Maybe The Recruits Realized It Is Hard To Dodge Bullets
Tim Swanson,
October 31, 2007
According to the AP, it seems that the Army has been ineffective at recruiting new targets, the lowest in 34 years.
This is one of the motivating factors for why members of the Establishment are promoting the Dream Act.
Perhaps their next move will be drafting prisoners into the ranks. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time an empire erected a slave army.
dan
October 31st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I counter-recruited several nephews but they recently got one with their "$20k if you agree to be IED fodder immediately" offer. Hopefully he'll flunk out of basic.
But How Will That Ma
October 31st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
One way to save this "establishment's" prestige and motivate recruitment is to have most of congress, bush, cheney, condi, wolfowitz and other "key figures" sign up and go on missions in Iraq. For in the olden days true leaders would fight alongside their troops, builds great morale. They aren't going to get jack on a pretty promise with a smile on the TV set. lol
Billy Bob Bogus
October 31st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“Dream Act.”
Dream Act? What the h@ll are they going to dream about? Being a corpse?
Swami Barmi
November 1st, 2007 at 3:42 am
Once again our politicians come up with an infuriatingly Orwellian name for an evil policy, this time the “Dream Act” to describe what will undoubtedly be the worst nightmare these kids will ever experience.
dan: images speak much louder than words. The worst thing to come back from Iraq with may not necessarily be PTSD, artificial limbs, or even a box and a flag. I’d suggest asking your nephews to keep a picture of Ty Ziegel and some of the other horrifically disfigured faces of war. They may find it uncomfortable to sleep at night with such a picture, but they should imagine how hard it would be to sleep with such a face.
Marycatherine Barton
November 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Religious fanatics, violence entrepreneurs, criminals, the brainwashed, the desperate, and those promised citizenship. Who else is willing to fight and kill in the name of the USA in these times. Monstrous.
But How Will That Make US Money?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
lol The american flag ain’t worth fighting over.
ursula
November 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
come on guys…
we are doing it for freedom…
Tim R.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
The way people on here describe our flag, especially with Veterens Day coming up, it really upsets me, makes me sick. But let me just give you the words of Lee Greenwood who said it best:
“If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.
From the lakes of Minnesota, to the hills of Tennessee,
across the plains of Texas, from sea to shining sea,
From Detroit down to Houston and New York to LA,
Well, there’s pride in every American heart,
and it’s time to stand and say:
I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.”
Dianne C. Foster
November 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I don’t purport to understand the male need to prove himself in every generation, nor the potlatch a nation seems to need to throw prove itself able to waste members of a new generation in order to say it is powerful. I thought I knew what I was doing on 9/11 when, in the course of the attacks, I ran out to my porch and hoisted the flag. Since then, I’ve come to understand that my flag-waving was expected of me, and used against me.
If they try to take my younger son, I will fight. This is not a normal society anymore and the flag does not mean what it once did. We should have learned from Vietnam, but those who had other priorities apparently also slept through that war and have stumbled into its twin. And they are still raising the ante and hoping to profit by their mistakes, on our backs. This is way beyond potlatch into self-destruction.
Bill Federkiel
November 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
The problem with Greenwood’s song ( made during the first Gulf War ) is that in all these endeavors we’re usually NOT defending America! The Kuwauti Royal family, yes..American security no..As it was it is now. This war is all about the control of Iraq’s resources ( with the president still pushing the “privatization ” of Iraqi oil, Israel’s long-term security interests and war-profiteering that we’ve never seen before..
So keep Lee Greenwood’s corny, naive song in your c.d. player but don’t embarass yourself here. Patrick J. Buchanan was right to be against the initial conflict with Iraq..It proved to be the camel’s nose under the tent..Along with spreading depleted uranium all over southern Iraq fm our munitions ( poisoning the Iraqi populace causing cancers and birth defects and killing thousands of American soldiers in the short and long term ) we insinuated ourselves too deeply in the landscape…
Our only interest in that region should be pulling up our tankers, filling them and leaving..How the regimes feel towards the rogue state of Israel ( founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing ) is no concern of ours..Pres. Washington said that nothing should be more discouraged than permanent antipathies towards certain countries and passionate attachments to other foreign countries..He was right..
s
Sourced
November 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Look at the bright side, if they survive they’ll have a long career back home as tyranny enforcers for corp/guv/inc.
Sourced
November 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Dude, last time I looked, the things they died for were taken away with not so much as a whimper from the citizens. Its over. And wayyyy too late for dopey patriot songs, we’re no united nation any longer, we’ve been diluted and divided so we could be conquered. Its over….here.
Bill Federkiel
November 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Understand that I live in an area of the U.S. that was also bombed, invaded, burned and occupied by a Republican president so I can sympathize..That war made things worse down here for 100 yrs just as Bush’s war is doing in Mesopotamia..Saddam’s regime wasn’t perfect but he did protect the Christians in Iraq..True, the one time a church was desecrated Saddam found out who was responsible and had them executed. ( Just ask Cardinal Delly of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq )..Saddam was an enemy of Wahabi Sunnis like Al-Quaeda NOT an ally. He was a pan-arab who did not endorse sectarian violence..and didn’t allow it.
This war was so unnecessary it’s criminal..
DianeC
November 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
They don’t want to sign up because they are all given Taylor Hicks CD’S upon arrival. That’s enough to make them shoot themselves. This war needs to stop now.
George Kurian , India
November 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
America – the land of the free! Ha Ha Ha ha ha! My Indian born relatives in America are afraid to be open about the war in Iraq in their e-mails in case Homeland Security gets them. The land of the terrified. Yes. The Islamo fascists are coming! The Islamo fascists are coming! (To the tune of the Russians are coming!!)
True Freedom cannot exist when powerful capitalists hold the major sources of information (TV, Newspapers and Radio) in their thrall. Freedom cannot exist if the population of a country is so dependent on “the good life” that even the idea of not having enough oil to fly their aeroplanes and drive their automobiles, makes that country go to war.
El Tonno
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 am
This is all very nice and heartwarming. Still, it’s quaint. Can one still actually distinguish “Here Are The Freedoms” on the shape of Continental USA on a World Map? By squinting maybe? “Freedom”, contrary to what the dumb song says, is absolutely something that “they can take away.” And then you are left with a few square foot of nylon made in China.
“Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite – All of which are American dreams – All of which are American dreams — All of which —- are American dreams …”
Swami Barmi
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 am
“The way people on here describe our flag, especially with Veterens Day coming up, it really upsets me, makes me sick.”
How cute. You post the lyrics of a pathetically naive song to “honor” our veterans. How about taking to the streets and fighting for the treatment of these guys who’re coming home to find their benefits cut instead of bettered? How about relieving some of these guys of their multiple tours by joining yourself if this is such a vital purpose? If your freedom depends on it, why don’t you go and fight for your own freedom instead of expecting someone else to do it for you?
The truth is, you don’t give a damn about the veterans (you can’t even spell it correctly) outside of how you can use them to argue your cause. You USE the veterans, “their” day, as a means for your argument. If our veterans did fight to keep our flag aloft it wasn’t for cowards like you could hide behind.
Bill K.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Tim
You need to update that song. Just replace “American” with Canadian, and “USA” with Canada. Oh yeah change NY to Montreal, Houston to Toronto, LA to Vancouver, and Detroit to Yellowknife.
Seriously, where in the US could you ever find something as beautiful as the Château Frontenac or the Canadian Parliament that was not some attraction at some theme park? You can’t, such Western European style structures are not built in the US.
James Richardson
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
I totally agree this is a wonderful idea. But getting "yellow belly cowards Bush and Cheney" to go into battle is hopeless. Remember that during Viet Nam Cheney had "better things to do"….better things than serving his country in a time of war. Then Bush served out the Viet Nam war serving on the USS Barstool. Unlike other ships of war that are painted grey…this ship was "yeller"… Instead of becoming an heroic veteran he became an alcoholic. No doubt he tried to impress the ladies that he was a "pilot…a dashing derring do sort of man"…he was a coward whose daddy got him out of trouble. His daddy cannot help him now and that's too bad because we all need help from the mess he has made. Now these two yellow belly cowards can send better men than themselves into harms war to make their rich friends richer…corporate ceo's etc.
baker41
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
All you super patriots reading this website should schedule regular talks with you children or grandchildren and ensist they join the US military as soon as they are eligible to do so. If you have not already done that and have no intention of doing that then you need to shut your stupid, cowardly mouths. Waving your stupid looking flags and playing ignorant patriotic songs just anin’t working real good
Brett Celinski
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Oh but Freeper types don’t need to serve. They pay their taxes, so that is being a patriotic as possible! Hell, that’s even being more patriotic than an actual veteran who is against the war!
I’m serious. That’s one actual neocon argument I’ve read.
Tim R.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
George, the United States of America is at war not because of oil (although I sure wish we’d develop alternative energy and break out addiction) we are at war because, are you ready for this newsflash? We were ATTACKED! No, not by Iraq, per se, but by Islamic radicals and the nation states that support them. Terrorism is just a tactic. The war we fight is against radical Islam. Yes, the Muslim Nazis just use terrorism as a tactic, but the real war is with them and their radical Islamic ideology.
Do we not have a right to defend ourselves? Do you know how many times we have been attacked in the last 30 years? Do you khow how many times other western nations have been attacked? Do you know how many more countless attempts by the Muslim Nazis have been foiled? You are from India,do you know many innocent Hindus have died from the Muslim Nazis? Wasn’t your own parliament attacked just a few years ago? How many times does a nation have to be attacked before it has a right to respond? How many more times does the civilized world have to be attacked by these 7th century barbarians before we issue a call to arms and defend ourselves?!
Tim R.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
And will you be going to a Veterans Day celebration to pay your respect to the men and women who actually have had the courage to fight for their country? Or will you be like the disgusting folks at a recent Navy vs. Rutgers football game when eggs and fake blood, not to mention vile insults, were hurled at our sailors? This country is too good for people like you. What a great country we are that our soldiers protect your rights to free speech so that you can insult and degrade them. Shame on you.
Tim R.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Bill Federkiel:
You mention the “rogue state” of Israel. Well, I’m curious because the last time I checked Israel was founded after an official resolution of the United Nations in November of 1947 called for a 2 state plan in the region. Israel, founded under the authority of the United Nations, declared herself an independent nation on 14 May 1948 and was immediatly attacked by virtually every Arab nation. So get your history straight.
Also, the so-called “occupied territories” were controlled by Eygpt and Jordan between 1948 and 1967. Were the Eygptions and Jordanians also rogue states for opressing the Palestinians during those years? And don’t forget, Israel only gained control of the West Bank and Gaza because she was attacked and she had every right to defend herself from Jordanian and Eygption aggression in June of 1967. So get your facts straight buddy.
And another thing, if you call Israel a “rogue state” what do you call Saudi Arabia, where they cut off hands, heads and other body parts for violations of Islamic Law? What do you call Syria where the Kurdish minority is persecuted and women need a husbands permission to travel? What do you call Jordan, where women who are raped can be murdered by their families in so-called honor killings? What do you call Iran where a man can marry a 9 year old girl? I’m sure you will call all of those nations rogue states as well, correct?
But How Will That Ma
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Land of the McFree..lol! America isn't a nation..it's a blasted faceless corporate empire. When US economy collapses this empire bankrupts and false apart along with it. Hitler got it right.
Tara
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 am
My husband is an injured Iraq war veteran. I can tell you he was not in Iraq fighting for my freedom of speech, or any other American freedom. My husband and his unit were protecting convoys of multinational contractors delivering such essentials as Baskin Robbins ice cream to the Green Zone. He did a good job protecting those contractors. When an IED hit their convoy it hit my husband's truck and ripped a hole through his leg. I am angry at the US government and the US Army for that IED. The Iraqi who planted it was defending HIS country from a foreign occupation. My husband would never have been injured if we were never there. My husband is now home and jobless for the past 3 months, and has yet to even be seen at a VA medical center. My family deals every day with his PTSD and his injury. I am a member of Military Family's Speak Out, and my husband is now a member of Veteran's For Peace, both of which offer more support to returning soldiers than the US Army seems to offer. Parades don't heal soldier's physical and mental scars.
Bill K.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 am
There is just one problem Tim.
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. His family has a Conglomerate in Saudi Arabia that does regular business with the US. Saudi Arabia is the center of militant Wahhabist ideology. So why did the US invade a secular Iraq and turn it into a fundamentalist hell hole? Seems to me the US is WAY off target here.
And Tim, you don’t defend yourself by going across town, breaking into somebody else’s home, shooting the owner, and take over the place. That is called breaking and entering and premeditated murder.
Bill K.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:16 am
Tim
Guess what. Not only Americans are capable of fighting for their country. Those Iraqis that plant IED’s under US convoys, from their point of view they are also fighting for their country. From their point of view US troops are self-centered and uncultured storm troopers sent by the US Empire to conquer them. Imperialism is nothing to be proud of. If you were on the receiving end of that “protection of free speech” half-way across the world you too would be cursing the US.
Swami Barmi
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:28 am
“And will you be going to a Veterans Day celebration to pay your respect to the men and women who actually have had the courage to fight for their country?â€
Wow. Please withdraw my first question and previous comments. I had no idea that you actually went through the trouble of ATTENDING an annual parade. What veteran needs reasonable access to comprehensive benefits when they have parades? Hey, I have an idea: how about if you folks plan your parades to follow the streets where our thousands of veterans reside homeless? I’m sure that will take the sting out of their despondency. When Veteran’s Day is reduced to jingoism and adoration for a government gone bad, it’s time to rethink what the day is all about.
Your statement pretty much answers why you refuse to answer the question of why you don’t serve: you are not courageous. You are a coward, and the fight is not worth your personal sacrifices, be they physical, personal, financial, or professional, despite your very freedom depending on it.
Some of us believe that to truly honor our veterans and those who misguidedly died for our government and its shills, we should endeavor to never again place our soldiers in harm’s way for fools’ errands and lies. Only the defense of the country, THIS country, is worth the spilling of our soldiers’ blood. When the unethical policies of fallible, compromised politicians put this country in danger, a political solution is called for, not a “solution†that destroys soldiers’ lives and ruins our country even more. That’s what you don’t understand: those of us who fight against this war and this government do so not out of hatred for this country, but out of a deep-rooted respect for what this country is capable of. We demand better because we know we can do better. When people here insult you and get angry with you, it’s because the destruction of this country is what you’re all about, albeit unintentionally. They just don’t hide behind meaningless nationalistic slogans.
“Or will you be like the disgusting folks at a recent Navy vs. Rutgers football game when eggs and fake blood, not to mention vile insults, were hurled at our sailors?â€
More of the “spat on Vietnam Veteran†myth. More neocon guilt by association with some fictitious villain. More hiding behind the soldiers instead of standing up with your own arguments.
“This country is too good for people like you.â€
Another neocon Orwellian reference to the dystopia you are creating. You people are destroying everything this country (and conservative rhetoric) once stood for, then you turn around and call it great and declare there’s some kind of patriotic litmus test to determine whether or not people “deserve†to live here. If our founders were here they’d be picking up their muskets and fighting to get their country back and George W. Bush would throw them in jail. No doubt the neocon punditry would be on Bush’s side, wondering how our founders could be so wrong about America.
“What a great country we are that our soldiers protect your rights to free speech so that you can insult and degrade them.â€
Firstly, where did this person you’re responding to insult and degrade the soldiers? He didn’t insult the soldiers, he insulted the hypocrites who champion the soldiers with talk and without action. Secondly, there hasn’t been an American soldier who’s fought for our free speech since the Revolution.
“Shame on you.â€
And this coming from a man who sends others, including women, to do his fighting for him.
Swami Barmi
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:47 am
Tara: It must be extremely difficult for you and your husband to come to terms with the turmoil surrounding this issue. Your anger and torment are obvious and I’m sure you both want there to be some reason and purpose behind your husband’s tragedy. I imagine that many troops who come home with horrific injuries HAVE to believe in the battle to keep their sanity, otherwise they suffer terribly for nothing. I’m sure you’re finding support with the groups you mentioned and in my opinion, your purpose is far greater than that which is claimed by the war supporters: to END this kind of use of American soldiers and their families. To provide a wake-up call to America that we’ve lost our way. It’s a fight against an enemy who seems even more implacable than the Iraqis who fight for their homeland: the neocon war supporters (both republican and democrat) for whom pride comes before soldiers’ lives. No matter how blatant the lies that led us here become, they continue to support the war if only so they never have to admit that they are wrong.
Tim R.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
So by Swami’s logic, in order for one to have an opinion on war, any war, they must serve in the military? In order for one not to be a hypocrite they must actually serve otherwise they can’t have a a valid opinion? So by that logic one cannot have a valid opinon about Shakespere unless he has a graduate degree in English Literature, correct? One cannot have a valid opinion about French food unless he has gone to culinary school and worked as a chef in a French restaurant? Your logic does not hold water. So unless you personally have served in combat in the military, you should be niether pro war or anti war, since you can’t have an opinion on the matter either way, correct?
And by the way, last time I checked, Article Two of the US Constitution does not list prior military service as a qualification to be President of the United States and lead our nation’s military. The founding fathers believed in CIVILIAN control of the military.
richard vajs
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Tim R,
You keep bringing up this idea that in Muslim countries a man can marry a 9 year old girl. Let me remind you again that in the state of Georgia (rite cheer in Lee Greenwood kuntree), a man can marry a girl of any tender age, legally, as long as he can get her pregnant first. In fact, there are many states in which the generally accepted age of consent (18) can be waived by parental consent or judicial order. And, contrary to your statements, Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. Hell, even the Israelis admit that. You are either a total moron or you are a clever one just jerking our chain.
Swami Barmi
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Nice try Tim. I never said you weren’t free to enjoy the show from your easy chair. My point is that you firmly believe “Islamofascists” directly threaten your freedom yet you refuse to help the soldiers that you allegedly revere in spite of their being sent back repeatedly beyond their wishes. It seems to me that honor would compel you to do the “right” thing and fight for your own freedom if we’re at such a crucial crossroads in our history. The fight goes on for years and army recruitment is at its lowest level since the volunteer army began; it’s quite obvious that the military is in dire need of bodies yet you refuse to help. The pleas for new soldiers are meant for SOMEBODY, just not you. You don’t answer WHY you won’t help, you just indulge in a litany of red herrings loosely based on an absolutist “logic” of your own design. There are any number of salient points in that post you could have targeted, some in direct contention with your other post, but instead you choose to belabor this alone.
It’s nice that you picked up the US Constitution. Perhaps you’ll explain to me where it says it’s ok to confiscate my hard-earned cash and use it to war against nations that haven’t attacked us. Then again I guess it doesn’t matter because according to the Christian Bush, “it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” And speaking of presidents who command their nations’ militaries in wartime, Iran’s Ahmadinejad is NOT one of them, nor can he unlawfully initiate these wars like our president can.
A big beef among conservatives during Clinton’s administration was the democrats’ idea of the constitution as a “living document.” I had no idea that the neocons would turn around and treat it as a dead document.
Tim R.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Swami, you ask where the Constitution gives the government power to take your money and go to war? Read Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. Congress has the power to tax and spend as well as the power to declare war. Also, the 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to tax your income directly as it sees fit. You might not agree with what they are doing, but they still have the right to do it.
As for why I’m not serving? Your right, I admit it, I don’t have the courage that I wish I had. I admire a lot of these guys because they are truly courageous, while I am not. Perhaps your right and it is cowardice. I do have family obligations that you are not aware of but I suppose that is no excuse. But even if I am a coward, as you like to call me, that does not take aware from the validity of my beliefs. The Islamic radicals are trying to kill us, I was in lower manhattan on September 11th and I saw first-hand what these Muslim fanatics are capable of. (And by the way I did go down and volunteer for the rescue and recovery effort, not that you care.)
So call me all the names you want. I know that my beliefs are based on sound reasoning, even if I lack the courage of my convictions. Thank God for the men and women of our armed forces who truly have courage and are willing to fight to protect people like me and you.
Tim R.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Richard, in Georgia the age of consent is 16. For an adult to have sex with someone under 16 is a CRIME.
Also, the loophole in the law you mention has been eliminated. But even with that loophole a person having sex with someone under 16, even if they got them pregnant and could marry them, they could still be charged with statutory rape!
Don’t you dare compare Georgia to a barbaric country like Iran! The 9 year old girl in Iran is forced into sex and marital rape and has no choice in the matter.
wdgray
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Lee Greenwood and Tom R. are full of s**t. After being BETRAYED by this f**k… nation following over 20 years of active service I say screw all of you so-called patriots.
Go get your version of Freedom sold to the Mid East. Leave me alone.
richard vajs
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Tim R,
I get my info on marriage laws from a posting by Cornell Law School on Google plus data posted by Wikipedia. They state that Georgia, along with several other states, have no specific age limit in cases of pregnant females. I'll admit that many of our state laws reflect the 19th century views which were in effect when the laws were first passed. There were a lot of "child brides" back then. Were our ancestors child rapists? Incidentally, Wikipedia shows age limits in Iran to be 15/13. Where does the age of 9 come from? Are you scrambling betrothals with marriages? You are either a skilled conservative (boldly making it up as you go along figuring that the facts will come after the impact of the crap) or a very clever imitation of one.
Mark Williams
November 4th, 2007 at 12:28 am
After we run out of “volunteers”, maybe we could do like Vlad the Impaler, and terrify our enemies by sending skewered corpses on horseback into the battlefield.
Tim R., while still lacking “the courage that he wishes he had”, could cheer them on by singing the Israeli national anthem from the sidelines.
Peter C
November 4th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Tim R:
One of the preconditions for Israel’s membership in the UN was the Zionist government’s official recognition of the Paelstinians’ right to return to the land that Israel had stolen from them, as expressed in General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948, which among other things “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
Although Israel did officially accept Res. 194, it has simply disregarded it ever since, along with about 75 other UN resolutions, such as Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and “the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
Israel was not attacked by all the Arab nations. In 1948 Israel had a well-trained and well-equipped army of 90,000 troops that was vastly superior to any other local power.
Required reading for Tim R and others who have been deluded by the Zionists: “The secret diaries of Moshe Sharettâ€, Israel’s first foreign minister and later prime minister (available on the Web), “The Iron Wallâ€, by Avi Shlaim, Allen Lane The Penguin Press (Shlaim is an Israeli who is now Professor of Internaitnal Relaitons at Oxford), and “”The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel – Atrocities in the Promised Landâ€, by Kathleen Christison, former CIA analyst specializing in Middle East affairs. Christison’s article (available on the Web) begins as follows:
“Words fail; ordinary terms are inadequate to describe the horrors Israel daily perpetrates, and has perpetrated for years, against the Palestinians. The tragedy of Gaza has been described a hundred times over, as have the tragedies of 1948, of Qibya, of Sabra and Shatila, of Jenin — 60 years of atrocity perpetrated in the name of Judaism. But the horror generally falls on deaf ears in most of Israel, in the U.S. political arena, in the mainstream U.S. media. Those who are horrified — and there are many — cannot penetrate the shield of impassivity that protects the political and media elite in Israel, even more so in the U.S., and increasingly now in Canada and Europe, from seeing, from caring.â€
“But it needs to be said now, loudly: those who devise and carry out Israeli policies have made Israel into a monster, and it has come time for all of us — all Israelis, all Jews who allow Israel to speak for them, all Americans who do nothing to end U.S. support for Israel and its murderous policies — to recognize that we stain ourselves morally by continuing to sit by while Israel carries out its atrocities against the Palestinians.â€
As an atheist Jew and a lifelong anti-Zionist I would like to emphasize that the Zionists do not represent the Jews – they are perverted religious fundamentalists who have nothing to do with the Jewish heritage of humanism.
By the way, anyone who uses the term Islamofascism shows that he/she knows nothing about either Islam or fascism.
Ahmed M
November 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Peter C:
Thank you.
The citizens of this country need to be made aware of the perniciousness of pro-Zionist influences that exist here (even more than in Israel) and how entrenched it is in places like “the most trusted” new network (CNN) and all others specifically here – in this country. They only serve to diffuse ANY activism against pro-Israel policies and to completely obscure reality from the politically naive and are the foundation of forming public opinion.
Tim R
You are: 1) willingly blind to the facts (if you cared to actually look a them) 2) idiotically naive and brainwashed or 3) an intentionally deceiving Zionist (or Zionist-Christian) who has some role in “The Israel Lobby.” You can be all of them of course but you are at least ONE of them. Please identify for yourself (as I don’t care to know) which one you are. Maybe, just MAYBE (and this my naive hope) someday the masses in this country will come to see people like you for what you are and decide to stop bankrolling the terrorist “state” of Israel and its operatives.
Brian
November 4th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.â€
1)WE ain’t free! 2) I agree with the poem in all other respects. The Flag is worth dying for and so is America. BUT, the politicians and the jerks who run the country AIN’T. They’ve pissed on the morals and the things that the Flag and the Constitution stand for. If someone invaded this country I’d die for it. But I wouldn’t signup for any wars abroad anymore.
Tim R.
November 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Ahmed M.,
Do you also call China a “terrorist state” for their persecution of the Tibeten people? Are you as upset about China and what they are doing in Tibet as you are worried about what this tiny little country called Israel is doing?
MrsG
November 5th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Shame on you. Shame. It is what the flag represents. YOUR freedom. Shame on you.
MrsG
November 5th, 2007 at 8:20 am
1. Aren’t free? Hmmm…
2. Are you suggesting that we WAIT for another assult on this country?????
Tim R.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Richard Vajs:
Wikipedia is sometimes good and sometimes highly inaccurate. The Cornell Law School site is very good but you actually have to read the laws and the laws that relate to what you are talking about.
I happen to be an attorney and when you told me that Georgia allowed marriages at any age if the girl is pregnant I found that hard to believe so I did further research. If you actually had read the Georgia statutes carefully you would see that EVEN IF technically a 35 year old man could marry a 12 year old girl for example, he would still be charged under criminal law with statutory rape if he had sex with her. And in any event that loophole has now been eliminated from Georgia law.
Don’t compare a barbaric country like Iran to Georgia or any other state! In Iran and countries inhabited by the Islamio Fascists, women have little or no choice as to who they marry.
baker41
November 5th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Tim R. is mistaken about the 16th Amendment. The 16th amendment authorizes a tax on “income from whatever source derived” It does not authorize a direct tax, and does not authorize a tax on wages. It does not authorize a tax on wages, because wages, (being an equal exchange of money for time spent on the job), does not represent “gain derived from a source” such as is the case when capitol investments (the source) produces interest (the gain). It is true that the IRS enforces the Internal Revenue code as if it pertains to wage earners, but doing so does not make such government activity legal or constitutional. In conclusion, there are no internal revenue laws that require individuals to pay an income tax on their wages and there is are no internal revenue laws that require individuals to file income tax returns. The entire income tax system, as it relates to individuals, operates entirely on fear. The system functions on the theory that most Americans can be intimidated into participating in a tax system and “obeying tax laws” that simply do not apply to them.
Swami Barmi
November 6th, 2007 at 7:46 am
“Read Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. Congress has the power to tax and spend as well as the power to declare war. Also, the 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to tax your income directly as it sees fit.”
That’s right. They had to amend the constitution, subverting the original intent in order to make it legal to confiscate our money against our will. Interesting that you’d brazenly, and knowingly surely, include that Congress has the power to declare war. When was the last time they did that?
It’s also coincidental that this amendment was written just a couple of years before our entry into World War I (no, I’m not suggesting a link), another war we shouldn’t have fought. Before that the Muslims and Arabs had tremendous respect for the United States because we were a powerful nation that did not engage in colonialism (until the Spanish-American War). That senseless war never ended as we’re still fighting the repurcussions of it in the Middle East right now. We CAN end this ridiculous cycle of violence. In a column elsewhere on this excellent resource, a line is quoted from Charles Adams’ For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization:
“It takes great leadership and ability to settle differences through peaceful means. Any idiot can start a war.”
Truer words have never been written. It’s clear that war is a means the government uses to rob its citizens perpetually. They’re fooled into believing the wars are necessary, as in Goering’s famous quote from the Nuremberg trials, the taxes are levied and they never go away, as in Roosevelt’s exploitation of the income tax erroneously derived from the 16th amendment.
“The Islamic radicals are trying to kill us, I was in lower manhattan on September 11th and I saw first-hand what these Muslim fanatics are capable of.”
The Islamic radicals ARE trying to kill us for very specific reasons which they’ve spelled out for our convenience. They are very small in number and can be rid of by getting out of their faces and using police actions to target only those responsible for the killings. Alleviating the points of contention which they raise and reasonable western people admit to, they’d quickly be marginalized in their communities and support would dry up. Just as Hezbollah ceased their bombings when Israel left Lebanon, so too would attacks on Americans cease if WE left THEIR lands. This world caliphate that you’ll inevitably bring up is rubbish. It’s an impossible ruse that clever manipulators use to control the gullible populace.
I was in the Air Force for four years, half of them spent at a radar station where we continuously monitored American skies 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Any plane taking a suspicious course was immediately tracked, approached, and either escorted out of our airspace or otherwise identified and dealt with. The idea that this didn’t occur on 9/11 is a crime that shows at LEAST this: all the trillions of dollars spent on our militaries have failed us because we did not or could not follow our long established protocols and PROTECT OUR OWN CITIZENS or even the HEADQUARTERS OF OUR NATION’S MILITARY! I’ll tell you this: if similar hijackings happened at that time in Germany, Japan, or any number of nations where our military is deployed, those planes could have been destroyed before they inflicted such harm. I can’t fathom how Americans are not outraged that our so-called “Defense” Department failed us so. ALL American troops from everywhere on the planet should be right here in the United States defending us instead offending others. It can be done far more effectively and far more cheaply. The reason why this isn’t done is because our military’s purpose is not to protect the interests of the people, but to project the commercial interests of a few. And don’t even bother with naive disagreements with this. Just read Smedley Butler’s War Is A Racket, which speaks even more loudly now than it did when he wrote it. The idea that our president and vice president (along with so many others) can monetarily profit from the waging of war is an outrage of incomparable proportion.
“Thank God for the men and women of our armed forces who truly have courage and are willing to fight to protect people like me and you.”
They’re pawns who fight aggressive wars which make us LESS safe. Their actions are directly contributing to the likelihood of another attack against us. They are a detriment to our national security. You may be thankful but I certainly am not.
Jeremy
November 6th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Shut up you dumb hag.
Go Extinct Already, Jingoes
November 6th, 2007 at 7:51 am
GAG. Did you really just do that? I mean, REALLY? Cut and paste the goofiest song ever written? Patriotic types really are untermenschen. They can only feel pride when their country blows something up or the chords of some gawd-awful jingo tune swell and ring. Maybe that’s because most of them are total losers in their own lives.
Go Extinct Already, Jingoes
November 6th, 2007 at 7:54 am
The FLAG is worth DYING for? The pathetic clichés never end, even here on the Antiwar blog. Amazing. I wish patriots would hurry up and indeed die for the flag so that the more evolved of us who are left can go on with our lives in peace. Though I guess it will be sorta hard to fill janitor positions and such…hm.
Yeah, it’s worth it.
Jeremy
November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Logical fallacy alert!
In order to criticize one party, one does not have to also criticize every other party that exists, in the past and present and possibly future, of all ethnicities and nationalities on every continent.
Now, try addressing the substance of the argumnet, instead of diverting attention away to irrelevances.
Swami Barmi
November 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“In Iran and countries inhabited by the Islamio Fascists, women have little or no choice as to who they marry.”
Iranian women can marry any man they choose — or NOT marry if that’s their choice. Iranian women certainly have some limitations in deference to their husbands but clearly you’re making assumptions rather than actually learning about the country (no doubt you can find a wealth of information at David Horowitz’ insane asylum though).
The point is not that we have been eclipsed by Iran in the freedom department; the point is that Iran is well on its way to embracing a western influenced freedom. This will be set back decades if we attack them. Of course, neocons don’t care at all about their freedom so they don’t care HOW far back they go; I think “the stone age” is the popular place in time for Arabs (Persians in this case but that’s never been a worthy distinction for neocons). They only use these “concerns” to support their previously made decision to invade and murder yet more innocent civilians of a foreign nation that never attacked us and has no intention of attacking us.
You claim to care deeply for those soldiers who “sacrifice for your freedom”; why don’t you at least make an attempt to understand the truth about the countries you expect them to die in?
Tim R.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Swami, you want me to learn more about Iran? Ok, maybe I did not know enough. So I checked out what Amnesty International had to say about this barbaric little country you want to defend. Here is what I found:
1) Iran is one of only a very small number of countries that still execute CHILDREN. A report dated last June lists at least 71 children under 18 who are on death row. According to the same report, a 16 year old was hanged of “crimes against chastity.”
2) According to Amnesty International, as of September Iran had executed 210 people since the start of the year, 21 on the morning of 5 September alone.
3) Amnesty notes that “Iranian legislation permits the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments which amount to torture, such as flogging and amputations.”
4) Amnesty interviews a woman and a noted Iranian human rights leader, Shirin Ebadi, who gives us the following insight ” A man may have four wives; two female witnesses make up for one male witness; in compensation cases, the price of a woman’s life is worth half the price of a man’s; filing for a divorce is more difficult for a woman than for a man. One type of violence against women is forbidden, but another type is permitted”, she explains.
“If a woman is killed on the street or in the house, the murderer may be prosecuted. The problem is that such violence is rarely reported to the police. If, however, the woman is killed by her husband because she is unfaithful or is caught in bed with another man, the murderer will not be punished.”
So thank you Swami, thank you for suggesting that I learn more about Iran. I took your advice and I do, indeed, feel that I learned a lot.
Tim R.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Ahmed and Peter C.:
In June of 1967, Gamel Abdel Nasser had called for the destruction of Israel. He said they were going to drive Israel into the sea. He signed a mutual defense treaty with Jordan and Syria. He closed the straits of Tiran, a naval blockade that is tantamount to an act of war. He expelled UN observers from the Sinai and he massed his entire army on Israel’s southern border.
Given those facts Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Eygpts air force on the morning of June 5th 1967. Later Jordan and Syria attacked Israel and Israel siezed the “occupied territories” while in the course of defending herself from Arab Muslim agression. And by the way, almost every Arab country in the region supported the attack, including King Faisal of Saudi Arabia who also publically stated that the goal was to destroy Israel. How can you call Israel an “occupier” when all the lands she allegedly “occupies” were siezed while in the course of defending herself from wanton Arab aggression?!
How funny it is now. We call Israel the agressor. That’s like saying the State of New Jersey was attacked by all of the 49 other states and yet New Jersey was the agressor!
I mean come on people. Get with it. Go study the history for yourself and open your eyes!
Swami Barmi
November 7th, 2007 at 5:44 am
1) “Iran is one of only a very small number of countries that still execute CHILDREN.”
Indeed, this is a very sad statistic. Since 1990, Iran has executed 24 children according to Amnesty International’s Recorded executions of child offenders since 1990: statistics. According to those same statistics in that same period, the United States executed only 19. To be “fair”, I’m sure the American courts waited until they were adults. That kind of consideration makes me proud.
2) Interesting that you’d point out the large number of executions in Iran, as though executions are themselves indicative of barbarous behavior. Is this simply a matter of numbers for you? How do you reconcile your offense at this statistic with all the executions that take place in this country, particularly in Texas while Bush was governor? I guess it’s just a difference of “numbers”. Perhaps you can let us know how many executions per capita are bad and how many are a-ok. How do your reconcile your offense with Iran when I assume you know that Iraq is now fourth in number of executions with a substantially lower population? Is this the sort of success we can look forward to with an invasion of Iran? Will Iran have even more executions (they’re now second behind China)? They most certainly will as the United States military takes the role of police, judge, and executioner.
3) “Amnesty notes that “Iranian legislation permits the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments which amount to torture, such as flogging and amputations.—
Guess you haven’t heard of this Mukasey guy and the subject of waterboarding, or the soul-searching debates that have raged as the United States embraces torture. Or the School of the Americas where we TEACH torture (one ingenius way to determine the optimum torture was to pull bums off the street in South America and find the most excrutiating method of torture on them. The beauty was that we didn’t want them for anything; there was nothing to confess!). But since you’ve found a new love with Amnesty International, perhaps you’d like to read their page on our rendition program which they entitle, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance’”.
Look throughout the AI website, particularly the pages of United States human rights violations, and tell me how Iran’s violations justify us going in there and slaughtering more people than their government is currently killing. You’ll likely come to the conclusion that yeah, the United States does a lot of this stuff but Iran is worse. This is hardly comforting. Iran is Iran. The United States is OUR country. We used to pride ourselves on our humanity and respect for human dignity. We’ve gone to the point where people like you have to compare us to some of the most evil people on earth to make us look good. Why not compare us to the most decent people on earth? Because there’s no comparison anymore.
4) Multiple wives? We’ve got that. “[T]wo female witnesses make up for one male witness”? Come on, you’re an attorney. Are you trying to tell me that there are no courts in this country where one person’s value as a witness may be judged as less than another’s on the basis of sex, race, education, or affluence? I understand that Iran’s is an institutionalized acceptance but then again: IS it institutionalized or are these marginal communities where these things take place? I don’t know and you certainly don’t.
““If a woman is killed on the street or in the house, the murderer may be prosecuted. The problem is that such violence is rarely reported to the police.”
Ever hear of abused wives who don’t report their husband’s? Come on. Again, I’m not saying Iran is our equal, but really, on some levels we’re just talking about degrees. If you go somewhere other than a place looking for as many negatives about Iran that you can find you’ll find extremely positive changes taking place, being driven by a society that’s exposed to television and the internet. We’ve all heard about Ahmadinejad’s questioning the holocaust. Did you realize that in response, Iranian television produced a mini-series that focused entirely on the horrors of the holocaust? I fully aware of injustices in Iranian society and it isn’t this that I want to “defend” as you erroneously put it. My contention is that the best way for these people to rise above their failures is through continued exposure of other societies and positive engagement. They’ve already come a very long way toward moderation. Our rhetoric turned them back with the election of the extremist Ahmadinejad. Now that he’s reviled in that country they’re poised to elect another moderate (not that he has a whole lot of power anyway). Let’s not ruin their advancement AGAIN.
We’re guilty of terrible human rights violations and many of our allies are directly comparable to Iran in human rights violations. We live in a glass house with very few unbroken panes. Our hypocrisy on this front is deafening.
Tim R.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Has the United States committed human rights violations? Yes.
Have we done some awful things that we should deeply regret? Yes.
But to compare us to Iran? I mean, that just stretches the bounds of reason.
Let me give you a bottom line: Action speaks louder than words, would you agree? I hear far left wing lunatics talk about how we are no better than some of these Islamo Fascist countries. That is all TALK. How many women, how many gays, how many feminists, how many human rights activists would right now get on a plane and move to Iran? If you ask any of these hypocrites what country they would rather be in they would of course say the United States. If Iran and the US are morally equivalent why don’t some people move there? Or to any of the other Islamo Fascist countries? They don’t move there because they are hypocrites who like to run their mouth off but action is louder than words. I see millions and millions of people trying to get into this country. How many are trying to get into Iran? On the contrary, people in Iran would like to get out and come here!
Bill K.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Oh I see, the “love it or leave it” rhetoric. Guess what buddy. Kish island in Iran has some of the nicest beaches anywhere on this planet, it is a great place to visit if nothing more. Do you consider Dubai to be “Islamo-Fascist”? That place has more construction projects than most major US cities put together. Thousands of foreigners move there yearly.
But that is not the point. You don’t realize that people come to the US because it has jobs, not because of some silly “morals”, people are attracted to places with jobs so that they can feed their families and provide them with money to live happy lives. If you don’t want to have so many immigrants then blame it on Hollywood, marketing for the US done through Hollywood brings people to the US. Instability breeds emigration, that is when people leave, during the Great Depression American left the US by the 1,000 to seek out jobs elsewhere, even in the “dreaded” USSR.
Global inequality creates refugees and immigrants, this inequality is worsened by US actions. The Iraq Invasion has created millions of refugees, they flood into other countries not because of morals but because their country is a mess, a mess created by the US invasion. An invasion you want to repeat in Iran.
Swami Barmi
November 8th, 2007 at 5:05 am
You ask a couple of softball questions at the beginning to downplay some outrageously objectionable behavior. My post contains DIRECT examples of your contentions and your refusal to acknowledge them directly is taken as an admission that you’ve nothing to answer them with. The point is not that American society is at the same level as Iranian society; the point is that our government is doing very similar things to those you find so objectionable and the only differences is in the degrees to which we take them. You may ignore it or downplay it; our media may ignore it or downplay it; the American people just won’t pay attention at all; but people elsewhere in the world watch very closely and for them, this is now what America stands for. There are other areas where we surpase the Iranians in evil: we kill people in vastly larger numbers with our unecessary wars. We overthrow governments, like theirs in 1953. As I said, we teach South American tyrants how to torture people.
Is Main Street USA a better, more civil place to live? Of course, though it’s also clear that resting on our laurels of liberty is getting us into trouble. Any idiot reading my posts can see that I never suggested otherwise. YOU know it too. You just find it convenient to twist my intentions to mean something that’s more easily arguable. YOU’RE the one who started this comparison between our countries as a ruse to avoid substantive debate on whether or not we should go over there and kill them. Your response is a barrage of your typical neocon non sequiturs designed to avoid the obvious points I’m making (just like elsewhere where you stick to just one point, a lesser point, and alter it into an unrelated straw man argument). My posts (like the one answering your 16th amendment info) include plenty enough factual information and/or specific opinion that you needn’t insert other arguments to take their place. I made it clear that there was no equating American society with Iran’s and I should hope that as an attorney you could pick up on these kinds of sledgehammer nuances. I am not a “far left lunatic” so I won’t answer the related love-it-or-leave-it nonsense. I’m not moving to Switzerland either but that isn’t an admission that America is better. I’ve been a conservative for decades, I KNOW the far left is “out there”. Unfortunately, the right is now out there now as well and I don’t intend to change my political views just because the politicians, pundits, and sheeple do.
This entire issue of Iranian human rights is just a red herring: I’ve included enough information that makes it obvious that Iranian human rights are no worse than any number of countries we ally ourselves with, therefore there must be other reasons why we’re going to start a war with them. THAT’S where our discussion should be.
Tim R.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Ok, let me be as clear as I can:
We have a right to go to war with them because we have a right to go to war with ANY, I repeat, any, nation that supports or encourages radical Islam.
We were attacked on September 11th not by Bin Laden, or Al Quida, or Iran or Iraq or any one particular group or person. We were attacked by an IDEA. The idea is radidal Islam, or Islamo Fascism. In his address to a joint session of Congress shortly after September 11th the President said we would make no distinction between the terrorists and the nation’s that support them. (Too bad he and Congress have not lived up to that).
Any country or group that supports radical Islam in any way shape or from should be declared a rogue state, an enemy of the United States and we have every right to defend our selves against them. Bomb Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all of them for all I care. They are all responsible!
Swami Barmi
November 9th, 2007 at 4:57 am
“We were attacked on September 11th not by Bin Laden, or Al Quida, or Iran or Iraq or any one particular group or person. We were attacked by an IDEA.”
Once again you take the facts and twist them to into absurdity. We can do this with so many things: urban crime is a result of “hoodlumism”. We’re at war with an IDEA, hoodlumism. Anyone who SUPPORTS hoodlumism, those who provide inspiration (rap artists), those who support their “kind” (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson — ok, maybe this part isn’t such a bad idea), those who provide shelter (inner cities), anyone who’s in the vicinity of them when we attack is fair game. Your contention will also be a blow to the second amendment as we learn that guns CAN kill people. This just makes it convenient for you to take us all down via a self-destructive course of action. A bunch of womanizing drunks hijacking planes are radical Muslims. The secularist and enemy of radical Muslims, Saddam Hussein, was a supporter of them. Shiite Iran, long an enemy of Sunni bin Laden is now an ally, all simply because we say so. Shiite Iran, which was one of the first Muslim countries to offer sympathy and support after 9/11, who helped us rout the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, who were instrumental in our signing a deal with the Northern Alliance, whose proposal to us in 2003 included:
full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, decisive action against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending ‘material support’ for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [which called for all Muslim states to recognize Israel],” … The unprecedented initiative was approved by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and then-President Mohammad Khatami – the moderate whose attempts at dialogue were mocked and undercut at every turn by the Bush Regime, helping to discredit the entire reformist movement in Iran and leading to Khatami’s replacement by the militant hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
A sweeter deal would have been impossible to come by, even — ESPECIALLY by war. My earlier quote is so apt: “It takes great leadership and ability to settle differences through peaceful means. Any idiot can start a war.â€
15 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and one from Egypt. So we go after Iraq and Iran. al Qaeda is supported primarily by citizens from Saudi Arabia, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and Egypt. So we attack Iraq and Iran. Once again, the presence of ulterior motives are obvious to anyone except the intellectually blind and/or morally bankrupt.
Some organized individuals committed a CRIME. It’s called organized crime and it would be far more effectively treated as such. We’ve taken the crime of probably a hundred or so people and turned it into a fight with millions: “Bomb Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all of them for all I care. They are all responsible!” Bogged down as we are in just two countries against scattered, unorganized groups of people, you see the ability to wage an even greater war against an entire region. I can only imagine Russia and China looking on with amusement as we self-destruct — they’ll be too smart to get involved. Just think of that: Russia and China will occupy the moral high ground. We instigated a war in Afghanistan with the intent to get the Soviet Union mired in their own Vietnam. It brought the entire nation down. Never mind learning from history: we don’t even learn from our own damn policies!
Radical Islam? You people simplify a complex issue into a whole that’s impossible to address, which is precisely the point for those who profit financially from perpetual war and those gullible enough to believe them. The interrelationships and animosities between different Islamic sects are enough to destroy the entire notion of Islamic extremism amongst themselves, or at least keep them so preoccupied that they’d scarcely be aware of our existence, yet we’ll continue to stand right in the middle of them, killing and maiming them, stoking their anger and salting their wounds, keeping their attention on us.
Tim R.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Well, I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. After we went into Afghanistan, the disgusting Saudis should have been next! And I hate the fact that Bush coddles them. Although Clinton did the same.
What is so hard for you to understand?
Terrorism is just a tactic.
We are fighting the IDEA behind terrorism. That idea is Radical Islam. We must confront it directly. Treat it as a crime you say? What shall we do call for a grand jury investigation? Perhaps the neighborhood cop on the beat should be repsonsible to protect us from these people? That is exactly the wrong tactic. Clinton treated it as a mere crime when they bombed the World Trade Center the first time in 1993. Look where that got us?
Let me be clear: Radical Islam wants to utterly destroy western civilization. I believe that western civilization is the best hope for humanity, and I believe the United States is the last best hope for western civilization. We must wake up to the war we are facing! How can we fight an enemy when we don’t even wake up and admit that they want to kill us? Swami, they make no distinction between liberals, conservatives, neo cons or any thing else, they would kill you as fast as they would kill me if they had the chance.
We must defend ourselves!
Swami Barmi
November 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Look: it’s a hard concept to understand. You have to realize that most of us are not at the level of such great thinkers as George W. Bush. Please cut me some slack. I keep approaching this discourse with detail and logic, but I guess I’m just not picking up on your cues to stick with slogans and emotion instead.
The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 were Muslim. We must therefore attack any countries that are Muslim and the innocent people within. Wait a second . . . your contention is much more nuanced than that. Please forgive me. We must attack any country who’s Muslim and ARAB. Wait a second: For some yet to be disclosed reason, we have to include the Persians as well. But what about Indonesia? Damn, this is getting too complex.
Ok, bear with me. I see that “A” follows “B”, but I still have trouble with the “why”. I know that Paul Wolfowitz said that we attacked Iraq using the excuse of their nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, only because it was the easiest way to convince the American people that it needed to be done. This is where I get confused: in his and the neocons’ minds it was the least plausible scenario factually, yet it was still apparently the most vital reason why we did it. Furthermore, the people who used this deceptive rationale must also be believed for their justifications of exapanded war with Iran.
I explained some apparently mistaken ideas in my posts that I still need to grapple with and I need your help. I need to know why it doesn’t matter that our military is already far overstretched in its current theaters, yet it’s ok that we extend those theaters to areas that are dramatically more challenging those that we’re already dealing with. I need help understanding why military overreach brought the Soviet Union down, but it’s impossible that it will bring the United States down. I need help understanding why a century of angering these people and killing these people in vastly greater numbers than the 19 guilty people on 9/11 doesn’t matter. I need help understanding why all of these weapons with “Made In The USA” that kill Muslims doesn’t make them want to kill us in return.
You probably threw in the line about Saudi Arabia for amusement. I especially like the line, “Although Clinton did the same.” Heaven forbid we admit fault without also mentioning fault with Bill Clinton: after all, he’s all that and a bag of fucking chips and we always have to place the American experience in the context of that liberal freaking douchbag. Whenever you’re threatened with having to present a cogent argument for your action You resort to comparing us to Hitler and Bill Clinton. I’ll continue the train of logic in case you missed it: Bill Clinton was the worst president ever. George Bush does just what Clinton did, therefore it’s ok.
But back to Saudi Arabia. This is really quite a hilarious coincidence. Get this: did you know that Saudi Arabia is an oil-producing country? I swear to God it is. Not a big deal in itself, but some people actually believe that their oil reserves are a big reason why we support their hideously repressive regime! I think the internet vernacular is “LOL”.
I know I’ve covered this before, but let me formally introduce you to a concept called “cause and effect”. In the spirit of your attempt at argument simplification, I’ll demonstrate this concept with two simple analogies. One is applicable, the other is not. Perhaps you can guess which is which.
A toddler burns himself on a hot burner. We all get extremely upset at what happened, and we can deal with it in a couple of ways. We can take the intellectual approach by comforting the child and letting him know that although he didn’t intend this to happen, he can prevent it from happening again by not putting his hand on the stove. with this we let him know that he was at fault for touching the hot stove and he can prevent the negative outcome from happening again by not touching the hot stove again. Another approach is to let our emotions dictate our response and beat the living crap out of the stove with a sledgehammer to prevent this from ever happening again. This will work in this case because the stove is an inanimate object that cannot strike back. Our toddler can touch and feel to his heart’s content, secure in the knowledge that his concerned caretakers irradicated the evil stove demon. That is until we buy another stove.
Now we have the second analogy. Said toddler plays near a bee hive and gets stung by a bee. Again, we can take the intellectual approach by teaching the child to stay away from the bee hive. This will prevent the bees from getting angry with the trespassing child, preventing a repeat scenario. Or we can take the emotional approach and attack the bees’ nest with a baseball bat. This approach — as difficult as it may be to believe — will actually make the insects angrier. Not only that, it will entice even more insects to attack.
Here where I’m having trouble with your thinking. Here I’m thinking that the since the cause happened first; yes, BEFORE Bill Clinton’s failed response to the first WWC attack; that we ought to address the cause, when all along it’s the EFFECT that happened first. I’ve got it now.
john
November 13th, 2007 at 2:30 am
I am a United States Marine, and I am proud to say it. I am baffled by what i see here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of speech, a freedom my brothers fight for every day in peace time and in war time. So, i will not tell anyone here that you are wrong or disgraceful, despite my feelings to what you are saying, but if you have the nerve to make snide comments or remarks regarding our nations military composed of men and women who volunteered to stand up and fight for our freedom at least have the respect and decency to make intelligent comments. Not everyone in our nations military agree with all the political aspects our country takes and with everything going on with the war, but we do care enough about our country to fight anyone who opposes us so that we can be a free nation. We fight so that we may stay diverse. Our country welcomes anyone of any race and any belief with open arms. You can come to our country and worship your God and preach your beliefs, whether they be anti-war, anti-military, or whatever the case may be. So while you disgrace my American Flag and curse my president and curse me for standing up for you when you are too much of a coward to stand up yourself, at least respect yourself and your beliefs enough to be intelligent when you speak. Don’t just blurt out disrespectful things about our nations principles without having a better, plausible solution. If you do have all these better ideas for our nation and you know how our country should be run, why aren’t you running for congress or president to change it? Everyone can talk about how things should be and what they would do, instead of posting all these negative things on the internet, your time could be better occupied making a difference in our country rather than trash talking us who try.