Bush outlaws war protests

[Craig Lamson]

And while yes I have gained as the value of by stocks have grown (along with others that are not defence related), there are those in Iraq who have also gain...like the entire population that no longer lives under the thumb of a brutal dictator and his two mutant sons who quite enjoyed filling mass graves and tossing people into plastic shredders. They still have quite a long way to go as they struggle to find their footing. Given that you claim to be a historian, Im sure you can understand that the birth of a nation takes time and struggle.

Are we to assume you think Iraq was a BETTER place for it's citizens with Saddam in place?

From the comfort of your home and office etc in the US you think the Iraqis are better off but they think otherwise, polls have shown that all things considered they think they were better off under Saddam. Yes a brutal dictator is gone but he has been replaced by increased chaos, crime and violence and a breakdown of the economy and basic services. Will things eventually stabilize? I hope so but am far from optimistic. Will stabilization take longer or come quicker if we pull out? That's a difficult question to answer but much of the violence is caused by a) coalition forces and those trying to make them leave.

EDIT – spelling / typos / emoticons

Come on Len, you are using POLL DATA to back up your point? Please.

From the confort of my home I have had the chance to interact FIRST HAND with those who have had boots on the ground in Iraq. Excuse me for trusting them over someone with an agenda creating a poll of dubious quality.

Here is the reality of the situation Regardless of your positon on why we went, the fact remains that we are there, and we are responsible for the outcome. The American people and the members of congress almost overwhelmingly voted and supported our going in. That they now want to cut and run is near criminal.

[Craig Lamson]

You assume the primary motivation of Al-Queda is to convert the entire world to their brand of Islam this is the boogyman used by Coulter, Limbaugh, Rove etc and their ilk. The main reason for their attacks seems to be they don’t like the foreign policy of the countries they attack. The chance of them taking over countries with small numbers of Muslims and an even smaller number of “radical ones” are miniscule at best they have only had success in a small number of predominantly Islamic countries though they might take over one more [courtesy of GWB and his “Toto” Tony (the) Blair (Witch Project)]. As John pointed out there was not much "radical Islam" in Iraq under Saddam.

I assume nothing Len. The goal of AQ as voiced in their proclamations and videos is to the convert the world to Islam. Do I need to big back and find the quotes and transcripts for you? The claim that their reasons are political are a smokescreen Len. Our foreign policy is a “result” of our decadent western values, which can only be fixed by our death or conversion to their brand of Islam. Of course it also follows that if you don’t practice the correct “brand” of Islam you are just as bad and deserve the same fate as your western brothers.

Impossible to calculate but let’s say you were an apolitical guy living in one of those countries and the US fired a missile into your house (which was meant for one of your neighbors) killing your entire family might not there be a good chance you’d join up with those targeting the US?

It depends Len. If my goal was to live in freedom and not under the thumb of a dictator who may have killed my wife and kids, I just might choose the US.

My point exactly, people who have been victimized by a group are likely to oppose it. You’ll get no argument from me about Afghanistan though. One of the big problems there is that the US pulled away resources to send to Iraq.

See above. And what a great argument Len! We are failing in Afghanistan because we pu8lled out troops, but lets improve the situation in Iraq by pulling out troops. Impeccable logic I must say!

Obviously not but they presumably interviewed their surviving relatives, by the same token they didn’t interview the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died as a result of the invasion but probably questioned their relatives. They didn’t just say they were safer but that they were better off.

Did they now?

Not in the least, though I defend that country’s “right to exist” I don’t think it has a right to do as it pleases. Note that I didn’t attribute all attacks on Israel to its actions. A homemade rocket that does minor property damage or on rare occasion kills or injures someone doesn’t justify a retaliatory attack that kills several people that had nothing to do with it. As above imagine you were an apolitical Palestinian and your loved ones were killed in a “retaliatory attack”, might that make you want to join Hamas, give them “aid and comfort” or at least vote for them in the next election?

Lets be realistic Len. There is NOTHING that Israel can give, other than to completely vacate their land, that will pacify the Arab world. If you believe otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

More of the same would have been better that the current catastrophy

While not attempting to connect Iraq to 9/11, this is the product of “more of the same”.

[Len Colby]

And while yes I have gained as the value of by stocks have grown (along with others that are not defence related), there are those in Iraq who have also gain...like the entire population that no longer lives under the thumb of a brutal dictator and his two mutant sons who quite enjoyed filling mass graves and tossing people into plastic shredders. They still have quite a long way to go as they struggle to find their footing. Given that you claim to be a historian, Im sure you can understand that the birth of a nation takes time and struggle.

Are we to assume you think Iraq was a BETTER place for it's citizens with Saddam in place?

From the comfort of your home and office etc in the US you think the Iraqis are better off but they think otherwise, polls have shown that all things considered they think they were better off under Saddam. Yes a brutal dictator is gone but he has been replaced by increased chaos, crime and violence and a breakdown of the economy and basic services. Will things eventually stabilize? I hope so but am far from optimistic. Will stabilization take longer or come quicker if we pull out? That's a difficult question to answer but much of the violence is caused by a) coalition forces and those trying to make them leave.

EDIT – spelling / typos / emoticons

Come on Len, you are using POLL DATA to back up your point? Please.

From the confort of my home I have had the chance to interact FIRST HAND with those who have had boots on the ground in Iraq. Excuse me for trusting them over someone with an agenda creating a poll of dubious quality.

Those polls were carried out by an organization run by the then (and perhaps current) Iraqi defense minister if they were to skew the data I imagine it would be the other way i.e. to show that 1) the Iraqi people felt they were better off under the government of which their boss was leading member and 2) wished that the foreign troops that kept it in power would stay. Sorry but I presume that Iraqi social scientists carrying out polls are better at gauging the sentiments of the Iraqi than US soldiers who presumably don’t speak Arabic and aren’t well trusted by the local population. Have your friends told you the Iraqis think they are better off?

Here is the reality of the situation Regardless of your positon on why we went, the fact remains that we are there, and we are responsible for the outcome. The American people and the members of congress almost overwhelmingly voted and supported our going in. That they now want to cut and run is near criminal.

The “you broke it, you fix it” argument is one of the most compelling ones to stay. The question is whether our continued long term presence there is making things better or worse.

You assume the primary motivation of Al-Queda is to convert the entire world to their brand of Islam this is the boogyman used by Coulter, Limbaugh, Rove etc and their ilk. The main reason for their attacks seems to be they don’t like the foreign policy of the countries they attack. The chance of them taking over countries with small numbers of Muslims and an even smaller number of “radical ones” are miniscule at best they have only had success in a small number of predominantly Islamic countries though they might take over one more [courtesy of GWB and his “Toto” Tony (the) Blair (Witch Project)]. As John pointed out there was not much "radical Islam" in Iraq under Saddam.

I assume nothing Len. The goal of AQ as voiced in their proclamations and videos is to the convert the world to Islam. Do I need to big back and find the quotes and transcripts for you? The claim that their reasons are political are a smokescreen Len. Our foreign policy is a “result” of our decadent western values, which can only be fixed by our death or conversion to their brand of Islam. Of course it also follows that if you don’t practice the correct “brand” of Islam you are just as bad and deserve the same fate as your western brothers.

I actually would like to see links to those transcripts, the ones I’ve seen they said they attacked the US due to its

- unequivocal support of Israel,

- propping up of regimes they consider corrupt and

- maintaince of military bases in Saudi Arabia which they see as sacrilegious since it is the ‘guardian of the holy cities’.

I’m not saying they’re right, I agree they are an evil that needs to be combated, its just that we need to know what motivates them. Perhaps they have said at other times its their goal to convert the entire world to their brand of Islam and perhaps they fantasize about accomplishing this but is a goal they have no chance of accomplishing.

Impossible to calculate but let’s say you were an apolitical guy living in one of those countries and the US fired a missile into your house (which was meant for one of your neighbors) killing your entire family might not there be a good chance you’d join up with those targeting the US?

It depends Len. If my goal was to live in freedom and not under the thumb of a dictator who may have killed my wife and kids, I just might choose the US.

But in this hypothetical it was the US who killed your family, who would you turn you guns against? What if you came to believe your country was better off without the US there. It is unclear what will happen when and if the US leaves control by a dictator is not a sure thing.

[Len Colby]

My point exactly, people who have been victimized by a group are likely to oppose it. You’ll get no argument from me about Afghanistan though. One of the big problems there is that the US pulled away resources to send to Iraq.

See above. And what a great argument Len! We are failing in Afghanistan because we pu8lled out troops, but lets improve the situation in Iraq by pulling out troops. Impeccable logic I must say!

Not really a contradiction because we’re talking about two different countries with very different situations. Perhaps because they were united by decades of struggle against the Soviets, perhaps because the country has traditionally been controlled by the 80% majority Sunni population, perhaps because the Taliban were even more brutal than Saddam, I’m not sure why but US and its allies were much better received in Afghanistan than Iraq, it is showing no signs of being a quagmire on the brink of civil war. The Taliban weren’t completely vanquished and now that resources have been diverted away seem to be getting stronger. Before the Iraq invasion the “Powell Doctrine” could be applied much better than now.

Obviously not but they presumably interviewed their surviving relatives, by the same token they didn’t interview the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died as a result of the invasion but probably questioned their relatives. They didn’t just say they were safer but that they were better off.

Did they now?

Yes

Not in the least, though I defend that country’s “right to exist” I don’t think it has a right to do as it pleases. Note that I didn’t attribute all attacks on Israel to its actions. A homemade rocket that does minor property damage or on rare occasion kills or injures someone doesn’t justify a retaliatory attack that kills several people that had nothing to do with it. As above imagine you were an apolitical Palestinian and your loved ones were killed in a “retaliatory attack”, might that make you want to join Hamas, give them “aid and comfort” or at least vote for them in the next election?

Lets be realistic Len. There is NOTHING that Israel can give, other than to completely vacate their land, that will pacify the Arab world. If you believe otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

I think you are over generalizing Fatah seemed ready to negotiate but overly heavy handed tactics of Israel (among other factors) helped Hamas win the elections.

More of the same would have been better that the current catastrophy

While not attempting to connect Iraq to 9/11, this is the product of “more of the same”.

I was of course referring specifically to Iraq, that disaster seems have made future 9/11’s more rather than less likely. As to 9/11 part of the problem was ‘less of the same’ the Bush administration was notoriously less interested in the threat of terrorism than it’s predecessor till 9:04 AM 9/11/01.

[John Dolva]

International law certainly exists. Rogue states, like the US, that don't adhere to it, also exist.

There are also laws of nature, cause and effect. Seed hatred, create the next generation of enemies, keep at it: The Law ultimately prevails.

All is not gloom. The world is divided in various ways. One emerging coalition is that of the Non Aligned states that are forging new alliances, new trade agreements, new ways of financing.

One reaps what one sows, and the desperation of the tiny clique of super rich, mostly in the US, is becoming more and more apparent.

This is not a sign of any strength, it's a sign of an inherent weakness.

Strength is the ability to be peaceful, it's the weak that use Big Guns.

The real big guns are the multitude of weak threads that can together bring 'the mighty' to heel. Of course there will be a last gasp. Maybe two, maybe three, maybe more. Perhaps there is worse to come, but in the end, the US will go the way of all other thousand year reichs.

It, or rathers, its rulers, seemingly with witless abandon, plants the seeds its own destruction within and without.

________________________

In the short term, the EO and such like appear to have disturbing aspects.

Can they by defacto aquiescence of sometime allies extend that which may be defined as US territory. For example, where does US law have its clear limit? What measures are acceptable in protest by citizens of non US nations around US vessels of war and US Embassies and even US financial interests?

The Roman empire fell. the British empire fell, the US empire will also fall, the problem is to gather as much of the world into the camp of those who >>do recognise international law<<, those who seek to strengthen it and to improve it, so that when 'the troubles' come at least some of civilisation will survive.

Fewer and fewer nations regard the US as having any moral authority whatsoever. It comes across more and more like just a giant supermarket with millions of porly paid shop attendants, with a Hollywood facade of reality taking the place of foreign policy. It's like a movie. Many seem to regard it as reality. That's like the essence of Goebblerism at work.

Unfortunately, the cold war has left nations with the means to destroy all life on earth and it's an authority of power and any submission to it should not be taken as respect but as fear. To believe that respect is gained through force is not uncommon but it's a only a delusion of the powerful and its wannabes. Enough NO's will send it packing. Emough YES's to peace will disarm it. No matter how far, through dogma and rigid institutionalised thinking, the 'leaders' justify their actions. there is such a thing as conscience. Sooner or later it rears its beautiful head.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

We are done David, the proof of your argument lost was bringing out the "klan" ad hom. To which which I say...stuff a sock in it.

[John Simkin]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

Good post David. In fact it is so good that Craig will now do a Tim Gratz.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

Good post David. In fact it is so good that Craig will now do a Tim Gratz.

Exactly what is "good" about David the Ad hom's post John?

The fact that he has no understanding of the concept of self defence?

The fact that it is his world view that is "alice in wonderland"?

The fact that he fails to understand the sense of duty and sacrifice that my family is willing to provide so he may enjoy the fruit of freedom?

The fact that he fails to understand that the last thing any same person whould wish is war and the attendant death and distruction?

The fact that he fails to understand that SOMETIMES, even when it is not wanted, that defending ones self and country ( and in this case the rest of the free world) simply has to happen?

No John, I'm not going anywhere, I'm just writting David off the list.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Len I have combined your last two posts in this reply.

Those polls were carried out by an organization run by the then (and perhaps current) Iraqi defense minister if they were to skew the data I imagine it would be the other way i.e. to show that 1) the Iraqi people felt they were better off under the government of which their boss was leading member and 2) wished that the foreign troops that kept it in power would stay. Sorry but I presume that Iraqi social scientists carrying out polls are better at gauging the sentiments of the Iraqi than US soldiers who presumably don’t speak Arabic and aren’t well trusted by the local population. Have your friends told you the Iraqis think they are better off?

I would love to see the data of the poll you are quoting. My search have not turned up yet. Could you please post it? In any case, its not hard to find other recent polls that paint an entirely different picture, which , in my opinion , show the uselessness of using polling data to support an argument.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1530762.ece

And yes in my conversations with two men who have returned form serving in Iraq, they do report that the Iraqis they have worked with do feel better off than when they lived under Saddam.

The “you broke it, you fix it” argument is one of the most compelling ones to stay. The question is whether our continued long term presence there is making things better or worse.

And how is it you intend to answer that question? Are you willing to risk having Iraq become a state of Iran by leaving?

I actually would like to see links to those transcripts, the ones I’ve seen they said they attacked the US due to its

- unequivocal support of Israel,

- propping up of regimes they consider corrupt and

- maintaince of military bases in Saudi Arabia which they see as sacrilegious since it is the ‘guardian of the holy cities’.

I’m not saying they’re right, I agree they are an evil that needs to be combated, its just that we need to know what motivates them. Perhaps they have said at other times its their goal to convert the entire world to their brand of Islam and perhaps they fantasize about accomplishing this but is a goal they have no chance of accomplishing.

As early as 2001 ( and we might assume even earlier given that conversion or death is a basic tenet of Islam) we find Bin Laden making that statement:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." "Some people may ask: why do you want to fight us?" "There is an association between those who say: I believe in one god and Muhammad is his prophet, and those who don't (...inaudible...) "Those who do not follow the true fiqh. The fiqh of Muhammad, the real fiqh. They are just accepting what is being said at face value."

And a recently as this year...

Even if we are to assume that Allah hasn’t reserved for himself the right of legislation in the affairs of men, who in his right mind would want to legislate himself to death as you have done to yourselves. Those who think democracy is synonymous with freedom are either people who haven't experienced life in America or Americans who haven't lived abroad. To America and the rest of Christiandom we say either repent of your misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next.

…..

In other words, if the Zionist Crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Schuur, Steven Emerson, and yes, even the Crusader-in-Chief, George W. Bush, were to abandon their unbelief, and repent, and enter into the light of Islam, and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers in Islam.

…..

Our reply is that our message has not changed and that the mujahideen have always been the first to call to Islam and that even though the defense of Islam and Muslims from the merciless relentless Crusader onslaught is our first priority, anyone who pays any attention to the messages of the leaders of the jihad, like sheikh Osama bin Laden, and Sheikh Ayman al Zawahiri, may God protect them, will know that they have been consistent in inviting the Americans and other unbelievers to Islam, and in pressing upon them that they want the best for them. And making it clear to all that we have no choice but to fight those who fight us and that were the matters in hour hands we would prefer that all Americans and other unbelievers end their aggression, abandon their unbelief, and accept the truth, and Islam encourages us to invite even the most obstinate enemies, and give them a chance to repent and save themselves from humiliation in this life, and painful punishment in the next.

And on it goes.

But in this hypothetical it was the US who killed your family, who would you turn you guns against? What if you came to believe your country was better off without the US there. It is unclear what will happen when and if the US leaves control by a dictator is not a sure thing.

You are correct. Let me try again. Lets assume I am the man who’s family was killed by that errant rocket, but who had also seen his mother, father and siblings murdered by Saddam. While being quite mad at the US for killing my wife and kids, might it just be possible that I would still side with the US since they had rid my country of the tyrant Saddam? Who knows?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really a contradiction because we’re talking about two different countries with very different situations. Perhaps because they were united by decades of struggle against the Soviets, perhaps because the country has traditionally been controlled by the 80% majority Sunni population, perhaps because the Taliban were even more brutal than Saddam, I’m not sure why but US and its allies were much better received in Afghanistan than Iraq, it is showing no signs of being a quagmire on the brink of civil war. The Taliban weren’t completely vanquished and now that resources have been diverted away seem to be getting stronger. Before the Iraq invasion the “Powell Doctrine” could be applied much better than now.

That is simply spin Len, you are doing the backstroke.

Did they now?

Yes

Great, please show me the results of those interviews.

I think you are over generalizing Fatah seemed ready to negotiate but overly heavy handed tactics of Israel (among other factors) helped Hamas win the elections.

Please Len! Even IF Fatah were to come to some agreement with Israel do you think that would change ANYTHING? Once again to the words of AQ..

http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/zawahiri_122006.asp

And the second of these facts is that the recovery of every land which was once a land of Islam is the personal duty of every Muslim. Therefore, as Muslims, we cannot possibly concede to Israel so much as a hand-span of Palestine, and there is no difference as far as we are concerned between Palestine 1948 and Palestine 1967: all of it is Palestine and all of it belongs to the Muslims, and all the international resolutions which bit off chunks of it and allowed the presence of Israel on it – from the partition resolution to Resolution 1701 – are null and void, non-binding resolutions, which aren’t worth so much as a mosquito’s wing on the scales of Islam.

I was of course referring specifically to Iraq, that disaster seems have made future 9/11’s more rather than less likely. As to 9/11 part of the problem was ‘less of the same’ the Bush administration was notoriously less interested in the threat of terrorism than it’s predecessor till 9:04 AM 9/11/01.

My illustration still stands. If we look at Iraq, more of the same means letting Saddam continue his killing and torture, his under the table deals with the likes of Germany, France and Russia, etc. Is that a better deal?

While you have a point about the practices of both Clinton and Bush prior to9/11 it's what happens AFTER 9:04 that is the question.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

We are done David, the proof of your argument lost was bringing out the "klan" ad hom. To which which I say...stuff a sock in it.

C'mon Craig. Don't throw your rattle out of the pram... come out and play.

I was looking forward to talking to you about bankers, butter knives and handguns. I've got some real corking tales for you. You'd be surprised. Really.

And then we could grope some.

David

Edited July 23, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Jack White]

International law certainly exists. Rogue states, like the US, that don't adhere to it, also exist.

There are also laws of nature, cause and effect. Seed hatred, create the next generation of enemies, keep at it: The Law ultimately prevails.

All is not gloom. The world is divided in various ways. One emerging coalition is that of the Non Aligned states that are forging new alliances, new trade agreements, new ways of financing.

One reaps what one sows, and the desperation of the tiny clique of super rich, mostly in the US, is becoming more and more apparent.

This is not a sign of any strength, it's a sign of an inherent weakness.

Strength is the ability to be peaceful, it's the weak that use Big Guns.

The real big guns are the multitude of weak threads that can together bring 'the mighty' to heel. Of course there will be a last gasp. Maybe two, maybe three, maybe more. Perhaps there is worse to come, but in the end, the US will go the way of all other thousand year reichs.

It, or rathers, its rulers, seemingly with witless abandon, plants the seeds its own destruction within and without.

________________________

In the short term, the EO and such like appear to have disturbing aspects.

Can they by defacto aquiescence of sometime allies extend that which may be defined as US territory. For example, where does US law have its clear limit? What measures are acceptable in protest by citizens of non US nations around US vessels of war and US Embassies and even US financial interests?

The Roman empire fell. the British empire fell, the US empire will also fall, the problem is to gather as much of the world into the camp of those who >>do recognise international law<<, those who seek to strengthen it and to improve it, so that when 'the troubles' come at least some of civilisation will survive.

Fewer and fewer nations regard the US as having any moral authority whatsoever. It comes across more and more like just a giant supermarket with millions of porly paid shop attendants, with a Hollywood facade of reality taking the place of foreign policy. It's like a movie. Many seem to regard it as reality. That's like the essence of Goebblerism at work.

Unfortunately, the cold war has left nations with the means to destroy all life on earth and it's an authority of power and any submission to it should not be taken as respect but as fear. To believe that respect is gained through force is not uncommon but it's a only a delusion of the powerful and its wannabes. Enough NO's will send it packing. Emough YES's to peace will disarm it. No matter how far, through dogma and rigid institutionalised thinking, the 'leaders' justify their actions. there is such a thing as conscience. Sooner or later it rears its beautiful head.

Excellent analysis, John!

Jack

[Jack White]

Craig, The Lamson family is decidedly English and not German. You can put your black uniform away, my man.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/l...amily-crest.htm

Thank you for the clarifications. I have taken them onboard and even assume them to be true. I hope I am right to do so?

Eliminate and focus, I say.

I beginning to see that behind your intellectual arguments, you really are just a guy who has committed himself to actively believing in the Alice in Wonderland rationale and disinformation put out by the current Administration. Would I be correct in saying you vote Republican? Just trying to get to know the real you, Craig -- before we get down to dirty groping.

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

Iraq first and the rest of them ragheads after, eh? I think we all know the neocon agenda well enough by now.

Two additional points/questions:

1) you failed to mention your brand of handgun? I'm interested. Humour me.

2) what's your take on formenting the murder and destruction of innocents; the elderly, the young, women, in pseudo-terrorist operations engineered by US Special Forces?

David

David...you definitely are one of the GOOD GUYS! We need more like you as antidotes

to Lamson and his crew of like agents.

Jack

[John Simkin]

Exactly what is "good" about David the Ad hom's post John?

The fact that he has no understanding of the concept of self defence?

The fact that it is his world view that is "alice in wonderland"?

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

To me this is a key issue. Like in Vietnam, is it morally acceptable to urge the fighting of wars when it results in the deaths of thousands of young people? This becomes even more of a moral issue when one considers the motives behind the war. The official line is that this is part of a war on terror and is connected in some way with 9/11. Large numbers of people, including many members of this forum, pointed out that this action would actually increase terrorism and increase the threat to the security of the people living in the Western World. This has proved to be the case.

For example, this is what Timothy Garton Ash, one of the UK’s leading foreign policy experts had to say about the situation in Iraq:

“Beside the effective destruction of the Iraqi state, these include the revitalising of militant Islamism and enhancement of the international appeal of the al-Qaida brand; the eruption for the first time in modern history of internecine war between Sunni and Shia - "a trend that reverberates in other states of mixed confessional composition"; the alienation of most sectors of Turkish politics from the west, and the stimulation of authoritarian nationalism there; the strengthening of a nuclear-hungry Iran; and a new regional rivalry, pitting the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, including Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas, against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

For the US itself, the world is now, as a result of the Iraq war, a more dangerous and hostile place. At the end of 2002, what is sometimes tagged al-Qaida Central in Afghanistan had been virtually destroyed and there was no al-Qaida in Iraq. In 2007, there is an al-Qaida in Iraq; parts of the old al-Qaida are creeping back into Afghanistan; and there are al-Qaida emulator groupuscules spawning elsewhere, notably in Europe. Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the US to overreact and over-reach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, President Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The US government's own latest national intelligence estimate, released earlier this week, suggests that al-Qaida in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.”

One possible answer to this is that Bush and Blair have little understanding of the politics of the region and made an honest mistake. This seems to me unlikely. For example, President Clinton came under pressure from the far-right to invade Iraq when he was in power. He commissioned a report from the CIA about the possible consequences of an invasion of Iraq. The report suggested that the likely consequences would be those identified by Timothy Garton Ash. Understandably, Clinton decided not to order an invasion. Bush and Blair also sought advice before ordering the invasion. However, we now know that they “cherry picked” the evidence in order to justify the invasion. Most notably, this was the claim that Iraq posed a threat to the Western World because it possessed WMD. Something of course that was untrue.

Whatever way you look at it, Bush and Blair seemed determined to invade Iraq. Why? There are several possibilities. (1) Oil; (2) Bush and Blair were acting in the perceived interests of Israel; (3) They were making decisions based on the economic interests of the arms manufacturers. If one looks at the financial backers of these two men, it is probably a combination of all three. It is of course no coincidence that the only beneficiaries of the Vietnam War were companies who were financial backers of Lyndon Johnson: General Dynamics, Bell Corporation and Brown & Root (Halliburton).

[Guest David Guyatt]

Exactly what is "good" about David the Ad hom's post John?

The fact that he has no understanding of the concept of self defence?

The fact that it is his world view that is "alice in wonderland"?

I was also taken by your point about "standing up and defending yourself" --- notably from your comfy chair in a leafy suburb of safehaven, USA (or wherever it is you ply your trade) where "defending" is an an activity of butchery entrusted to others and distanced by several thousand miles of ocean between it and your comfy settee.

To me this is a key issue. Like in Vietnam, is it morally acceptable to urge the fighting of wars when it results in the deaths of thousands of young people? This becomes even more of a moral issue when one considers the motives behind the war. The official line is that this is part of a war on terror and is connected in some way with 9/11. Large numbers of people, including many members of this forum, pointed out that this action would actually increase terrorism and increase the threat to the security of the people living in the Western World. This has proved to be the case.

For example, this is what Timothy Garton Ash, one of the UK’s leading foreign policy experts had to say about the situation in Iraq:

“Beside the effective destruction of the Iraqi state, these include the revitalising of militant Islamism and enhancement of the international appeal of the al-Qaida brand; the eruption for the first time in modern history of internecine war between Sunni and Shia - "a trend that reverberates in other states of mixed confessional composition"; the alienation of most sectors of Turkish politics from the west, and the stimulation of authoritarian nationalism there; the strengthening of a nuclear-hungry Iran; and a new regional rivalry, pitting the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, including Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas, against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

For the US itself, the world is now, as a result of the Iraq war, a more dangerous and hostile place. At the end of 2002, what is sometimes tagged al-Qaida Central in Afghanistan had been virtually destroyed and there was no al-Qaida in Iraq. In 2007, there is an al-Qaida in Iraq; parts of the old al-Qaida are creeping back into Afghanistan; and there are al-Qaida emulator groupuscules spawning elsewhere, notably in Europe. Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the US to overreact and over-reach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, President Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The US government's own latest national intelligence estimate, released earlier this week, suggests that al-Qaida in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.”

One possible answer to this is that Bush and Blair have little understanding of the politics of the region and made an honest mistake. This seems to me unlikely. For example, President Clinton came under pressure from the far-right to invade Iraq when he was in power. He commissioned a report from the CIA about the possible consequences of an invasion of Iraq. The report suggested that the likely consequences would be those identified by Timothy Garton Ash. Understandably, Clinton decided not to order an invasion. Bush and Blair also sought advice before ordering the invasion. However, we now know that they “cherry picked” the evidence in order to justify the invasion. Most notably, this was the claim that Iraq posed a threat to the Western World because it possessed WMD. Something of course that was untrue.

Whatever way you look at it, Bush and Blair seemed determined to invade Iraq. Why? There are several possibilities. (1) Oil; (2) Bush and Blair were acting in the perceived interests of Israel; (3) They were making decisions based on the economic interests of the arms manufacturers. If one looks at the financial backers of these two men, it is probably a combination of all three. It is of course no coincidence that the only beneficiaries of the Vietnam War were companies who were financial backers of Lyndon Johnson: General Dynamics, Bell Corporation and Brown & Root (Halliburton).

Craig wrote:

Quote

Exactly what is "good" about David the Ad hom's post John?

The fact that he has no understanding of the concept of self defence?

Unquote

John,

If Craig came out to play I was going to tell him... so I was.

There must be a God eh, or else people like Craig wouldn't design their own brick walls to walk into with their eyes wide open.

Although I'm old and slower and all paunched up these days, I still hold two masters degrees in Oriental martial arts. If I wasn't so peace and fun loving, and in desperate need of a good bottle of fine wine, I could think of several ways to kill or maim ol' Craig with a butter knife -- just using the handle. I haven't really thought about the blade yet.

And the moment he reads this, Craig will think I'm making all this up. Bless.

And we haven't even talked about guns and bankers yet.

David