Czuch: "If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????"

Yes, without sanctions they'd have rebuilt and been just fine. It is US meddling with THEM that caused their problems. Saddam wouldn't even have come to power except WE initiated the coup. Learn some history.

The Usurper: not what I personally prefer.

Its not just that I personally prefer it, i think it is absolutely the right thing!

The Usurper: yes it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous middle east... but it is in the best interest of the whole world as well, and in the best interest of the Iraqi people too, a win win win situation, thats a good thing, not bad!

Czuch: "you dont like it, I do...."

That's the bottom line for you, you like it so however you can justify it, you will. I'm different from you. I consider whether a thing is right, not what I personally prefer. And I think the Iraqi people have to like it, not you or me. Now, the Iraqi people hate us. And for good reason. We just went in and destroyed their civilization.

Spin it how you want. Hitler did. Bush did. Caesar did. I call it as I see it. I call it tyranny.

You say I blame American first. No I don't. I don't blame America for WWII. I don't blame America for 1776. I don't blame America for WWI. But I do blame America for Vietnam, and for Iraq, and for many other crimes against humanity. If my son committed murder, I'd blame him too.

The Usurper: re you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?


Forcing out their backwards government... that, in effect, are the imposed limits and regulations.....

Czuch: If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????

Czuch: "As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you..."

Are you still talking about Iraq? Talk about spinning an argument! Make up your mind, are you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?

I know what the U.S. is there for. To control the Middle East, most especially the oil supply, and to impose our will on the inhabitants, in order to do so.
This is not secret knowledge. No rocket scientist is needed to understand it.

The Usurper: The point is that Iraq or the UN can sanction us all they want to and we will be just fine... saddam sucked at taking care of his people, otherwise, our sanctions could not hurt them! You have to blame saddam and his tyrannical ways for any problems Iraqi people had.... but thats right, you are part of the blame america first and for everything crowd!!!! You dont think Iraq has any blame for their own poor situation???

The Usurper: No self-interest on our part,

Of course there is self interest on our part! Nobody is arguing differently?

As I just explained, our interest included not having to spend the next thousand years taking care of them, giving them a chance to prosper for themselves, free from the burden they put on the rest of the world, which would have NEVER happened unless we helped it to happen by force!

You ask why then not everyone??? That is partly why, because not everyone is a burden on us... we do not feed the Russian kids, or chinas kids... they may have burdens but not to the extent where it effects us so much yet.

Plus we have only so much we can do to help, one place one cause at a time, someday we can get to them all, but it takes time, I raq was the right place and the right time, it had to be done, and the mixture of excuses and reasons and time and place all lined up, and it happened..... you dont like it, I do....

Czuch: "Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????"

You just don't know history. The Iraqi children were starving in the 90s because of the sanctions WE imposed. This we have even admitted. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, said that 500,000 Iraqi children dying as a result of our sanctions was "worth it," in order to "contain" Saddam Hussein.

Czuch: "I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were...."

No they weren't. Just how many excuses for invasion will you believe from proven liars? Iraq connected with al-queda! Oops, no. Iraq has WMDs! Oops, no. Oh, I know! Poor Iraqis want to be free of Saddam Hussein! That's it. So let's ride to the rescue. No self-interest on our part, you see, we just want to be helpful. It's what we do in the world, our official policy. To be helpful to others all through the world. We call it Unrealpolitik.

"I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that..."

If I were assigned your side in a debate, who knows what I might come up with? But in that case I'd be on the wrong side of the debate & the wrong side of history, so I'd better get ready to do some serious spinning.

"You have been there?"

Have you?

"If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!"

Be careful what you wish for. A people can only free themselves. If we are to be liberated, we must liberate ourselves from our darker half. No one can do this for us.

There is no such thing as democracy at the point of a gun. That is democracy's anti-thesis. Only in this age of mass propaganda can a people be fooled into believing such twisted nonsense.

The Usurper: Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????



You take away our giving them my money and you take away our paying to monitor saddam, and you take away all our aid and our responsibility to them and for them, then I can agree with you, we have nothing to do with them at all, let them all rot in hell as far as i care....


But as a good socialist you should understand this better? You support that if we give banks money we have a right to monitor them more closely and regulate them, basically govern them? You supposrt that if we give you food stamps, we can impose limits on what you can buy with them, right? Thats the way of the world, if I support you, I can make the rules for you too. You must have heard from your parents at one time "as long as you live under my roof"....You dont like them telling you what to do, then move out, dont be beholden to them anymore.

As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you...

That includes doing what I deem necessary to make you more stable and prosperous and self reliant in the future as I possibly am able to!

The Usurper: I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that...

The Usurper: But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq,

You have been there?

The Usurper: If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!!

Let me know when we get there please

The Usurper: t were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated..

Ive not been clear, I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were....

If you are not asking to be liberated, then why bother?

Czuch: "do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime?"

The simple rule is to stay out of people's business. Unworthy? The U.S. regime is also unworthy. Evil? The U.S. regime is also evil in many ways. Does that justify Russia, or China, or somebody else coming to "liberate us" from our oppressive government?

But even if, for the sake of argument, it were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated....let us assume the evil ruler is killing all his subjects and not using chemical weapons we supplied him with to do it, as in our old friend Saddam's case (remember we put him in power & he was our ally up until Gulf War I)....let's assume it is a genuine rescue of a people desperately oppressed....well then, maybe a case could be made for that, like rescuing a child from abusive parents.

And that, naturally, is what the U.S. claims its mission was in Iraq. If that's true, why stop at Iraq? Why not rescue the Chinese and the Russians and every oppressed people the world over? Since we are so wise & wonderful, why not just police the whole world for everybody's good...even if they don't recognize that good for themselves? Even you ought to be able to recognize how anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-freedom such a concept really is. Every people has the fundamental right of self-determination. It is on this right we ourselves stood, when we declared our independence in 1776.

And it isn't the case at all that we are spreading liberty, even in Iraq. It's the cover story. But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq, not liberation. We have killed, not healed. We've brought more oppression, in the guise of a puppet-democracy. The only Iraqis we've freed are the dead ones...we freed them from the sorrows of life. It doesn't take a genius to see this, only a fairly impartial observer.

I've reached my 500 word limit.

(V): It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo.

Dont you think that a presidents economic policies have anything to do with the consumer confidence level?

I can agree that in general the markets act independent of any president, that the markets had gone too high and for too many wrong reasons, and it was due for a correction, and that correction had started before Bam got elected...

but, if a president starts implementing policies that are contrary to a healthy market, cant that have an effect as well? (speaking hypothetically of course)

Czuch: Yes. It means that wall street isn't confident in his plan. That's a huge drop. He should have taken Regan's approach to the stock market fall of 87. Regan left it alone to do its own thing. It not only bounced back, but it flourished. Obama's plan should have at least softened the downward trend but it seems to have made it worse.

OTOH, it takes months for the stock market to correct itself. One analysis says there is tons of money just waiting for the stock market to show signs of a recovery and then it will soar to new heights. We'll see.

Czuch: Nope, the downfall was already in process before he got elected and by the way things happened (fraud, etc) .. The financial market has not and will not recover for some time. It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo... I wouldn't buy shares now, in case another big mess in the market comes to light (eg the $50 billion hedge fund fraud)

People over here have seen some shares tumble from £100 per share to £3 per share.

Dow Jones Stock average is down 32% since Obama got elected.... does it mean anything about his ideas and policies and that of the democrats who control the country?

The Usurper: If they were that bad, then they must be planning some use for us. But from what I heard on that interview with the Canadian defence minister... I don't think they are 'bad'.

As to vampires.... I know the real story on that as in energy drainers, demonic possession... tricky, some may be just an unintegrated part of the person psyche (as told in Jewish lit), and in other cases it's not so simple. Possession is one of those subjects that can be tricky.

The Usurper: Since you seem to like the use of appropriate words.....

answer this for me.... do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime? Could you give me your answer from , legal, and moral, and historic perspectives, and include references to back up your claims, in 500 words or less please?

--Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.--

--How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?--

--In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.--

ScarletRose: "Make Love Not War"

That's a worthy sentiment. Thanks for posting it. Now if only we could convince the warmongers. lol

(V): To follow up on an earlier theme, here's an interesting article:

Alien Abduction, Demonic Possession, and The Legend of The Vampire
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/demons.htm


It's one of the articles that got me to thinking, hmmm, maybe these guys aren't so nice after all. Even if you find it less than convincing, you might find it stimulating.

(V): It is as you say, and the last few days here I've broadened the scope of my argument against America by following the implications of 9/11 being a U.S. conspiracy, of the Iraq war being illegal, of torture unto death, of links revealing CIA involvement in crimes worldwide, just a whole plethora of things. I can understand how this would seem surreal to someone who hasn't spent some time adjusting themselves emotionally & intellectually to a vastly different worldview. It's like an alternate reality that is simply too much to take in at once. I sympathize with this.

Bernice's case is different only in that, with the exception of one post that I can recall, she has consistently opposed everything I've said on this board from the beginning, about any issue whatsoever. So it doesn't follow that NOW she must reject my arguments, whereas BEFORE she thought I was making some good ones. Now....perhaps she really did think that, but I've seen no evidence of it (except her last statement about my previous "credibility" which, considering what has gone before, I find less than credible itself).

(V): Thanks for the post. Some of our politicians have admitted as much, saying that Iraq ought to be divided into smaller regions based on ethnicity. Of course the point being, "look how they can't get along," not revealing or admitting that this situation is precisely what we've engineered.

I remember Joe Biden, for example, our new VP, talking about this (that Iraq ought to be broken up) on the Bill Maher show on HBO, back before he was even picked to be Obama's running mate.

The Usurper: It's what she says....

"the second thing which is most interesting, is that the US occupation forces are very well aware that the police is infiltrated right to the core by the most criminal and sectarian elements of Iraqi society. Yet despite this obvious affiliation, it seems that the Americans want to turn the puppet security forces into some obedient patriotic Iraqi nationals. Which clearly is not the case.
I argue that the Americans want to very much keep the sectarian nature of the security forces and this shall be explained later on...

.....- which brings me to the fourth point -- the Americans are very well aware of this double bind. Namely on the one hand the Shiite sectarian nature of the forces they unleashed with their occupation and on the other the paving of the way for Iran's subtle and not so subtle influence and control over Iraqi affairs, politics and society...

- so my fifth point is a question that I and other Iraqis keep asking ourselves.
Could it be that the Americans have been so stupid and reckless in conducting this invasion and occupation or is that a continuous deliberate plan to tear the Iraqi fabric into sects and ethnicities, so that Iraq remains some mirage, a loose country with no identity and no weight in Middle Eastern and World politics ?"

Bernice: What I think you have a problem with is that the 'conspiracy's' and secrecy is so big and wide.

But as an example, us British kept secret the existence of our ability to break the enigma code used by the Germans to send commands and positions throughout quite a period of WWII.

....the Palestinians

....their lands weren't so devastated, perhaps some Iraqis & Afghanis would come on this international website and defend themselves.

Guess I'll have to take up the slack.

An Arab Woman Blues
http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/

Great blog. Too much truth & wisdom for most of you.

Bernice: Not good enough, because I don't actually believe you. lol

The Usurper: I believed you had some credibility, now I don't believe a damn thing you are saying....is that good enuff?

To be sure, the Talmudic sources are clear that the life of a Jewish woman whose pregnancy endangers her takes precedence over that of her unborn when there is no way to preserve both lives. (That is why Agudath Israel, while we oppose Roe v. Wade's effective "abortion on demand," has not and would never favor a wholesale ban on abortion.) And, while the matter is not free from controversy, there are rabbinic opinions that allow abortion when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother's health. But those narrow exceptions do not translate into some unlimited "mother's right" to "make her own reproductive choices" - the position Hadassah enthusiastically trumpets.

Moreover, in the specific context of "intact dilation and extraction" - to use The Times' preferred nomenclature - Jewish law certainly confers no right to kill a live baby whose head, or most of whose body, has already emerged. Indeed, once birth has already occurred, Jewish law makes clear, the newborn child has no less right to live than does the mother. Stated simply, what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits is, in the eyes of Jewish law, little if anything short of murder.

Nothing, of course, prevents a Jew, or Jewish organization or rabbi, from ignoring the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.

But intellectual integrity, if nothing else, should prevent anyone from misrepresenting the content of a law, or what Jewish tradition has to say about killing an unborn child, or a born one.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Partial_-_Birth_-Abortion-.asp

Bernice: "Im starting to disbelieve everything you say"

Don't be so coy. You have to believe something before you can start disbelieving it.

Iraq Body Count project

An independent UK/US group, the Iraq Body Count project (IBC), compiles reported Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation, including those caused directly by coalition military action, those caused directly by the Iraqi insurgency, and those resulting from excess crime (the Iraqi Body Count project claims that the Occupying Authority is responsible to prevent these deaths under international law). It shows a minimum of 89,369 and a maximum of 97,568 as of 27 November 2008.

This total represents deaths that have been published by at least two media organizations.[13] However, the IBC has been criticized for counting only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because they only include deaths reported by respected media agencies.[73][87] IBC Director John Sloboda admits, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[88]

The Usurper: Yep... Ecclesiastes, the other is Nietzsche.

HUBBA.. HUBBA!!! 

ScarletRose: opportunity is a great thing

well I have decided to open a fellowship on knitting....Ursurper you are becoming so bizarre that Im starting to disbelieve everything you say....your facts are only other peoples opinions and mean nothing.....

I feel sorry for AD trying to moderate this board...I wouldnt be able to keep my mouth shut with a few of you in here

oh well as they say....there are lies, lies and damned lies....which category do you put yourself in? (aimed at all of you)

Im going to start my knitting classes hahahahahhaa

(V): "Reminds me of a certain passage..."

Sounds like Ecclesiastes, correct? The other quote is profound also, but I don't know the author.

Czuch: "Complicity" has a broad range of interpretation, from LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) to MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). The evidence points more to MIHOP, but even LIHOP is a treasonable offence.

unbelievable

When one country invades another country unprovoked, it is State Terrorism and every death resulting from that invasion is unjustifiable.

The U.S. invaded Iraq unprovoked.
The U.S. is therefore practicing State Terrorism in Iraq.
Every death in Iraq is unjustifiable.

"Murder" is actually not the appropriate word, here. "Genocide" speaks more to the facts.

The Usurper: Point you miss is that you do not have any numbers for how many of the killed civilians were killed at the hands of US murderers????

Unless it is your point to blame the fact that the us was there at all, for every killed civilian?

The Usurper: overwhelming proof of U.S. government complicity.

Well complicity in what happened is a far cry from it happened in a completely different way!