Discussion Invited
From Steve's Hodgepodge:
"The question I have is this: Are all Liberals totally aware that they possess the same ideology as al-Qaida, or are some of them in the blind about this? Do they get angry when compared with our enemy, or do they maintain a prowess of pride when being told that they are progressing in the wrong direction toward anti-Democracy and the support of fascism?Before commenting, please read "Al Qaeda Gloats over U.S. Election."
"...I am addressing each and every single Liberal that may read this blog to please comment and explain the motives behind backing our enemies, or try your very best to prove the piece as being wrong or misguided."
You are, as usual, welcome to comment here, but Steve would also like your comments.
posted by Always On Watch @ 11/13/2006 11:12:00 AM
62 comments
62 Comments:
Thanks, AOW, for the support.
Ducky above raises some interesting concerns:
1. Who really cares about the political direction of the originator of the article I have in question?
2. If the "mess" you describe is being blamed on conservatism, then what of Vietnam and the miserably failed approach that was taken from two Democrat presidents?
3. How do we begin to approach working with Iran and Syria? Do we appease them?
4. Explain how the loss of arafat led to any problem in the settlements? Bear in mind that "palestine" isn't even a proper noun to begin with.
5. The "fiasco" was an attempt to defend Israel against Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah started that conflict.
6. We SHOULD in fact deal with the Lebanese government, but that would call for the destruction of Hezbollah first, and the mass re-education of the Lebanese in that Hezbollah is a terror group, not a group that passes out candy.
7. I'm all for dividing up Iraq into segments and give the Kurds the independence they need. Of course, that leads to another issue with their neighbors from the north.
8. The bleating, as you put it, has serious implications behind it. If you're citing terrorism as a mere bleat, you're dead wrong about that. Regarding WMD, I still maintain they were there. As far as the UN goes, the elements of WMD were there, but that was silenced by the msm as being nonsense. It goes to show that you should never believe what you're being told by the media. I guess the chemical burns that were treated in Germany for some of our soldiers who discovered WMD is just another bleat in your opinion?
Regarding number five, you're telling me that it's a frickin' lie? So, the rockets from the north came into Israel as a defensive move from Hezbollah? Those rockets came in succession:
1. Israeli soldiers kidnapped
2. Rockets inbound from the north
3. Israel steps in to quell Hezbollah
To try and make a feeble attempt at disproving the truth, you sound as if you're against Israel's motive and perhaps in support of the maneuvers of a terrorist group.
In regard to WMD in Iraq, I guess I have to take more time and prove my point, but alas, the source is goddamned FOX (Faux) News, damn conservative liars! How dare they attempt to produce a fake Congressional document:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Besides all of the stark-bleeding obvious that WMD's have indeed been found in Iraq, you were obliqiutously ignorant of that fact because "it wasn't mentioned by the media" or "damn lying Republican news sources" or "my heroes Ted Kennedy and future incumbent Speakress of the House Nancy Pelosi said otherwise" and that's probably your only sources of information, I happen to personally know a nurse that worked in Germany who treated chemical and also nerve agent afflictions on some of our soldiers, specifically that of mustard gas, sarin and also aflatoxins. I guess those came out of a damn lying conservative mind, too? What about the bilogical reference strains discovered under a sink of an Iraqi scientist, that were written off as not being that of BW by the UN because they were not of substantial quantities to declare them as WMD's? Where does the questioning of WMD begin to take form of validity? When an inspector dies from inhaling it??
Open your mind to the truth, for once, You're a pretty intelligent guy, and stop considering that any "conservative sources" are lying bullshitters. I maintain that WMD exists in Iraq; you deny that. You have the right to do so, but to use solely the media as evidence that WMD's never existed in Iraq translates to the ignorance of people as a whole.
Now it's all up to you to go out there and prove to me otherwise, that WMD does not, or still does not exist in Iraq.
Personally, I think you'll have one hell of a difficult time doing so.
As far as the methods of delivery are concerned, consider Saddam's ballistic missile research program, where launch vehicles were found that would have easily exceeded the UN's 150 Km limit of excursion from Iraq.
Well Mr. Ducky has shown your point here.
Cont'd
I cannot deny that you are correct about the following points you made:
We F**KED UP and we are not in a position to tell ANYONE to disband. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and will be for the foreseeable future. We deal with it like adults and take actions which neutralize them.
While I believe we are in a position to tell anyone to disband, I agree that Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government and I should've addressed that better in my earlier post. So what's the solution, if any? Sanctions imposed by the UN, which never works?
Again, please note that the iraqis don't give two warm farts in hell about our preferences right now. We got into this mess because we thought we had big planes and a big army and could tell the pathetic ragheads what to do.
The misled tactics were obvious in the fact that we were entering a war that should have been using totally different warfare tactics than ever before. We're now fighting a war that is totally unconventional.
THEY AIN'T BUYING WHAT WE ARE SELLING. The Dauphin found out early on that he couldn't take out al-Sadr. He failed because he didn't have a foggy clue about what makes that nation tick.
Again, undeniable. al-Sadr remains in power because Bush felt that he's a "religiously sensitive" asset. Meanwhile, he's killing our troops, picking them off one by one. This could have been handled better by blowing al-Sadr's ass off the map, period, and also by destroying the mosque that he resides in. Religious sensitivities would be my last concern.
great news for the good guys:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/11/last_tuesday_bi.html
get a load of the featured link on the right! ANTI-CAIR!
i've been very, very busy - now stop bothering me...time to awaken the people!
plucky will always prove his point, but trust me - it's nothing a hat wouldn't cover...
yoo-hoo, mr. vermin on the mount?
do you know what the bible has to say about syria, damascus in particular? it's about its final transgression - ooops - it hasn't happened yet, but it will.
I posted at Steve's also. In summary, I believe that this was a bigger defeat for George Bush then it was a victory for Al Qaeda.
Most Democrats aren't of the Pelosi - Murtha variety and understand we need to be victorious in Iraq.
Although I believe Republicans are better prepared to prevent further attacks, if Al Qaeda was to conduct another terrorist attack in America, the response would be swift and sure regardless of who holds power.
Duncy
Even Comwad Col Bernie Sanders never said a single sentence about Iraq. He talked about dairy farms and partied with Willie Nelson before the latter got busted for pot smoking. Bernie did't even send Nelson a razor blade and a bar of soap.
The only direct referendum on Iraq was Comwad Lamont who got beat easiliy by Lieberman upsetting Marxist anti-semites like yourself.
Does the Duck deny that Gomer Kerry met with the NVA in Paris while a member of the US Naval Reserve. It seems Gomer Kerry's cofounder of VVAW was a fake Veteran and an actual Communist named Al Hubbard. It also seems that his wife donates money to Communist front groups through the Tides foundation. When is Kerry going to be asked about his Communist associations?
No I bet you and Weazie are going to make a sequel to the Boys from Brazil. The Duck and Weazie try co clone Lennin from his remains and turn the world upside down.
Kerry's Commist ties are a serious issue and he should be have to respond.
I can't explain their actions except to say they are consumed
with their hatred of President Bush & it colors their world view.
I think they wouldn't mind seeing damage to America if it means damage to Bush's legacy.
If we do get another terror hit then can always run to the steps of the Capitol and sing a patriotic song & all their treachery will be forgiven.
I sure can't explain the actions of the extreme left, AOW. I'm as amazed and befuddled by their lack of forsight as you are. I suppose Cube is right, and all they care about is regaining their power; to hell with everything else. I can't imagine being that short-sighted.
Liberals love Al-Qaeda because they have so much in common with the group.
1. They hate "infidels". As defined by libs, and infidel is any Christian, Jew, or even Muslim who doesn't tote the Communist/Marxist mantra and who refuses to be labeled as a victim of their circumstances. Authoritarianism is the code-key to both liberalism and Islamic-nazism. Liberalism, like Islam, is a religion. (And a godless religion at that)
2. They love death. No, they salivate over death. Liberals cherish and openly embrace a death-cult. Mass abortions, Gulags, ethnic cleansing and public lynch mentality all come from "liberal" thought. The body count from liberalism always brings a smile from Al-Qaeda types as they continually strive to meet liberalism's death rate. They aren't too far behind--a few nukes here and there might make it pretty even.
3. Free-Speech! Liberals love it--so long as it's spoken within their ultra-liberal agenda. Any anamoly to the contrary of their indoctrinated mentality and all hell breaks loose. Same for the Islamo-Nazi's. The Iman's and Grand Ayatollah's love Free Speech--so long as it doesn't offend the "prophet". But we have Sunni's killing Shiites, Shiites killing Sunni's. Secular Muslims are killed by both. Not long ago Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Castro did the same to dissenters.
4. All for the common good. Oh yes! The grand old "common good theme". Muslims are determined to take over the world with their death religion by any means necessary. Why you ask? For the common good of "allah". Liberals also want to take over the world with their sick mentality. Why you ask? For the common good of the "underprivilaged", "underfed", "poverty-striken", and other useless people who couldn't or wouldn't fight for themselves. The nanny state is their goal.
5. Finally, the Great Satan. They completely DESPISE THE GREAT SATAN (AMERICA). For different reasons of course. Liberals view the USA as the last Repressive, Colonial, Western, Christian, Racist, and Cowboy culture on the planet and that all evils are derived from it. Changing it to a more inclusive, multi-cultural, open, tree-hugging, secular society is the only hope for humanity to prevent the next war. Islam of course wants America dead because of it's freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and it's non-muslim society. Not to mention that most muslims in the ME get their views of America from Hollywierd and think we're all drunk, weed-smoking, porno-obessesed sexual deviants who are hell-bound. You should have seen the face of this muslim man drop when I told him that Christians don't like Hollywood and we hate pornography.
In my opinion it's a lot easier to win the heart and mind of a Muzzie than it is a brain-dead liberal.
Evidence that responding to Ducky's latest factless windbag leftist diatribes would be a waste of time, a sample:
Israel then caused major destruction of infrastructure, major environmental damage and destroyed a nacent democratic government.
A nascent democratic government? Where?
Switch to Crack Lite, Ducky. The full-bodied stuff is fuggin you up.
http://afghanlord.blogspot.com/2006/11/poppy-legalization-banned-in_13.html
ducky...I am opposed to dealing with Syria and Iran on this issue. This would only empower both states and their influence would only be more destabilizing. They have no interest in working with us on this issue.
I would rather find a way to exploit the Shi'ite/Sunni differences between these two countries.
Iraq was clearly the most important issue among voters. The Democrats were very effective in making "stay the course" an effective campaign slogan against Republicans. The Democrats were effectively able to pound the Republicans on the Iraq issue without any clear proposals or initiatives from their side.
plucky, if you think the dems are moderates, you are about to meet yourself coming around the corner!
tmw
The Dems Middle is to the right of Mao but to the left of lennin.
They also suffer from a delusional state that does not allow them to comprehend that someone that says they want to kill you actually means what they say....
This past election has put us all in great danger, but don't worry we will also pay greater taxes won't that be fun..,..
Ducky talks a "responsible" game, but let's face it.... the entire Democratic Plan is, and always has been, to surrender.
That's their application of the lessons from history/Vietnam... surrender.
Give Iraq to Iran's mullahs. Bring terror to the USA. Blame Bush and Blair and Republicans for all the problems in the world. Do nothing but blame, blame, blame.
First they claimed they couldn't do anything... they had no power.
Now that they have power, they don't want to clean up after others.
I guess it's pretty obvious that all they cared about was power.
The Emperor has no clothes.
The Dhimmicrats now have their power, and their terrorists buddies get to keep their power too!
It's only the American People who now have none.
The Americans vote for a course correction. The DNC orders an about face.
Well, I guess that's ONE possible course correction. I doubt it was the one that Joe Libermann believes the voters wanted.
The DNC is merely the anti- party. Anti-Bush. Anti-Republican. Anti-military. Anti-capitalism. Anti-American. Anti-American interest. Anti-morality. Anti-life.
Oooops. I forgot a few. Counter-culture. Anti-religion. Anti-wealth. Anti-property...
Did I mention...I've got a new mission in life. I no longer reason. All I do from here until '08 is Bash Dhimmicrats!
hip-hip! i'm with farmer! hey, it worked for them - yeeeehaw!
You know, both communism and fascism were liberal/left constructs. Modern Islamofascism has at it`s roots both Islamic Jihadism AND Nazi theory. The Baath party modeled themselves on Stalin and the Bolsheviks.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the increasingly radical Democrats sound more and more like the terrorists, who sound like the Nazis and Bolsheviks.
They are, after all, cut from the same cloth.
Oh, and it should be pointed out that we have had a war with under 3000 casualties in 4 years. What other war has been fought so carefully? How many Americans died at Antiatam, at Bull Run, at the Wilderness? Furthermore, this hasn`t even been a very long war; remember the 30 years war? The 100 years war?
Why we have lost patience and given up when we are fighting an enemy who fights by stealth after only a few years and a handful of casualties? How long did it take the British to subdue the IRA?
The problem, Mr. Ducky, is that people like you tied the hands of the Administration for your own political purposes; had we fought this thing as we needed to, we would have rolled through Syria and sent Special-ops into Iran. YOUR political ambitions demanded that we not wage that type of war, so our enemies have had a sanctuary (sound familiar? Remember Cambodia?) to which they can retreat to regroup and resupply. This should never have happened. Of course, when you call the Commander-in-Chief Hitler and a war profiteer, how can the war wind down? The enemy knows full well that people like you will do their work for them, and this gives them material aid and comfort. I believe that`s the definition of Treason...
I hope you`re happy!
You know, both communism and fascism were liberal/left constructs. Modern Islamofascism has at it`s roots both Islamic Jihadism AND Nazi theory. The Baath party modeled themselves on Stalin and the Bolsheviks.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the increasingly radical Democrats sound more and more like the terrorists, who sound like the Nazis and Bolsheviks.
They are, after all, cut from the same cloth.
Oh, and it should be pointed out that we have had a war with under 3000 casualties in 4 years. What other war has been fought so carefully? How many Americans died at Antiatam, at Bull Run, at the Wilderness? Furthermore, this hasn`t even been a very long war; remember the 30 years war? The 100 years war?
Why we have lost patience and given up when we are fighting an enemy who fights by stealth after only a few years and a handful of casualties? How long did it take the British to subdue the IRA?
The problem, Mr. Ducky, is that people like you tied the hands of the Administration for your own political purposes; had we fought this thing as we needed to, we would have rolled through Syria and sent Special-ops into Iran. YOUR political ambitions demanded that we not wage that type of war, so our enemies have had a sanctuary (sound familiar? Remember Cambodia?) to which they can retreat to regroup and resupply. This should never have happened. Of course, when you call the Commander-in-Chief Hitler and a war profiteer, how can the war wind down? The enemy knows full well that people like you will do their work for them, and this gives them material aid and comfort. I believe that`s the definition of Treason...
I hope you`re happy!
...and just who do the Democrats turn to when they need some serious professional Islamic scholarship done for the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group?
Vernon Jordan and Leon Panetta.
Yep, you heard that right...
Clintonista pols...
So who are you trying kid, ducky? Cuz the only person you're foolin' is yourself!
The DNC's Official 2008 Presidential Campaign motto has just been unveiled...
"Don't blame me, I'm just a Dhimmiecrat!"
And John "Fuck the middleman, bribe ME!" Murtha is going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Washington....
Please remember that if he [Lieberman] switches, Olympia Snowe will jump Dem.
Promise?
::rubs hands::
FJ,
And to think I originally based my 2008 Presidential candidacy on the motto "I'm not George Bush either."
Will Democrats ever get around to showing us "the plan" that they've been talking about since President Grant busted up their Klan rallies?
Didn't the send you their press kit, beamish? I'm sure you were on their list...
Dhimmiecrats ran on the promise to change course in Iraq. In that same spirit, Bush announced his willingness to entertain fresh ideas on the subject.
And what do the dhimmiecrats come up with???... the same moldy-oldy, stale-POW-white-bread, cut-and-run surrender-monkey proposal they started with. Re-deploy home.
You bought this problem at the voter booth ducky, and milquetoast ain't gonna cut it for an answer! And if you think it will, I forsee the RNC passing a whole ream of Constitutional Amendments in 2008 without requiring any bi-partisan support!
And you can take that prediction to the bank!
I've not had time to read all the comments carefully, but this thought crosses my mind after skimming what various commenters have said:
The right views victory in Iraq as important for presenting a strong face to the enemy. Hence, the right is averse to withdrawal, which smells like appeasement. Time and again, history has shown that appeasing an enemy serves merely to embolden that enemy. Case in point, of course--dealing with Hitler in the 1930's.
Also, some on the right feel that a stable Iraq will lead to stability in the Middle East. Additionally, some of the right feel that regime change in Iraq can serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries.
The left, on the other hand, sees the American presence in Iraq as the problem in the Middle East. Were the United States to withdraw, the Middle East would settle down. What historical examples can the left offer to substantiate their position? Or is the situation so unique as not to offer examples?
In sum, the right believes that the costs of staying far outweigh the costs of withdrawal. The left, of course, believes the opposite.
Perhaps the above is simplistic and a misinterpretation of the discussion which has been going on here in my absence. Feel free to correct me.
The following is a duplicate of the comment which I left at Steve's site:
Are all Liberals totally aware that they possess the same ideology as al-Qaida, or are some of them in the blind about this?
In my own mind, I differentiate between liberals--who can indeed by patriots--and the utopian left.
In a way, Islamists and the left (aka socialists) are two of a kind and looking to establish utopia here on earth. In contrast, an "old-school liberal" and a conservative both realize that perfection is impossible; the liberal emphasizes social programs over strict interpretation of the Constitution.
What the left doesn't seem to understand is that they, too, are the enemy in the eyes of Islamists. The various causes which the left loves (women's rights, freedom of speech/press, gay rights) and would put ahead of conservatives' sensibilities, would fall by the wayside under shari'a law.
That said, I've noticed that some liberals can be utopians as well. It is those utopian liberals who put party affiliation ahead of patriotism.
Just my two cents.
Looks like Ducky, in typical socialist Democrat fashion, answered the question by talking about some other subject because he didn't want to answer the question.
From his non-answers, it seems he is rather proud that he has the same views as the terrorists and I would bet he actually admires them for their actions in opposing Bush.
We were told that the evils of Apartheid in South Africa demanded more than sanctions. And yet, here we have an Islamic apartheid which routinely kills all dissenters, and denies women and minorities even the basic human rights and the left does what?
And yes, I'd like to know how you engage Hezbollah constructively? Did the UN have any luck in constructive engagement after they denounced Hezboallah for using the civilian population of Lebanon as human shields? Where are the success stories for engagement with an enemy whose creators, the Iranians thought it moral to send tens of thousands of children as human mine sweepers in the Iran/Iraq war?
Just what kind of engagement can you have with people like that?
The only type of constructive enagement that has worked in the past 50 years was the Cold War model. And the left fought that program every step of the way and still denies that Reagan's vision of freedom and democracy worked to bring about the outcome.
I'm reading another volume of Winston's Churchill's history of the Second World War. He describes month after month, year after year of few victories and many defeats. Civilian deaths from German attack mounted in the thousands for months during the blitz. But the Brits never wavered, never doubted that victory was possible.
Today's left seems oblivous to the fact that their failure to understand the nature of the current conflict when it might be contained with the relatively minor losses we are currently suffering amounts to nothing less than a suicide death wish.
Beware, Allah really does exist and has powers:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/swank/2005/06/allah-is-not-fictitious-allah-exists.html
The Dems did vow to fight on after Zarqawi was killed.
Then there are these two. I think a Motel 6 is too good for them.
and the Jawa report made this comparison
Dukkky I bet you don't have trouble finding an arse...it's attached to your shoulders.
The Left has postulated that if 1/2 of the people involved in a war pack up their troops and go home, the short-term result will be less violence. Is that supposed to be some kind of progressive nuevo-wisdom?
Of course, the violence that transpires as a result over the next coupla years never gets calculated... it's kinda the accounting equivalent of taking tomorrow's Social Security liability off-budget and spending the money collected to pay for it today.
10 die today or 1,000 tomorrow. The Left chooses to let the 1,000 others die tomorrow.
...of course the murder-kidnapping rate in Iraq just leaped exponentially post-election. So much for progressive nuevo-wisdom. We haven't even left yet... we've only hinted at leaving.
----
Beware mousie... Allah isn't the only one with powers!
Qaeda terrorists say something, but nothing serious happened at this stage. Now, it is Democrats' turn to show alternative ideas.
This war will continue longer than the Iraq War. It is nonsense for Qaedas to ridicule Bush. Even if led by a Democrat president, the United States will stay tough against terrorists.
AOW loved your sumation I will probably steal it...
(with all credit noted of course)
Hey Duck ain't seen a mug like the one in your pick since the failed era of Sellers Shot in the Dark LOL
I just made a post of your Comments
Ducky...if your entire campaign is to clean up the elephants mess, shouldn't you say how you plan on doing it?
Remember this about John Murtha as he talks about the "culture of corruption"..good old John was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal.
His hands are far from clean.
Ducky,
When you're a little older, I'll teach you how adults analyze politics.
Have you seen the color of the new drapes?
We can't do anything mr. ducky... the democrats control the House AND the Senate. YOU have to PUT UP or SHUT UP, not us.
"It's No my Yob!" Dems have been using this excuse for the past 6 years...
Get out your cleaning gear, mr. ducky... you've been officially elected janitors!!!
We are confronted by pure EVIL.
In the present multi-culti environment, the ritual torture to death of captive warriors of other tribes, in honor of the victorious tribal god, is a feature of uncivilised savages which it is politically correct not to mention, especially as Native Americans such as the Iroquois delighted in these abominations.
Mercifully for the captives, death would normally occur within two or three days of continual torture, due to heart failure, dehydration, blood loss or infection.
But consider the fate of a warrior captured by a savage tribe with the same Satanic ritual urge to torture in the name of their ‘god’, but with modern medical support to prolong the life of the victim almost indefinitely.
Such was the fate of William Francis Buckley, a US army officer who was ritually tortured by Muslims in the name of Allah continuously and unremittingly for 444 days before death finally claimed him.
William Buckley must have endured more suffering than any other human being in history, for despite agonising 24/7 torture for more than a year, the best doctors in Iran were on call to give life support to prevent his escape through death.
Buckley was captured in Beirut By Hisbollah on March 16, 1984. and was smuggled to Tehran via Damascus aboard an Iranian plane and taken to the cellars of the Iranian Foreign ministry, where he was tortured without respite or mercy until he died of a sudden heart attack despite best attempts at resuscitation. This abomination was carried out with the full support of the demonocratic Iranian government and the vile Islamic pedophile-worshipping ‘clergy’.
Buckley’s remains were then sent back to Beirut and dumped in an unsuccessful attempt to hide Iranian involvement. However during his torture numerous videos of the kaffir’s suffering and ‘humiliation’ (very important to the Muslim male) had been made and these eventually found their way into Mosques worldwide, where they were (and probably still are) used as propaganda to inspire youthful Jihadists.
Buckley’s appalling fate illustrates the Satanic nature of Islamic tribalism. He wasn’t tortured to extract information. Like the prisoners of the Iroquois, he was tortured to appease a sadistic ‘god’ - Allah, aka Satan.
Dukkky here's everyone pretending to listen, that should be enough for you.
Ducky said:
"This is a tough hand to play. Military force isn't much use and peak oil is still an issue."
Well, he is right about that.
So what should we do? Sorry for deviating from the topic here, but this is one of the topics that needs to be discussed by both right and left. I mean, let's face it. Military force hasn't been too helpful here. Our dependency on oil is keeping us in this quagmire. Let's also face the facts that we're losing the war on terror. I hate to say it folks, but the current administration either:
1. Maintains an apologetic stance against our enemies;
2. The current ROE is in bad need of upgrading to help effectively fight against terror;
3. We're using conventional means to fight against them that aren't working;
4. Liberals are actually holding us back from kicking insurgent Muslim ass and taking names and then shooting them;
5. All of the above.
Now, you tell ME which one, LOGICALLY, you'd pick. If you pick 5, you see through the politicized crap and know the truth. This shouldn't be a fight between right and left, people. I am sure even Ducky agrees with me. We are in for the fight of our livelihoods here.
My solution to end this column of violence from the Islamic world:
1. Suddenly drop our dependency on oil there.
2. Stop giving aid to all Muslim nations, regardless.
3. Stop press and media coverage over there entirely.
4. Take away the cause of them to fight through ideological means and do it through mass education.
5. Divide Iraq into at least five separate states.
I'm not all for pulling out of Iraq entirely, but if the current "stay the course" is to take effect, some major changes need to be made in strategies.
Steve,
Before I delve into your intriguing position, I need to know how you answer these questions:
"Why did Osama Bin Laden have to ask the Saudi royal family for permission to have his Al Qaeda fighters fight Saddam Hussein after Iraq invaded Kuwait?"
"Why did the Saudis deny him permission?"
Mr. Beamish,
Allow me to respectfully correct your question in that it wasn't al-Qaida. It was bin Laden's Mujahideen that would have aided him in ousting Hussein from power, because at the time, al-Qaida was not yet a fully organized force. bin Laden started al-Qaida from the seeds of the same fighters that helped defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
You also have to take into consideration that bin Laden at the time was not exactly a favorite with the Saudi family. Bin Laden blamed the Saudi family for abusing the Wahhabists, blamed the Saudis for their bedding with the west, and demanded the removal of westerners from "the Holy places" as he has addressed this over and over again in his speeches and letters. My opinion is that bin Laden wanted a double-edged sword:
1. The ability to assume power in Saudi Arabia and regain his strength, and
2. The very real possibility of driving westerners out of Saudi Arabia once his mission was accomplished in driving out Hussein and winning the hearts and minds of his fellow Saudis.
I'd say that the reason bin Laden had to "ask permission" by the Saudi family to move in and oust Hussein was that he wanted to make a base of operations in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis felt that the introduction to Wahhabism back into their country would trigger internal strife, and would also threaten the Saudi family's existence.
More importantly, we can't also forget that the choice of the Saudi family to use the west to be the liberators of Kuwait infuriated bin Laden; this of course helped fuel bin Laden's hatred against the west.
I would hope that this answers your question.
Steve,
You gave me the answer I was looking for. Not many people address the dynamic of Arabian hospitality customs - Osama asked permission because permission was needed.
In other words, The Sauds control Saudi Arabia, not the Wahabbists.
I'd hate to see us lose this war to the politicians like we did in Vietnam.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
David,
I'd hate to see us lose this war to the politicians like we did in Vietnam.
We lost that war to both the politicians and the media.
This is interesting.....but I think that (as many of you know) that the political lines of old are hopelessly skewed and no longer relevant in many cases. I cringe from over-stated leftist ideology like from maggots, but yell to land developers that they are losing their souls. I dislike Ducky's arrogance and ignorance, but his Godard pic looks so much like my brother's muslim boyfriend that I almost smile. Eh, screw it. You know you'll never fit in when you are an "animal pro-lifer" who wants to shoot at things.
I must say, I don't trust a leftist when it comes to war. I don't trust a "neo-con" either....
When the Parties no longer serve, the necessity is for a populist to step into the fray and make things right, based on what the people truly want, and not on what they have been told to want.
Post a Comment
<< Home