was Palestinian land and that it was taken from them by force. So the Zionists used this for brainwashing the people in the United States into thinking about Jewish suffering. But secretly the plan is to use this as a way of isolating 1.4 million Palestinians. The demographic issue is very strong in the mind of the Jewish people and so what they want to do is to eventually move all the Palestinian people into this very small area. All the while, the Sharon government continues to build more settlements in the West Bank.

TILLAWI Back in 1999, 35 members of Congress wrote a letter to President Clinton a concerning you. His response to that letter was “I share with you your concern over Vanunu’s plight and over Israel’s nuclear program. We have repeatedly urged Israel to adhere to the treaty and to accept comprehensive international atomic energy safeguards and inspections.” To your knowledge, have the Israeli nuclear sites ever been inspected by an international nuclear agency?

VANUNU No, it has never opened its program to international inspections.

TILLAWI So, why are we after Iran then to open its doors to inspections, but no one is asking Israel to do the same? Why is that?

VANUNU This is a very strange situation that has been developed and accepted by the Western states since the 1960’s. It goes back about 40 years. My view is that Europe and America are and have been under a long-term agenda of blackmail by the Israelis. In the first case, the Israelis constantly bring up the Holocaust and what happened to the Jews during WWII, blaming the West for it and then using this as the justification for possessing nuclear weapons as a way of preventing this from ever happening again.

TILLAWI. Mordechai, do you know how many Atomic Weapons they possess?

VANUNU At the time that I first revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons program, they had more than 200 atomic weapons and were able to produce every year about 40 kilograms of plutonium. This amount can be used in making 10 atomic weapons each year. What that means is that since 1986 they were able to make another 200.

TILLAWI In your opinion, against whom do the Israelis plan to use these weapons?

VANUNU Their target has always been the Arab states.

TILLAWI How real do you think this threat really is?

VANUNU It is very, very real. Very, very close. It’s easy. It’s simple. All that they need is one crazy leader in the government. They may use it one day to make the world see that they are very powerful and thus force the world to let them continue on with their racist apartheid state for the Jewish people while not accepting any other solutions and to continue rejecting any real solutions for these problems involving the Palestinian people.

TILLAWI Now, what is your situation? You have a trial coming up soon?


VANUNU My situation now is that they have renewed my restrictions for the 2nd year. I cannot leave the country and I cannot speak to foreigners. I am not allowed to speak to you, but I continue to give interviews, so they came and arrested me on November 11th and questioned me and now have put me in a trial. It began a few weeks ago and will continue on through next year. They are accusing me of giving interviews to foreign media. I also am not allowed to go into the occupied territories, so I cannot go into Bethlehem. That is the situation now. I am facing trial and am under restrictions.

TILLAWI So, in other words you will be getting into trouble for speaking with us tonight?

VANUNU, No, it was for interviews that I gave before. For speaking to you tonight Tillawi I will have to face another trial.

TILLAWI. Mordechai, I want to thank you for being with us. It has been a very informative interview, and I just want to say thank you again and good luck to you.

VANUNU Thank you very much and good luck to you and to your audience, and I hope to be with you all one day soon. Thank you.

TILLAWI Okay folks, that was Mordechai Vanunu, former Israeli nuclear scientist who told the world what was happening in Israel.


___________________________________

Source of transcript:
Current Issues with Dr. Hesham Tillawi
http://www.currentissues.tv/VanunuTranscript.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...n.com+%2F+News
http://www.serve.com/vanunu/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+Secret+Weapon

Audio stream on interview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...u_20040420.ram
http://easylink.playstream.com/curre...suesvanunu.wvx

[Cognescenti]

Wow. I can't wait to pick your post apart. Here we go.





I'm not justifying anything nor do I need to. There was no insurgency under Saddam because there wasn't a 145,000 strong foreign army in Iraqi territory. Dictators are all bad but they are a reality of the world we live in. That doesn't give America the right to go around acting like boyscouts and remove any dictator they want without thinking of the consequences. Americans are responsible for the killings because as an occupying power, the security of the Iraqi people fell on their shoulders. And they failed because of incompetence. PERIOD FULL STOP!!!

Now hold on there Jibril. On this issue of why there was no insurgency with SH in power???? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Saddam heaped economic (and other) rewards on the Sunnis (especially the Tikrit homeboys) in order to engender their loyalty in helping him suppress (often by eradicating whole villages, flooding out the Marsh Arbs, etc etc) the more numerous but politically powerless Shia. After GWI, there was indeed a significant Shia uprising (ie, insurgency) in the South. He killed them all, flattened a few villages...et voila...no insurgency. Ditto the Kurds...that was what the anfal was. Shia/Sunni antagonism isn't really the fault of the Ottomans or the colonial British or the Americans or the UN or cosmic rays. I beleive the schism goes back many centuries and, though somewhat mysterious to me, seems to have something to do with intellectual property rights.


Of course, there was no Sunni insurgency in Iraq with Hussein in power...why should there be..they were the grand Poobahs at the time.

[Jibril]

Now hold on there Jibril. On this issue of why there was no insurgency with SH in power???? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Saddam heaped economic (and other) rewards on the Sunnis (especially the Tikrit homeboys) in order to engender their loyalty in helping him suppress (often by eradicating whole villages, flooding out the Marsh Arbs, etc etc) the more numerous but politically powerless Shia. After GWI, there was indeed a significant Shia uprising (ie, insurgency) in the South. He killed them all, flattened a few villages...et voila...no insurgency. Ditto the Kurds...that was what the anfal was. Shia/Sunni antagonism isn't really the fault of the Ottomans or the colonial British or the Americans or the UN or cosmic rays. I beleive the schism goes back many centuries and, though somewhat mysterious to me, seems to have something to do with intellectual property rights.


Of course, there was no Sunni insurgency in Iraq with Hussein in power...why should there be..they were the grand Poobahs at the time.

Ok as a Sunni, let me tell you that this Sunni-Shia rivalry thing is way overblown. Look throughout the 1400 year history of Islam and you will see that clashes between the groups have been relatively few, and only in connection with a political struggle of some sort (e.g. the Safavid dynasty versus the Ottomans).

Saddam Hussein lavished his own tribe the Al BuNasr and related tribes, which happened to be sunni. But many in the Baath power structure were also shia.The army was majority Shia. Many high profile thugs of Saddam were Shia. Obviously the Shias suffered most under Saddam because they presented the only viable opposition to him. It had nothing to do with them being Shias he would have done the same thing to Sunnis who threatened him. Not to mention, Shias and Sunnis mixed marriages made up an estimated 20-30 % weddings. Hardly an indication of antagonism between the 2 groups.

[Cognescenti]

Ok as a Sunni, let me tell you that this Sunni-Shia rivalry thing is way overblown. Look throughout the 1400 year history of Islam and you will see that clashes between the groups have been relatively few, and only in connection with a political struggle of some sort (e.g. the Safavid dynasty versus the Ottomans).

Saddam Hussein lavished his own tribe the Al BuNasr and related tribes, which happened to be sunni. But many in the Baath power structure were also shia.The army was majority Shia. Many high profile thugs of Saddam were Shia. Obviously the Shias suffered most under Saddam because they presented the only viable opposition to him. It had nothing to do with them being Shias he would have done the same thing to Sunnis who threatened him. Not to mention, Shias and Sunnis mixed marriages made up an estimated 20-30 % weddings. Hardly an indication of antagonism between the 2 groups.

On this I suspect we can agree:

Saddam Hussein was a murdering sociopath who cowardly let his own grandson die in a shootout while he hid out in his stinking spider hole letting others do the fighting. He was a Sunni muslim only by accident, had a clan attachment only for expediency and even murdered two of his own son-in-laws. he murdered numerous Sunni political rivals...just perhaps for sport or to make a point. He was somehat pragmatic..his UN envoy was even a former Christian who changed his name to seem more Islamic. I don't think he could give a rip about historical divisions in Islam (other than from a poltiical alliance standpoint).

Here is where we disagree:

The overwhelming bulk of his mass murders were directed against the Shia and Kurds. They represented a far greater threat to his regime. They were his insurgency. He was just far better at suppresing insurgency than the US.

1) He had superior intelligence of oppostion groups
2) His agents were accomplished torturers...making the few sadistic US prison guards at Abu Ghraidb look like boy scouts.
3) He had absolutely no reservations or external checks on his methods which included the liberal use of mass killings, group punishment, ethnic cleansing, appropriation of whole villages or regions and, of course, aerial nerve gas attacks on civilians.

As far as intermarriage between Sunni/Shia..living together in Bagdhad..yada yada yada...yes that is true, but a similar thing was also true in a remarkably parallel fashion in Bosnia. Look what happened when Tito was gone in Yuogoslavia. When the strongman was gone, nationalist hotheads began to rise in power. They had kept their mouths shut for decades..but as soon as the cork was loosened, it was only a matter of time.

Ditto Iraq...there was a somewhat arbitrary and unnatural joining of the Shia and Sunni based on historical accident, kept together by a tyrant with absolute control of a military machine. In fact, this is the very reason SH was not ousted after GWI. If the idiot had only behaved himself or even remotely cooperated on verifiable disarmament, he might still be in power. He didn't cooperate becasue he wanted to look like a big man to his Arab buds. The US isn't the only one who miscalcualted.

[S_87]

no actually they cant which is part of the reason the US is there in the first place, how could civilians stop a brutal armed militia (Taliban) from doing whatever they want?


i bet you think like Iran that the US has just used all of it military might in one spot dont you? Perhaps you should research the US military, there are still plenty of troops, battleships, aircraft and submarines to go around, Iran would take maybe one good slap from the us before it collapsed like a card house

they may have enough to go to war again but can they AFFORD to? i dont mean material wise only.
the civilians could stop the 'brutal armed militia' by not welcoming into their towns as they are doing? theyve realised the 'freedom' they were promised..their land taken over by warlords...

[MTAFFI]

I'm not justifying anything nor do I need to. There was no insurgency under Saddam because there wasn't a 145,000 strong foreign army in Iraqi territory. Dictators are all bad but they are a reality of the world we live in. That doesn't give America the right to go around acting like boyscouts and remove any dictator they want without thinking of the consequences. Americans are responsible for the killings because as an occupying power, the security of the Iraqi people fell on their shoulders. And they failed because of incompetence. PERIOD FULL STOP!!!

First off, Saddam wasnt ousted just because he was a ruthless dictator, he also posed a threat to the US national security, or at least he made himself seem that way. Second, the US is not responsible for people killing other people just because we are the occupying power, they are responsible for stopping it, which is why we are still there. So make up your mind should the US leave or stay?

Success is measured in terms of what your goals are. The insurgency's goals were to disrupt the occupation, thwart the new Iraqi government whom they viewed as colloborators, and establish a wedge between the different sects. In all 3 areas they have succeded quite well. So they have had success everyone and their dog knows this I don't know why you grasp that they insurgency has been successful.

You basically did a good job here of summing up the insurgency. They are murderers who want anarchy and a division of the Iraqi country. But what disruption have they actually caused to the occupation? Are they successful because they manage to kill hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis? WOW what a goal!! They want to topple a government, but it is still in place, so how have they been successful there? And Iraq is still Iraq, some worse than others so how have they divided it? They havent, so what have they been successful at, KILLING A BUNCH OF IRAQIS AND STARTING CIVIL WAR, WHAT A SUCCESS! I wonder what the reward for this success is, I wonder what people in 100 years will say of their fruitless efforts?

I never once supported the insurgency's methods nor even their goals. You're just assuming I do. Maybe you should learn to actually read my posts.And the insurgency has not killed hundreds of thousands, its all evenly spread between the Americans, the death squads, and the insurgents and all three groups have been butchering people left and right.

Oh, right I guess I shouldnt assume what you imply, sorry my mistake. :rolleyes: As far as your ridiculous claim that the US has killed as many as the insurgents (or that it is evenly spread), I think your statement looks ignorant enough for me not to bother responding to it.

Good lord man!!! How naive are you? You think its so easy to kill 100,000 US troops? Are you nuts? They've killed over 3,000 and counting. They've injured 20,000 troops,....of these, it is estimated that about 10,000 had wounds so severe that they would not have survived only 15 years ago. The Iraq War so far has produced more amputees than Vietnam and World War 2 put together. Who do you think is doing all this? Jeez. Talk about me being blind.

What is your point, I believe I said they arent fighting the US they are fighting each other, so OK what 100,000 Iraqis were in between the insurgent and US troops. WRONG, they kill indiscriminately, the US can only fire if fired upon. What does that tell you, let me explain, it mean the majority of kills the US has made are against the enemy and not the civilians.

No. The insurgents don't want to be marginalized, thats why they are fighting. You are completely ignoring the dynamic of Shia domination and the fact that as soon as the war ended, the US occupation totally marginalized the Sunnis. The De-baathification program is a good example of that.


Keep living in a dream where the US is not responsible for the collapse of Iraq. Thats not how I see it, and thats not how 95% of the world sees it.

So here you are saying that the Sunnis are being marginalized and 3 posts up you say that the Sunni Shia thing is overblown, make up your mind and stop changing your opinions to support your argument. The De-Baathification program was put into effect because of the people Saddam surrounded himself with, what would be the point of taking him out if you left his successor to take his place?

I didnt realize I was speaking with 95% of the world, so I apologize for my arrogance, or is it 95% of your world? The US is not responsible for the people causing the deaths of thousands, as you said yourself it is their PLAN, so why is that the US's fault. These people could have had a wonderful new beginning free of oppression and mass killings, but unfortunately some people seem to find this alternative unsettling or against their own sick interests.

So go ahead Jibril blame everything on everyone else, because after all if everyone would just be OK with dictatorship, mass graves, poison gas, religous and ethnic persecution, assasination, threats about having WMD, and going to war with every country around you then Iraq could still be a wonderful place to live.

[MTAFFI]

they may have enough to go to war again but can they AFFORD to? i dont mean material wise only.

I dont see why not, if it means stopping a maniac from obtaining WMD's, many wars have been much more bloody and last longer than this war in Iraq.
**Also please know that I do not wish to fight Iran if it is unnecessary, however it seems this is what Iran wants

the civilians could stop the 'brutal armed militia' by not welcoming into their towns as they are doing? theyve realised the 'freedom' they were promised..their land taken over by warlords...

Who welcomes them, or rather who wouldnt say "Yeah come on in" when someone has a machine gun pointed at your face, as far as the warlords, I do not know what to say other than it is utterly ridiculous for the US and UK to support these people. All support should be for Karzai and Karzai and his government alone. The warlords are no better than the Taliban.

[Bittersteel]

the Iraqis that choose to kill other Iraqis

its the US which created the power vacuum.they are not directly but indirectly responsible IMO.I am not blaming the US for the sectarian fighting.I just blame for starting the **** whole war in the first place.stuff like rape,murders,looting,sectarian fighting happens when there's no law or order.Saddam didn't give justice to his people but he kept the country in order somewhat.
the Iraqi military was destroyed when it was most needed.It will take decades(at least 2 or 3) to form a fully capable,though average, military.

[Jibril]

First off, Saddam wasnt ousted just because he was a ruthless dictator, he also posed a threat to the US national security, or at least he made himself seem that way.

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war. Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat, thats preposterous. Everyone knows that the Bush administration was fixated on going into Saddam since before September 11th. Richard Clark, the former counter terrorism czar will tell you the same thing.

. Second, the US is not responsible for people killing other people just because we are the occupying power,

The reason people are killing each other in the first place is precisely because the US failed in their responsibilities as an occupying power. So yes the US is responsible.

Are they successful because they manage to kill hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis? WOW what a goal!! They want to topple a government, but it is still in place, so how have they been successful there? And Iraq is still Iraq, some worse than others so how have they divided it? They havent, so what have they been successful at, KILLING A BUNCH OF IRAQIS AND STARTING CIVIL WAR, WHAT A SUCCESS! I wonder what the reward for this success is, I wonder what people in 100 years will say of their fruitless efforts?

Are we arguing whether there goals are good or whether they are successful? Make up your mind? Regardless of the nature of their goals,..they have been successful. As for them not toppling the government, it took 15 years for the North Vietnamese to topple the American backed government in Saigon. Don't you read history? Especially your own? This current government in Iraq is much more precarious than the one in Saigon (they were atleast firmly in control of their own capital). And the government has been on the verge of collapse many times and have been rendered almost useless. So yes I would say the insurgency has been pretty d.amn successful at undermining the government.

Oh, right I guess I shouldnt assume what you imply, sorry my mistake. :rolleyes: As far as your ridiculous claim that the US has killed as many as the insurgents (or that it is evenly spread), I think your statement looks ignorant enough for me not to bother responding to it.

I didn't imply a d.amn thing. I guess being Muslim is implication enough for the likes of you. And you can roll your eyes all you want, but US troops along with US airstrikes have killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians.

What is your point, I believe I said they arent fighting the US they are fighting each other, so OK what 100,000 Iraqis were in between the insurgent and US troops. WRONG, they kill indiscriminately, the US can only fire if fired upon. What does that tell you, let me explain, it mean the majority of kills the US has made are against the enemy and not the civilians.
.

You don't even know what the rules of engagement are. I assure you the Americans are not *only* allowed to fire when fired upon. If they see someone digging a hole to plant a bomb, they can fire, if a car approaches a checkpoint at a fast speed, they can fire, if a guy looks suspicious with a gun, they can fire, if someone resists arrest, they can fire. They can fire pretty much whenever the hell they feel in danger. As for the majority of US kills being against the *enemy*, I personally believe thats a load of bull.

So here you are saying that the Sunnis are being marginalized and 3 posts up you say that the Sunni Shia thing is overblown, make up your mind and stop changing your opinions to support your argument. The De-Baathification program was put into effect because of the people Saddam surrounded himself with, what would be the point of taking him out if you left his successor to take his place?

The sunni/shia thing is way overblown. That doesn't mean the 2 sides don't come into conflict, it only means the reasons and the intensity of their disagreements are misunderstood. These news reports will have you believe that Sunni hate Shia (and vice versa) because of something that happened 1400 years ago. Thats not true, they hate each other because they are competing for resources and political power today!! The religious difference doesn't mean anything to the vast vast majority of them. Most are probably ignorant of the exact reasons of the split.

The debaathification program was used by Shias as an excuse to purge ALL sunnis. Even the ones that had nothing to do with Saddam. Most people had no choice but to join the Baath party inorder to have any career and support their families. The program is supposed to weed out the real baathists from the people who joined up only for practical reasons. The Baath party had millions of members in a nation of 25 million. You can't blacklist all of them.

The US is not responsible for the people causing the deaths of thousands, as you said yourself it is their PLAN, so why is that the US's fault. These people could have had a wonderful new beginning free of oppression and mass killings, but unfortunately some people seem to find this alternative unsettling or against their own sick interests.

It is the US's fault because this *plan* only came about because of an immoral US invasion based on lies and half-truths, followed by a half-as.sed occupation that practically begged for an insurgency.

So go ahead Jibril blame everything on everyone else, because after all if everyone would just be OK with dictatorship, mass graves, poison gas, religous and ethnic persecution, assasination, threats about having WMD, and going to war with every country around you then Iraq could still be a wonderful place to live.

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on? Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Who offered this "safe passage" in the first place? Who has the authority to even negotiate with the U.S. about the future of Iraq besides the elected government? The U.S. military doesn't need "safe passage", what they need is a concrete goal to achieve. That is what is missing in this conflict.

The ISI offered one month of safe passage during the draw-back.

BUSH asked for negotiations with them, but they refused to "negotiate" with people who had Sunni blood on their hands. I was unhappy to hear that, but...

Concrete goal? The U.S. had no idea how complex the situation is, which is why they say: "Civil War" is too simplistic a term to use for the current situation in Iraq. At this rate, so many other countries have been dragged into the dispute over government (both above board and below the belt), it would make your head spin... so your opinion on the situation, while correct from a purely military perspective, accomplishes nothing more than an escalation of what's already been going on these past four years, and if that continues, there won't be any civilians left to defend - from anyone's side!

Ninth Scribe

[Cognescenti]

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war. Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat, thats preposterous. Everyone knows that the Bush administration was fixated on going into Saddam since before September 11th. Richard Clark, the former counter terrorism czar will tell you the same thing.

Uh oh. Apparently MTAFFI and I are the only two retards on the planet that don't know that "the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war". Now, if you want to change your claim to "utilized intelligence subsequently proven to be false" then I wouldn't be in such an awkward spot of disagreeing with 4.5 billion people.

Saddam deliberately deceived any number of western intelligence agencies with his obfuscatory tactics designed to raise suspicions of WMD's and maintain his street cred in the Arab world. He made a very serious mistake and now he is dead. :'(

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on? Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

On balance, that is true. There was less total suffering in Iraq at the start of the Coalition invasion...of course...one needs to deliberately steer away from such awkward historical realities as the Iran/Iraq war which "everyone knows" caused > 1 million casualties ..and he was certainly not done with mischief-making. Iraq was deliberately and inexorably escaping the sanctions regime. Iraq was a festering abscess. Now it is suppurating.

[MTAFFI]

Apparently you're the last person on earth who doesn't know that the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war.

Here we go with you and your view on everyone elses in the world again

Saddam didn't make himself "seem" like he was a threat

Really? Saddam never attempted to aquire WMD's? Did he allow anyone to fully inspect suspected facilities?

The reason people are killing each other in the first place is precisely because the US failed in their responsibilities as an occupying power. So yes the US is responsible.

Really? What are these responsibilities that would drive someone to kill another?

Are we arguing whether there goals are good or whether they are successful? Make up your mind?

I dont know are we? I simply made a statement about what a great goal it was, I never asked what you thought about it, think before you type

Regardless of the nature of their goals,..they have been successful. As for them not toppling the government, it took 15 years for the North Vietnamese to topple the American backed government in Saigon. Don't you read history? Especially your own?

Are we talking about history or present times?

This current government in Iraq is much more precarious than the one in Saigon (they were atleast firmly in control of their own capital). And the government has been on the verge of collapse many times and have been rendered almost useless. So yes I would say the insurgency has been pretty d.amn successful at undermining the government.

How do you figure, what have they undermined? Is the government still there? YES it is so it is not toppled, so are we talking about undermining as a goal or toppling? You tell me since you know so much about the goals of the insurgency. (Personally I dont think they have any real goals)

I guess being Muslim is implication enough for the likes of you. And you can roll your eyes all you want, but US troops along with US airstrikes have killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians.

I personally dont care if you are Muslim, either way you are human. As far as airstrikes, there are always going to be some collateral damage, however I wouldnt say the number is in the thousands as far as Iraqis civilians go being killed by Americans

You don't even know what the rules of engagement are. I assure you the Americans are not *only* allowed to fire when fired upon. If they see someone digging a hole to plant a bomb, they can fire, if a car approaches a checkpoint at a fast speed, they can fire, if a guy looks suspicious with a gun, they can fire, if someone resists arrest, they can fire. They can fire pretty much whenever the hell they feel in danger. As for the majority of US kills being against the *enemy*, I personally believe thats a load of bull.

It seems you dont know the rules of engagement, all of the above is incorrect except the resisting arrest part. That is all a threat to a soldiers life, so unless a soldiers life is threatened they may not fire. This keeps civilian deaths to a minimal. The "Dont shoot unless shot at" is just one of these, however I doubt a civilian would do any of what you are talking about above. You can think that the kills being majority enemy is bull but that is just you, thank God you didnt speak for the whole world this time, I just dont know if i would have been able to bear it..lol

The sunni/shia thing is way overblown. That doesn't mean the 2 sides don't come into conflict, it only means the reasons and the intensity of their disagreements are misunderstood. These news reports will have you believe that Sunni hate Shia (and vice versa) because of something that happened 1400 years ago. Thats not true, they hate each other because they are competing for resources and political power today!! The religious difference doesn't mean anything to the vast vast majority of them. Most are probably ignorant of the exact reasons of the split.

Earlier it was the American screw ups, now it is political (which by the way is what I originally said) so it looks like we have come full circle on this, thanks for finally agreeing. Also just so you know the news doesnt make me think sunni hate shia or vice versa, actually the news tells me that they are fighting for political control, which is partly where I got my original info from...lol..

The debaathification program was used by Shias as an excuse to purge ALL sunnis. Even the ones that had nothing to do with Saddam. Most people had no choice but to join the Baath party inorder to have any career and support their families. The program is supposed to weed out the real baathists from the people who joined up only for practical reasons. The Baath party had millions of members in a nation of 25 million. You can't blacklist all of them.

Really, all Sunnis? You again show your ignorance. Ghazi Mashal Ajil al Yawir and Kamil Mubdir al Kaylani are both Sunni and both part of the Iraqi government, there are more including some from Saddams days, so you are wrong. You are right about people joining the Baathist party, which is why they arent all blacklisted, just the ones who need to be.

It is the US's fault because this *plan* only came about because of an immoral US invasion based on lies and half-truths, followed by a half-as.sed occupation that practically begged for an insurgency.

Now blame their plan on everyone else :rolleyes: So if the insurgency is based on fighting the US troops why blow up a Shia shrine? why direct a suicide bomber to blow himself up outside of a major Iraqi college? Why threaten teachers that you will kill them if they continue to teach? Is that all part of this master *plan*?

No one is ok with the above. But you seem to be ok with death squads, suicide car bombs, IEDs, kidnapping, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, threats of regional war, terrorism, Al qaeda in Iraq, Iranian hegemony,...shall I go on?

Really? Where did you pull that one from, I am saying that the US needs to stay until all those who want what you are speaking of are dead, what are you saying?

Iraq was much better off under Saddam, that isn't an opinion it is a fact, and most IRaqis agree in recent polls.

never said it wasnt, how about you poll the people (since you represent at least 95% of the world) and see what they would think if there was no Saddam or insurgency, what would Iraq be like then? If there was no insurgency, there is no need for US troops, and if the insurgencies goal is to drive them out, then why continue the killing?

[MTAFFI]

Uh oh. Apparently MTAFFI and I are the only two retards on the planet that don't know that "the Bush administration deliberately cooked information to get this war". Now, if you want to change your claim to "utilized intelligence subsequently proven to be false" then I wouldn't be in such an awkward spot of disagreeing with 4.5 billion people.

Saddam deliberately deceived any number of western intelligence agencies with his obfuscatory tactics designed to raise suspicions of WMD's and maintain his street cred in the Arab world. He made a very serious mistake and now he is dead. :'(



On balance, that is true. There was less total suffering in Iraq at the start of the Coalition invasion...of course...one needs to deliberately steer away from such awkward historical realities as the Iran/Iraq war which "everyone knows" caused > 1 million casualties ..and he was certainly not done with mischief-making. Iraq was deliberately and inexorably escaping the sanctions regime. Iraq was a festering abscess. Now it is suppurating.

you really should start a radio show..;D

[Cognescenti]

you really should start a radio show..;D

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

[MTAFFI]

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

LOL

[Jibril]

You know what they say about people in radio......too ugly for television:smile:

You really think the Bush administration didn't deliberately skew and even "cook up" intelligience to support their war? This just in today, a very d.amning report by the Pentagon acknowledges that Pentagon officials deliberately manipulated evidence to support Bush's cause for war. Enjoy and next time I hope you're not so naive. I'll give you 2 sources.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...8N67L6O1.shtml

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003543976

[Cognescenti]

You really think the Bush administration didn't deliberately skew and even "cook up" intelligience to support their war? This just in today, a very d.amning report by the Pentagon acknowledges that Pentagon officials deliberately manipulated evidence to support Bush's cause for war. Enjoy and next time I hope you're not so naive. I'll give you 2 sources.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...8N67L6O1.shtml

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003543976

What I think is people, even if they are angry, need to be a bit more careful before they start to accuse their government of lying in order to justify a war. That is a very big claim. Saying they "cooked up" intel to me implies fabrication. Again..a very big claim.

Now..the Pentagon IG report.

Note:

1) The reporter from either source has not seen the report (I presume it's classified)
2) The words "very ****ing" come from Carl Levin, a partisan hack....NOT FROM THE REPORT. How convenient, eh? Describe it as very ****ing knowing it is not releasable...hmmmm?
3) The Senate inquiry into this issue absolved the Pentagon and Admin once already.

It seems I am not the only gullible one.

I would be very interested to read the report, it may have something new, it may not. BTW, You know, I hope, when the CIA issues intel reports, there is almost always dissent that doesn't make it's way into the reoprt? That's the way it is with consensus documents.

Over to you

[Jibril]

What I think is people, even if they are angry, need to be a bit more careful before they start to accuse their government of lying in order to justify a war. That is a very big claim. Saying they "cooked up" intel to me implies fabrication. Again..a very big claim.

Now..the Pentagon IG report.

Note:

1) The reporter from either source has not seen the report (I presume it's classified)
2) The words "very ****ing" come from Carl Levin, a partisan hack....NOT FROM THE REPORT. How convenient, eh? Describe it as very ****ing knowing it is not releasable...hmmmm?
3) The Senate inquiry into this issue absolved the Pentagon and Admin once already.

It seems I am not the only gullible one.

I would be very interested to read the report, it may have something new, it may not. BTW, You know, I hope, when the CIA issues intel reports, there is almost always dissent that doesn't make it's way into the reoprt? That's the way it is with consensus documents.

Over to you

I think you're nitpicking my post and not refuting the meat of my argument. Ofcourse the report has not been released, but the findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated. The fact that the Bush Administration is not playing it down also adds credence to its veracity. For the purposes of my argument I think thats proof. And while reporters haven't read the report they have sources that have.

Senate hearings and inquiries are political exercises, if they absolved the Pentagon and Admin it means absolutely nothing. If its not politcally expedient to condemn the admin they won't. The fact that in the 4 years of the Iraq war there hasn't been a single Senate hearing looking into its conduct speaks volumes as to the utter uselessness of the Senate and House for that matter.

As to the CIA intellegience reports. Please research how the CIA handled the NIE on Iraq and how they cherrypicked information regarding Iraq. In my mind this alone stands as proof of direct manipulation by the Bush admin.

Cognescenti, there are just too many indications of foul play to not come to the conclusion that my government, our government, deliberately skewed, manipulated, doctored, however you wanna put it, the intelligience regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMD's.

[Cognescenti]

I think you're nitpicking my post and not refuting the meat of my argument. Ofcourse the report has not been released, but the findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated. The fact that the Bush Administration is not playing it down also adds credence to its veracity. For the purposes of my argument I think thats proof. And while reporters haven't read the report they have sources that have.

I am "nitpicking" because you are, in essence, alleging a crime. Who is the source other than Carl Levin? This claim: "findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated", has not, to my satisfaction been established. Fife was on NPR this AM. He claimed the Pentagon presented contrasting intelligence estimates to the White House. These estimates differed, at times, from the CIA, which were in themselves consensus documents...but the President got both estimates.

Senate hearings and inquiries are political exercises, if they absolved the Pentagon and Admin it means absolutely nothing. If its not politcally expedient to condemn the admin they won't. The fact that in the 4 years of the Iraq war there hasn't been a single Senate hearing looking into its conduct speaks volumes as to the utter uselessness of the Senate and House for that matter.

I will remind you there is no shortage of opponents of the war in the Senate. BTW...the same allegation you are making was made in the UK agaisnt a Labour Govmt....and found lacking.

As to the CIA intellegience reports. Please research how the CIA handled the NIE on Iraq and how they cherrypicked information regarding Iraq. In my mind this alone stands as proof of direct manipulation by the Bush admin.

Again, I will remind you that CIA intel estimates are consensus documents. There is almost always dissent that is not included in the final report. Some times the dissenters are right, often they are not.

BTW...while we are on the subject of the CIA..is it really fair to call the CIA part of the Bush Administration leading up to the attack on Iraq???? Where do you think 007, super-secret agent licensed to kill, Valerie Plame worked? The CIA director was a Clinton appointee. 99% of the staff are lifers.

Thiokol engineers warned that very cold weather might be dangerous for the Space Shuttle tanks. The head of NASA overruled them. You saw what happened. Does that mean he "cooked the books"? He arrived at a decision with imperfect or incomplete information.

Cognescenti, there are just too many indications of foul play to not come to the conclusion that my government, our government, deliberately skewed, manipulated, doctored, however you wanna put it, the intelligience regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and WMD's.

DOCTORED...nope, not proven, not even close
SKEWED....nope, not proven, again implies changing facts or figures.

Attempted to make the strongest case they could?...duh...of course they did.
What do you expect Colin Powel to do in the UN? Allow the Iraqi Ambassador rebuttals in the middle of his speech?

That is a far cry from deliberate lying.

[Woodrow]

I'm just about convinced that we have slowly slipped into WW3 and because the form of warfare has changed we have not recognized it and there is no clear cut distinction as to who is enemy or friend at any given moment.

I think the only question is: Will somebody initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

[Jibril]

I am "nitpicking" because you are, in essence, alleging a crime. Who is the source other than Carl Levin? This claim: "findings have been leaked that Pentagon officials believe intelligience was manipulated", has not, to my satisfaction been established. Fife was on NPR this AM. He claimed the Pentagon presented contrasting intelligence estimates to the White House. These estimates differed, at times, from the CIA, which were in themselves consensus documents...but the President got both estimates.

I am alleging a crime, but this isn't the court of law. The burden of proof when it comes to my own opinion (or any discerning person's opinion) about whether manipulation occured is much lower than it would be in court. Someone may be acquitted in a criminal court only to be found responsible in a civil court precisely because of differing burdens of proof requirements. For my own purposes of deciding whether or not I believe they are guilty,...I think I've seen enough evidence to declare them guilty as hell.

I will remind you there is no shortage of opponents of the war in the Senate. BTW...the same allegation you are making was made in the UK agaisnt a Labour Govmt....and found lacking.

Yes, these were all the same *opponents* of the war that voted for the use of force in 2002. As I said, political expediency is king in Washington. It doesn't matter what these legislators believe, it only matters what they can afford to believe. The same can probably be said for our ally across the pond.

BTW...while we are on the subject of the CIA..is it really fair to call the CIA part of the Bush Administration leading up to the attack on Iraq???? Where do you think 007, super-secret agent licensed to kill, Valerie Plame worked? The CIA director was a Clinton appointee. 99% of the staff are lifers.

While the CIA is not part of the administration per say, their actions were only in response to intense political pressure from this administration. Which is why I hold the Bush administration responsible for the CIA's misteps.

Thiokol engineers warned that very cold weather might be dangerous for the Space Shuttle tanks. The head of NASA overruled them. You saw what happened. Does that mean he "cooked the books"? He arrived at a decision with imperfect or incomplete information.

I would have to know more about this specific incident to comment. Did the head of NASA pressure his people to play down the threat of cold weather? Did he knowingly submit dubious evidence to support his pre-determined decision? If so I would say he did cook the books.

DOCTORED...nope, not proven, not even close
SKEWED....nope, not proven, again implies changing facts or figures.

Attempted to make the strongest case they could?...duh...of course they did.
What do you expect Colin Powel to do in the UN? Allow the Iraqi Ambassador rebuttals in the middle of his speech?

That is a far cry from deliberate lying.

They deliberately accepted, dug for, and provided dubious intelligience to support their war. They inlisted confidential Iraqi "informants" without vetting them and accepted their intelligience without questioning. This was/is totally against the standards of the intelligience community and constitutes clear manipulation I think.

Cognescenti, in the next 30 years I suspect we will learn a lot more about the inner workings of the Bush administration and their decision to go to war. Especially after certain documents are declassified. I am sure I and many others will be vindicated when this happens.

We may never agree, but that is not because I am wrong,.that is because we simply have different standards for what constitutes proof of manipulation. I honestly believe that the Bush administrations' manipulation and dishonesty is clear as day.

[Cognescenti]

Cognescenti, in the next 30 years I suspect we will learn a lot more about the inner workings of the Bush administration and their decision to go to war. Especially after certain documents are declassified. I am sure I and many others will be vindicated when this happens.

We may never agree, but that is not because I am wrong,.that is because we simply have different standards for what constitutes proof of manipulation. I honestly believe that the Bush administrations' manipulation and dishonesty is clear as day.

Its a date then! LI Islamic Forum...Feb 2037 :smile:

[AvarAllahNoor]

Iran to strike Us Interests If Attacked

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keqB0-bipQ0[/url]

It will be CATASTROPHE

[Muezzin]

Iran to strike Us Interests If Attacked

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keqB0-bipQ0[/url]

It will be CATASTROPHE

It would be WWIII and a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war. I guess business is business, eh?

[Cognescenti]

It would be WWIII and a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war. I guess business is business, eh?

Oh really? And you are able to say this because a guy with a beanie said this on YouTube? :uuh:

Since there a "a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war", perhaps you could point to some public comment by a "bunch" of these guys (you might want to concentrate on the Americans because I dont speak Farsi).

Is it Bush? I have heard him state categorically on more than one occaision that the US is not preparing to attack Iran. Don't you think he might be involved in the process?

Look Muezzin, sending a couple of new ships to the Persian Gulf doesn't mean an attack is coming. Its a signal..to hasten the diplomatic process.

[Muezzin]

Oh really? And you are able to say this because a guy with a beanie said this on YouTube? :uuh:

I did not watch the video, I simply formed an opinion based on the possibility of Iran launcing a nuke at the US. You misunderstood my post. I'm saying, in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on the US, war is the certain result.

Since there a "a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war", perhaps you could point to some public comment by a "bunch" of these guys (you might want to concentrate on the Americans because I dont speak Farsi).

That's hyperbole because I'm frustrated at certain rightist attitudes from both sides. If you would like to make fun of that momentary lapse of judgement, so be it. I'm exercising my freedom of expression and so are you.

In any case, the use of the word 'seem' should indicate to you that I'm expressing an opinion rather than a fact.

Is it Bush? I have heard him state categorically on more than one occaision that the US is not preparing to attack Iran. Don't you think he might be involved in the process?

Don't you think a nuclear attack on American soil might just trigger a war?

Look Muezzin, sending a couple of new ships to the Persian Gulf doesn't mean an attack is coming. Its a signal..to hasten the diplomatic process.

Where did I even imply anything about the sending of ships to the Persian Gulf? Perhaps you should stop and think before putting words in people's mouths.

[Keltoi]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

[AvarAllahNoor]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

Whoever attacks, it will be a disaster,

US is not the global power any more. China and India are too.

[Cognescenti]

I did not watch the video, I simply formed an opinion based on the possibility of Iran launcing a nuke at the US. I see you do not understand the conditional tense. Hint: I used the word 'would'. If Iran did use nuclear weapons on the US, it would trigger a war.

Fair enough. I mistakenly attributed the link to you. Sorry about that. As far as the conditional tense..easy on the insult there , bro...we both know it is passing from the language :smile:

That's hyperbole because I'm frustrated at certain rightist attitudes from both sides. If you would like to make fun of that momentary lapse of judgement, so be it. I'm exercising my freedom of expression and so are you.

Fair enough...but that is how attitudes tend to become hardened...with the propagation of unsupportable generalizations

Don't you think a nuclear attack on American soil might just trigger a war?

Of course it would..if it could be attributed to a specific source. Even if it couldn't...I think the ususal suspects would be in big trouble.

Shotgun diplomacy is an oxymoron. Anyway, where did I even imply anything about the sending of ships to the Persian Gulf? Perhaps you should stop and think before putting words in people's mouths.

No you didn't say anything about ships...just specualtion on my part as to why someone would think "rightwingers" were advocating war with Iran..when all public statements seem to be in the opposite direction.

As far as sabre-rattling goes...there does seem to be some pushback from the homeboys toward Ahmadinejad's confrontational style with the West. It might actually work. Better US sabre-rattling than an Israeli strike.

[Cognescenti]

Whoever attacks, it will be a disaster,

US is not the global power any more. China and India are too.

A war between the US and Iran or even Iran and Israel would be very, very bad. I don't think any US President or Israel leader will allow Iranian nukes if something can be done about it. There is definitely something to worry about on a 5 year horizon. I think the Europeans needed to get a bit tougher on Iran to prevent this catastrophe.

[Muezzin]

Fair enough. I mistakenly attributed the link to you. Sorry about that. As far as the conditional tense..easy on the insult there , bro...we both know it is passing from the language :smile:

Yeah, I apologise about that. I actually just edited it because I realised how rude I was being.

Fair enough...but that is how attitudes tend to become hardened...with the propagation of unsupportable generalizations

True. But I'm a cynical, left of centre peacenik.

Of course it would..if it could be attributed to a specific source. Even if it couldn't...I think the ususal suspects would be in big trouble.

We're on the same page, more or less.

No you didn't say anything about ships...just specualtion on my part as to why someone would think "rightwingers" were advocating war with Iran..when all public statements seem to be in the opposite direction.

You're right, it was unfair of me to generalise. If anything, the rightists in the US want to get as far away from the Middle East as possible right now. I do, however, think that Irani rightwingers are looking for a fight. It's self-evident.

As far as sabre-rattling goes...there does seem to be some pushback from the homeboys toward Ahmadinejad's confrontational style with the West. It might actually work. Better US sabre-rattling than an Israeli strike.

This is true. I still don't agree with such tactics in the long run, however.

[Ninth_Scribe]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

Doubtful since they both prefer war in the form of coalition effort. A coalition effort offers more credibility by making it harder to point the finger of blame for a war at any one country. But the current deployments (Poland and most recently, the 22 stealth fighters that were ordered to Japan) are very telling signs that the U.S. is leading the next offensive against multiple targets. No rocket science needed to name them all either.

Ninth Scribe

[AvarAllahNoor]

A war between the US and Iran or even Iran and Israel would be very, very bad. I don't think any US President or Israel leader will allow Iranian nukes if something can be done about it. There is definitely something to worry about on a 5 year horizon. I think the Europeans needed to get a bit tougher on Iran to prevent this catastrophe.

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes just because they don't march to the beat of the US drum!

[Woodrow]

But the current deployments (Poland and most recently, the 22 stealth fighters that were ordered to Japan) are very telling signs that the U.S. is leading the next offensive against multiple targets. No rocket science needed to name them all either.

Ninth Scribe

Agreed, but do not rule out the possibility that Israel could also become a target. As fear grows over a first stike. It is not in the Best interest of the US for Israel to have an opportunity of a first strike at Iran.

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

[Cognescenti]

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes just because they don't march to the beat of the US drum!

It isn't a question of fairness :D I merely said neither the US or Israel are likely to allow it to happen, if they have any say in the matter.

Iran has proven itself to be a bad actor. They are like the short guy in the schoolyard...looking for any opportunity to demonstrate how strong they are.

We don't have to go over the litany of Iranian actions do we?

BTW..I don't care to hear about the Shah again. :smile:

[Cognescenti]

Agreed, but do not rule out the possibility that Israel could also become a target. As fear grows over a first stike. It is not in the Best interest of the US for Israel to have an opportunity of a first strike at Iran.

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

I agree, in the sense that any attack by Israel on a muslim country is very inflammatory. If sanctions and carrots don't work, however, then the pressure for somebody to do something will become irresistable and it is almost better for Israel to take the heat as they are much less vulnerable interantionally. Plus, they are already in a cold war with Iran now (Hezbollah).

[Ninth_Scribe]

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

I wish we would have thought about that before we armed them!

Ninth Scribe

[Woodrow]

I wish we would have thought about that before we armed them!

Ninth Scribe

I think the problem with Israel and the US can be summed up with an analogy.

The US saw Israel as being the helpless new kid at school. There were bigger kids at the school and a few of them called Israel names, so Israel cried to Big Daddy who told the little Isrel to stand up for itself. Israel came back and said now the kids were being bullies and hitting him. So the US gave little Israel a stick to hit the bullies with if the kids tried to hit him any more. Little Isrel took the stick and shped it into a spear now Isrel came running and said the big kids have swords, so the US gave little Israel a rifle which Isreal refashioned into a machine gun and is now chasing the bigs kids. The problem we are faced with is how to get the machine away from Israel.

[Keltoi]

I think the problem with Israel and the US can be summed up with an analogy.

The US saw Israel as being the helpless new kid at school. There were bigger kids at the school and a few of them called Israel names, so Israel cried to Big Daddy who told the little Isrel to stand up for itself. Israel came back and said now the kids were being bullies and hitting him. So the US gave little Israel a stick to hit the bullies with if the kids tried to hit him any more. Little Isrel took the stick and shped it into a spear now Isrel came running and said the big kids have swords, so the US gave little Israel a rifle which Isreal refashioned into a machine gun and is now chasing the bigs kids. The problem we are faced with is how to get the machine away from Israel.

That is a funny analogy, but awfully simplistic don't you think?

[Woodrow]

That is a funny analogy, but awfully simplistic don't you think?

Very simplistic. But, the only words I could think of to give some concept of my thought.

[Keltoi]

Very simplistic. But, the only words I could think of to give some concept of my thought.

I understand, and it does make sense in a metaphorical way. However, I don't think the last characterization was accurate. I don't see Israel as some out of control entity that must be tamed. You eluded to the bullies. Using that analogy, I would say the bullies, even though they got whipped by the new kid, continue to pick fights. Why should the new kid put up his machine gun when the bullies are still out to get him? Just another take on that analogy.

[Woodrow]

Fair enough. The analogy could work in either direction. I suppose that is the reason why none of us have come up with a viable solution. We don't know how the other kid is going to see any action.

[AvarAllahNoor]

U.S is a bully! - Putin hit the nail on the head with his remarks. U.S are trying to drive fear into other countries, hence why so many want to arm themselves. - It took one hit on 9/11 and US was brought down to it's knees. Like I say, China and India are global powers now, and dubya has done nothing but bully. he's a t**t and should be dealt with swiftly. He's ruined the U.S.A

[Jibril]

I think the most ignored aspect of all this is that Israel has had nuclear weapons for years without so much as a peep from Washington DC. So essentially what we have is 1 country (America) unilaterally deciding who gets to have nuclear weapons and who doesn't. If the US were more fair in this aspect, meaning more vigilant across the board not just with our enemies, I would be less hesistant to support all this drum beating against Iran.

[Woodrow]

I think the most ignored aspect of all this is that Israel has had nuclear weapons for years without so much as a peep from Washington DC. So essentially what we have is 1 country (America) unilaterally deciding who gets to have nuclear weapons and who doesn't. If the US were more fair in this aspect, meaning more vigilant across the board not just with our enemies, I would be less hesistant to support all this drum beating against Iran.

Agreed we should have put up just as much of a fuss over Israel having them as we are putting up over Iran wanting them. If we call one a danger, the other is just as much of a danger.

[Cognescenti]

U.S is a bully! - Putin hit the nail on the head with his remarks. U.S are trying to drive fear into other countries, hence why so many want to arm themselves. - It took one hit on 9/11 and US was brought down to it's knees. Like I say, China and India are global powers now, and dubya has done nothing but bully. he's a t**t and should be dealt with swiftly. He's ruined the U.S.A

Yes, by George, I think he's got it!

Let's look to Putin, former head of the KGB, for spiritual and moral guidance!

BTW...has anyone seen my Polonium 210?

Avar, as a friend, I'm, telling you...it may be time to go back to see the doctor.

[Muezzin]

Don't attack the source of the argument, attack the argument itself.

[Keltoi]

U.S is a bully! - Putin hit the nail on the head with his remarks. U.S are trying to drive fear into other countries, hence why so many want to arm themselves. - It took one hit on 9/11 and US was brought down to it's knees. Like I say, China and India are global powers now, and dubya has done nothing but bully. he's a t**t and should be dealt with swiftly. He's ruined the U.S.A

The U.S. wasn't brought to its knees by any stretch of the imagination. In a cold detached way, which means not considering the 3,000 dead, all the attack did was disrupt Wall Street activity for a few days. Of course it also put the U.S. in a bad mood, which is the reason we are all dealing with these events.

China and India are growing economic powers, but they are far from "super powers". Although I'm not sure what your point was with that in the first place. I would also point out that countries are using this opportunity to confront the U.S. politically because the U.S. is focused on other issues at the moment.

[Cognescenti]

Agreed we should have put up just as much of a fuss over Israel having them as we are putting up over Iran wanting them. If we call one a danger, the other is just as much of a danger.

Perhaps in a cosmic balance sort of way...but it the issue of Iranian nukes is not a moral issue (unless they were to use one on someone)...it is a national security issue. It has implications for all the Sunni Arab states in the region..it obviously has implications for Israel..and even for the global economy.


Let's have a show of hands. Who here thinks that Israel would use a nuclear weapon on the US???? Does anyone here really think that Israel would use a nuke in any situation other than an existential threat? Israeli nukes are a stabilizing force in the ME. look at GWI...Hussein had enough confidence that Israel wouldn't respond with nukes that he bombarded Israel with Scuds..even causing quite a chemical weapon scare. It was a crazy thing to do on Hussein's part...but even so..the Israelis did not retaliate.

The Iranians have been trying to kill Americans..and in many cases succeeding, for 25 years. I have a big problem with Iranian nukes.

[AvarAllahNoor]

My point is keitol, you seem to think the US are the best thing since sliced bread. - Why is that? all your posts are in favour of everything they do. Do you think the US is the 'chosen' country? dubya is not Christian he's mis-guided

[Cognescenti]

Don't attack the source of the argument, attack the argument itself.

Very well, when the cold war ended, there was talk in the US about a "Peace Dividend". Politicians were falling all over each other trying to decide where to spend money other than defence. The Philippinos wanted US bases out...we left. The Okinawans complained...we drew down forces there. US forces were markedly reduced in Germany.


Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut (on a mission to stop an Israeli attack on the city).....we pick up our dead and go home

GWI...we save the Kuwaitis and Saudis rear ends and then leave...no empire...no vassal state

First WTC attack

Black Hawk Down (originally a mission to feed starving Somalians)...we bring back the bodies of mutilated soldiers and go home

We save the Kosovar muslims......crickets chirping

Taliban blows up Buddhist statues, oppress women..yada, yada yada.....where is the remote?

Africa embassy bombings.....we send a couple of FBI agents

Khobar Towers......yawn

USS Cole.....nothing


Sept 11, 2001...Ok..now you have our attention. Defence against acts of terorr is now, no longer, confined to prosecution of the perps after the event.

[Jibril]

Perhaps in a cosmic balance sort of way...but it the issue of Iranian nukes is not a moral issue (unless they were to use one on someone)...it is a national security issue. It has implications for all the Sunni Arab states in the region..it obviously has implications for Israel..and even for the global economy.


Let's have a show of hands. Who here thinks that Israel would use a nuclear weapon on the US???? Does anyone here really think that Israel would use a nuke in any situation other than an existential threat? Israeli nukes are a stabilizing force in the ME. look at GWI...Hussein had enough confidence that Israel wouldn't respond with nukes that he bombarded Israel with Scuds..even causing quite a chemical weapon scare. It was a crazy thing to do on Hussein's part...but even so..the Israelis did not retaliate.

The Iranians have been trying to kill Americans..and in many cases succeeding, for 25 years. I have a big problem with Iranian nukes.

I honestly believe Iran is no more likely to use a nuclear weapon than Israel. Infact I would say it is more likely that Israel would use a nuke because whatever happens, the existence of Iran can never be threatened by conventional means. It is a country of 80 million with a huge landmass and a long history. Israel is a small strip with 5 million people and a 50 year history. Which of the countries is in a more precarious situation?

Many refer to Ahmadinejads outrageous comments as some sort of proof of Iran's intent to use nukes. The fact is that Ahmadinejad is not, as Bush says, ,...the "decider". Isn't it disingenous of America that when Mohammed Khatami was President and expressed all kinds of willingness to cooperate with the west and improve relations,.....he was written off because it was claimed that the real power doesn't lie with the President. However when Ahmadinejad makes his doomsday statements all of a sudden it is ignored that the real power DOES NOT lie with him. Even if Iran DID have nukes,...Ahmadinejad wouldn't be the one with his finger on the button. The supreme leader, meanwhile, is obviously much more pragmatic that Ahmadinejad.

As for Iranians trying to kill Americans for 25 years,...thats not a fair statement. Iranians were reacting to American hostility in their own way. But they were'nt the ones that picked this fight. It takes 2 to tango and I would say America instigated the hostilities with the overthrow of Mossadeq.

[Jibril]

Black Hawk Down (originally a mission to feed starving Somalians)...we bring back the bodies of mutilated soldiers and go home
.

Firstly, its Somalis not Somalians. Secondly, the TFR mission was independent of the mission to "feed" Somalis. The hunger problem was already solved and the Marines had done their jobs. The troops that died in Somalia were not there on a humanitarian mission (infact they deployed after the famine abated), they were there on a military mission to hunt down a military target. This is a huge distinction.

Americans try to paint the Somalis as ingrates for what happened there. The fact is when you target 1 clan of Somalis, arrest their elders, kill thousands of them in airstrikes,..what do you expect them to do? All due respect the Americans brought it upon themselves, and I say this as an American.

Besides,...what the hell does Black Hawk Down have to do with terrorism? It was Somali militias v the US.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Although I'm not sure what your point was with that in the first place.

I think the world leaders believe Bush is a psycho who wants to use 911 as an excuse to rule the World. Rather than trying to use diplomacy, which is a time honored tradition that's worked wonders in the past, he's using military strategy and has already ordered multiple deployments in Poland, Africa and Japan. The man has no concept of reality, even while the entire world order is aligning themselves against him. The message I get is this:

If we don't get him out of office, someone else will.

Ninth Scribe

[Ninth_Scribe]

The US saw Israel as being the helpless new kid at school. There were bigger kids at the school and a few of them called Israel names, so Israel cried to Big Daddy who told the little Isrel to stand up for itself. Israel came back and said now the kids were being bullies and hitting him. So the US gave little Israel a stick to hit the bullies with if the kids tried to hit him any more. Little Isrel took the stick and shped it into a spear now Isrel came running and said the big kids have swords, so the US gave little Israel a rifle which Isreal refashioned into a machine gun and is now chasing the bigs kids. The problem we are faced with is how to get the machine away from Israel.

Well, any mother would tell you kids have to earn respect at school and the best way for a parent to help their child accomplish that is to teach the child to find ways to foster relationships with the kids at school. Sending the kid off to school with a loaded gun is not very helpful. Might have been better to host a cook-out so the kid could invite the others over for some fun.

That tears it. I'm voting for the female this time!

Ninth Scribe

[Jibril]

The US-Israel relationship is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

As an American, I am furious that the US government spends more money on the average Israeli than they do on the average American. Kids can barely get a decent education in some of our neighberhoods yet we keep pumping billions per year to sustain Israel.

[snakelegs]

well, i for one, miss the USSR. i think the world was a lot safer when there were 2 Big Baddies. now there is really only one, and it does whatever it pleases, wherever it pleases.
who would ever think a person would miss the USSR!

[Ninth_Scribe]

As an American, I am furious that the US government spends more money on the average Israeli than they do on the average American. Kids can barely get a decent education in some of our neighberhoods yet we keep pumping billions per year to sustain Israel.

I can't believe my country has wasted so many resources on foreign affairs. I get the whole tribute thing, but for the love of God, I can't understand why the funds were used to promote violence in the Middle East.

Grabs steering wheel from monkey, shifts vehicle into first gear...

Ninth Scribe

[Cognescenti]

Firstly, its Somalis not Somalians. Secondly, the TFR mission was independent of the mission to "feed" Somalis. The hunger problem was already solved and the Marines had done their jobs. The troops that died in Somalia were not there on a humanitarian mission (infact they deployed after the famine abated), they were there on a military mission to hunt down a military target. This is a huge distinction.

Americans try to paint the Somalis as ingrates for what happened there. The fact is when you target 1 clan of Somalis, arrest their elders, kill thousands of them in airstrikes,..what do you expect them to do? All due respect the Americans brought it upon themselves, and I say this as an American.

Besides,...what the hell does Black Hawk Down have to do with terrorism? It was Somali militias v the US.

Very well...point by point:

1) Somalis...yes, of course. A typo. This is where the agreement ends :smile:

2) "the TFR mission was independent of the mission to "feed" Somalis".
Strictly speaking, that is true, but they were part of the official UN mission to restore order, titled UNOSOM II, which was the direct follow on to the intial relief mission. UNOSOM II was designed to reduce violence to permit UN relief workers to safely go about their work. Hunger had not been ended. Aidid was felt by the UN to have been responsible for the murder of 24 Pakistani peacekeeprs some of whose bodies had been skinned like animals. (BTW...we are talking about the Clinton admin here..I hope you know that)

3) "Americans try to paint the Somalis as ingrates for what happened there. The fact is when you target 1 clan of Somalis, arrest their elders, kill thousands of them in airstrikes,..what do you expect them to do? All due respect the Americans brought it upon themselves, and I say this as an American."

Oh...they were ingrates, all right. Aidid and his clan were not thankful that the UN messed up their racket. There is money to be made in stealing and "taxing" UN relief supplies. Despite this, the best thing for the UN and the US to do at that point was get out and leave the Lord of the Flies nightmare to the locals. The American's mistake was "mission creap" ...and working with the UN in the first place. BTW..your use of the plural form of "thousand" to describe casualties is likely too high:smile:

4) "Besides,...what the hell does Black Hawk Down have to do with terrorism? It was Somali militias v the US."

My point was to refute the claim the US are "bullies". I was listing examples of US forebearance when attacked....but...since you asked..OBL himself has claimed a link.

"Links with al-Qaeda

There have been allegations that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement was involved in training and funding of Aidid's men. In his 2001 book, Holy War, Inc., CNN reporter Peter Bergen interviewed Bin Laden who affirmed these allegations. According to Bergen, Bin Laden asserted that fighters affiliated with his group were involved in killing American troops in Somalia in 1993, a claim he had earlier made to the Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. According to CNN, al-Qaeda claimed to have supplied a large number of Soviet-designed rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs) to Aidid's fighters, and instructed them in ways to modify the RPGs to make them more effective against helicopters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_..._with_al-Qaeda

[Cognescenti]

The US-Israel relationship is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

As an American, I am furious that the US government spends more money on the average Israeli than they do on the average American. Kids can barely get a decent education in some of our neighberhoods yet we keep pumping billions per year to sustain Israel.

Jibril;


That is simply not true. Counting loan guarantees and grants (which were phased out in the late '50's) the US has subsidized Israel to the tune of about 100 B $ since 1949 (about $11,000 per current Israeli). That is 58 yrs..so the per capita annual spending is about $190!!!

The current US Federal Budget is about 2.6 TRILLION $ If you throw out interest on the debt and the DOD budget ...I think its somewhere North of 1.5 T$ on entitlements. There are about 300 Million Americans

So we have 1.5 x 10**12 / 3 x 10**8 =5 x 10**3 = 5,000 $ per capita per year.

And that is only the Federal spending.


It's not even close. you are off by a factor of 25 (not including defence, interest on the debt or state and local spending).

[Jibril]

My point was to refute the claim the US are "bullies". I was listing examples of US forebearance when attacked....but...since you asked..OBL himself has claimed a link.
[I]
"Links with al-Qaeda

OBL can claim he is the next Saladin, it doesn't make it so. The link between Al Qaeda and Black Hawk Down is weak to non-existant. Everybody acknowledges that the battle was not pre-planned it was spontaneous. The most authoritative work on the incident, which is Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down also descredits this account. Its simply a case of Al Qaeda taking credit for something they didn't do. Similiar to their claims of having brought down the USSR.

[Jibril]

2) "the TFR mission was independent of the mission to "feed" Somalis".
Strictly speaking, that is true, but they were part of the official UN mission to restore order, titled UNOSOM II, which was the direct follow on to the intial relief mission. UNOSOM II was designed to reduce violence to permit UN relief workers to safely go about their work. Hunger had not been ended. Aidid was felt by the UN to have been responsible for the murder of 24 Pakistani peacekeeprs some of whose bodies had been skinned like animals. (BTW...we are talking about the Clinton admin here..I hope you know that)

The UN/US had accomplished its mission of securing the food destribution network. On this account Aidid never resisted. So in essence the conflict with Aidid had nothing whatsoever to do with the humanitarian aspect of Operation Restore Hope. It was only within the realm of nation-building and political reconciliation that Aidid started fighting with the UN. So TFR had absolutely nothing to do with the humanitarian aspect of the Somalia mission.

Oh...they were ingrates, all right. Aidid and his clan were not thankful that the UN messed up their racket. There is money to be made in stealing and "taxing" UN relief supplies. Despite this, the best thing for the UN and the US to do at that point was get out and leave the Lord of the Flies nightmare to the locals. The American's mistake was "mission creap" ...and working with the UN in the first place. BTW..your use of the plural form of "thousand" to describe casualties is likely too high:smile:

Look up the Abdi house massacre. In July 93' a large group of Habr Gidr elders met to discuss how to convince Aidid to stop resisting the Americans and the UN. The result of that meeting was that half way through, American helicopters pumped a dozen TOW missiles into the house, first destroyed stairways to prevent escape,..killing upto 100 individuals. Helicopter attacks throughout that summer resulted in the deaths of thousands of predominantly Habr Gidr clans men.

Aidid obviously spun all of this masterfully and the Habr Gidr had no choice but to rally against the US forces and fight them tooth and nail. Their animosity toward the Americans forces became evident in how they mutiliated their corpses.

They were not ingrates,..it was UN/US political and military blunders that forced the Habr Gidr Somalis to defend themselves.

[Jibril]

Jibril;


That is simply not true. Counting loan guarantees and grants (which were phased out in the late '50's) the US has subsidized Israel to the tune of about 100 B $ since 1949 (about $11,000 per current Israeli). That is 58 yrs..so the per capita annual spending is about $190!!!

The current US Federal Budget is about 2.6 TRILLION $ If you throw out interest on the debt and the DOD budget ...I think its somewhere North of 1.5 T$ on entitlements. There are about 300 Million Americans

So we have 1.5 x 10**12 / 3 x 10**8 =5 x 10**3 = 5,000 $ per capita per year.

And that is only the Federal spending.


It's not even close. you are off by a factor of 25 (not including defence, interest on the debt or state and local spending).

I'm not talking about the aggregate. But this year, or last, or the year before. And keep in mind that Israel has a pop of 5 mil.

[Cognescenti]

OBL can claim he is the next Saladin, it doesn't make it so. The link between Al Qaeda and Black Hawk Down is weak to non-existant. Everybody acknowledges that the battle was not pre-planned it was spontaneous. The most authoritative work on the incident, which is Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down also descredits this account. Its simply a case of Al Qaeda taking credit for something they didn't do. Similiar to their claims of having brought down the USSR.

Quite possibly OBL is full of it. I agree. Linkage between Aidid and OBL was not central to my point. In fact, it wasn't even in my original post on the issue. The point is the US accepted quite a few international unpleasantries before we decided to do something about it. Now, because we decided to fight back...we are "bullies"

[Cognescenti]

The UN/US had accomplished its mission of securing the food destribution network. On this account Aidid never resisted. So in essence the conflict with Aidid had nothing whatsoever to do with the humanitarian aspect of Operation Restore Hope. It was only within the realm of nation-building and political reconciliation that Aidid started fighting with the UN. So TFR had absolutely nothing to do with the humanitarian aspect of the Somalia mission.

Who killed the Pakistani peacekeepers, who, as I recall, were assigned to escort UN relief officials. Sitting Bull?

You make it sound like everyone in Somolia had a swimming pool and an Escalade after the intitial emergency relief mission.

They were not ingrates,..it was UN/US political and military blunders that forced the Habr Gidr Somalis to defend themselves.

It was the Habr Gidr clans resistance to doing things the UN way that led to friction. I can understand their reluctance...quite a few would have had to get used to working for a living. On this much we agree.....It was the mistake of the US to be involved in the mission in the first place. Big mistake. We have targets on our chests. When the underarmed Pakistanis get slaughtered, they call on the baddest guys on the block to help...then realtionships just go downhill from there.

BTW...what did the Pakistanis do to get them so mad? Some of their soldiers were skinned :uuh:

[Cognescenti]

I'm not talking about the aggregate. But this year, or last, or the year before. And keep in mind that Israel has a pop of 5 mil.

For 2006

* $544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security
* $447.4 billion (17.17%) - Defense
* $359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
* $345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
* $268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt
* $88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training
* $70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation
* $68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans' benefits
* $43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice
* $38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs
* $31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment
* $26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture
* $24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology
* $19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development
* $17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government
* $2.1 billion (0.08%) - Energy

All Foreign Affairs ....1.47% of Federal spending...that includes the State Department budget

Social Secuirty spending alone is 15x as much.

[Jibril]

Who killed the Pakistani peacekeepers, who, as I recall, were assigned to escort UN relief officials. Sitting Bull?

You are not making a distinction between Aidid and the Habr Gidr. This shows the simplistic perspective you're taking.

About the Pakistani peacekeepers,..do you know why they were attacked? They went to inspect Aidid's radio station without notifying them only after the UN started to cut him out of the reconciliation process. His militia felt that they were under attack and so they attacked the Pakistanis quite brutally. But again,...this was due to a UN blunder. Mind you I abhore Aidid, he was a thug and a murderer. But you don't seem to know the details of what happened in Somalia.

Anyhow, the answer to 24 dead peacekeepers is not to isolate the entire clan!!!

It was the Habr Gidr clans resistance to doing things the UN way that led to friction. I can understand their reluctance...quite a few would have had to get used to working for a living. On this much we agree.....It was the mistake of the US to be involved in the mission in the first place. Big mistake. We have targets on our chests. When the underarmed Pakistanis get slaughtered, they call on the baddest guys on the block to help...then realtionships just go downhill from there.

You really need to learn how to differentiate between the Habr Gidr and Aidid. I just posted that in the summer of 93',..most Habr Gidr elders were fed up with Aidid and wanted him to stop resisting the UN/US. For their efforts they got blown to bits by US helicopters.

. I can understand their reluctance...quite a few would have had to get used to working for a living.

Thats quite offensive. The Habr Gidr clan are no different than you or me, and you're insulting and demonizing an entire group based on 1 man who held them hostage. I'm quite honestly surprised and disappointed that you would make such a bigoted statement.

[Cognescenti]

Thats quite offensive. The Habr Gidr clan are no different than you or me, and you're insulting and demonizing an entire group based on 1 man who held them hostage. I'm quite honestly surprised and disappointed that you would make such a bigoted statement.

Yes..I can see why someone might find that offensive. It is hard hitting, but you will note I qualified it. I did not demonize an entire group. I was referring to the young men weaned on civil war, many of whom doubtless thought the Toyota pickup had been invented to carry a heavy machine gun. Do you think they could easily make the switch to farming lentils? Let's not pretend the warring factions were sitting under a great oak drawing up the Somali version of the Magna Carta when the UN arrived. It was a brutal civil war where starvation of civilians was used as a weapon. When the UN arrived (with the Marines) to supply help, they charged the aid workers protection money. Nice work, if you can get it.

BTW...the other side(s) in the civil war were likely just as brutal...but they chose to cooperate with the UN plan. Aidid did not. I dont pretend to know why. Perhaps he thought he held a winning hand.

The way I see it..the first mission was well meaning..it succeeded..it began to morph into nation-building because of ligitimate concerns the same thing would happen all over again....it didn't work our very well..to say the least, but to say the "Americans got what they deserved" is something I find offensive.

[Jibril]

BTW...the other side(s) in the civil war were likely just as brutal...but they chose to cooperate with the UN plan. Aidid did not. I dont pretend to know why. Perhaps he thought he held a winning hand.

You're really showing how little you know of the situation. It was not Aidid who simply *chose* not to cooperate with the UN,....it was the UN that decided he had to be cut out of the whole process. For some reason Boutros Boutros Ghali had a serious axe to grind with Aidid ever since his days with the Egyptian government,...but everyone including Ambassador Robert Oakley acknowledge that it was the UN that started the antagonistic relationship with Aidid. No doubt Aidid was a SOB, but as a practical matter this was a bone headed decision on the UN's part.

, but to say the "Americans got what they deserved" is something I find offensive.

You're ignoring the fact that the TFR was killing hundreds of Somalis long before Oct 3. Why should sympathy be spared for trained soldiers when none was spared for innocent civilians,..for e.g. the Abdi House victims? I notice you didn't even bother to address that part of my post. I think it might be true that Americans deep inside feel American life is inherently worth more than nonAmerican life especially Africans.

[Cognescenti]

You're really showing how little you know of the situation. It was not Aidid who simply *chose* not to cooperate with the UN,....it was the UN that decided he had to be cut out of the whole process. For some reason Boutros Boutros Ghali had a serious axe to grind with Aidid ever since his days with the Egyptian government,...but everyone including Ambassador Robert Oakley acknowledge that it was the UN that started the antagonistic relationship with Aidid. No doubt Aidid was a SOB, but as a practical matter this was a bone headed decision on the UN's part.

Good to hear the UN gets some of the blame. At least we can agree on that. My guess is the UN was trying to fashion some pie in the sky compromise, meanwhile Aidid knew he had the most Toyota 50 cal pick-ups and could outlast the UN, which is exactly what happened in the end. You may be right..perhaps Boutros by Golly had it in for Aidid, but Aidid was no saint and he was clearly ambitious. My opinions were formed chiefly from the LA Times and NPR. Maybe they got the story wrong. I think I saw a Frontline piece on this too. I have never been to Somalia and it is likely I will never go, especailly on an American passport.

You're ignoring the fact that the TFR was killing hundreds of Somalis long before Oct 3. Why should sympathy be spared for trained soldiers when none was spared for innocent civilians,..for e.g. the Abdi House victims? I notice you didn't even bother to address that part of my post. I think it might be true that Americans deep inside feel American life is inherently worth more than nonAmerican life especially Africans.

Didn't you explain before that Aidid's clan was simply rallying around their bretheren in a noble fashion? Well...that is what I am doing. I don't blame the US military in this case..perhaps they didn't appreciate the subleties of Somali politics ( I can see why :smile: ). Some chowderhead at the UN gave them the mission. This is why you dont fight under the blue helmets. To make matters worse, their own Sec of Def. failed to support them. When I seee the body of a half naked American soldier being dragged around by a jubilant crowd it just saps all my compassion away...I am here to admit it.

As for the last bit...if that is directed at me, then it appears I have graduated from simple bigotry to racism. Wow, I am really moving up in the world, eh?

[Cognescenti]

Jibril;

This seems to be an issue close to your heart. I respect your empathy, but in my opinion you need to be a bit more careful about the racism charge. It is easy to make and almost impossible to refute. It also tends to be the last arrow in the quiver.

You will note, with some irony I hope, that the same charge was used to pressure Bush 41 to send the Marines to Somalia in the first place!. Ditto Clinton and the 82nd being sent to Haiti. Even now, it is whispered by some to pressure the US to do something militarily about Darfur.

Peace