Bush outlaws war protests

[Evan Burton]

David, I would ask you - in my role as a regular forum member, not as a moderator - to not associate Craig's views with the KKK, Nazis, etc, unless you have specific evidence of such an association.

At the very least you 'Godwin' the thread.

I don't necessarily agree with all of what Craig has said, but I think that if people disagree with it they can knock his points down using logic, not dark associations.

IMO you are an excellent poster, David - even though I don't agree with you on all matters - but I think you are capable of dismissing an opponents arguments in a far more logical fashion rather than resorting to Godwinisms.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Evan, I'm not sure what a "Godwinism" is, but my doctor cleared me of all parasitic ailments a short while ago, so hopefully I'm okay. The rectal examination is next on the list. Can't wait. In preparation, I've bought shares in KY Jelly and evicted the Welsh miner who sheltered there.

But in my defence, I did say I thought the Klan and SS attire was "becoming" of Craig, which is not saying that he is a de facto Klanster or Nazi. The difference is legally defensible. And I thought it was fair comment. Still do, as a matter of fact.

But your point is well taken Evan, and I promise to moderate myself in the future as far as I am able to... bearing in mind my rheumy outspokeness.

I'm much more mellow after a bottle of Chateau Gullet Soixante-Neuf, even a damn glass of simple red would do, but Doc forbids it.

Ah, the perennial bitch of the less young getting less younger by the hour.

David

Edited July 23, 2007 by David Guyatt

[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

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

Curious Jack. It appears I'm standing alone here, so just who might my "crew of like agents" be?

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Sorry John but you are not even close. "International Law"? HA! At best it's "International Suggestion" Please tell me exactly what nations abide by "International suggest" truly and fully and have not, nor will not disregard it as is required by that Nations best self interest. Why even the bastion of international suggestion, the UN , is corrupt beyopnd imagination! Witness the Oil for Food program amoung others. International Law exists? I don't think so.

Your vision of peace can truly be realized. Just ask Islam. Once the world it totally Islamic there WILL be peace. Your "yes's" to peace will come from a prayer rug. Your chirstianity will be sent packing. I can't wait for the conscience of Islam to rear its beautful head!

[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.

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

Perhaps our new collegue David doesn't know that Mr. Lamson admitted in the past to ownership of Halliburton shares...must be profiting mightily from all this hate, death, unfairness, greed and destruction...as well as turning a blind moral eye to it...... an 'All American Patriot' for sure...all for profit - morality don't mention...let alone peace, justice, decentcy, brother-and-sisterhood among all humans, fairness, rule-of-law, civil, legal, international or constitutional rights & law, and all those 'lefty' namby-pamby things.....human decently in his heart......not. The fact that he is but a cog in an huge evil machine set in motion by the oligarchs, with the media and 'circus' and mythology blowing smoke to obsure it is beyond his ken and morality IQ methinks.

I'm sure David is well aware of my ownership of certain shares of stock, it was discussed upthread. But one must wonder, given Davids past as a cog of the evil banking world, what deals he has had his hands in and what stocks of the evil corporations helped pad his retirement account? Perhaps his past (or present) is of little concern since he is on the "right" side?

[Mark Stapleton]

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).

Good post, John.

To my way of thinking, this is the most important point. How can the waste of young American lives, not to mention the civilian Iraqi casualties, a much higher number again, be morally justifiable? Especially when one considers the motives behind the invasion.

Craig seems to be saying a global conflict between Islam and Christianity is at hand, based on selective quotation from Islamic scripture (and possibly the faintly disguised messages coming from the White House). Perhaps this justifies the human sacrifice to Craig, in which case I would ask Craig if he is willing to sacrifice himself for the cause?

[Craig Lamson]

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).

Good post, John.

To my way of thinking, this is the most important point. How can the waste of young American lives, not to mention the civilian Iraqi casualties, a much higher number again, be morally justifiable? Especially when one considers the motives behind the invasion.

Craig seems to be saying a global conflict between Islam and Christianity is at hand, based on selective quotation from Islamic scripture (and possibly the faintly disguised messages coming from the White House). Perhaps this justifies the human sacrifice to Craig, in which case I would ask Craig if he is willing to sacrifice himself for the cause?

Mark, I'm not only basing my stance on "selective quotations from Islamic scripture" but on the actual words from the radical Islam itself. Now if you can offer any substantive proof that these words are "faintly disguised messages coming from the White House." I'll be happy to check them out.

Would I sacrifice myself to the cause, most certainly if required. What cause are you will to sacrfice yourself for Mark?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Craig Lamson wrote:

Quote

But one must wonder, given Davids past as a cog of the evil banking world, what deals he has had his hands in and what stocks of the evil corporations helped pad his retirement account? Perhaps his past (or present) is of little concern since he is on the "right" side?

Unquote

Dear Boy, you are s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g…

I’m so penurious that the local church mice stop by twice a year to donate some cheese. Sweet. There goes the padded pension portfolio. Whoooosh. But I have no complaints on that score.

Yes, I have some past deals I’m not proud of. The bank I last worked in specialised in weapon financing and I saw some unpleasant sides of humanity in that business, I can tell you. But without being insulting (I’m trying Evan, I really am) some of them were human by your standards.

There was my mate Tony, the gun runner down the pub (my tribute to Dave Greer J), who besides his piratical appearing wall eye, had a cut and ready to torch 'n' puff Romeo y Julietta, whenever he came into town to cut a deal. The odd batch of mortars to the Lebanese Phalangists back in the early 1980’s, an odd shipment of “farm machinery” to elsewhere in the middle east. Small potatoes but effective at killing.

Then there were the big guys – aircraft manufacturers -- who wanted to sell their helicopter gun-ships to Turkey so they could lash their Kurdish minority with hot steel. The bank was pleased to oblige – provided they removed the killing hardware so that we and other banks could clutch a fig-leaf and finance the deal as “police helicopters” (the rotary cannons and other deadly hardware cost peanuts in the overall monetary value and were sold separately and then strapped back on when they arrived, btw). Everyone was delighted. After all, a Kurd is like a Muslim init. Something not quite Christian to be annihilated for profit. Capiche?

There was a Saudi royal and his CIA minder once. Both greedy bastards as I recall. Lots of ground to air missiles, a bunch of F-16’s. Some fishing boats to Central America that I later figured might (dunno?) have been for catching Cocaine and not Tuna. A briefcase full of used banknotes.

That kind of gooooood stuff, m’boy. And since "wondering" seems to be the order of the day, the foregoing is 'nuff to make you wet I shouldn't wonder.

So, if this is show and tell time -- and you’re still proposing stuffing that rolled up pair of socks into God knows where (but can we guess, can’t we) -- how about you now answer those two earlier questions I posed?

David

[Mark Stapleton]

Craig writes:

"Mark, I'm not only basing my stance on "selective quotations from Islamic scripture" but on the actual words from the radical Islam itself. Now if you can offer any substantive proof that these words are "faintly disguised messages coming from the White House." I'll be happy to check them out.

Would I sacrifice myself to the cause, most certainly if required. What cause are you will to sacrfice yourself for Mark?"

Not one as phony as this.

You've fallen for the line your Government and its backers are pushing, i.e. Islam wants to destroy the West, they hate us for our freedom etc. You sound like a spokesman for the tabloid media. Of course, you realise that the western media would be a big winner if the scenario you subscribe to becomes reality. In fact, the way the media are playing it up suggests the media owners are hoping another major terrorist attack in America will soon occur. You can bet Bush and Cheney are also hoping this will occur.

It's true there are radical fundamentalist Islamists just as there are radical fundamentalist Christians, who also advocate a holy war. Your mistake is to assume that there is widespread support for such fundamentalist sentiments among the general populace. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims have no desire for a holy war, it's only a tiny minority who are manipulating the gullible into believing that the other side wishes to destroy them.

If you need evidence that Bush, Cheney and their media cheer squad support a holy war you only have to look at the invasion of Iraq and what it has produced. Hatred towards the West has become a self sustaining process.

Incidentally, when it comes to radical organisations like Hamas in Palestine, it could be argued, and it has been on this forum, that they are a legitimate resistance group who have developed in response to 60 years of displacement and brutal treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli Government. Prior to the partitioning of Palestine, Jewish terrorist groups such as Irgun and Hagannah were active and responsible for many murders. Under the circumstances, it could be argued that Hamas have just as much legitimacy, if not more, than those Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest David Guyatt]

What I'm waiting for is for Craig to tell us which Society of the Christian SAS he's with?

Although I think I might know, now.

Over to you Craig?

David

[Craig Lamson]

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

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

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.

It becomes morally acceptable when the threat to society is great enough. The fact that we had to send a new batch of troops to Iraq after being there in 1991 is an outrage. Instead of dealing with the problem at hand at that time, "moralists" choose to leave the job for a later date. As for your claim that the current war "would actually increase terrorism and increase the threat to the security of the people living in the Western World." is simply opinion and not fact. Has terrorism increased? Please tell me exactly HOW you can calculate that terrorism has increased when you don't have a clue what might have happened if we had not gone to Iraq. This is simply opinion with no basis in fact.

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.”

Was the State of Iraq worth saving? I say no. Was it the war in Iraq that revitalized" the al-Qaida brand, or the successful attack on mainland USA? I'll opine that it was the attack on the USA. What kept the Sunni' and Shia's at bay? A brutal dictator! That must seem a far better solution eh John? Turkey is alienated from the west because of the Iraq war? Please. It appears the actions of the EU have had far more effect than the war in Iraq. Iran is strengthened? Their economy is on the verge of collapse, the natives are restless the government has resorted to strong-arm tactics to keep it in check, and with the US at its front and back door, it has resorted to bluster in a feeble attempt to appear strong. The new "regional rivalry' may in fact be true, but can its emergence be pegged to Iraq?

Was al-Qaida destroyed in Afghanistan? Of course not. They moved. No al-Qaida in Iraq? Another leftist lie. Are they in Iraq in force now? Yes! And that was part of the plan. Creeping back to Afghanistan? Yes. And they will continue to do so until we can either get Pakistan to do the work in the tribal areas or let us. Did the Iraq war 'spawn' groups elsewhere or were the groups already there and simply emboldened my the success of the attacks on the USA? I opine that it was the attacks on the USA. As for Osama's plan I'll refer to his own words...

"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."

Iraq is Bin Ladens trap? Now that’s a real knee slapper! Bin Laden has said that he expected the world and the US to react as they had in the past in regards to 9/11, and was not to respond. Why? Because we had a history of now responding. We were the weak horse. He also said they the west would not defend themselves because they lacked the guts to sustain a long fight. On that point he has been proven true. Thank you John and the rest of your ilk. I agree with the NIE, and believe its far better to know WHERE your enemy is located and be in a position to track them down and kill them.

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.

I don't believe for a second that the reason Clinton did not invade Iraq was the potential problems it might raise. He was far more concerned with his "legacy". Witness his action in the Balkans, fought from 15,000 feet. "Cherry picked" or not the assessment of the entire western world was that Saddam had WMD's. And the jury is still out regarding the shipment of those weapons to other nations prior to the war.

There are other, perhaps more correct reasons why Bush and Blair choose to deal with Iraq.

1. Oil, that is PROTECTING the free passage of oil to the ENTIRE western world.

2. True belief that the world was in danger.

3. To start the process of change in the middle east, which is sorely needed.

4. The sanctions were on the verge of collapse, caused mostly by the UN and other nation states dealing under the table with Saddam.

But lets forget all of the reasons I think why Ash is wrong and lets assume for a moment that he is correct.

You John Simkin are now Bush and Blair and its 9/12. You have the luxury of hindsight.

What do YOU do as leaders of both the UK and the USA in the days, weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks?

Edited July 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig writes:

"Mark, I'm not only basing my stance on "selective quotations from Islamic scripture" but on the actual words from the radical Islam itself. Now if you can offer any substantive proof that these words are "faintly disguised messages coming from the White House." I'll be happy to check them out.

Would I sacrifice myself to the cause, most certainly if required. What cause are you will to sacrfice yourself for Mark?"

Not one as phony as this.

Why the dodge Mark? A simply question yet you fail to answer? What are YOU willing to die for?

You've fallen for the line your Government and its backers are pushing, i.e. Islam wants to destroy the West, they hate us for our freedom etc. You sound like a spokesman for the tabloid media. Of course, you realise that the western media would be a big winner if the scenario you subscribe to becomes reality. In fact, the way the media are playing it up suggests the media owners are hoping another major terrorist attack in America will soon occur. You can bet Bush and Cheney are also hoping this will occur.

Its not a govenrnment line Mark, its the words of Bin Laden and his guys. Oh wait, I forgot, you believe its all a fake, regardlees of the fact you can't back that up. Who has fallen for what? LOL! And it's really YOU who sounds like the media. Bush and Cheney WANT another attack to occur? What? You a mind reader now?

It's true there are radical fundamentalist Islamists just as there are radical fundamentalist Christians, who also advocate a holy war. Your mistake is to assume that there is widespread support for such fundamentalist sentiments among the general populace. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims have no desire for a holy war, it's only a tiny minority who are manipulating the gullible into believing that the other side wishes to destroy them.

I agree there is not widespread support amoung the western world to support a war, that is pretty clear. On the other hand there is scant evidence that those of the muslim faith feel the same. There has been almost no condemnation of radical Islam by the rank and file muslims.

Islam is about submission. The teachings of the faith require that conversion take place and by the sword if required.

If you need evidence that Bush, Cheney and their media cheer squad support a holy war you only have to look at the invasion of Iraq and what it has produced. Hatred towards the West has become a self sustaining process.

[/unquote]

Buch has gone to great lenghts to NOT cast this as a holy war. The press as well. Muslim hatred of the west was doing quite well before Iraq Mark in case you missed it.

[qoute]

Incidentally, when it comes to radical organisations like Hamas in Palestine, it could be argued, and it has been on this forum, that they are a legitimate resistance group who have developed in response to 60 years of displacement and brutal treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli Government. Prior to the partitioning of Palestine, Jewish terrorist groups such as Irgun and Hagannah were active and responsible for many murders. Under the circumstances, it could be argued that Hamas have just as much legitimacy, if not more, than those Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days.

You just HAD to get your anti jewish sentiments in here somewhere ....

[Mark Stapleton]

Craig writes:

"Mark, I'm not only basing my stance on "selective quotations from Islamic scripture" but on the actual words from the radical Islam itself. Now if you can offer any substantive proof that these words are "faintly disguised messages coming from the White House." I'll be happy to check them out.

Would I sacrifice myself to the cause, most certainly if required. What cause are you will to sacrfice yourself for Mark?"

Not one as phony as this.

Why the dodge Mark? A simply question yet you fail to answer? What are YOU willing to die for?

What am I willing to die for? No one has ever asked me--probably because it is such a stupid and impertinent question. But just to humor you; Would I risk my life in defence of family? Yes. In defence of country? If it was invaded then probably yes. Would I become a suicide bomber and sacrifice my life because of religious zealotry? No--but I'm not religious, but maybe if I had grown up in a country whose people had been brutally suppressed and murdered for many years I would think differently. Palestine, for example.

However, you are the one arguing that a life and death struggle between Islam and Christianity is occuring. You are the one frothing at the mouth about how Islam wants to destroy the West. You are making the case for war, not me. You claim you are prepared to die for it. So why don't you follow through? You said you would sacrifice yourself for this cause if necessary. Well it is necessary--the US is short of troops, don't you know. They're having a lot of trouble recruiting. Here's your chance prove yourself. You can post from Iraq, if there are any internet cafes still standing. If not, borrow your CO's laptop.

Will you answer the call or will you dodge, Craig?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig writes:

"Mark, I'm not only basing my stance on "selective quotations from Islamic scripture" but on the actual words from the radical Islam itself. Now if you can offer any substantive proof that these words are "faintly disguised messages coming from the White House." I'll be happy to check them out.

Would I sacrifice myself to the cause, most certainly if required. What cause are you will to sacrfice yourself for Mark?"

Not one as phony as this.

Why the dodge Mark? A simply question yet you fail to answer? What are YOU willing to die for?

What am I willing to die for? No one has ever asked me--probably because it is such a stupid and impertinent question. But just to humor you; Would I risk my life in defence of family? Yes. In defence of country? If it was invaded then probably yes. Would I become a suicide bomber and sacrifice my life because of religious zealotry? No--but I'm not religious, but maybe if I had grown up in a country whose people had been brutally suppressed and murdered for many years I would think differently. Palestine, for example.

However, you are the one arguing that a life and death struggle between Islam and Christianity is occuring. You are the one frothing at the mouth about how Islam wants to destroy the West. You are making the case for war, not me. You claim you are prepared to die for it. So why don't you follow through? You said you would sacrifice yourself for this cause if necessary. Well it is necessary--the US is short of troops, don't you know. They're having a lot of trouble recruiting. Here's your chance prove yourself. You can post from Iraq, if there are any internet cafes still standing. If not, borrow your CO's laptop.

Will you answer the call or will you dodge, Craig?

Well Mark, I'm 54, have bad knees from years of long distance running and have an ileostomy. In other words, not quite up to military standards.

[Mark Stapleton]

Its not a govenrnment line Mark, its the words of Bin Laden and his guys. Oh wait, I forgot, you believe its all a fake, regardlees of the fact you can't back that up. Who has fallen for what? LOL! And it's really YOU who sounds like the media. Bush and Cheney WANT another attack to occur? What? You a mind reader now?

Not a mind reader, just an observer of US foreign policy. And yes, Bush, Chaney, the hawkish media and their soul mates most assuredly do want another terrorist attack to occur on US soil. Nothing would restore their tarnished images quicker, at least that's what they believe. It's a logical conclusion. US foreign policy appears determined to make it happen. For them, it's a case of nothing to lose and everything to gain. In case you missed it, your country is being run by a pack of greedy, cowardly warmongers. You haven't been paying attention. They are happy to sacrifice lives, as long as it isn't themselves or their families, of course.

It's true there are radical fundamentalist Islamists just as there are radical fundamentalist Christians, who also advocate a holy war. Your mistake is to assume that there is widespread support for such fundamentalist sentiments among the general populace. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims have no desire for a holy war, it's only a tiny minority who are manipulating the gullible into believing that the other side wishes to destroy them.

I agree there is not widespread support amoung the western world to support a war, that is pretty clear. On the other hand there is scant evidence that those of the muslim faith feel the same. There has been almost no condemnation of radical Islam by the rank and file muslims.

How would you know? Do you ever speak to rank and file Muslims? I doubt it, you're too scared of them.

Islam is about submission. The teachings of the faith require that conversion take place and by the sword if required.

I see. And the Muslim rank and file all agree on this one, I presume?

So what's going to happen, Craig? Once the insurgents have driven the infidel's out of Iraq, there'll be a massive Muslim summit---after which they will sail across the sea and arrive in America brandishing cutlass and broadsword yelling 'death to the infidel'.

I can see why you're so frightened.

If you need evidence that Bush, Cheney and their media cheer squad support a holy war you only have to look at the invasion of Iraq and what it has produced. Hatred towards the West has become a self sustaining process.

[/unquote]

Buch has gone to great lenghts to NOT cast this as a holy war. The press as well. Muslim hatred of the west was doing quite well before Iraq Mark in case you missed it.

[qoute]

Incidentally, when it comes to radical organisations like Hamas in Palestine, it could be argued, and it has been on this forum, that they are a legitimate resistance group who have developed in response to 60 years of displacement and brutal treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli Government. Prior to the partitioning of Palestine, Jewish terrorist groups such as Irgun and Hagannah were active and responsible for many murders. Under the circumstances, it could be argued that Hamas have just as much legitimacy, if not more, than those Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days.

You just HAD to get your anti jewish sentiments in here somewhere ....

So stating an historical fact that Jewish terrorist groups have been active in the past is anti-Jewish? Perhaps you should ask the moderators to delete any posts which mention this fact in future--it's obviously too anti-Jewish. Very weak, Craig.

Its also relevant because the treatment of the Palestinians has been a festering sore which has soured relations between the Arab world and the US for decades. That means they don't like you. And who the hell can blame them? And they know Jewish terrorism existed prior to the current Muslim terrorists, even if you don't like hearing it.