The NEW Iraq Thread, Or: Here we go again...

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Minardil » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Bush. Rumsfeld. Cheney.

Those are names, Types with Illogic.

They wanted a permanent presense in Iraq.

Do you know what complete withdraw does to permanet presence, Types with Illogic?


When and where did they say that they wanted a permanent US military presence in Iraq? I know that's what YOU'VE been accusing them of desiring, but where did THEY say that's what they wanted? Seems to me they've been desperately trying to get OUT of Iraq for some time now.

Again, you're just projecting your suspicions as if they were verified facts. You do know the difference, don't you?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Minardil » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:58 pm

See PNAC's treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses"


Wasn't the main thesis of the Project for the New American Century that the US should use whatever means necessary, including military force, to bring down the dictatorships of the Middle East (and elsewhere in the world) and replace them with functioning democracies?

Don't recent events in Iraq fall within that scope?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:18 am

No, the main thesis was that America should have military dominion over the entire world. I'll give you that the bases weren't technically "permanent". At the very least, they would have been dismantled no later than the point at which the sun exploded. "Indefinite" would be more accurate; as in, they wanted to stay there until the region was no longer useful or relevant.

During the Bush years, I said that American troops would remain in Iraq until military or financial circumstances forced us to leave. Even if Obama does bring most of them home, I still expect something like that to be the case.
Last edited by Dave_LF on Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Windfola » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:20 am

When and where did they say that they wanted a permanent US military presence in Iraq? I know that's what YOU'VE been accusing them of desiring, but where did THEY say that's what they wanted? Seems to me they've been desperately trying to get OUT of Iraq for some time now.



Actually Minardil, I do remember hearing alot about that as well. Rumsfeld, in particular, talked about how Iraq fit into the "lilypad base" strategy. I can't remember exactly when or where anymore but I absolutely remember hearing it straight from his mouth. And it was widely reported in the media that the U.S. had plans for permanent bases in Iraq, and that this was one of the things that was pissing off a segment of the Iraqi population.

I don't have the energy to go back and research this but I'm pretty certain this was part of the U.S. plan, at least for a time, though it may have been abandoned at some point. It's not something that is a figment of someone's imagination . . . .
User avatar
Windfola
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2001 7:59 am
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:38 am

Nadreck_of_Palain7 wrote:
hamlet wrote:Long term, yes, but permanent? No.


What does long term mean? 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years? If it lasts for a lifetime, that is close enough to permanent in terms of political and military time scales. If the term depends when everybody in the Middle East loves Americans, we might have a very long wait.


Yes, you can redefine "long term" into meaninglessness if you so choose, or you can simply choose to understand it as I meant it.

Even before Obama won the election, significant portions of sovereignty and power were being handed back to the Iraqi forces, so it's clear that "long term" meant long enough to get things stabalized.

The mission statement of PNAC is, while certainly not one many agrees with, very clear. It is in no way a statement if US hegemony in the region in perpetuity.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:55 am

No, the main thesis was that America should have military dominion over the entire world


The word used in PNAC was "leadership", not dominion. There is a very real difference, especially in respect to US actions during the first "American Century", and it was that model that PNAC sought to extend.

The US was the undisputed leader of NATO, but hardly exercized "dominion" over NATO member states.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Nadreck_of_Palain7 » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm

The US was the undisputed leader of NATO, but hardly exercized "dominion" over NATO member states.


The difference is that the NATO states were willing partners, who wanted protection against the Soviet Union. Some states of the Middle East might be willing to sometimes cooperate with the US, but none are willing to accept US leadership. That is why PNAC emphasizes military power as the main tool of US "preeminence".

Read it for yourself.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It is filled with sentences like these:

American landpower remains the
essential link in the chain that translates U.S.
military supremacy into American
geopolitical preeminence.


Air Force: Toward a Global First-Strike Force


If defense budgets remain at
projected levels, America’s global military
preeminence will be impossible to maintain,
as will the world order that is secured by
that preeminence.


Also, this expanding perimeter argues
strongly for new overseas bases and forward
operating locations to facilitate American
political and military operations around the
world.


They try to spin the language, but it all adds up to a world wide "Pax Americana" enforced by a world wide American military domination, using bases throughout the world. You can argue that they are advocating a benign empire, but it is still an empire. It is also insane. The world is a big place, and most of the people in it do not want an American empire. Such an empire built by force is bad for America. The burden is too great just so we can feel the vicarious pleasure of bullying people.
User avatar
Nadreck_of_Palain7
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:36 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:24 am

Where is the anti-war left these days?

Redbaiting on the Left - The Blackout of the March 21 Mobilizations

John Walsh wrote:The War on Iraq drags on with no clear end in sight. The war on Afghanistan is being escalated. The war on Pakistan has also been stepped up, a war undeclared by Congress, therefore unconstitutional and the basis for an impeachment. All this has happened since Obama took office.

And yet with one exception, no national antiwar demonstration has been called. Worse, to a large degree the one demonstration called, for this coming weekend, March 21, has been blacked out on the “respectable Left.” This ugly fact was brought home to me quite strikingly yesterday at a meeting of single-payer activists, most also antiwar activists. No one with whom I spoke knew about the coming demonstration! Part of the reason is that some have tried to characterize this action as a fringe event, because it has been called by A.N.S.W.E.R., about which more below and with which this writer is not affiliated.

This mobilization has a list of endorsers which are cannot readily be dismissed. For starters: Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Ron Kovic, Edward Asner, Mimi Kennedy, Ramsey Clark, School of the Americas Watch, San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO) and many other labor locals as well as Green Party locals.

Despite this, the official peace movement, sock puppets of the Democrat Party, like MoveOn and UFPJ, is refusing to join or even to publicize this effort in any substantial way.

And this was predicted some time back by no less a monster than neocon McCarthyite David Horowitz who wrote in the Wall Street Journal not so many weeks ago as he gazed fondly on Obama’s inauguration:

“Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party's ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us…


And so it has come to pass.

Now some in UFPJ have characterized A.N.S.W.E.R. as loony lefties because a leading member is a group calling itself “Marxist-Leninist.” Zowie, kids! That is really scary! I remind such people that Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were not deterred from allying with “Marxist-Leninists,” nor were any of those who joined in the fight against Nazism and Colonialism. What is the big deal? If A.N.S.W.E.R. is the only group willing to organize a loud and clear street opposition to the Obama version of war and empire, I for one will not be deterred from joining in by a pathetic bit of redbaiting. And if only those who call themselves “Marxists-Leninists” are willing to call such an action, then perhaps there is something in the wisdom of Marx, and Lenin, that remains of value.

So the question really is, Which side are you on? That of the Obamanation and the Democrat Party version of war and empire? Or on the side of public, mass opposition to the war? I hope that as many as possible choose the latter course – in D.C., L.A or S.F.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:46 am

I guess the flurry of responses to "where is the anti-war left" shows exactly where it is.

But now for a bigger problem.

Who’s to Blame When Vets Turn Homicidal?

Kelley B. Vlahos wrote:The active army is just about broken’ retired Gen. Colin Powell had the audacity to say in 2007. Two years and a new president later, such talk has curiously died down. But one look at the headlines and it is easy to see what has been broken and what is still breaking. And this is one problem Powell’s famous ‘Pottery Barn Rule’ does not apply to; it cannot be solved by tapping into the U.S. Treasury. That’s because, while the Army can always add bodies (and it will) to its ranks to fill operational gaps and even ease strain, it cannot reverse nor easily address the fact that the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating a generation of veterans who are not only disabled, sick, and emotionally unstable (52 percent of returning soldiers have already accessed VA healthcare and benefits), but on a very limited scale, are also becoming extremely violent, suicidal, and even zombie-like in their willingness to die and to kill again.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:02 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:I guess the flurry of responses to "where is the anti-war left" shows exactly where it is.

But now for a bigger problem.

Who’s to Blame When Vets Turn Homicidal?

Kelley B. Vlahos wrote:The active army is just about broken’ retired Gen. Colin Powell had the audacity to say in 2007. Two years and a new president later, such talk has curiously died down. But one look at the headlines and it is easy to see what has been broken and what is still breaking. And this is one problem Powell’s famous ‘Pottery Barn Rule’ does not apply to; it cannot be solved by tapping into the U.S. Treasury. That’s because, while the Army can always add bodies (and it will) to its ranks to fill operational gaps and even ease strain, it cannot reverse nor easily address the fact that the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating a generation of veterans who are not only disabled, sick, and emotionally unstable (52 percent of returning soldiers have already accessed VA healthcare and benefits), but on a very limited scale, are also becoming extremely violent, suicidal, and even zombie-like in their willingness to die and to kill again.
With regards to the anti-war Left I think you slip into a persistent false dichotomy in designating 'right' and 'left' on a political spectrum. Most politically motivated individuals appear to be motivated by 'pragmatic' factors. Ideology has become disposable, with an eclectic model in the ascendent.

Another example of this false dichotomy is how the Libertarian 'right' and Anarchist 'left' are often indistinguishable. Here, left and right have little meaning.

There are many who maintain their vociferous opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but because the Political Parties of the 'Left' have sanctioned these wars, criticism from members of those parties has become muted. It's often called hypocrisy :lol:

As for the terrible situation of conflict veterans, I read recently that one in every four vet in the USA is homeless. Perhaps you could check this figure. If it is true, it is a crushing indictment of US society's treatment of combat personnel, and puts the lie to the pretense that America sees its Armed forces as 'heroes'.

More hypocrisy?
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:30 pm

And it came to pass that, on this day in 1921, the British mandate of Mesopotamia became the Kingdom of Iraq with the coronation of Faisal I, compatriot of T E Lawrence, traitor to the Caliphate.

A kingdom was his reward.

The British have ever played the Great Game!
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby vison » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:49 pm

Fir-Bolg wrote:And it came to pass that, on this day in 1921, the British mandate of Mesopotamia became the Kingdom of Iraq with the coronation of Faisal I, compatriot of T E Lawrence, traitor to the Caliphate.

A kingdom was his reward.

The British have ever played the Great Game!


Yeah, like no one else ever did.
:roll:
Your point?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:53 pm

vison wrote:
Fir-Bolg wrote:And it came to pass that, on this day in 1921, the British mandate of Mesopotamia became the Kingdom of Iraq with the coronation of Faisal I, compatriot of T E Lawrence, traitor to the Caliphate.

A kingdom was his reward.

The British have ever played the Great Game!


Yeah, like no one else ever did.
:roll:
Your point?
Pour les Quebecois..

Plus ca change... ;)
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:47 am

War Coverage and the Obama Cult - Why we aren't getting the real story

There was a time when Cindy Sheehan couldn't go anywhere without having a microphone and a TV camera stuck in front of her. As she camped out in front of George W. Bush's Crawford ranch, mourning the death of her son Casey in Iraq and calling attention to an unjust, unnecessary, and unwinnable war, the media created in her a symbolic figure whose public agony epitomized a growing backlash against the militarism and unmitigated arrogance of the Bush administration. It was a powerful image: a lone woman standing up to the most powerful man on earth in memory of her fallen son.

Touting "an exclusive interview with Cindy Sheehan" on Good Morning
America
, four years ago ABC anchorman Charles Gibson intoned: "Standing her ground. She lost her son in Iraq, she opposes the war, now she's camped out at President Bush's ranch and says she won't leave until he meets with her."

The level of coverage only increased in the coming days and weeks. As Cindy continued her vigil, Gibson enthused:

"All across the country protests against the war in Iraq, inspired by the mother standing her ground at President Bush's ranch."

Flashing across their television screens, viewers saw the headline "MOM ON A MISSION: IS ANTIWAR MOVEMENT GROWING?" as Gibson averred:

"This morning a war of words. All across the country protests against the war in Iraq, inspired by the mother standing her ground at President Bush's ranch. But is anyone in the White House feeling the heat?"

That was then. This is now: in an interview [.mp3] with Chicago's WLS radio on Aug. 18, Gibson was asked whether his network planned to cover Sheehan's plans to travel to Martha's Vineyard, where she is protesting the escalation of the war in Afghanistan while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson's answer:

"Enough already."

It is one thing to decide war protests aren't newsworthy, that they're just the irrelevant emanations of a fringe element radically out of step with the 99 percent of the country that's marching happily off to war. That, however, is very far from being the case. Back in 2005, Cindy represented a minority that was on its way to becoming a majority. Today, she starts off her renewed vigil with over half of the American people agreeing with her that the Afghan war isn't worth it.

Yet Gibson's announced news blackout is being observed well nigh universally: aside from Rush Limbaugh, only the generally conservative Boston Herald, the Martha's Vineyard Gazette, a daytime MSNBC news show, and a few blogs bothered noticing Sheehan's determination to be "an equal opportunity vacation disruption," as the Herald writer put it. The bitterness of conservatives over the obvious double standard is expressed by Limbaugh in terms of the usual partisan rhetoric:

"When she's out there revving up people against George W. Bush, it's, let's cover her 24/7, let's make sure we have our cameras out there outside Bush's ranch when she's there, whatever she's saying, whatever she's doing, if she goes down and meets with Hugo Chavez, our cameras will be there. They could not get enough of her. Now that she's headed to Martha's Vineyard, the State-Controlled Media, Charlie Gibson, State-Controlled Anchor, ABC: 'Enough already.' Cindy, leave it alone, get out, we're not interested, we're not going to cover you going to Martha's Vineyard because our guy is president now and you're just a hassle. You're just a problem. To these people, they never had any true, genuine emotional interest in her. She was just a pawn. She was just a woman to be used and then thrown overboard once they're through with her and they're through with her. They don't want any part of Cindy Sheehan protesting against any war when Obama happens to be president."

While Cindy is nobody's pawn – as she is proving by her actions – the general point Limbaugh is making seems all too true. So why isn't he cheering?

After all, what did this pro-war blowhard have to say about Cindy back when Gibson was breathlessly broadcasting her every utterance? Well, he basically said she was a traitor and a fraud, comparing her to Bill Burkett, who provided CBS with phony "evidence" purporting to show Bush's failure to show up for National Guard training. "Her story," he said, "is nothing more than forged documents." Sheehan's crusade, he claimed, was all part of a "coordinated" plan by the "far Left," which he seemed to equate with the Democratic Party.

In the beginning of this year, when a caller asked "where are all the … Cindy Sheehans, the Code Pink Tuscaderos [sic] of the Democratic Party" now that Obama is in the White House, Limbaugh replied:

"Well, frankly, that doesn't bother me. I had enough of Cindy Sheehan to last me a lifetime. She was always a nonfactor anyway. I mean, Cindy Sheehan, this is a poor woman who's lost her mind, and then that fact was used by the Drive-By Media to further drive her crazy into making everybody and her think that she was relevant, only because she was willing to accept enough money from a California PR film to build and occupy a little shack across the road from Bush's house down in Crawford, Texas."


Article continues.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:07 am

Epitaph on Empire

Philip Giraldi wrote:I have opposed the Iraq war since before it began, but it only became personal for me about a year and a half ago, on April 29, 2008. I remember the moment well. I had flipped open the Washington Post and there, on the front page, was a color photo of a 2-year-old Iraqi boy named Ali Hussein being pulled from the rubble of a house that had been destroyed by American missiles. The little boy was wearing shorts and a T-shirt and had on his feet flip-flops. His head was hanging back at an angle that told the viewer immediately that he was dead. That small boy looked remarkably like my little grandson, similarly attired, who was sitting beside me eating his cereal. When I gasped at the photo, my little guy looked up at me and grinned, wondering why grandpa was crying.

Four days later, on May 3, a letter by a Dunn Loring, Va., woman named Valerie Murphy was printed by the Post. Murphy complained that the Iraqi child victim photo should not have been run in the paper, because it would "stir up opposition to the war and feed anti-U.S. sentiment." I suppose the newspaper thought it was being impartial in printing the woman’s letter, though I couldn’t help but remember that the Post had generally been unwilling to cover anything antiwar, even ignoring a gathering of 300,000 protesters in Washington in 2005. Rereading the woman’s complaint and also a comment on a Web site suggesting that the photo of the dead little boy had been staged, I thought to myself, "What kind of monsters have we become?" And in truth we have become monsters, bipartisan monsters wrapped in the American flag. Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, once said that killing 500,000 Iraqi children through sanctions was "worth it." Every day our Democratic administration continues the policies of the preceding Republican administration as it bombs and kill farmers in their fields, children in their schools, doctors and patients in hospitals, and families in wedding parties. We do it using pilotless drones, helicopters, and airplanes flying so high in the sky that they are invisible to those on the ground. The slaughter is strictly 21st-century high tech, death from the skies, bloodless, without looking into the eyes of those we are killing. We do it because our leaders tell us we need to kill to keep others from attacking us, but we all know it is a fraud. Does any American really believe that what is going on in either Iraq or Afghanistan has anything to do with genuine threats against the United States?
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby vison » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:25 am

I agree with Mr. Giraldi.

But that's neither here nor there, sadly enough.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:12 pm

I empathize with Mr. Giraldi, but is it really that hard to draw a connection between Afghanistan and 9/11?

The solution to our Empire Problem is to take our fingers out of everyone else's cookie jars. But I don't agree with the Paul doctrine of doing so precipitously - our fingers are also intertwined in many other complications that would take time to unravel. Plus there are real enemies in the world who won't forget that they hate us very quickly. Unfortunately I don't see any US leadership anytime soon moving us toward isolationism. We'll have to be forced into that position.
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:17 pm

Thenidmin wrote:I empathize with Mr. Giraldi, but is it really that hard to draw a connection between Afghanistan and 9/11?
Wrong thread, really, but, yes it really is that hard to draw a connection justifying military action between Afghanistan and 9/11.

Remember, you thought the Taliban were peddling opium, when in fact they were eradicating it. What other misconceptions do you hold?
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:30 pm

Between
19 Saudis backed by an organization in Afghanistan committing an act of terrorism
and
A full-scale military invasion as retaliation that destroys what little infrastructre the country has

Yes, it is hard to draw THAT connection
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Gandalf'sMother » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:16 pm

The solution to our Empire Problem is to take our fingers out of everyone else's cookie jars.


I would revise that and say that the solution is to modify our behavior, share the cookie jar a bit more, and encourage certain other countries to do the same. There is no chance for, and no wisdom in, isolationism in the modern world.

-GM
User avatar
Gandalf'sMother
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 2:10 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:36 pm

Fir-Bolg wrote:Remember, you thought the Taliban were peddling opium, when in fact they were eradicating it. What other misconceptions do you hold?


I know you don't think anything should be done in response to 9/11, but I'm pretty sure OBL was in Afghanistan at the time.
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:39 pm

Gandalf'sMother wrote:There is no chance for, and no wisdom in, isolationism in the modern world.


Probably true. Maybe if the US acted democratically outside its borders that could also be a path away from empire.
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:45 pm

Thenidmin wrote:
Fir-Bolg wrote:Remember, you thought the Taliban were peddling opium, when in fact they were eradicating it. What other misconceptions do you hold?


I know you don't think anything should be done in response to 9/11, but I'm pretty sure OBL was in Afghanistan at the time.
Ah, but I also think Mr bin Laden, family friend of the Bush clan, had nothing to do with 9/11.

But, hey, that's another story. ;)

The Taliban government specifically stated that, as is common in any extradition request, if the USA provided prima facie evidence implicating Osama bin Laden in 9/11, they would arrest him and extradite him to the USA.

For some reason, the USA preferred to bomb the bejesus out of them. Whither International Law? :roll:
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:59 am

Fir-Bolg wrote:The Taliban government specifically stated that, as is common in any extradition request, if the USA provided prima facie evidence implicating Osama bin Laden in 9/11, they would arrest him and extradite him to the USA.


When I say OBL was in Afghanistan that doesn't mean I subscribe to the "get OBL and terrorism goes away" theory. The point is that Al Qaeda as an organization's purpose is to commit acts of terror against whomever they wish, OBL leads them, and they were purposely hosted by the Taliban. I think the US should have cooperated to get OBL extradited and THEN ousted the Taliban. But then I guess you'd come screaming in their defense since they're so noble and all.
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:30 am

Thenidmin wrote:
Fir-Bolg wrote:The Taliban government specifically stated that, as is common in any extradition request, if the USA provided prima facie evidence implicating Osama bin Laden in 9/11, they would arrest him and extradite him to the USA.


When I say OBL was in Afghanistan that doesn't mean I subscribe to the "get OBL and terrorism goes away" theory. The point is that Al Qaeda as an organization's purpose is to commit acts of terror against whomever they wish, OBL leads them, and they were purposely hosted by the Taliban. I think the US should have cooperated to get OBL extradited and THEN ousted the Taliban. But then I guess you'd come screaming in their defense since they're so noble and all.
Me say the Taliban are noble? Not me, sir! :lol:

Although I find no evidence for the USA being any more noble, and plenty that could describe the world's biggest rogue state as less noble. Iraq being a case in point...

You make a number of groundless assertions re. al Qaeda. The introduced super-villain meme has well and truly lodged with you, hasn't it?

Al Qaeda is not one unified group. The term was created from the database of CIA/ISI backed anti-Soviet fighters. OBL was one of the money men who helped finance, and channel finance to, the disparate groups. He isn't even wanted by the FBI for involvement in 9/11, and one reason the USA didn't attempt to extradite him is because they had no prima facie evidence.

And there's still no evidence for OBL's involvement. The US Government's pinning of 9/11 on OBL is as sound as the case for Saddam's WMD...
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:47 am

We've been through this before. And this is the wrong thread.
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Fir-Bolg » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am

Thenidmin wrote:We've been through this before. And this is the wrong thread.
I believe a thread on Iraq is ideal for identifying the ignobility of the USA... :wink:
User avatar
Fir-Bolg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:47 pm
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:38 pm

Fir-Bolg wrote:I believe a thread on Iraq is ideal for identifying the ignobility of the USA...


Nobel and ignoble, eh?
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:44 pm

Gandalf'sMother wrote:
The solution to our Empire Problem is to take our fingers out of everyone else's cookie jars.


There is no chance for, and no wisdom in, isolationism in the modern world.


Who is talking about isolationism? Nobody on the "pull our troops out" side. Well, some are, but the bulk of the anti-war argument and the bring-the-troops home argument is not isolationist but non-interventionist.

The proudest achievement of the neocons has been to convince everyone that isolationism and non-interventionism are synonymous. They're not.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Thenidmin » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:47 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Who is talking about isolationism? Nobody on the "pull our troops out" side. Well, some are, but the bulk of the anti-war argument and the bring-the-troops home argument is not isolationist but non-interventionist.


Isn't that what Ron Paul wants? Or am I using the wrong terminology? Or do you not like Ron Paul?
User avatar
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:35 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests