Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on February 25, 2006, 07:23:57 PM
-
Well, its about time. Cage match between the Iranian backed insurgents and US backed New Iraq. the only way the US is going to come out of this thing is to bring total war to the area with a little ethnic cleansing. Ugly but necessary.
-
I predict a North Iraq / South Iraq solution.
-
This development is such a huge fricken surprise.
-
what you might see is a kurdistan (which will get little or no support from the US because it will annoy our turkish allies) then a sunni iraq and a sh i ite iraq which would porbably be gobbled up by the persians.
-
Persians?
You mean Iran. Only now, like, twice as big.
Biggest blunder since, like, a long long time ago.
Worst administration ever.
-
Dude... the insurgency is in its last throes!
-
Well right now there just two sides, the insurgency and the US. A cival war would be good.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I predict a North Iraq / South Iraq solution.
Problem. The oil is in the south. That is where the iranian lovers are. I predict a 'die iranian backed insurgents' plan, except there will be an endless flow of them unless the border is controlled. Hmmm, this thing could grow out of control in a big hurry. Dont let yer kids join the military for the 'college' plan.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Dude... the insurgency is in its last throes!
Not again!:(
-
If theyare going to have a cival war can we pull out and let them fight it among them sleves now?
-
what if they are all wearing sheets? or worse yet tank tops!!!!!
-
Originally posted by dmf
If theyare going to have a cival war can we pull out and let them fight it among them sleves now?
no. If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have blown a massive fortune on a complete failure. Not only a failure, a 'worse case scenario' for the war planners. It would be better to have a saddam regime than to make Iran twice as large and 100 times as wealthy. We went in there to install a pro american, oil friendly regime so as to keep the oil flowing well into the 21st century. To topple saddam and have iran move in would be the most incompetant military adventure in recorded history.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I predict a North Iraq / South Iraq solution.
That's a typical UN solution.
-
I predict Iraq will survive and be governed by a constitution and an elected government, eventually.......
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Problem. The oil is in the south.
The oil is in the north too. Where the oil is not is where the sunnis live.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The oil is in the north too. Where the oil is not is where the sunnis live.
that's correct the kurds do have oil
-
the media has invented the "iraq civil war" it will give them many more "breaking news" stories and the reporters will have more chances to win a Pulitzer prize. The media would love more killing, "XXX killed in iraq today" blood=news, peace=boring
and for the people who think iraq is in a "civil war", you have no idea what a civil war is.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Cage match between the Iranian backed insurgents
Because Iran is backing all insurgents in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
no. If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have blown a massive fortune on a complete failure. Not only a failure, a 'worse case scenario' for the war planners. It would be better to have a saddam regime than to make Iran twice as large and 100 times as wealthy. We went in there to install a pro american, oil friendly regime so as to keep the oil flowing well into the 21st century. To topple saddam and have iran move in would be the most incompetant military adventure in recorded history.
A massive fortune on a complete failure?
Havent we done that already?
Toppleing Saddam is just the president doing what his father didn't do.
As for Iran, and that madman they have in charge, Its just a mater of time before we're in that country too.
Granted Saddam needed to be removed from power, but personally If I was in charge I'd concentrate on finding the guy that orcestrated 911, then worried about Iraq
-
Originally posted by dmf
A massive fortune on a complete failure?
Havent we done that already?
Toppleing Saddam is just the president doing what his father didn't do.
As for Iran, and that madman they have in charge, Its just a mater of time before we're in that country too.
Granted Saddam needed to be removed from power, but personally If I was in charge I'd concentrate on finding the guy that orcestrated 911, then worried about Iraq
we now have a fixed base in the region where we can work from that isn't israel. that is what is significant about iraq.
-
You mean the one in Turkey?
-
Originally posted by storch
that's correct the kurds do have oil
But nobody else in the region likes, wants, or trusts the Kurds....so it is "fundamentally" impossible to put them in control of anything. Their autonomous zone already has the Turks and Iranians nervous.
I guess the Administration can always spin an Iraqi Civil War off as all part of democracy.....after all, America had a Civil War, didn't we?
Wall Street on the other hand........
-
Originally posted by dmf
A massive fortune on a complete failure?
Havent we done that already?
Toppleing Saddam is just the president doing what his father didn't do.
As for Iran, and that madman they have in charge, Its just a mater of time before we're in that country too.
Granted Saddam needed to be removed from power, but personally If I was in charge I'd concentrate on finding the guy that orcestrated 911, then worried about Iraq
I'd have gone after the known and suspected terrorists camps that lie in another 40-odd countries, kept chasing the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan to Indonesia and Pakistan, brought pressure against Syria who likes to play both sides, and get the most out of the post 9-11 timeframe where we had the policital capital, "right of vengence", and "rightousness" capital to spend and many smaller and quicker operations rather than blowing it all on empire building ("Texas, Far East") and destabilizing the most secular Arab nation, which the UN had more or less contained, and had no real ties to terrorists in the first place (THE most secular Arab nation at the time after all, not exactly a friend to fundamentalists).
I realize what they *thought* they were trying to do in Iraq. I can read a map and realize what a stable ally, basing rights, and access to those oil reserves could mean there....but it totally overlook the realities regarding the people and the culture on the ground. They completely read that wrong, and continue to do so.
These problems have simply been compounded over the years by refusing to admit to mistakes made, failing to deliver on promises made, and stubbornly plodding along with rose covered blinders on.
I've been unlucky enough to see the effects on the ground for over a years time spent there..... we've been screwing up by the numbers. Some of my fellow soldiers have pride in what they accomplish over there, and I have to allow them that, no one wants to feel their efforts and hard work and sacrifices have been in vain..... but I personally can't take pride in somthing like building a school if all the teachers are dragged into the street and shot in front of their students a few weeks later by insurgents. For every step forward, we end up taking two or three steps back.
A stable democracy and U.S. ally I believe is no longer in the cards..... we're either going to see another Iran rise out of Iraq's ashes, or a fragmented civil war with the potential of dragging other middle eastern nations into it, and consequently ruining western economies when oil supplies are interrupted.
What a mess.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
But nobody else in the region likes, wants, or trusts the Kurds....so it is "fundamentally" impossible to put them in control of anything. Their autonomous zone already has the Turks and Iranians nervous.
I guess the Administration can always spin an Iraqi Civil War off as all part of democracy.....after all, America had a Civil War, didn't we?
Wall Street on the other hand........
the kurds with a separate kurdistan should be a concern to the turks and the iranians as they live in all three countries where they border one another. a kurdish state properly supported by the US would be very useful to us both politically and militarily. the problem lies in how to sell the idea to turks.
-
Face it every muslim country hates the United states, and wants us out of their country so they can kill us on our land
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
... a little ethnic cleansing. Ugly but necessary.
...VIVA LA DEMOCRACY!!!
-
Every day I read that XX people were killed in a bombing. Every single day.
If that isn't civil war what the heck is it?
-
"If that isn't civil war what the heck is it?"
Why it's the mainstream media deliberately putting a "spin" on the pitifull few negative actions of just a few thugs and ruffeons!
(not!) It's just about wide open civil war.
But as some would have us believe good ole Bush & Co, Inc. have deliberately done this so that the Iraqis would wage their civil war there rather than here in our cities.
-
Originally posted by Westy
But as some would have us believe good ole Bush & Co, Inc. have deliberately done this so that the Iraqis would wage their civil war there rather than here in our cities.
lol
So THAT'S the latest is it?
I'm curious to know how many Iraqis have died since the last Iraq War. How many? I don't care if they are insurgents, Sunnis, *****es...whatever.
The reason I ask is that currently Sadaam is on trial for executing over 140 *****es. More than 140 Iraqis must have been killed in less than a month based upon my morning scan of Yahoo news.
The most recent argument that the US is in Iraq to save the poor Iraqis from a tyrant like Sadaam is losing any sense of reality.
-
C'mon Curval, you're not in the right spirit here... IT'S FOR THE DEMOCRASSY you idjit! :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
If that isn't civil war what the heck is it?
Probably the "Birth of a Nation". Like other births, you don't really know how it's going to turn out for about 25 years.
Just think how smart it would be to condemn a kid as a hopeless cause during the "Terrible Twos".
But, admittedly, this Iraq thing just isn't fitting the "30 minute solution, including commercials and news updates" requirements.
-
How romantic. What we are witnessing in Iraq is democracy in action...the birth of a new nation?
lol
I suppose the same could have been said in the late 1960s re: Indo-China.
-
Birth?
What we're witnessesing is a long, drawnout, forced artificial-insemination. And I think the resultant "baby" is gonna have one hellova grudge for a long, long time.
(Curval I was being sarcastic. And fwiw I don't care how many Iraqis died in 1982, 1992 or more recently)
-
Originally posted by Westy
And fwiw I don't care how many Iraqis died in 1982, 1992 or more recently
ooooookay.
-
What else is it? Yeah, we deposed Saddam.
I'm sure none of you will pretend that he represented "good government" in Iraq? Or will you defend the mass murderer?
Now, in the absence of a dictator, a new government has been formed. Constitutional convention was held, open election was held.
So what is it, since by your observation it is NOT a new nation trying to form itself?
Westy thinks we raped Iraq against its will by deposing Saddam and artificially inseminated "democracy". Well, the nice thing is that it IS their government and it will be what THEY make it, for better or for worse. Westy, I guess you think maybe they'll just crown a new dictator. Could happen.
Curval compares it to VietNam. So, Curval, you think it benefitted VN when the North won?
You know, it's real easy to be the critical sniper from the sidelines.
Yep, we did it.
Now, oh great oracle-observers, what should be done now?
Just sneak out completely tomorrow night?
C'mon. It's easy to be critical. Let's see you be constructive. Display your infallability and tell us all what should be done NOW.
-
I'll repeat that I could careless about the Iraqi's under Saddan. Any more than I did for the Chileans under Pinochet or Cambodians under Pol Pot etc.
And I'm sorry Toad that you think the 2000 plus Americans and Britons deaths, doing what the Iraqi people should have done themselves, have been worth it.
You claim to see a democratic Arab nation being born. I don't. I see another Shah type Iran being created.
"it's real easy to be the critical sniper from the sidelines."
Of course! It's as easy as being a pom-pom waiver.
"what should be done now?"
Well you didn't listen to anyone in 2002-2003 so I doubt you're really interested in hearing anything now.
-
Originally posted by Westy
And I'm sorry Toad that you think the 2000 plus Americans and Britons deaths, doing what the Iraqi people should have done themselves, have been worth it.
[/b]
Nice shot but a miss. Show me where I said that? Quotes, please.
You claim to see a democratic Arab nation being born. I don't. I see another Shah type Iran being created.
[/b]
You did read that first bit of mine?
Toad: Probably the "Birth of a Nation". Like other births, you don't really know how it's going to turn out for about 25 years.
I think it's too early to tell what you are seeing. It could go a lot of ways from here. They may return to dictatorship, it's a possiblity.
Of course! It's as easy as being a pom-pom waiver.
[/b]
I'd be interested in what you consider my "pom-pom waving" in this thread. Quote it.
Well you didn't listen to anyone in 2002-2003 so I doubt you're really interested in hearing anything now.
Oh, I assure you I AM interested in your suggestions. Yeah, I supported the invasion. I think if you search you'll ALSO find that support was contingent on WMD being found. I DID give the Administration the benefit of the doubt for quite a while.
You of course were never fooled and knew the truth for certain all along. Good on ya.
So, given that you've got such a handle on things, how about sharing your version of the best plan starting right now?
-
Originally posted by Curval
How romantic (snip) ...the birth of a new nation?
lol
I suppose the same could have been said in the late 1960s re: Indo-China.
How is that not exactly what happened in Indo-China?
-
"Show me where I said that?"
Quotes? Sorry, am I supposed to have one? I'm just applying a little Toadism with my posts. The "if it can be implied then state it as fact until it's refuted" kind of thing.
Toad I too have been consistent from the beginning. And since the beginning you've been a pom-pom waiver. It does seem to bug you though that so many (not just me) have been right about this thing from the start.
however I have no suggestions to offer as I certainly have no illusions that you'd try to find value in anything offered.
You and the team you rooted for went charging ("gung ho!" at that) down the wrong road in spite of all the warnings, objections and advice to do otherwise. IMO it's well past time for the drivers to relinquish control or wake up and get out of there. I don't have any faith in the latter given given Cheney, Bush and Rumsfields stance on the matter since 2003. And it doesn't look like they'll relinquish control any time soon either does it?
So, as Powell said, ""you break it, you own it."
And I'll always be on the ready to say what a fediddleing mess this is and look at the gullible who supported it.
edited: p.s. I think the best your team is going to get is an Iran style of "democracy" - after the smoke has cleared.
-
I'll tell you why it doesn't bother me in the least. I don't think your description of my position is accurate. So, it's pretty easy to ignore it as more smoke.
however I have no suggestions to offer as I certainly have no illusions that you'd try to find value in anything offered.
I'm pretty certain you DON'T have anything constructive to offer by your own admission. I'm not surprised in the least. I would like to read your ideas if you ever come up with any.
Thank cod that you're here to beech about the Administration's ideas, though.
There's no doubt the US "broke" the Saddam dictatorship. I readily admit I supported the invasion on the basis of WMD being found. It wasn't, which is really immaterial now. We did invade, we did remove the dictator, we did engender/support an Iraqi attempt to form a democratic government.
I don't see where we can just "up stakes" and walk away now. I also don't have a "better idea" of what to do now than what the Administration is trying to do.
Apparently, neither do you. But, you do add all the "I told you so" value to the discussion and the "beech, beech, beech.. but I don't have a better idea either" factor as well. Congrats.
-
"you DON'T have anything constructive to offer by your own admission."
More Toadism.
I guess I should counter with I don't think your description of my position is in the least bit correct and your retorts could be easily labelled as intentionally inflamatory for the sole purpose of arguing.
"Thank cod that you're here to beech about the Administration's ideas, though."
My pleasure. It's nothing new though. I did it during the hype and spin-up to the invasion and I'll mock and ridicule them for bad judgment now. After all Bush & Co, Inc. got my disrespect the old fashioned way. "They earned it."
If it weren't for people like me (the anti pom-pommers) then you'd all still be slapping each other high-fives for the fantastic job not done in Iraq.
Word.
-
Unfortunately you cant turn back time.
Probably the best course would have been to enforce and tighten sanctions causing a change from within.
We will never know now and from here its a spin of the bottle. That being said I will say that I beleive that this administration seems to be doing its best to frick things up beyond belief
I was one of those that opposed from the beginning, however I really have no other opinions as to where to take it from here.
Its just really sad and tragic how many have lost their lives so far in this debacle.
-
Perhaps a reality check might be in order?
Sadaam, whom we are now told it would have been better to keep in power, prevented civil war by brutally enforcing the hegemony of the Sunni minority via genocide, torture, summary executions, chemical weapons and generally making the life of the Kurds and S h i' i tes a living hell. Every attempt at rebellion or even dissent was crushed in the most brutal fashion possible. To dissent meant not only being tortured and killed yourself, but seeing your family raped and killed prior to your own execution. If you did manage to escape Iraq, your relatives remaining behind would suffer in your place. So yes, a civil war was "prevented" but at an appalling cost.
After Saddam was removed from power, the Sunni terrorist groups in the country immediately began directing their attacks on the Shi'ites knowing that this would destabilize the nation and make consensus impossible. Their hope of course is to make Iraq ungovernable and force the coalition to withdraw, getting the infidels out of the Dar-El-Islam has always been priority one, and that includes the UN and any relief agencies. The Taliban followed the same policy of making it impossible for Westerners to work in the areas under their control, including agencies like the Red Cross.
Now, we are told that "we shouldn't even be in Iraq" because the problem was in Afghanistan. But most sane people realize that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the current government will quickly collapse and the nation will once again descend into chaos and endless violence. The unlimited supply of new Taliban and Arab Jihadis who stream over the border from Pakistan, and the almost unlimited funding they receive from Petrodollars, will make that inevitable. Even if we had nabbed Bin Laden or made him a martyr, countless other Bin Ladens are awaiting their turn to be the next contenders.
Our stated way of dealing with the problem of Jihad, is to attempt to kill or imprison (and then eventually release) all the active Jihadis, we've been following that approach for decades now, while simultaneously playing Mr. Nice Guy with the forces that produce them. So we kill the members of the terror cell, but we tolerate or encourage the Mosque that encouraged them, the Madrassa that trained them, the Imams that spurred them on, the literature they read, and the countries giving them the money they spent.
Aside from the fact that that approach will never work, it commits us to a "forever war" of attrition. And do we really think we are willing to spend lives for as long as the Jihadis?
But if stamping on them one by one is the best we can come up with, then we'd better stay in Iraq for as long as possible if only to provide a convenient sand-box to which we might attract the newest crops of Jihadis and then kill or capture them. Once we leave, we are back to trying to do that on our own territory, not theirs. And lets face it, once we leave the Dar-El-Islam, and they are able to concentrate on attacking us at home, sooner or later they will pull off an attrocity in the USA of such scale that nothing but massive retaliation will satisfy the public, and which nation are we going to retaliate against?
Edit: Skuzzy is there anyway to modify the board "auto-censor" so we can use the word S h i i t e?
-
Seagoon, why don't you just admit it and say you hate anything that isn't labled Christian.
You are on your way to being a christian fanatic.
That having been said I will state that I do beleive in God and have a resonable working knowledge of the bible.
-
Originally posted by Westy
If it weren't for people like me (the anti pom-pommers) then you'd all still be slapping each other high-fives for the fantastic job not done in Iraq.
Word.
Incorrect "word", as usual.
I admitted I was wrong on this BBS a long time ago.
You DON'T have anything constructive to offer and it is by your own admission. I guess the truth escapes your blinding insight.
But like I said, your beeching adds so much to the situation and it must be gratifying to stroke yourself, so have at it.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
no. If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have blown a massive fortune on a complete failure. Not only a failure, a 'worse case scenario' for the war planners. It would be better to have a saddam regime than to make Iran twice as large and 100 times as wealthy. We went in there to install a pro american, oil friendly regime so as to keep the oil flowing well into the 21st century. To topple saddam and have iran move in would be the most incompetant military adventure in recorded history.
I am suffering, terribly, from the flu...To me, that first sentence read...in all seriousness:
"If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have a massive, blow out furniture sale."
I was thinking, "WTF?"
:t Yeah, I thinkg I'm calling it a day, and going to bed...
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
"If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have a massive, blow out furniture sale."
Hilarious!!:lol
sorry about you having the flu...it's been many years since I've had the flu but I clearly recall how abjectly miserable it makes us feel
-
Originally posted by dmf
Face it every muslim country hates the United states, and wants us out of their country so they can kill us on our land
Just a few of our allies.....
Morocco
Egypt
Jordan (on paper)
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Bangladesh
Thailand
Micronesia
Pakistan
Kenya
Nigeria
Kurdistan
Afghanistan (we liberated them, remember)
Kaz-whatever-istan
and let's not forget out staunch ally in the War on terror, and all 9 of their soldiers committed to the fight in Iraq...
CAMEROON!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Perhaps a reality check might be in order?
Sadaam, whom we are now told it would have been better to keep in power, prevented civil war by brutally enforcing the hegemony of the Sunni minority via genocide, torture, summary executions, chemical weapons and generally making the life of the Kurds and S h i' i tes a living hell. ............... So yes, a civil war was "prevented" but at an appalling cost.
So another dictator. I'll never buy the removal of a brutal dictator as a legitimate reason. Western and world powers have allowed, and continue to allow brutal governments and geonocide to continue around the world. The little attrocity in the Sudan, and now spreading to Chad, has accounted for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths and probably several million refugees to date, Actually, the Department of Defence and very little is being done to stop it. The African Peacekeeping Forces are not up to the task, and it is taking months, if not years, to assemble a UN peacekeeping force for the region, which probably will also be ineffectual. The world has always had these kinds of governments somewhere..... not a good thing, but I don't see the world's leading governnments actually doing anything constructive about it any time soon.
After Saddam was removed from power, the Sunni terrorist groups in the country immediately began directing their attacks on the Shi'ites knowing that this would destabilize the nation and make consensus impossible. Their hope of course is to make Iraq ungovernable and force the coalition to withdraw..................... ....
The region is not *ready* for democracy. The culture, the traditons, the competing interests, the religious hatreds, and old feuds and scores to settle..... The tradition is for the strong to seek power by force and hold it by force. The S h ii te s will listen to their religious leaders before they follow their political leaders. Everyone there will follow their clan or tribal leaders before their governments. It's how they prioritize their loyalties. All through the formation of the government, religeous leaders like Al Sadr have been consolidating thier power and organizing their militias. When the Iraqi or U.S. Governments wanted to get the people's attention, they would ask al-Sistani to call on the people (which seems to have weakened Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's position among the young firebrands as being too close to the western occupier, his influence has suffered....U.S. went back to that well too many times....). During the current violence, the story was the Muslim clerics calling for peace and the protection of the shrines from their followers.... the government is weak compared to them. The last round of elections was wrought with fraud. Iran is actively seeking to influence the formation of the Iraqi government, and is becoming more successful than the western efforts.
They were not ready as a people, a culture, by tradition, or a nation for democracy. Only western arrogance can believe all the world is prepared to immediately and naturally become a democratic people. It is a fine ideal, and one that America with its voter turnout history and quality of its politians has yet to achieve fully itself, but not all cultures are quite ready for it.
All we've managed to do is cause the killing of 30,000 to 40,000 Iraqis, actually lower the standard of living and feeling of security for many (Saddam's terror aside, during his rein the people weren't afraid to walk the streets or let their children play outside.....now they are because of the violence, bombings, and kidnappings), and severly destabilize the country.
Now, we are told that "we shouldn't even be in Iraq" because the problem was in Afghanistan. But most sane people realize that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the current government will quickly collapse and the nation will once again descend into chaos and endless violence. The unlimited supply of new Taliban and Arab Jihadis who stream over the border from Pakistan, and the almost unlimited funding they receive from Petrodollars, will make that inevitable. Even if we had nabbed Bin Laden or made him a martyr, countless other Bin Ladens are awaiting their turn to be the next contenders.
[/B]
Taliban and Al Qadea fled Afghanistan to primarily Pakistan and Indonesia, and we pursued them to.... Iraq...... Generally there are about 40 countires identified as harboring, supporting, training, and being active centers for various terrorists cells and movements around the world. Iraq really was not one of them ---- one training camp in the Iraqi north-east used to train people to harrass the Iranians is all that I'm aware of. Surely we didn't go in to protect Iranians from Iraqis?
The "War of Terror" was used as a pretext to attack Iraq. Plain and simple. They saw a region with big oil reserves, access to the Persian Gulf, strategic location for a military presence in the area, and a way to settle an old score. Totally misread the cultural and societal realities that exist on the ground and what it would all cost. Now, it has proven to be a drain of resources and manpower, and terrorists cells have adapted around the world and have been given time to evolve and expand while the west has been distracted.
It will come back to haunt us.
Our stated way of dealing with the problem of Jihad, is to attempt to kill or imprison (and then eventually release) all the active Jihadis, we've been following that approach for decades now, while simultaneously playing Mr. Nice Guy with the forces that produce them. So we kill the members of the terror cell, but we tolerate or encourage the Mosque that encouraged them, the Madrassa that trained them, the Imams that spurred them on, the literature they read, and the countries giving them the money they spent.
Aside from the fact that that approach will never work, it commits us to a "forever war" of attrition. And do we really think we are willing to spend lives for as long as the Jihadis?
But if stamping on them one by one is the best we can come up with, then we'd better stay in Iraq for as long as possible if only to provide a convenient sand-box to which we might attract the newest crops of Jihadis and then kill or capture them. Once we leave, we are back to trying to do that on our own territory, not theirs. And lets face it, once we leave the Dar-El-Islam, and they are able to concentrate on attacking us at home, sooner or later they will pull off an attrocity in the USA of such scale that nothing but massive retaliation will satisfy the public, and which nation are we going to retaliate against?
The muslim faith is growing fast among the poorest people in the world. In a way its the new communism. For a guy living in a mud hut, being told that all he has to do is kill himself in service to God to recieve great rewards in heaven must sound like a good deal. The oil that the west craves comes from these poor countries..... all they see is images of rich societies plundering their own country's resources, and they get nothing from it. Hating the west is an easy sell.
The Department of Defense has taking to calling this "The Long War" actually. As long as western nations need oil from the Middle East, this violence will continue to be with us. And there is no real effort to get away from fossil fuels..... too many entrenched interests in the way things are now. Something on the order of the Manhatten Project or Apollo Program could break the west free of oil dependance..... but it won't happen. Even if it did, what would increased poverty among the Middle East result in? Probably they'd start killing each other as much as trying to kill those in the west.
By no means have we seen the worst of it yet.
-
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
-Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
-Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
-Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment "
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Every day I read that XX people were killed in a bombing. Every single day.
If that isn't civil war what the heck is it?
Isreal?
-
I say we install a brutal fascist strongman as dictator: that should keep all the ethinc and sectarian rivalries under control!
-
""The region is not *ready* for democracy""
i think thats what king george said in 1776
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
-Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
-Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
-Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment "
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarypoll
An overwhelming majority (85 percent) said the main US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks."
:huh
-
""U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006""
ok men, we gonna take a vote, how many of you want to invade France and maybe get killed?
<>
you boosh haters get more silly every day.
-
Get the FRIKIN TOWN DOWN...goon is ready to drop
-
Originally posted by Sandman
An overwhelming majority (85 percent) said the main US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks."
:huh
Yeah sorry, first and fourth.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
.....................
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.
Majority of soldiers are 18-20 year old kids coming from the low to middle
class American educational system. Read as: modern geopolitics is probably just a wee bit over their heads. A large portion of them are very patriotic, as one would expect, and some almost fanatically so.... some even disturbingly so. So generally they don't question why they are used overseas. They follow orders as good soldiers are apt to do.
There is also a whole military cultural thing (not to mention the UCMJ, military protocol, and official and unofficial policies) about not beng publicly critical of the military, leadership, or Commander in Chief while serving in an operation or in while in uniform.
Any polling of U.S. Troops is going to be heavily skewed by these factors, so I put very little stock in any of them. They are simply a political or ratings tool..... some flash, no substance.
Of course, you want them confident in their leaders and their mission to keep them focused and keep them alive. The soldiers just need to hope that their leaders are making the right choices, and if not doing everything to keep them alive and safe, are at least not going to trade their lives too cheaply in the national interests.
So, when the leaders consistently make bad choices, and the costs are measured in soldiers' lives, it becomes a very sad situaton. Unfortunately, for many (but certainly not all) "old salts", this seems to be what has happened or is happening.
-----------------
Insurgency is home grown and make up the majority coallition forces are facing, but the foreign terrorists coming into Iraq from other nations are, even if fewer in number, far more effective. These ones are more willing to die and kill innocents to achieve their goals. Someone willing to die is far more dangerous than the one that want to hit you and get away. So Insurgency is made of Iraqis and many in number, terrorists are few in number but very deadly.
What's even worse, the United States created the insurgency when it fired 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen when they took over in 2004.
These are the guys who knew where stuff was hidden, who were trained to kill, who had held the country together by force for decades.....suddenly all unemployed. They became the core of the Insurgency. They looted arms rooms and ammo dumps all over the country. Some turned to organized crime, kidnapping, extortion, theft that have terrorized the civilian population. The former Generals of the Iraqi forces have funded the Insurgency.
There have been many mistakes made, but handing pink slips to all these men rates as the single, largest, dumbest, mistake by any occupier in history. many many other problems and mistakes can trace their roots to this blunder. They should have kept them in uniform, rotated their leadership, locked them down on their bases for retraining, and most of all kept paying them.
Sure, you'd have to root out some troublemakers and break up some cabbals, but it would have been simpler, cheaper, and less disruptive than what we have now. McAurthur or Patton would *not* have made this mistake. Anyone who studied the occupation of Germany or Japan at the end of World War II should *not* have made this mistake. This should have been a no-brainer......
-
unless of course they were to be critical of the CinC and the war then they would be erudite and brilliant young women and men whose opinion is of the utmost value and should be considered. pardon me but are you a democrat by chance?
-
Never heard of that poll. Dunno anyone who has heard of it either. Wonder who they polled?
Also, and this may come as a surprise to some of you, so brace yourselves: stupid people join the military, too. They don't *all* get cubicle jobs.
-
Hi Thrawn,
I'm off to bed, in a few moments but I did want to comment on this, just briefly...
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
Ya know, I live in Fayetteville home of Ft. Bragg. Several members of my congregation are in Iraq at the moment, most of them have already done tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, some are about to go back. One of my elders is currently in Afghanistan. I have every rank from Colonel right down to PFC in my congregation. One of our guys, a Captain just got back from Iraq, his unit was stationed on the Syrian border, they were there to stop and detain Jihadis crossing the border. Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Pakistanians, Saudis, Yemenis, heck even Chechens are crossing into Iraq to die killing Americans, and Brits and anyone working with the government and foment a civil war with the Shi'ites. Are there local Iraqis also terrorizing the population? Sure there are, but the "insurgency" is grown all over the Middle East and Asia. Its called Jihad.
A couple of very young men I spoke with who saw Farenheit 9/11 decided not to re-up, and there are undoubtedly a lot of guys who fall into the category, especially in the reserve and guard units, but most of the regulars I speak to, especially those in the SF, perceive the threat, know these "are very bad guys" they are fighting, and would like to win the war against the Jihadis. Because I do not wish to sap morale, I don't want to dwell on the problems that are occurring and that I get to hear about. These guys, most of them, have unbounded confidence in the USA and her commitment, few if any of them are as cynical about the future prospects for remaining engaged as I am, and fewer still believe that the US would sell out the sacrifices they have made and attempt to walk away from a war that they know can't be walked away from. A lot of them think they are winning, because that is their universal experience on the battlefield, that is until they come home. A few have become cynical, one guy I spoke with freely admitted, "All I'm doing is fighting to protect my friends, and my family from men who would happily cut their heads off given half a chance, I'll do that for as long as I can."
I got a simple email sent to me a couple days ago from one of those guys, it included pictures like these from protests in London:
(http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2006-2-5-natcartoon.jpg)
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/vert.london4.ap.jpg)
and asked me the question. "Since you're from Europe, can you tell me how Europeans can see pictures like this of stuff happening in their own countries and think that we're the problem??? I just don't get it."
I had to admit, sometimes, neither do I.
-
Westy is yuropean now? ;)
I nevar said Amherrka is the problem. This is starting to look more and more like the missionaries in Africa/South america at the beginning of the century... "We are here to enlighten you". The western world (all of us) have been stepping on their toes ever since we invented steam... and you're surprised there is a culture clash? Put a redneck in a room with Hillary for a few hours, and you'll see if they get along for long.
We have nothing to do there... and are apparently making it more a mess that it ever was. As far as Western Yurop is concerned, I'd kick everyone out, build a tall brick wall around it & let everyone sort their own ***** out...but that's just me. (I'll have the Luxemburgish army protect my belongings by buying the invading army, thank you very much).
Oh, and here's a in advance for the upcomming french jokes from the regular yokels :)
-
Majority of soldiers are 18-20 year old kids coming from the low to middle
class American educational system. Read as: modern geopolitics is probably just a wee bit over their heads. A large portion of them are very patriotic, as one would expect, and some almost fanatically so.... some even disturbingly so. So generally they don't question why they are used overseas. They follow orders as good soldiers are apt to do.
Stereotype, and untrue. Couldn't possibly be more false unless you said that All US soldiers are actually extraterrestrials bent on capturing Tibet.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Stereotype, and untrue.
It's more true than you think. The "best and the brightest" don't generally enlist in the military. They move on to college and possibly the military after that.
Without question, some join for patriotic reasons, but I can't recall meeting that many "patriots" while I was in the service.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Oh, and here's a in advance for the upcomming french jokes from the regular yokels :)
French jokes?? french jokes!!! I love french jokes. tell one
-
Originally posted by storch
unless of course they were to be critical of the CinC and the war then they would be erudite and brilliant young women and men whose opinion is of the utmost value and should be considered. pardon me but are you a democrat by chance?
I've been registered as both Republican and Democrat over the past 19 years that I've also served full time and part time military, including Iraq last year.
I now consider myself non-partisan...... I am dissolutioned with both major U.S.
parties and military leadership (last tour was far from pleasant or productive, and pure blind dumb luck had more to getting my men out alive than our equipment or training did)....
A pox on both their houses.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Stereotype, and untrue. Couldn't possibly be more false unless you said that All US soldiers are actually extraterrestrials bent on capturing Tibet.
They're not?:noid
-
I agree tdrbr, I am disillusioned with the republican party as well. the lockstep march to complete eradication of our civil liberties is frieghtening, what's even more disconcerting is the way the whole country seems to be ok with it. they are even considering cameras a la england here and it seems to have popular support. we are rapidily heading to living in an orwellian nightmare and no one seems to mind.
-
Hi Saintaw,
Originally posted by Saintaw
Westy is yuropean now? ;)
I nevar said Amherrka is the problem. This is starting to look more and more like the missionaries in Africa/South america at the beginning of the century... "We are here to enlighten you". The western world (all of us) have been stepping on their toes ever since we invented steam... and you're surprised there is a culture clash? Put a redneck in a room with Hillary for a few hours, and you'll see if they get along for long.
We have nothing to do there... and are apparently making it more a mess that it ever was. As far as Western Yurop is concerned, I'd kick everyone out, build a tall brick wall around it & let everyone sort their own ***** out...but that's just me. (I'll have the Luxemburgish army protect my belongings by buying the invading army, thank you very much).
I agree with you that there is a clash of worldviews and civilizations going on, and yes they are definitely out to convert Europe and the West and are doing very well at that, largely via immigration admittedly, but the "faith vaccuum" that the rejection of Christianity has caused in the West is making that process easier. The Islamic message of strength, unity, and morality is very compelling to disaffected youth who have been given no hope and nothing to believe in. The vacuous pop-culture alone is never going to be able to overcome it, especially when any reasonably intelligent individual can see what kind of life and family a devotion to that produces. Given the choice, for instance, between the Rap Thug culture, the ultra-feminized and doctrineless Christianity of their mothers, and Islam, many American men, especially in the prison system are choosing Islam in droves as the only thing that can save their lives, set boundaries, and give them a hope of having a cohesive family. It seems crazy to us, but not when you realize that all that has been offered to most of the young men in the lowest social classes for years is fatherlessness, welfare, drugs, materialism, crime, and a young death.
But as for who started it? Well actually, up until 611 AD most of the Middle East and Mediterranean was either Christian (to the West) or Xoroastrian to the East. The explosion of Islam changed all that, as successive waves of Jihad, conquered North Africa, most of Asia Minor, Palestine, and the Fertile Crescent by the end of the 8th century. Had the French under Charles "the Hammer" Martel not halted the expansion of Islam beyond the Pyrenees you'd be speaking Arabic today. The West pushed back, taking back Andalusia (Spain) by the late 15th century and then halting the expansion of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna and then eventually colonizing many of their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries, and then of course handing them back one by one in the 20th century.
What we have been singularly unsuccessful at doing, however, is missions activity in the 10/40 window. The Sharia requirment of death for leaving Islam (apostasy) has seen to that (along with many other laws and a terrible social stigma aimed at establishing hegemony for Islam), and even to this day we are far less effective at reaching them, than they are at reaching us. For instance, the Saudis have funded thousands of New Mosques and schools of Islamic instruction throughout Europe and America, while we are totally forbidden from building a church within that country. If I were to frame the religious situation in trade terms, we give them unrestricted access to our markets, while they work hard to give us ZERO access to theirs.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon ,(I started this by typing "Dear Seagoon" ... but that sounded odd on this board :D)
I *think* that the conversion rate to islam in Yurop is very, very low when it comes to locals. the immigration is still (too) high, but I think a lot of pple here (not including poland) are simply just 'tired' of anything that is related to a religion or another. I am no anthopologist/socilogist, but this is based on what I see day to day and I have been livin in Yurop for the last 15 years+.
Sorry if I was not clear in my previous post, I meant to say that we (western civilisations) are acting like 20th century missionaries who are out to 'enlighten' people to our ways of life because they are 'better'. I am in a good position to see what this has given in the past (my family spent 1/2 century in colonised Africa) and I don't see much good comming out of that one either...
-
Originally posted by storch
I agree tdrbr, I am disillusioned with the republican party as well. the lockstep march to complete eradication of our civil liberties is frieghtening, what's even more disconcerting is the way the whole country seems to be ok with it.
dear mr storch
could you or mr tdrbr tell what civil rights i have lost, as i wish to e-mail my congressmen to see if i can have them restored.
thank you.
-
Salutations SAW,
Originally posted by Saintaw
I *think* that the conversion rate to islam in Yurop is very, very low when it comes to locals. the immigration is still (too) high, but I think a lot of pple here (not including poland) are simply just 'tired' of anything that is related to a religion or another. I am no anthopologist/socilogist, but this is based on what I see day to day and I have been livin in Yurop for the last 15 years+.
Statistically, you are correct, Islam is not the most likely choice for conversion, especially when compared to the rate of conversion to say Buddhism. The last stats I saw for the UK for instance were 180,000 conversions to Buddhism, compared to 40,000 to Islam. But what the relatively low numbers don't take into account is the fact that of those 180,000 converts to Buddhism, none of them are likely to become suicide bombers or Jihadis, while many of the new converts to Islam (such as Muriel Degalque of Belgium) are being actively recruited by groups like AQ. Also we need to recognize that after nominal Christianity and Atheism, Islam is inevitably the third largest religious group in European populations. Given that most European Christians do not attend church or actively pursue their religion (10-11% is a high estimate) this means that Muslims are often the largest religiously zealous group in any European country. They are also the most unified in terms of their identity.
As far as "tired of religion" is concerned, that is certainly true of Christianity. C.S. Lewis, writing many years ago, put it very well when he said, the difference between discussing Christianity with an African and a European was like the difference between discussing marriage with a virgin and a divorcee. Europe has a "been there, done that" post-Christian attitude that certainly hardens them against it, despite the fact that few if any Europeans can really tell you about what the Christian faith consists of any more. But, that doesn't mean they are totally closed off to religion. Man is at heart a worshipping creature, and modern Europeans are turning to non-Christian religions in droves.
Anyway, here is an interesting article from the CSmonitor on the appeal of Islam to European women that touches on these issues (for those unfamiliar with the Christian Science monitor, despite the name it is not a "Christian" newspaper) Why European Women are Turning to Islam (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p01s04-woeu.html)
Sorry if I was not clear in my previous post, I meant to say that we (western civilisations) are acting like 20th century missionaries who are out to 'enlighten' people to our ways of life because they are 'better'. I am in a good position to see what this has given in the past (my family spent 1/2 century in colonised Africa) and I don't see much good comming out of that one either... [/B]
Saw, our perspectives are obviously very different seeing as I am a "European" who converted to Evangelical Christianity later in life. I too have spent a considerable amount of time abroad, and have had a lot of contact with evangelical missionaries currently working in the Muslim world. They are working not to persuade Muslims to adopt western culture, but to become believers in Jesus. Even if you don't believe a word of the Christian faith, even a utilitarian should see the advantages to this. If you become a follower of Christ, you are no longer a believer in Sharia law, and are no longer a prospect for recruitment by Jihadists, in fact you become one of their primary targets, because for Muslim apostates (irtdad) living in the Dar-El-Islam, the sword is constantly hanging over their heads as Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi of the Muhammadi Islamic Center of Canada put it:
"And that is why Islam has prescribed harsh punishment for irtidăd. It must be emphasized that irtidăd which we are discussing here involves open rejection, without any force and with the realization of what one's statements or actions imply. The punishment prescribed by the shari'a for apostacy is death.
Even the terms used by the shari'a for apostates give the idea of treason to this whole phenomenon. "Murtad" means apostate. Murtad can be of two types: fitri and milli. (1) Murtad Fitri means a person born of a Muslim parent and then he rejects Islam. Fitri means nature or natural. The term "murtad fitri" implies that the person has apostated from his nature, the nature of believing in God. (2) "Murtad Milli" means a person who converted to Islam and then later on he rejects Islam. Milli is from millat which means a community. The term "murtad milli" implies that the person has apostated from his community.
In the first case, the apostacy is like treason against God; whereas in the second case, the apostacy is like treason against the Muslim community. Probably, that is why there is also a difference in dealing with these two kinds of murtads:
A former kăfir who became a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is not to be killed.
But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might be accepted by Allăh but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for his treason in this world."
In any event, you believe that the fruit of modern evagelical missionary endeavors is not good, I've seen and experienced the opposite however, both in terms of the massive assistance given to impoverished people by missionary organizations, the new way of life they live afterwards, and the hope and peace that they have both here and hereafter.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The last stats I saw for the UK for instance were 180,000 conversions to Buddhism, compared to 40,000 to Islam.
Seagoon, is Buddhism considered a religion or philosophy? I have always thought of it as the latter.
-
Originally posted by john9001
dear mr storch
could you or mr tdrbr tell what civil rights i have lost, as i wish to e-mail my congressmen to see if i can have them restored.
thank you.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Aren't you familiar with the wiretapping scandal? If you don't pay any attention to the news you will never know what rights you have or haven't lost.
-
Toronto,
I think your question would be better answered by asking a buddhist. I would rather trust the opinion of an adherant rather than someone totally outside of that particular system.
IMO I think it qualifies as both, depending on the person following it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
[B
Aren't you familiar with the wiretapping scandal? If you don't pay any attention to the news you will never know what rights you have or haven't lost. [/B]
how do you know they were listening to me, i thought they only wiretapped calls from al kida or canadians.
as a side note, the govt would be very bored listening to my phone calls.
me> hi si , hows the weather in pa?
sis> cold , hows the weather in fla?
me>warm.
sis> when are you coming up here?
me> may,early june.
sis. well the dog misses you.
etc etc etc
-----------------------------------as i said , tell me what rights i have lost, or do you just want to rant on about how much you hate america and boosh.
i really get tired of your BS
-
...while many of the new converts to Islam (such as Muriel Degalque of Belgium) are being actively recruited by groups like AQ.
Many? As in most? As in majority? Your contention is that of 40,000 people, tens of thousands are being pursued by Al Queda?
Calling BS on this one. Yet again, unquallified supposition based on extrapolated, exaggerated, isolated anecdote is slipped into a wall of text.
Seagoonism spotting. It's the new word search game.
-
Originally posted by john9001
how do you know they were listening to me, i thought they only wiretapped calls from al kida or canadians.
Don't see how it matters, he still ordered the wiretapping of American citizens without a warrent, which you are supposed to have right be protected from. If he had a reasonable reason to wiretap someone, he could have got a warrent.
-----------------------------------as i said , tell me what rights i have lost,
Do you have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Not according to Bush.
Do you have the right to habeus corpus. Again, not according to Bush vis a vis the Jose Padilla case.
or do you just want to rant on about how much you hate america and boosh.
I'm not ranting, I'm explaining my arguement. You on the other hand appear to be plugging your ears and yelling, "No it's not. No it's not.". While not refuting my arguements at all.
-
Originally posted by john9001
dear mr storch
could you or mr tdrbr tell what civil rights i have lost, as i wish to e-mail my congressmen to see if i can have them restored.
thank you.
This could be you. (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you have the right to habeus corpus. Again, not according to Bush vis a vis the Jose Padilla case.
AFAIK, every court decision with regards to Padilla so far has upheld the government's position.
So, how does this translate into "EveeeL Boosh depriving Padilla of his right to habeus corpus"?
The courts have sided with Eveel Boosh every time, haven't they?
-
Hi Dowding,
Originally posted by Dowding
Many? As in most? As in majority? Your contention is that of 40,000 people, tens of thousands are being pursued by Al Queda?
Calling BS on this one. Yet again, unquallified supposition based on extrapolated, exaggerated, isolated anecdote is slipped into a wall of text.
Seagoonism spotting. It's the new word search game.
No not many as in most, or even a majority, I assure you I would have used those words if I meant that. Many as in substantially more than within the community of say those who convert to Buddhism. This is not a Seagoonism, its something that is acknowledged and worried about by international law enforcement.
"At a conference marking the anniversary of the Madrid atrocity last week, Robert Leiken of Washington's Nixon Center presented a provocative study of 373 radical Muslim terrorists arrested or killed in Europe and the United States from 1993 through 2004. His conclusion: some 87 percent are from immigrant backgrounds, but 41 percent are Western nationals, either naturalized, second generation or converts to Islam. "More French nationals were arrested than nationals of Pakistan and Yemen combined," says Leiken. While homegrown Muslim terrorists have so far been rare in the United States, in Europe they virtually recruit themselves, and Leiken points out that those who have European passports have almost open access to American territory through an ongoing visa-waiver program."
From: Newsweek Article "Jihad Express" (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7169294/site/newsweek/) which details the growing number of Jihadis recruited from Europe.
In 2005 AQ released the following warning on the internet:
"Al Qaeda's new soldiers were born in Europe of European and Christian parents. They studied in your schools. They prayed in your churches and attended Sunday mass. They drank alcohol, ate pork and oppressed Muslims, but al-Qaeda has embraced them so they have converted to Islam in secret and absorbed the philosophy of al-Qaeda and swore to take up arms after their brothers."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This could be you. (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06)
that has been me several times over since the hurricanes hit we have been doing an increased amount of volume and the deposits at our bank reflect this increased business volume. in the first few months our accounts were basically frozen for up to a week at a time.
-
Originally posted by Toad
AFAIK, every court decision with regards to Padilla so far has upheld the government's position.
So, how does this translate into "EveeeL Boosh depriving Padilla of his right to habeus corpus"?
The courts have sided with Eveel Boosh every time, haven't they?
If this were true, Padilla wouldn''t have been arraigned.
-
Originally posted by storch
that has been me several times over since the hurricanes hit we have been doing an increased amount of volume and the deposits at our bank reflect this increased business volume. in the first few months our accounts were basically frozen for up to a week at a time.
It has to make you angry.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It has to make you angry.
it made me bounce checks, something I never do. it made me embarrassed it made me concerned for our national way of life it concerns me for our children and grandchildren. I think that what we have known and taken for granted as being uniquely Americans is going the way of the passenger pidgeon.
-
Well, Sandy, what motions that Padilla's lawyers filed have been granted by the Supreme Court? The won a few in the lower courts but what did they win at the SC on the appeals.
-
I don't think you need to create a sarcastic interpretation of someone else's words, then put them inside quotation marks, Toad. It degrades the value of your opinion and the merits of the discussion.
Where does all this sarcasm and cynicism come from? Do people actually talk like this to each other every day? I stopped watching US TV a few years ago, is that where it comes from?
Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion, since there is no holy book written by men who claim to have spoken to, or understand God's purpose or thinking. No miracles, no supernatural, no evangelism, no recruiting, no cult-like idol worship, no interpretations, no scary threats by God, no theme parks, etc.
Seagoon actually has brought up a point (by accident) that provides a basis for understanding the widening canyon between Islamic and western cultures. Christianity is segmented and divided into more factions, with concrete differences in belief and purpose. Catholics and a hundred flavors of Protestant Christianity, some divided by flags of nations. There are Christian churches in America who think that there is an "American Christianity," of all things.
Islam has Mecca and more uniformity (even with the differences in Iraq) and Muslims simply take their religion more seriously (and daily) than Christians, overall.
I do have a question for you, Seagoon. It's a loaded question, I'll admit. It's loaded because, quite frankly, evangalism and evangalists make me cringe. I'm sure it's not the first time you've heard that, so it's not a shock. :)
When were you naturalized as an American citizen? I'll tell you why I ask it after you answer, because I may be making a wrong assumption without the answer, and I don't want to do that.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I don't think you need to create a sarcastic interpretation of someone else's words, then put them inside quotation marks, Toad. It degrades the value of your opinion and the merits of the discussion.
Where does all this sarcasm and cynicism come from? Do people actually talk like this to each other every day? I stopped watching US TV a few years ago, is that where it comes from?
It's a characterization of the faction that finds Bush at fault for everything. Much as there was a faction that found Clinton at fault for everything. It's not a particular sarcastic interpretation of anyone else's words in this thread. In effect, it's shorthand for an oft heard and lengthy position.
Had I intended to quote someone, I would have used the BBS convention for doing so, as I did above with your post.
I don't feel cynical about it though; more resigned to it than anything.
-
"Characterization," is sometimes helpful. It can paint a quick and easy picture of your subject.
The problem is that you're not characterizing the subject - you're characterizing the people here discussing the subject.
Thrawn says: "Do you have the right to habeus corpus. Again, not according to Bush vis a vis the Jose Padilla case."
Fair enough question. Your reply?
"So, how does this translate into "EveeeL Boosh depriving Padilla of his right to habeus corpus?"
Way to go....
As far as I can remember, "Bush is teh evil" entered the lexicon here through Funked about, oh, four or five years ago. And as far as I can remember, nobody (your so-called factions) has ever actually said "Bush is evil."
A tired way of dismissing someone, and a wholey innacurate means to do so.
-
Fair enough. ;)
I've started blaming Nixon for everything lately, myself. A lot of heads nod with approval.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Sandy, what motions that Padilla's lawyers filed have been granted by the Supreme Court? The won a few in the lower courts but what did they win at the SC on the appeals.
The Supreme Court hasn't heard the case yet.
-
A: Lower Court rulings on defense motions have made it to the SC.
B: I'm characterizing a position. Twist it as you like.
-
Hello Rolex,
Originally posted by Rolex
Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion, since there is no holy book written by men who claim to have spoken to, or understand God's purpose or thinking. No miracles, no supernatural, no evangelism, no recruiting, no cult-like idol worship, no interpretations, no scary threats by God, no theme parks, etc.
...
I do have a question for you, Seagoon. It's a loaded question, I'll admit. It's loaded because, quite frankly, evangalism and evangalists make me cringe. I'm sure it's not the first time you've heard that, so it's not a shock. :)
When were you naturalized as an American citizen? I'll tell you why I ask it after you answer, because I may be making a wrong assumption without the answer, and I don't want to do that.
Thank you for asking, I still haven't been naturalized as a citizen of the USA. In order to submit my final paperwork I have to drive all the way to Charlotte and back to get my Biometrics done again.
I hope you won't mind if I touch on the Buddhist question, as it is another religion I dabbled with, and you'll find Buddhism listed in any listing of world religions.
Buddhism does have authoratative scriptures, and the various sects of Buddhism have their own scriptures which some of the other sects regard as non-authoratative. The greatest divide in this regard being between Theravada Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhists (the Theravadans do not accept the Mahayana suttras as authentic teachings of Buddha). In any event the main scriptures of Buddhism known collectively as the Tripitaka are the Sutra Pitaka, the Vinaya Pitaka, and the Abhidharma Pitaka. Tibetan Buddhism is the most hybrid and distinctive of the various Buddhist faiths and has its own scriptures not generally recognized by non-Tibetan Buddhists.
In any event, Buddhism has ordained clergy (Monks and Nuns), and a path to enlightenment (Nirvana) by following the noble eightfold path spelled out by Buddha, they also believe in supernatural creatures (the devas) and have a system of ethics based on five precepts. Most countries that are majority Buddhist view it as their national religion and several such as Sri-Lanka have either passed or are working on laws attempting to disuade conversion. For instance in Sri Lanka the Buddhist Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU or National Heritage Party) attempted to introduce an ammendment that would prohibit converting Buddhists to other religions and which prohibited the “spreading other forms of worship among the Buddhists.” There have been several attacks on churches, many lead by Monks, in Sri Lanka over the past few years. So yes, even Buddhists are capable of "religious violence."*
It's almost like sin is a universal problem, eh?
- SEAGOON
* Although I would argue that violence is not a part of their religion or an unavoidable consequence of its practice.
-
Originally posted by Toad
B: I'm characterizing a position. Twist it as you like.
You are twisting a position. Characterize it as you like.
-
Originally posted by storch
it made me bounce checks, something I never do. it made me embarrassed it made me concerned for our national way of life it concerns me for our children and grandchildren. I think that what we have known and taken for granted as being uniquely Americans is going the way of the passenger pidgeon.
As long as it doesnt happen to john9001, everything is hunkydory, get with the program storch.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Toad
A: Lower Court rulings on defense motions have made it to the SC.
B: I'm characterizing a position. Twist it as you like.
Accuse me of being dumb, but I'm not consciencously trying to twist anything. Forgive me if I don't understand the lower court, or Supreme Court rulings have to do with the the facts that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was imprisoned for over 3 1/2 years before being arraigned, nor allowed to communicate with his attorney for almost 2 years?
-
Hi Seagoon, and thanks for the answer. Agree about our universal problem(s). Regardless of our choices to classify Buddhism, you'd have to admit that it is rather benign. :)
Okay, on to the citizenship. I can't find what I was searching for, so I'll have to skip it and let this thread get back to it's rightful, uh, you know... stuff. Cheers and good luck with getting your citizenship.
-
Buddhism was a philosopy based on a set of observable principles that people, for some wierd reason, construed into mysticism and idol worship and religion.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Buddhism was a philosopy based on a set of observable principles that people, for some wierd reason, construed into mysticism and idol worship and religion.
Might have something to do with reincarnation and chi. Both things that haven't been proven to exist. So yeah, I would say there is definately religious and mystical aspects to buddhism.
Unless you got a chiometer somewhere. ;)
-
Reincarnation, as well as karma are observable. The problem isn't reincarnation, it's that people misunderstood this to mean an unobservable type of reincarnation. We all become different living creatures after we die, that's an observable fact.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Reincarnation, as well as karma are observable. The problem isn't reincarnation, it's that people misunderstood this to mean an unobservable type of reincarnation. We all become different living creatures after we die, that's an observable fact.
Yet strangely I don't think I've ever seen any peer reviewed scientific experiments which prove it. Then again, I guess I haven't really looked for them. Can you reference one?
-
Your being facetious. That's rude.
In our language today recycle would be a word more readily absorbed as a word for observable reincarnation.
-
So the conservation of matter and energy = reincarnation?
I didn't know that Siddhartha was a physicist. (sorry for the facetiousness of that)
-
Originally posted by Nash
You are twisting a position. Characterize it as you like.
Decent twist on that by you; probably not a gold medal twist though.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Forgive me if I don't understand the lower court, or Supreme Court rulings have to do with the the facts that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was imprisoned for over 3 1/2 years before being arraigned, nor allowed to communicate with his attorney for almost 2 years?
He was held as an enemy combatant starting June 9, 2002.
On June 11, 2002 his attorney, Donna Newman, filed Habeas Corpus against George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Commander M.A. Marr.
It worked its way up to the SC where it was ruled that the initial case was improperly filed.
Refiled, 4th Circuit reverses a lower court decision to release him.
Etc., etc., etc.
Padilla's case has been going through the legal mill since two days after they arrested him.
-
Al Qaeda blows up Sunni mosque, next day Al Qaeda blows up sh *****e mosque..NEXT day media says there is a civil war, which is the goal Al Qaeda is striving for.....dupes.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Your being facetious. That's rude.
No I'm not.
In our language today recycle would be a word more readily absorbed as a word for observable reincarnation.
Why, ever seen one happen? The only thing observable is people claiming to be reincarnated.
-
Hi Suave,
Originally posted by Suave
Reincarnation, as well as karma are observable. The problem isn't reincarnation, it's that people misunderstood this to mean an unobservable type of reincarnation. We all become different living creatures after we die, that's an observable fact.
Buddhism is based mainly on the teachings of the Guatama Buddha which were passed down by oral tradition and then codified in the Tripitaka. Now, I will admit that I never finished reading through the Tripitaka (at the time I was more fond of the Hindu Vedas) but nothing I had ever read in Buddha's teachings would indicate that he was anywhere close to being a scientific materialist. Basically, his metaphysic breaks down into the following (any Buddhists on the board can feel free to correct me)
All life is suffering, this suffering is caused because of our attachment to self or soul, or our "separateness" from everything, our ultimate objective is to become one with everything, a condition known as Nirvana. Until we reach this state, we are locked in a constant cycle of birth and death and rebirth, in which we keep coming back. The principle of Karma states that our actions in these lives have consequences good and bad and that these consequences may manifest themselves in this life or our actions in a previous life may have consequences that are only realized in future lives.
In any event, this is not a recycling of matter or energy, it is really you, the eternal soul that goes on from life to life. That according to Buddha is the problem, that cycle will continue until you learn to cease to be you.
Buddhist schools are split on the question of whether reality is real or an illusion, most Theravadans believe in the existence of the world and consciousness, while most Mahayana Buddhists believe that everything that we perceive is false.
Anyway, Buddhism is not an objective science based on observable phonomena and repeatable experiments, it is a faith.
- SEAGOON
-
Speaking of Buddhism, I find it odd that the story of Gautama Buddha was not put into print until about 400 years after he allegedly died. They say that this was because it was "too sacred" to put on paper. Personally because I think it was actually because the whole story was a legend. He is tied as a son to a real king in India, but there doesn't seem to be any special historical records about that king's kids. Given what Siddharta allegdly did (ditched the whole kingdom thing and founded a huge religion), I would think there would be some outside mention of it. So my feeling is that Buddha is as historical as the Krishna of the Mahabharata or the Rama of the Ramayana.
Still, Buddhism is a pretty great religion. No killing or empire building on its behalf, that I know of.