News Analysis: Bipartisanship Disappears

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.

-S

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/ap/politics/main2730220.shtml

(AP) Those lofty promises of cooperation between the Bush White House and the newly Democratic Congress have been drowned out by acrid bursts of name-calling.

Amid open confrontation between President Bush and Congress over Iraq, the White House is branding Democrats defeatists and accusing them of pursuing a surrender strategy.

To Democrats, Vice President Dick Cheney is an "attack dog" and President Bush is guilty of more political abuses than Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

Such heated rhetoric is fouling Washington's already tense political atmosphere. It is undercutting the pledges for greater cooperation that both sides made shortly after Democrats' victories last November that put them back in control of the House and Senate.

It also is becoming harder to do business _ even on issues less contentious than Iraq and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales _ now that the 2008 presidential campaign season has begun.

The House late Wednesday passed war spending legislation that would order troops to begin coming home from Iraq by Oct. 1. The bill, already negotiated with Senate leaders, was expected to reach the president by early next week. He has pledged a veto.

The unusually snarly level of political discourse shows the deep party divisions over Bush's strategy to increase troop levels in Iraq. But it also echoes the harsher talk and invectives on Internet blogs, talk radio and some 24-hour cable television programs.

Those in both parties appeal regularly for a lowering of the wattage of political rhetoric. That seldom happens.

Polls traditionally show the public would like to see less name-calling, said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

But sometimes, when the same people are asked whether they would like to see elected officials who represent their position make compromises, "We get a fair amount of pushback," Kohut said. "People say, `Well, actually, my position on this is pretty important to me.'"

"And Iraq, more than anything else, is an issue that has really galvanized public opinion one way or the other," Kohut said.

Many Republicans assumed after the November elections that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi, D-Calif., would become Bush's most vocal critic on the Iraq war. Yet the fiercest foe in recent days has been Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has depicted the war as lost.

Bush responded by saying Reid and other Democratic leaders were choosing "to make a political statement" that was "wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." Cheney accused Reid of "defeatism" and political opportunism in trying to set a troop withdrawal timetable in the war spending bill.

Reid branded Cheney "an attack dog" and said he saw no point in getting into "a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Actually, that was a bit of a stretch. Cheney's approval rating in national polls generally has been in the low 30s, a few points lower than Bush's percentages.

Adding to the rancor is the back-and-forth over Gonzales, who is trying to hold onto his job as the nation's chief law enforcer.

Lawmakers from both parties questioned him closely last week over his role in the 2006 firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales said "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."

That led his critics to portray the president as increasingly isolated.

"The president's in his bunker on both the war in Iraq and Attorney General Gonzales," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "What everyone else sees clearly he doesn't see at all, and that's a real problem for our country."

The White House acknowledges that language can get overheated.

"I think that what happens in Washngton at times of high drama and passion on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, that there are times when you're trying to make your substantive point, that the rhetoric can sometimes lead you to say things that you might not otherwise say in a one-on-one conversation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday.

Allan J. Lichtman, a political history professor at American University who ran for Senate last year in Maryland as a Democrat, said ideological lines have firmed in Congress with a geographic realignment that has seen disappearance of moderating influences in both parties.

No longer, he said, are there a lot of liberal and moderate Republicans in the Northeast and conservative Democrats in the South.

"We have the most polarized House and Senate that we've had since the New Deal days," he said.

[Heibges]

But a big part of the Democratic victory was in implied promise that they would get us out of Iraq.

With 50 new Veterans in our Congress, they must realize how hopeless the situation in Iraq really is.

Also, to a Veteran, Bush and Cheney (and Clinton and Quayle etc) are a bunch of Draft Dodgers, so when they talk about sacrifice, it comes across as nothing but rhetoric.

[SUBMAN1]

But a big part of the Democratic victory was in implied promise that they would get us out of Iraq.

With 50 new Veterans in our Congress, they must realize how hopeless the situation in Iraq really is.

Also, to a Veteran, Bush and Cheney (and Clinton and Quayle etc) are a bunch of Draft Dodgers, so when they talk about sacrifice, it comes across as nothing but rhetoric.

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S

[P_Funk]

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

Bravo. They call that a quagmire. http://www.slotforum.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif

[The Avon Lady]

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.
I'm happy that magnet is far away from most of the rest of the world.

Let me see..................... what would Al Qaeda have done with all that time on their hands had they not been enticed to Iraq...............and Afghanistan................and Pakistan? :hmm:

Always look on the bright side of life. :yep:
You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.
They could and should leave but not by a timetable.
Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.
Pelosi lied - soldiers died. :roll:

[Skybird]

Reality already is several years ahead of you, guys. Get over it. Your match is lost since long, long time. The loosers in Washington just try to hide the size of the mess they are responsible for. Pathos and catchphrases won't make a difference anymore. The majority of the American people finally has learned to see through all these lies. The exact opposite of what was hoped to achieve, has been acchieved. Congrats. to take that fact as an argument to carry on endlessly, now has become a circular argument only.

Next time think twice before launching stupid wars that have extremely bad perspectives from the very beginning.

[P_Funk]

I don't think that the US can pull out now though. At least they aren't going to be able to when you think about the kind of money they have and are still investing in long term military bases.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article355178.ece
A year old article.

But its been in the books since the beginning.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.

EDIT. Ah. Just found an article as recent as the beginning of the month. http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/us_spending_billions_on_enduri.php

[The Avon Lady]

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.
This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway.

[P_Funk]

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point. This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway. That wouldn't make Turkey very happy. And I'm sure that the last thing alot of Middle East powers want is to have another independant ethnic nation splintering off.

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.

[The Avon Lady]

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point. This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway. That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.
True.
And I'm sure that the last thing alot of Middle East powers want is to have another independant ethnic nation splintering off.
Very true.
But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.
Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases.

[P_Funk]

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary. Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases. But then the question remains, where?

But it seems obvious that the US didn't intend for Iraq to be this volatile, or else they wouldn't have begun these bases nearly 4 years ago. And you also have to ask, why are they still building them?

[The Avon Lady]

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary. Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases. But then the question remains, where?
Yep. There's some desparation about this.
But it seems obvious that the US didn't intend for Iraq to be this volatile, or else they wouldn't have begun these bases nearly 4 years ago. And you also have to ask, why are they still building them?
A contract's a contract. :doh:

The simple answer is because the US has not come to a final conclusion to quite Iraq, with the executive veto hanging in the air over Congress' vote otherwise.

[P_Funk]

The simple answer is because the US has not come to a final conclusion to quite Iraq, with the executive veto hanging in the air over Congress' vote otherwise. If I recall correctly the President can veto a Bill twice before it must be passed into law.

A contract's a contract. :doh:
Military Industrial Complex anyone?

[OddjobXL]

Here's what al Qaida has been up to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/middleeast/02qaeda.html?ex=1177819200&en=c8ea11ea7d668ba3&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, April 1 — As Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The new leaders rose from within the organization after the death or capture of the operatives that built Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leading to surprise and dismay within United States intelligence agencies about the group’s ability to rebound from an American-led offensive.

It has been known that American officials were focusing on a band of Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan’s remote mountains, but a clearer picture is emerging about those who are running the camps and thought to be involved in plotting attacks.

I'm among those who thinks we should have stayed in, and focused on, Aghanistan and that region until the situation was stable and we had bin Ladin in hand. As it is, the Taliban and al Qaida are reconstituting and rebounding. Iraq's good for propaganda, recruiting and training. It's not pinning them down anymore than Camp Lejeune pins down the U.S. Marines.

The only al Qaida affiliates in Iraq before the war were in Kurdish territory (though not friendly with the secular/nationalist Kurdish parties) not chilling out in Baghdad with Saddam and his boys.

It's fair to ask what we do now and it's also fair to conclude that pulling out would give al Qaida bragging rights. Of course, staying in gives them bragging rights too. Hell, they make music videos about blowing up our guys. I think we need to be less concerned with how good a bunch of fanatics feel about themselves and look more at the effect of Iraq on our own military readiness, flexibility and diplomatic situation.

[bradclark1]

Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.
It takes two to tango. One side or the other should listen to the voters.

Pelosi lied - soldiers died. :roll:
Oh, what has she said that has caused soldiers to die?

[Heibges]

Folks talk sometimes like AL Qaeda is some company like General Motors, or like a country, or like a military organization.

Carlo's "Mini Manual for the Urban Guerilla", which every terrorist group has religiously followed for the last 30 years (thus making it one of the most translanted and reprinted books in history), spells out that the sucess of a terrorist organization depends on its almost total decentralization.

So the name Al Qaeda is kind of a banner meant to give publicity to a individuals who though closely associated by ideas and methods, have absolutely no knowledge of one anothers operation. These small groups are called cells.

When terrorist groups have been successful in the past, has been due to the Cell Leader being extremely smart and resourceful.

I'm sure there were Al Qaeda in Iraq before the United States invaded. They were probably trying to kill Saddaam. There were probably some in Libya trying to kill Qadaffi also. Muslim Extremists have always been in opposition to leaders who have been supported by the West.

Look at Anwar Saddat. He was killed not so much for signing a peace deal with Israel, but because of the large western hotels and nightclubs he allowed to be built in Cairo.

9/11 cost about $500,000 to pull off.

[tycho102]

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.

Al-Qaeda is like the notion of a "nation". It's just convinent to have some kind of proper name to attribute the ideology. Nazis, Huns, Mongols, Conqestadors, Crusaders, Confederates, Rednecks, Xerox, Google, Coke. Al-Qaeda means "traditional Islam as it is taught in madrassahs in Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Thailand, Pakistan, India, Burma, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Chad, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Syria." But rather than say all that, we just use the term Al-Qaeda.


Destroy the kuffir in Dar al-Harb. Wait for them in every ambush. Doesn't matter if you're Sunni, Shi'a, or Wahabbi.

[SUBMAN1]

You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

Bravo. They call that a quagmire. http://www.slotforum.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif
I don't buy your argument. Saddam was a worse threat than any terrorists running around. He has already sent his hit squads to try and assasinate our ex presidents, and I think he had the capability to do a ton more harm to the world than what any two bit terrorists could do.

So in summary, we made the right move. Saddam was a terrorist x 1,000,000,000,000 in capability.

-S

PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.

[Heibges]

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.
.

I really feel sorry for the Kurds.

Unfortunately, Turkey is our NATO ally so I imagine the Kurds will take it in the rump...again.

[P_Funk]

You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

Bravo. They call that a quagmire. http://www.slotforum.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif
I don't buy your argument. Saddam was a worse threat than any terrorists running around. He has already sent his hit squads to try and assasinate our ex presidents, and I think he had the capability to do a ton more harm to the world than what any two bit terrorists could do.

So in summary, we made the right move. Saddam was a terrorist x 1,000,000,000,000 in capability.

-S
I don't think you can call Saddam a worse threat than global terrorism in general. There is no proof he had imminent plans to do anything. And if by taking out Saddam you effectively revitalized Al Quada by giving them a new war from which to draw recruits and polarize the Middle East then... one threat leads to a larger one. Is that ultimately a better result?

And though I would agree that Saddam was a man that should have been somehow dealt with, the way that things have ended up I would not say the right decision was made. It hasn't turned out better for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, or for the US. The US has more enemies as a result. Saddam should have been eliminated certainly, somehow. But a righteous cause does not justify any and all means, and certainly not the most beliggerent and ineffective ones: ie invasion and occupation.
PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.
Don't give me that. I know AL has her thread bringing that back, but honestly. You're trying to make a square peg fit here. And nevertheless he didn't have long range ICBMs and he didn't have functional weapons of that nature either. Intent to create WMDs is not a justification for a war that couldn't be delayed by a month, as it was said back in 03.

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't think you can call Saddam a worse threat than global terrorism in general. There is no proof he had imminent plans to do anything. And if by taking out Saddam you effectively revitalized Al Quada by giving them a new war from which to draw recruits and polarize the Middle East then... one threat leads to a larger one. Is that ultimately a better result?

Yes - he is/was a much worse threat. Global terrorism to me means nothing. What are their real capabilities? Nothing. Yeah, they may find a bomb and place it somewhere, but so what. This is nothing to what a 'state' is capable of. To me we have lost sight of what a real enemy is with this little terrorism thing.

And though I would agree that Saddam was a man that should have been somehow dealt with, the way that things have ended up I would not say the right decision was made. It hasn't turned out better for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, or for the US. The US has more enemies as a result. Saddam should have been eliminated certainly, somehow. But a righteous cause does not justify any and all means, and certainly not the most beliggerent and ineffective ones: ie invasion and occupation.

And how would you do that exactly? Besides, if nothing else, he broke the terms of the ceasefire giving the world the authorization to go in and finish him. So yes, everything was justified.

Don't give me that. I know AL has her thread bringing that back, but honestly. You're trying to make a square peg fit here. And nevertheless he didn't have long range ICBMs and he didn't have functional weapons of that nature either. Intent to create WMDs is not a justification for a war that couldn't be delayed by a month, as it was said back in 03.

It is well known that he had them. It is also well known that we know he did not destroy them all. It is also known that the weapons inspectors when they were allowed by Saddam to walk on Iraqi soil found centrifugal parts buried in scientists front yards. Where did the rest of this go? Do you think for a second that he didn't also have chemical or biological weapons somewhere? Regardless, Saddam was given a timeline and he called the bluff and lost. Simple as that. Europeans are known for stalling till all eternity on issues of war, but not the US.

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur.
No. The dismantiling of the Iraqi army after the war is what caused this situation to occur.

-S

[P_Funk]

Yes - he is/was a much worse threat. Global terrorism to me means nothing. What are their real capabilities? Nothing. Yeah, they may find a bomb and place it somewhere, but so what. This is nothing to what a 'state' is capable of. To me we have lost sight of what a real enemy is with this little terrorism thing. So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.


And how would you do that exactly? Besides, if nothing else, he broke the terms of the ceasefire giving the world the authorization to go in and finish him. So yes, everything was justified. Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock. He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded.


It is well known that he had them. It is also well known that we know he did not destroy them all. It is also known that the weapons inspectors when they were allowed by Saddam to walk on Iraqi soil found centrifugal parts buried in scientists front yards. Where did the rest of this go? Do you think for a second that he didn't also have chemical or biological weapons somewhere? Regardless, Saddam was given a timeline and he called the bluff and lost. Simple as that. Europeans are known for stalling till all eternity on issues of war, but not the US. He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur. No. The dismantiling of the Iraqi army after the war is what caused this situation to occur. It was but one more mistake amongst many.

[SUBMAN1]

So you insist that he was a threat. Yet by eliminating him it has strengthened your alleged irrelavent threat. After Afghanistan Al Quada was effectively finished. Iraq has given it a second wind and sparked countless more groups and created the necessary outrage to support them.

And I might ask, how was he any more a threat 4 years ago than he was in 91? In 91 he was allowed to remain. In the 80s he was allowed to gas the Kurds and the US interfered with the UN's ability to confront this.

The duality of the American relationship with Iraq suggests that his presense as a threat is as dubious as his presense as an ally. Bush Sr. was attempting to make Saddam into a despotic ally all the way up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Yes, by far a worse threat becuase of a man with revenge on his mind and the pwoer of a state behind him. He should have been finished in '91 - the biggest mistake of the Western world. After this where he wasn't able to unite the two great seas together, the western world was forever his enemy. Not a smart thing to leave him in power.

By the way, read up on Saddam - you might start changing your mind. He was a little deranged - much like his sons. His master plan was very interesting.

Oh I see. So he broke the deal so everything was "justified". Just because Iraq wasn't playing along doesn't mean that the only option is to turn it over and rip her government a new one. Further, all the evidence brought forward insisting that Saddam was a threat turned out to be a crock Please provide proof for this broad statement since he had money, and power, and the French were even supplying him weapons. To call him not a threat and Al Qeida a threat is like comparing a man with a rifle to an army.

And yes - that is how a ceasefire is written. Hmm, lets see, to win a war with the western world, you accomplish your objectives, let the Western people start to fight, surrender, and then ignore the terms of the surrender. Nice! This shows how smart Western Society really is! (sarcasm...cough...cough!). More like how dumb.

Anyway, when a country writes a ceasefire, there are rules to follow if you don't want the winning party to finish what it started and over-run your country (duh!). In Iraq's case, this included submitting to weapons inspection any time and any place. Neither rules were followed in that regard. Other rules broken include kicking out the weapons inspectors (Imagine that!), ignoring no flight rules (kurds paid heavily for this rule being broken), and even firing on American F-16's!!!! Hmm, did I miss something or did the world ignore these little tidbits and still accuse America of going into a false war? What a bunch of hypocrits! :D It is actually funny to listen to!

Then to top it off, Bush Sr. was an assasination target 2 times by Saddam - both failed.

So my question is, is the Western World sleeping when all this is going on?

He was not about to invade America or drop a bomb on her. There was plenty of time to find another way. Yet Bush insisted on an immediate war. Since they found no functional weapons its obvious that the impetus for immediate war was illfounded. Quite the contrary. We did the world a favor. yes, things may be in a little chaotic in that exact region, but in time it will balance out. In the meantime, the terrorists you talk about are pro-occupied. And no, they weren't done with in Afganistan since they still are not done with - they hide across a border we are not allowed to cross!!!

By the way, Bush gave a long timeline. Basically, it is more a question of being tired with the manipulation and stall tactics. If it were Europe, it would have taken them either getting nuked or 20 years of negotiations before they relized they were even duped!


He 'had' them. He had them in 91. After that you can't prove anything. The weapons inspectors couldn't prove they existed and then after the invasion no functional weapons were found.

Even if the capability existed, and a few pieces of equipment in the sand is far from a Manhatan project, again I ask. Where was the immediate threat?
Hahahaha! That is funny! Ahh, where were the inspectors even allowed to go? Look at AL's thread even - no place like that was one inspector even allowed close to! That is a pretty naive statement.

It was but one more mistake amongst many.
How very true. Going to war and finishing it was not the mistake. It was what came after.

[Heibges]

Here's a tough one.

If the United States can launch a pre-emptive attack because we think someone threatans us, is this different between us and Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.

[P_Funk]

Here's a tough one.

If the United States can launch a pre-emptive attack because we think someone threatans us, is this different between us and Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.
Oh lord. Just you wait for the answer to that one.:roll:

That whole "America doing the world a favour" attitude is exactly why everything is so messy. America isn't saving Iraq. The British did the same thing 80 years ago. They even said all the same things.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm

Santayana probably died of irony. *sigh*:roll:

[Skybird]

Here's a tough one.

Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.

Total BS!

First: plural, please. Pre-emptive strikes.

Second: not pre-emptive, but first-strike. Nobody threatened al Quaeda, because almost nobody knew that it was there, and what it was.

Like in war of aggression, it was terror of aggression. Al Quaeda did not launch their war because they wanted to rescue poor old Arabia from foreign occupation back then.

[P_Funk]

Here's a tough one.

Al Qaeda who launched a pre-emptive strike because they think we threaten them.
Total BS!

First: plural, please. Pre-emptive strikes.

Second: not pre-emptive, but first-strike. Nobody threatened al Quaeda, because almost nobody knew that it was there, and what it was.

Like in war of aggression, it was terror of aggression. Al Quaeda did not launch their war because they wanted to rescue poor old Arabia from foreign occupation back then. But one could argue that the last several hundred years is a constant incursion by the western world. In particular since WW1 and the constant intrusions of the British Empire.

I wouldn't say it justifies anything, but I also wouldn't say that al Quada came out of nowhere. History is alot older than just the last 2 presidential terms.

[Skybird]

Ask Mr. Bin Laden what he had on mind when "founding Al Quaeda". In the first, he was aiming not at the West, but his own corrupt Saudi government, and earlier, the Soviets in Afghanistan (where he was engaged). It's fair to say that Bin Laden was/is on a crusade himself.

One could relativize history endlessly if only going enough millenias back in time. Should I start throwing bricks at Italians because my ancestors defeated Varius's legions in the Teutoburger forest? :)

[P_Funk]

Ask Mr. Bin Laden what he had on mind when "founding Al Quaeda". In the first, he was aiming not at the West, but his own corrupt Saudi government, and earlier, the Soviets in Afghanistan (where he was engaged). It's fair to say that Bin Laden was/is on a crusade himself.

One could relativize history endlessly if only going enough millenias back in time. Should I start throwing bricks at Italians because my ancestors defeated Varius's legions in the Teutoburger forest? :) I don't think though that the recent history of the Middle East (recent being last 100 or so years) is irrelavent.

As for bin Laden's motives, well the so called corrupt leaders of Saudi Arabia are good buddies with the current President of the USA.:hmm: Aside form that relationship they are economic Oligrchs that sell to the West and make friends there too. Then theres the fact that in one interview of bin Laden long before 9/11 he said that he intended to "make the US a shadow of its former self".

Regardless even of bin Laden's personal motives, which Im not entirely certain of, you cannot deny that a great number of the people who are joining his and similar movements do it for a more genuine angst directed at the Western world. And I would say that regardless of appearances and itentions in Iraq, the West has stepped in it again.

Read the linked article I posted above. The British in an almost identical situation 80 years ago in Iraq.:roll:

[Skybird]

I understand very well what you are after, and agree on the history of the ME. However, before that history, there was another history in the ME, and that was that of Arabs unable to deal with themselves, and before that history, another history was about the Islamic conquest. I just want to oppose any way to give an impression that Al Quaeda is kind of a resistance organization to some kind of in justice or occupation. It is not like another partisan organisation, or French resistance during WWII. It's main goal is ambitioned by religious motives. During the soviet war in Afghanistan, Bin Laden financed Afghan resistance, and went there himself to fight as well, driven away from his saudi home in disgust. He was contacted and supported by the CIA - the same CIA that helped the Pakistani secret service to recruit the now-called Taleban amongst the refugees on Pakistan soil, and equip them to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden is partially a home-made Frankenstein monster of the americans, and the Taleban almost exclusively are home-made that way. And both have shooken off the control of their former masters. In fact, the Pakistani services heavily collaborate and sympathize with the Taleban. Both Taleban and Al Quaeda have nothing to do with the history of the British of let's say a hundred years ago. They were not about the way Iraq dictatorship under the Shah had been established, or the naition being defined on the map. The main drive behind both Taleban and Al Quaeda today is - religiously motivated aggressiveness. You can explain their forming up since the Soviet Afghnaistan war, okay. But there is no need (and no realistic way) to rationalize them beyond that. They are no Arabic counterpart of ETA or IRA. Al Quaeda today is not so much an organization, it is a way of thinking - and this is what makes it so extremely dangerous. every Peter and Paul can suddenly rise from the table and think: I am Al Quaeda now, grab a bomb and move for the next city centre. Al Quaeda only is so far is a structure or organization that it sometimes is involved in financing and setting up the logistial and organizational background for real big strikes. But these are only revealing a tip of the iceberg. I am convinced that western societies are already saturated with self-declared Al Quaeda "sleepers". And I see no way how one could find and reveal them before they strike. Oh, and btgw: their main motivation, as said, is religiously. It is not caused by angst, as you called it, but hate.

[GlobalExplorer]

I know it's probably inflated, but the numbers are frightening:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partne

If 3.000 people died on 9/11, and the above number would be 10 times too high, that would still make 20 dead Iraqis for every one killed on 9/11. And you sure won't tell me they were all terrorists?

[P_Funk]

Indeed Skybird, very good points. I don`t pretend to understand it all, being so young myself. But one must try and peel back the layers, and have an opinion at the same time.:D

I never meant to imply it as being a true resistance movement however. In that sense more accurate comparisons would be made with Hezbollah or Hamas. But I don`t think we can simply stick Osama under the category `zealot` and dismiss his strategy. Exploiting the missteps of the west in their trek through the ME is one very powerful recruitment tool. Saying `lets go fight the infidels in Iraq` is a powerful one indeed.

The US and Britain continuing to do what they`ve done for a long time just feeds the fire. Al Quada looked to be done as an independant organization after Afghanistan. Iraq looks to have given it a new life. We blunder and create our own enemies.:roll: I don`t think that we are particularly righteous in that region. Nothing we do is out of anything other than self interest, at least not as nation states.

There are times when the reality of what I know saddens me. I certainly understand the allure of ignorance.:p

[Skybird]

With regard to Islam, we certainly do not create our enemies - Islam is narcistic to almost pervert levels and thus is deeply hostile towards everything that is not itself, it does not need mis-steps of the West to make it it's enemy. But you are right, the stupid pplicies of Wetsern powers throughout the past let's say 150 years have made this enemy of ours stronger, with our active assistance. And this is a very stupid and self-damaging policy of ours. Maybe you have taken note of the conflict in Turkey. In the long run the military is the only thing that stands between turkey and it's future of becoming dogmatic-fundamentalistic again. That truth does not stop European full-time-polit-suckers to already warn them again to step down and not to interfewre while a deeply fundamentalist Islamic party secures more and more legal, administrative power and influence and tries to reduce secularism slowly and under the umbrella of "democracy" and fundamentalist-made changes in laws. The same full-time-idiots call for Egypt stopping to supress the radical-fundamentalist opposition, so that it can gain even more control of parliament as it already did during the last "election". Europe uses it's idea of democracy to allow it's worst enemies getting elected to power. And islam has nothing on mind with democracy, this one finally has to learn here in the West.

Europeans politicians are so very, very, very, very stupid and naive and off-reality. One could wish to run amok when witnessing that ammount of self-damaging idiotism. :arrgh!: :damn: :dead: :down: :nope: When democracy has come so far that it allows to get deconstructed by something that is deeply-anti-democratic, and calls this tolerance and peacefulness, I declare it the dead body of a successful suicide candidate, and turn my back on it, not moving one hand for it anymore. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Not to mention: weak, and disgustingly shameful.

[SUBMAN1]

Actually, I think this is all more a case where Al Qeida couldn't unseat their own Saudi government to install a Islamic one, so they are looking at the West since they are an easier target. Sooner or later, I think they suspect one or more of our governments will fall and they will move in with an Islimist one.

That is my take on it. No president, no Prime Minister, no one has anything to do with it.

-S

PS. Now the sad part - they are probably right in which they think that one of our govs will fall.

[P_Funk]

PS. Now the sad part - they are probably right in which they think that one of our govs will fall.
Nothing lasts forever sadly. With the West I see it as an economic self immolation. Between the fact that that most important characteristic of the West, the middle class, becoming poorer again, and the constnat economic outsourcing to the far East, we are literally selling our prosperity for cash.

And the businesses and businessmen have no particularl loyalty to the US or Canada, or anyone else. They just go where the dollar takes them. Thats one particular flaw in market capitalism as its evolved in North America.

All that that has to do with Islamist extremism is that we are growing weaker every year. Eventually economic collapse or just stagnation seems to be the real threat of the fall of our society. Usually that is when the strong militaristic culture pops up and says "we can save you, just don't ask questions about how and forget about your rights".