What ever happened to the NAME OF BIN LADEN??? Iraq is a cover up for oil rights and a hit-contract that never happed

What ever happened to the NAME OF BIN LADEN??? Iraq is a cover up for oil rights and a hit-contract that never happed

What could possibly make Iraq more important than our own country which is going to hell??? I am a veteran and I don't see our veterans getting killed trying to help a country that doesn't want us there while our borders are WIDE OPEN for any illegal terriost or illegal people of any kind. The price is too high for the buying of nothing!

The true and evil monster second kill free exchange evil monster world to order card, need of come in quickly!!! http://www.power4game.com

Give you the big amount gold for free!The activity starts now!Experience it together now!
http://www.power4game.com

Give you the big amount gold for free!The activity starts now!Experience it together now!
http://www.power4game.com

And Mr. Hagin,

I forgot the most important part of my polemic. The U.S.A.'s motive for engaging in Desert storm, alledgedly, was to remove Kuwait from a once sovereign state.

And just 14 years later, the United States illegally invade the once sovereign nation of Iraq. What hypocrisy? If anything, the world would be in the process of driving the United States out of Iraq.

Someday, hopefully, Americans will require that America abides the same standards that it expects other nations to abide by with respect to and outside of the United States, and for its own citizens to do within the United States of America!

Again your circular arguments are without merit and they do make any sense, except to lawbreakers!

Well Mr. Hagin,

I don't have any problems understanding ideas or people who make sense, and your circular, unsubstantiated ideas are without merit. Just like the Bush Administration you are making up your own rules.

The United States cannot continue to force its will upon other nations and call itself a just nation. The USA cannot tell the world that it believes in Democracy given its most recent 'rogue' behavior. Clearly, you don't see anything wrong with that, and neither does the Administration have any problem with America's rogue behavior. America did not go into Iraq to defend its AK47 armed citizens from the government.

Let me try to teach you something first with some more comments on International Law, Sovereignty and United States bullying!

1. Approximately 15 years ago, Saddam Hussein decided to reclaim territory that he believes was originally Iraqi territory. So he ordered his military to cross over into Kuwait and to reclaim it.

The rest of the world believed that Kuwait was a sovereign nation and that Saddam was in violation of International Law (we will come back to International Law later). So the United State's military engaged in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in order to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait, a dictatorship.

After Kuwait was restored and Saddam's forces were eviscerated, the U.S.A. did not withdraw completely, but instead carried on a secret campaign under the cover of what was legitimately known as the 'no fly zone'. For the next ten or twelve years leading right up to operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States continued to spy, bully, menace and harass a nation whose military and its military equipment had practically been decimated just about a decade ago.

2. International Law:

In 1950 a group of approximately 50 nations came together and established the United Nations. From that august body, that began their work in my home-state California, this group began making laws that would apply to all of its member states and eventually the world. Each nation agreed to abide by the U.N. Charter, the U.S.A. was not exempted as you seem to infer.

Today that organization has grown to include about 190 member-nations. Some of the rules that were established had to do with national boundaries and international waters. Every nation understands that each other nation is sovereign and that its borders are to be respected, regardless of its form of governance.

The laws established in the United Nations coupled with the laws established in the Geneva Convention pretty much set the standards with respect to rules of engagement, and the sovereignty of each nation's borders. And just as a side note, the U.S.A. insists that all nations in the middle-east respect the sovereignty of the nation of Israel.

3. Following Desert storm, the member nations of the U.N. decided to bring additional sanctions against Iraq. Since that time, there have been scores of resolutions passed, mostly engineered by the U.S.A., against Iraq, even when other nations believes that the U.S.A. was being excessive!.

In 2002 the U.S.A. began to push for enforcement against Iraq, given that there was evidence out there that seemed to show that Iraq was in violation of a myriad of United Nation's resolutions, in addition the WMD issue. .

The members of the United Nations decided to act: they decided to use the IAEA, (which had been truthfully thwarted before by Saddam Hussein). The IAEA sent in a group of inspectors led by Hans Blix, they were dispatched to Iraq to determine whether or not Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to enrich uranium or to produce weapons as several nations, including the U.S.A., alleged.

The process which appeared to be working was suddenly interrupted, however, this time it was not interrupted by the Iraqis. Instead, this time one nation and one nation alone, in deference to all of the other member-nations who agreed to the actions that were already in place and working, decided to act unilaterally, and to ignore Iraqi's sovereignty and the will of the remaining 190-member organization and enter into Iraq by force.

What is sad is that the legally sanctioned organization that had embarked upon an agreed upon task to determine whether or not one of its member-states was in violation of international law was usurped by one member-nation, who ignored the will of all of the rest of the members.

And that singular act, by and large, tells the rest of the world how much respect America has for International Law, national sovereignty (accept for Israel's) and for the will of the rest of the nations of the world.

Finally, a nation that works so hard to keep other nations disarmed, while that nation spends more money on its military than all other nations in the world combined, lacks credibility in every way, particularly, when it inveigles the U.N. process where it carries much influence, and uses other trumped up reasons to illegally invade (as stated by Kofi Anan) other nations that it has worked for years to keep unarmed and to bully!

Now which part of these comments are untrue, or go back only to 2005 where you apparently began? You are rude and abrasive, not to mention condescending, but besides that you make up your own rules just as America typically does, and you try to put words into other people's mouths.

If the Muslim world were to buy into your nonsense, Israel is in even more trouble than it is in now. America is not the moral arbitrageur of the universe, American cannot get its own internal problems resolved!

Hello Rev,

Wow.

For whatever reason, you are still having a hard time understanding what the word sovereignty means.

Here's the answer:

sov·er·eign·ty
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
3. A territory existing as an independent state.

Source:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

The lesson I am trying to teach you here is that the term has no qualitative component. Nazi Germany was sovereign for example. Having power doesn't mean you are a legitimate power. That is the point and I hope you can absorb it this time.

I think we can all agree that no one wants illegitimate governments to have sovereignty over their people. What we all want is for legitimate governments (i.e. governments that are accountable to the people, such as in a democracy) to have sovereignty over their people.

We have destroyed an illegitimate government in Iraq and replaced it with a legitimate one, now we are trying to help them gain sovereignty over their borders and their people. They are dependant on America for security now and we are trying to grant them complete autonomy.

I really hope this clears things up for you because I don't have the stamina to teach vocabulary lessons anymore.

Thanks!

My point was obvious, but I will explain it anyway. You used the word incorrectly. You implied that one nation does not have the right to attack another sovereign nation. Sovereign does not mean "peaceful" sovereign does not mean "productive" or "helpful" or "just."
As a reverend I would expect you to at least understand a moral argument and you failed to do so.

Mr. Hagin,

I was finished with this subject and your odious attitude until I heard the President speaking last night about the 'sovereignty' of the nation of Iraq, hopefully, you heard him speak about it.

Wouldn't you think that, as a President', he would have same the understanding that you have; he does not. Your attitude gives new meaning to the term singularity, for you are apparently the only person in the universe, at least the only one that I know, who wants to discuss Iraqi sovereignty and what it means!

I gave consideration to some of your other arguments which were equally as rediculous, then I concluded that this man simply wants to argue for arguments sake; so, what would be the point of bringing up a counter-argument, he would simply argue about that as well.

Are you 'jee nous' in disguise?

The MF and OF monthly card are sold with low price!!The FFXI CDKey is in wholesale by low price!!
http://www.wowgold-buy.com

Mr. Haines,

Well we obviously do not see eye to eye, I believe that we are both in agreement about that.

I will, however, keep working to help clean up America, and you keep on trying to hide America's dirt and excusing American malfesance at the same time that you are so judgmental about other nations and other people who are no worse than Americans, America or you!

Dimitry,

I see your point on the drones but it still is much better to use robots to kill armed
opponents then to use civilian women as shields. The US has never made it a policy
to attack women and children. Collateral damage will always occur. But some of our enemies will ask women to be there shields
or use them as shields and these women will do it. To purposely use women and children as weapons of warfare is very diff then collateral damage from bots.

Rev, my brother!
It is very frustrating to read your thoughts. I would rather not argue, but I have to counter the ideas that your write. I hope anyone else reading these replies has the desire to actually research some of what you are talking about so that they can discount your ideas without my help.

I am glad that I got you to admit that you see no distinction between Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban and America. That is a bold point of view, to say the least, and it exposes you pretty soundly. Score one for the good guys.

You wrote:
"Well, I did not know your definition of the term sovereign. Even if I were to accept your definition, what is the point that you are making here?"
It is not MY definition. People don't get to pick and choose what they want words to mean. Words have meaning outside of our opinions, that is why they are helpful. Do me a favor. Go to www.dictionary.com and look up the definition.

My point was obvious, but I will explain it anyway. You used the word incorrectly. You implied that one nation does not have the right to attack another sovereign nation. Sovereign does not mean "peaceful" sovereign does not mean "productive" or "helpful" or "just."
As a reverend I would expect you to at least understand a moral argument and you failed to do so. Power over your people does not make you just, in the same way that power over others does not make you unjust. This is a critical point and you missed it completely.

Saddam had power over his people and he used the AK-47s you are so fond of bringing up to kill his people who were unarmed. We use our J-Dams and Laser guided missiles to kill those people with the AK-47s. We have more power than the despots and dictators. The dictators have more power than their people. The only way to sort out who should do what to whom is to introduce logic and morality to the equation.
Saddam + AK-47 vs. Kurds = Bad
Sadr + Ak-47 vs. Iraqi civilians = Bad
America + precision weapons vs. Saddam = Good
America + precision weapons vs. Sadr = Good

Here's a helpful tip: replace Saddam in the equation with Islamic Jihad, Aweys, Karimov, Bin Laden, Hizballah, Hamas, etc. and you will understand the just use of just power vs. the unjust.

Mr. Haines,

I do not know where to begin responding to your soliloquy, so I will take a few items at a time.

Rev.
A) I get the impression that you don't know the definition of the word sovereign. Look it up. Nazi Germany was sovereign as was the Soviet Union. Sovereign simply means power to control the people within a country. Based on what you wrote, it is pretty clear you didn't know this.
IN REPLY- Well, I did not know your definition of the term sovereign. Even if I were to accept your definition, what is the point that you are making here?

B) Which country didn't do "anything to the U.S.A. or to the rest of the world?" Iraq? Afghanistan? They both did plenty. Look at the dozen U.N. resolutions on Iraq from the end of the first gulf war until we invaded and you'll see that the U.N. was trying and failing to curb Saddam's brutal regime. Look at Afghanistan and what they did to us (9/11) and the rest of the region under the Taliban.
IN REPLY- The United Nations was acting in a diplomatic manner to address its concerns with Iraq. Only the United States of all of the 190 nations in the U.N. decided to usurp the United Nations and to act unilaterally. If you are going to criticize Iraq, criticize the United States too, Kofi Anan did. He said that the United States acted illegally with regard to Iraq. Are you angry with our nation for acting illegally? Then why are you so upset with Iraq? And, Iraq and Afghanistan combined have not been involved in as much mischief as the United States has been involved in during the last year alone.

I hate to be so provocative, but Rev, you are WAY off.
In Reply- It would appear that you are drunk with American kool-aid. I am a purist and as far as I am concerned one standard should apply to any nation. Sin is a reproach to any people. Why do you insist on hiding America's sins? And I am not way off, you simply do not agree with my positions and I don't agree with all of yours!

You also said "Bullies always pick on the weak!" Do you really think that when America attacks Saddam Hussien or the Taliban, WE are the bullies?

In reply- Well at least you finally admitted that the United States attacked Saddam/Iraq. In response to your question my answer is a resounding Yes. America is a self-justifying bully nation. Just consider all of the lies, misdirection and misrepresentations that Mr. Bush used and expressed in order to embark upon the Iraqi invasion! Just consider the firepower of the USA compared to IRA, that is satellites, fighter planes, troop strength, bombers, drones, missiles et al vs. AK47s.

To anyone reading that line, you have lost whatever credibility you may have had. Learn a little about those regimes-- just a little.

IN REPLY- Anyone who would point out the problems of America in America lacks creditability with many American citizens; consider Jimmy Carter and the attitude that most Americans have regarding his recent book. I am not trying to be a crowd-pleaser, I am trying to tell the truth.

Rev, it seems that you only started paying attention to world events in the last year or so. That's a good start, but go back and see what happened before 2005 and you will be very surprised

IN REPLY- Now you are being acerbic and I am trying to decide how to respond. Well, let's just say that the first time that I spoke on Capitol Hill (the one in Washington DC) was in 1983, and I was active long before that.

So give me some credit although you don't agree with me, and engage in civil discourse, learn to hear the other side's arguments and you might learn something new! Even President Bush 41 opined that America must become a 'kinder and gentler nation', and that was before 2005!

Rev.
Seriously?
You wrote:

"Do you really see any courage in going in and destroying a sovereign nation that hadn't done anything to the U.S.A. or to the rest of the world?"

A) I get the impression that you don't know the definition of the word sovereign. Look it up. Nazi Germany was sovereign as was the Soviet Union. Sovereign simply means power to control the people within a country. Based on what you wrote, it is pretty clear you didn't know this.

B) Which country didn't do "anything to the U.S.A. or to the rest of the world?" Iraq? Afghanistan? They both did plenty. Look at the dozen U.N. resolutions on Iraq from the end of the first gulf war until we invaded and you'll see that the U.N. was trying and failing to curb Saddam's brutal regime. Look at Afghanistan and what they did to us (9/11) and the rest of the region under the Taliban.

I hate to be so provocative, but Rev, you are WAY off.

You also said "Bullies always pick on the weak!" Do you really think that when America attacks Saddam Hussien or the Taliban, WE are the bullies? To anyone reading that line, you have lost whatever credibility you may have had. Learn a little about those regimes-- just a little.

Rev, it seems that you only started paying attention to world events in the last year or so. That's a good start, but go back and see what happened before 2005 and you will be very surprised.

Dimitry wrote:
--I come from a school of thought that holds all human beings more or less rational. Societies that are plagued by violence (such as our own gettoes) are that way dut to rational, understandable reasons one can observe and verify. Suicide bombers exist due to lack of economic resources within these communitties to wage war and are a direct result of foreign occupation.--

I also come from that school of thought and agree that suicide bombers are an outgrowth of the conditions of their society. But in America we do not encourage the violence in the ghettos and fund it like wealthy Muslims fund suicide bombers. Parents living in the ghettos do not normally encourage their children to become murders and gang members yet Muslim parents encourage their children to join the jihad and become martyrs killing not only "infidels" but other Muslims. When you add into that the crime committed by Muslims extremists to fund their jihad you really have only one comparison to the west and that is organized crime. In organized crime rational people encourage the criminal activity. It is funded by well off people and accepted by the population to some extent. Consider Sinatra's friendship with the mob. The focus of both Islamic extremists and the mob is the same, criminal activity to attain power and wealth. And their methods are the same, crime for money and killing for revenge or to remove an obsticle to more power (police). It will take centuries for the Muslims to rid themselves of their mob as it is taking centuries for the west to rid itself of their's. The religious background of the Islamic extremists does not separate them from the mafia. Mafia members went to church, protected the church and considered themselves to be religious. The only difference was that the mafia did not pretend that their killings were done in the name of God.

Thank God for all of us that the United States has soldiers who don't back down from bullies.

Another question we should be asking is "How does ignoring what is happening in Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, Burma, Syria, etc. HELP the defense of the United States?"

I hope that answers some of your questions. Thanks for the interest in world events.

George Haines,

1) Most of the time, we are the bullies!

2) Do you really see any courage in going in and destroying a sovereign nation that hadn't done anything to the U.S.A. or to the rest of the world?

3) How much courage does it take for a nation that has overwhelming military superiority to go in take on a nation that is armed with AK47s, as a result of America disarming that nation during Desert Storm 14 yrs ago. Bullies always pick on the weak! And there are other nations that we have kept unarmed, by inveigling the United Nations, that are also on the American radar; brave Americans will be calling on these nations in the future.

4) How does ignoring what is going on in Somalia...? When will people like you understand that we have a legitimate international organization in place to deal with the problems of countries like Somalia, and that organization should be supported.

And before you say it, that organization that appears to not have any teeth in it, has been undermined by Great Britain and the United States since its inception in San Francisco.

Mr. haines, we support the U.N. financially, then we undermine it diplomatically, and we control it by sitting on the U.N. Security Council, while we violate its principles ourselves and vetoing every other plan or resolution that we do not like.

And if the U.N. is not working as Alex indicated, it is not working because the U.S.A. will not tolerate an opinion that differs from the ones that have been set forth in this nation.

The United States controls the scenario in the whole world, and it will not tolerate interference by the U.N., or independent thought by any state or any other federation of nations. Why do you suppose that the U.S.A. has double the number of satellities spying on other nations of the world, not to mention twice the number of satellites than the nation in second place.

You might thank God for totalitarianism, however, you are in the minority. The rest of the world is fighting for autonomy and a right to self-determination and freedom from the U.S.A..

By the way, I haven't had time to verify it, but I heard a speaker a week or so ago say that of the other 189 nations in the U.N., the United States has some form of a military presence in about 122 of those nations.

He said that the U.S.A. uses it pull in those countries to get its way in the U.N. Well, if that is true and the U.S.A. gets its way, how come the U.N. is so weak then, as some of you believe? Can it be because the U.S.A. wants a weak U.N. so that it can continue to act in the world, unopposed?

Folks you get exercised when I say this because you have bought into the American double-standard, but the U.S.A., despite all of its good stuff also has a dark side. And that dark side is not any different from any other evil empiire that has existed during the history of the world.

And some of you who have bought into the evil, would have also made good citizens in Nazi Germany, some of you have some Teuton blood in your ancestral lines!

==The drones are targeted at military targets. Civilian casualties can result. That is the opposite of using civilians as shields /weapons. ==

You misunderstand. I didn't mean drones don't kill those youths with guns that take potshots at American armored vehicles in Sadr city, i.e. the enemy. I meant to compare your propaganda-laced "our enemies hide behind women's skirts", with our method of warfare, which is mostly hang back and respond with large bore ammunition to any threat, often by remote control. I find particularly uplifting that sometime soon our wars will be waged by robotic soldiers, killing our enemies and "enemies" with nary a human oversite. I guess that would be the bravest battle of all.

==- Immigrants choose this country because unlike many, it truly is a country of immigrants who have to some extent learned to live together. The suv owners dont kill compact car owners and jews and muslims have better ways to settle disputes.==

That's what I meant by relative safety. It is nice, at least where it exists in America. I don't have to lock up my car or worry about theft and such where I live. That's a good thing. Killing people in another part of the world in a misguided attempt to "teach" them how to "live like us" is a bad thing.

==This is very diff from societies where hez , hamas and sadr rule. As democratic as this country is, many choose not to participate but at the very least the choice is there's and not some ruling/tribe/clan/despot dictating policies at the point of a gun.==

The violence in those societies existed long before the above mentioned organizations appeared. The violence mostly came with foreign invader, in the case of Hezbolah and Hammas it was Israel (both organizations where created to fight the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and West Bank, respectively). In the case of Sadr's Mahdi Army it was USA. Your causality is faulty here, among other things.

==Re US murder rate, I think any country who could replicate our society with all its ills would be pretty impressive, murder rate notwithstanding.==

Then many European countries are impressive. But why should our murder rate be seen as a necessary by-product of our economic success? Any ideas?

==By yr definition , what country exists who could ever lead ? What country or organization would pass the purity test ?==

It's no "purity test" it is simple logic. One doesn't attempt to teach someone, if one is a fool. It is foolish and conceited to beleive America has a manifest destiny to force the world to comply with our Borg-like attempt to assimilate other cultures. We have our hands full here at home, with our own problems. They may not seem important to you, but trust me, they are.

because this country isnt ruled by death mongers, get it ?

No Alex,

I don't get it and I didn't just get off of the boat. I have many Chinese friends, and in fact a member of my church is in Shanghai teaching right now.

I have met your type before and I do not mean to disparage you or your wide-eyed view of America. However, someday you are going to have to get into the real world.

And if you don't believe that our country is ruled by warmongers, just ask Kofi Anan or the people of Iraq. You know, diplomacy was working with respect to Iraq and the WMDs!

And who is next on the 'hit list', DPRK and Iran. Don't tell me that this country is not ruled by warmongers. You are not even aware of what this country has been doing in the Americas, however, ask Fidel, Chavez and other leaders and they will tell you.

There are some of us who are trying to fix America's internal problems, and we believe that the only way that America can do that is when its leaders decide to 'turn right and go straight. And they must do so regardless of what others and other nations are doing.

Anyway, millions have immigrated to this country regardless of our murder rates/violence and supposed overseas evils.
But we areant that bad and thats why they come...

Alex,

I can see that you have not been keeping up. Many of the would be immigrants are now elsewhere, instead of the United States. Why? Because there are countries where the opportunities are as great or greater than they are in the U.S.A., the cost of living is less and they feel safer.

With respect to always trying to justify what goes on in America by comparing with another country simply does not alter the facts. America, is a violent country. Americans are violent people. Americans are as armed and more armed in comparison to most other nations of the world.

But I am going to back off of you, for like many Americans you apparently still have a need to live in fantasy land.

The rest of the world and some Americans know that we are not a country that has the moral or legal right to tell other nations what to do.

America should have been kicked off the Security Council about a decade or two ago!
Nonetheless, stay in fantasyland. By the way, do you still believe in Santa Claus too?

Rev writes:"If what you say is true, then why are we remaining in the United States of America, a country that is being ruled by death mongerers?"

because this country isnt ruled by death mongers, get it ?

Also, hard to believe that you think americans decide whom to kill and not kill
but Hamas , Hez and sadr dont ?

Anyway, millions have immigrated to this country regardless of our murder rates/violence and supposed overseas evils.
But we areant that bad and thats why they come. If you think the US is bad, just wait a few dozen years,we will pale next to what the Chinese will do, these guys where raised by wolves and self interest is there no 1 priority. For the record, I am Chinese but have a great distaste for what the mainland is doing.

Hal writes:
"Could someone please explain to me how the confict in Iraq affects the "Defense of the United States."

Hal, the answer to your question is easy. How did the 20+ years of conflict in Afghanistan affect the United States? Well, 9/11 is how.

Ignoring the problems in the rest of the world doesn't make them go away. Radical groups exist in Somalia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan and a litany of other countries around the world.

If we pretend that ignoring them will make them go away we are practically begging for another 9/11, or possibly worse. We ignored the conflict in Afghanistan and it led to our inevitable suffering.

Aside from how it affects us, how about asking how it affects other human beings as well? The people with the guns and the crazy ideas about Sharia Law can force the people who believe what we believe to submit if no one stands up to them.

Thank God for all of us that the United States has soldiers who don't back down from bullies.

Another question we should be asking is "How does ignoring what is happening in Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, Burma, Syria, etc. HELP the defense of the United States?"

I hope that answers some of your questions. Thanks for the interest in world events.

Demitry, a few points...

-The drones are targeted at military targets. Civilian casualties can result. That is the opposite of using civilians as shields /weapons.

- Immigrants choose this country because unlike many, it truly is a country of immigrants who have to some extent learned to live together. The suv owners dont kill compact car owners and jews and muslims have better ways to settle disputes. This is very diff from societies where hez , hamas and sadr rule. As democratic as this country is, many choose not to participate but at the very least the choice is there's and not some ruling/tribe/clan/despot dictating policies at the point of a gun.
- Re US murder rate, I think any country who could replicate our society with all its ills would be pretty impressive, murder rate notwithstanding. By yr definition , what country exists who could ever lead ?
What country or organization would pass the purity test ?

==There is much more to this society then that. No doubt there are those who go for what you mention, but for many more Americans, especially first generation immigrants, the right to choose and give there children a better life is more the rule then the exception.==

For most people the single differentiating thing about America and the reason that the GREAT majority of immigrants come here is the wealth and relative safety from hunger and desease. Freedom, as you like to understand it, is relatively unimportant to most people who come here. Most will say that "freedom" is important, but when you ask further, it is nearly always freedom to earn money and freedom not to die from a civil war and freedom to see your children grow up into healthy and perhaps well off adults. Trust me, immigrants don't come here to vote for a Republican or Democratic senator once every six years. I am one of very few folks in my communitty (Russian immigrants) whose family is at least moderately interested in American political freedoms. 99% are not.

==I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend an existence where one raises his child to be a suicide bomber , where martyrdom is celebrated.==

I come from a school of thought that holds all human beings more or less rational. Societies that are plagued by violence (such as our own gettoes) are that way dut to rational, understandable reasons one can observe and verify. Suicide bombers exist due to lack of economic resources within these communitties to wage war and are a direct result of foreign occupation.

==It is really a different value set, and one which we must end because it legitimizes the deaths of not only the locals but the lives of any who oppose them. I have no problem with diff lifestyles or views or religions, but I have a big problem with beliefs that blatantly legitimizes the deaths of foreigners and also sends death among its own via suicide bombers and ied's and hiding behind the skirts of woman.==

Violence plagues many societies, including our own. Our peace time murder rate is among the highest in the nation. Why? Aren't we the richest, the most hardworking, most God fearing country out there? So how come we kill each other in increasingly more grotesque and hyper-cruel ways in such astonishing numbers. Shouldn't we, before we start killing foreigners on their soil, ostensibly to teach them how to set up their country in a better way (more like ours), clean up our own ways?

As far as the skirt thing...I would be careful. Is it "brave warfighting" to operate a drone from Langley, killing essentially defenseless human beings (otherwise known as dehumanized enemies) half way around the world?

Hal,

Before we changed its name to the United States Defense Department, what we know today as the Defense Department was once called the War Department. The latter in my opinion was and is more apropros!

The world-wide community knows that our nation, illegally, attacked, invaded and occupied illegally, the once sovereign nation of Iraq.

Some Americans want to call our illegal action something else. However, if any other nation had acted in the same manner as we did, the same Americans would call it exactly what it is, a preemptive and voluntary act of war by one nation against another!

What most Americans have done meets the definition of the term, nominalism!

Alex,

....but I have a big problem with beliefs that blatantly legitimizes the deaths of foreigners and also sends death among its own via suicide bombers and ied's and hiding behind the skirts of woman.

Alex,

One more comment! Then, you must have problems with the U.S.A. then; you claim that I only see the bad in America. But answer me this question, why do you and others tend to minimize or overlook America's malfeasance and gross injustices around the world?

DO YOU KNEW that the U.S.A. is the foremost expert-nation in the field of mass murder. Think about it, what some nations in the world are craving now, WMDs, were invented/MADE IN THE USA (well, we stole some of the technology that we used to create H-bombs)!

I understand your patriotism, but it seems to me that to be a good patriot one should hold his own nation accountable for its misdeeds just as one would hold another nation accountable for their misdeeds (real or imagined)!

I understand that in Japan, their citizens are amazed at the Terrorivision feeds that they receive that portray life in America, i.e., terror, mass-murders, killings, rapes, burglaries, robberies, et al.

Just as you judge other nations, there are many other nations judging America, and some are allies of the U.S.A.!

So be as dutiful about helping us to clean up the mess in the U.S.A. as you are about cleaning up the so-called in the U.S.A., why don't you?

....but I have a big problem with beliefs that blatantly legitimizes the deaths of foreigners and also sends death among its own via suicide bombers and ied's and hiding behind the skirts of woman.

Alex,

One more comment! Then, you must have problems with the U.S.A. then; you claim that I only see the bad in America. But answer me this question, why do you and others tend to minimize or overlook America's malfeasance and gross injustices around the world?

DO YOU KNEW that the U.S.A. is the foremost expert-nation in the field of mass murder. Think about it, what some nations in the world are craving now, WMDs, were invented/MADE IN THE USA (well, we stole some of the technology that we used to create H-bombs)!

I understand your patriotism, but it seems to me that to be a good patriot one should hold his own nation accountable for its misdeeds just as one would hold another nation accountable for their misdeeds (real or imagined)!

I understand that in Japan, their citizens are amazed at the Terrorivision feeds that they receive that portray life in America, i.e., terror, mass-murders, killings, rapes, burglaries, robberies, et al.

Just as you judge other nations, there are many other nations judging America, and some are allies of the U.S.A.!

So be as dutiful about helping us to clean up the mess in the U.S.A. as you are about cleaning up the so-called in the U.S.A., why don't you?

Alex,

My compliments to you sir, in spite of the fact that you and others were so hard on Iraq, at least you have admitted that America also has some problems, some won't do that.

Having said that, do some more research on Iraq, it is not the warmongering,chaotic, ungovernable country that most Americans have been led to believe.

There were a lot of great things going on in Iraq before WE WENT IN AND DESTROYED THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS IN PLACE, that are never mentioned in the west!

And, there are a lot of people who went to Iraq (similar to those who came to America, so that they could get ahead.

And, let's not forget the immigrants and aliens who visited America and were shot down in the streets; some simply needed directions to reach their destination.

We are a 'killer' country, domestically and internationally, and I would argue that no one does it better!

Hmm
Could someone please explain to me how the confict in Iraq affects the "Defense of the United States".

We attacked Iraq on the basis of

WMD?
Al Qaida in Iraq?

Objective remove the despot Hussein.

Well under those questionable criteria we have completed the mission.

It is now an Arab/ Mid East Regional issue.

It is time to return the Forces to their families at home.

rev writes:"Did you forget which, er herm, civilized nation in the world has the highest murder rate, incarceration rate...? How about the cops in New York who unloaded 50 plus shoots on American citizens just a few days ago?"

The point is that immigrants flock to come here. You can selectively point out all the bad things in this society, but why do immigrants chose to come here?, to be killed maimed and unemployed ? no, they come here because we clearly are the best country in the world to go to. You cant see that because your so hung up on all the bad angles. Yes there is alot wrong , but there is alot right and there is no better proof of that then people from countries all over the world looking to come here.

Dimitry writes :"Try to understand, if you can: not everyone in the world is like you and want the things you want - mcmansion, suv and the largest tv made."

There is much more to this society then that. No doubt there are those who go for what you mention, but for many more Americans, especially first generation immigrants, the right to choose and give there children a better life is more the rule then the exception. I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend an existence where one raises his child to be a suicide bomber , where martyrdom is celebrated. It is really a different value set, and one which we must end because it legitimizes the deaths of not only the locals but the lives of any who oppose them. I have no problem with diff lifestyles or views or religions, but I have a big problem with beliefs that blatantly legitimizes the deaths of foreigners and also sends death among its own via suicide bombers and ied's and hiding behind the skirts of woman.

I am not trying to antagonize anyone, but I would seriously like to know how many people were dying per day in Iraq when Hussein was in power. Does anyone have a reliable statistic on that?

Dimitry wrote:
--My point was to think of these groups as foreign transplants is wrong and dangerous.--

I agree with you there, but my point was that with foreign funding any group could become a force. The Contras in Nicaragua is a good example but not the only one. The Viet Cong, Hizbollah, and others may only exist as a force not because of popular support but because they have the money and that money may have strings attached, especially when Iranian money is concerned. The money provides jobs and local funding of rebuilding as we see going on in Lebanon via Hizbollah. That money buys support. So the question I pose is whether these groups are as popular as they seem or are simply buying their popularity with foreign money. I think Hamas is truely a popular movement supported by the people, though now that they are in charge that may change. I think Hizbollah is buying its popularity and if its funding dried up you'd see the Labanese quash it. Al Qaida certainly has foreign funding and some popular support though I think the foreign funding is its major reason for existence. Sadr it also popular and I think his foreign funding is now increasing which will in the future make him more dangerous. Sadr may be a good example of a small popular group receiving foreign funding and then growing into a major force as the Contras did. What this shows me is that the whole ME is a proxy battlefield between east and west in general and the US + EU + Isreal and Iran + Syria + Islamists specifically. They pump in money to those small groups who support a cause and the money eventually warps the nature of the cause to become more the cause of the funder. So what was a force to protect Shia and support their poor population in Iraq becomes a major fighting force attacking Sunni and Americans in Iraq at the behest of Iran. Hizbollah goes from a defensive force to protect Lebanon from Isreal to a force that attacks Isreal at the behest of Iran to take the focus off Iran's nuclear woes. And so on.

America has the right to be a nation of recent history itself...!

The societies that some Americans are disparaging in this blog have been around for thousands of years.

Don't forget that the U.S.A. is the new kid on the block, and is the most crime-riddle society (white-collar crime, militia groups, hate groups, and all) on the planet.

Some of you pseudo-patriots would prefer to hide the truth about America under the rug and point out the faults of other societies.

The fact is that American cannot help any other nation to solve their internal issues, because America has never figured out to resolve its own internal problems.

A person or nation must learn, before it can teach others!

Anyone who tries to justify what the U.S.A. is doing in Iraq is clearly twisted!

There is nothing in these organizations that are even close to what we would call a promising society...but nobody given a choice would in there right minds choose to live in societies ruled by these death mongers

Alex,

If what you say is true, then why are we remaining in the United States of America, a country that is being ruled by death mongerers?

Americans, obviously believe in slaughtering people, just consider your own words and your attitude about killing other human beings, or just consider what America has been doing in Iraq; we killed a lot of people there didn't we?

The difference between America and the individuals and groups that you disparage, is that Americans believe that they reserve the right to decide who should and who should not die.

When Americans say that it okay to kill, then killing somehow it becomes a justifiable killing. On the other hand, when others engage in a similar practice as Americans do, then they become uncivilized, warhawks, murderers and death mongers.

Did you forget which, er herm, civilized nation in the world has the highest murder rate, incarceration rate...? How about the cops in New York who unloaded 50 plus shoots on American citizens just a few days ago?

America has the right to be a nation of recent history itself...!

The scoities that some Americans are disparaging in this blog have been around for thousands of years.

Don't forget that the U.S.A. is the new kid on the block.

==I wonder what would happen if the foreign money flowing to these groups were to stop and they had to rely just on the local population. This is not a rhetorical question.==

Well, I wonder what would happen to American Republican patriotism, if China stopped financing our credit card debt? I would say Bush's rating would go south by another 10-15%.

Besides Hammas is dirt poor. I

t is always a complex mix of reasons. My point was to think of these groups as foreign transplants is wrong and dangerous. That's how you get the latest Lebanese war's carnage. And that's at least partially why Americans are surprised that Iraqis are not lining up to setup a "mini-America". Thousand years of culture will trump a NYT editorial and even a frontal attack by the 3d ID, every time.

Dimitry wrote:
--These organization (hamas , hiz and sadr) derive their power from the local population.--

Hmmm, do they derive their power from the population or is the population backing them because they ARE the power due to foreign backing? Is the population looking at weak local organizations and these foreign funded local organizations and deciding to go with the one that can deliver? Hiz used lots of foreign money to start rebuilding Lebanon after the recent war, handing out thousands of Iranian dollars to the public. I wonder what would happen if the foreign money flowing to these groups were to stop and they had to rely just on the local population. This is not a rhetorical question. You could argue that without American money the Contras in Nicaragua would not have been much of a force since they only had a small backing of the locals. In other words, do these organizations enjoy local support due to real local support, foreign backing, or both. And what would happen if the foreign backing went away? Does anyone have the numbers on how much foreign funding goes into these organizations?

We promise sincerely to sell the US and EU gold to you by the lowest price . Welcome to interact with us whatever you are the big union or single.
http://www.wow-gold-good.com

==There is nothing in these organizations that are even close to what WE would call a promising society.==

==You may say the west is the same , but NOBODY given a choice would in there right minds choose to live in societies ruled by these death mongers. At the very least people CLAMOR to immigrate to the west. Where as with hamas , hiz and sadr, people who can afford a bus ticket run for there lives.==

These organization derive their power from the local population. Locals mostly would prefer to live in their own countries, instead of the West, and when they run it isn't because of their pro-Americanism or Sadr hatred, it is because of the crushing poverty and ultra-dangerous living conditions, in many cases brought to them by us or our allies. To liberate them, of course.

Try to understand, if you can: not everyone in the world is like you and want the things you want - mcmansion, suv and the largest tv made.

==The military says in its doctrinal manuals that a war must have five criteria to be labeled a civil war. First, the combatants must be intent on controlling territory and establishing a nation. Second, each side must have a functioning government. Third, the sides must enjoy at least limited international or foreign recognition of their legitimacy. Fourth, the sides must have regular armed forces. And fifth, the sides must be engaged in major military operations.
...
...
So by classic definition, we are not talking about a civil war.==

From the people who brought you the "OU EN, OU EF EF" selector, meaning the on-off switch.

The "classic definition" is pretty dumb, essentially defining a drink as a can of Coca-Cola. It is FAR too specific, and quite convenient for the military. Geez, you can' have no civil war without national aspirations! And you really can't fight a war without a "functioning government", Lord knows we can't! And without colonels, seargents and generals and uniforms and regalia, what kind of civil war is it?

By the "classic" military definition, Ruanda was not a civil war and neither is Darfur. Most South Americans civil wars weren't, because the rebels never had foreign recognition. Neither did the Chechen rebels - hence no civil war, just whole city-destroying "civil strife".

Arkin's and the military's inability to actually think beyond the "manual" is quite striking and one of many reasons the military is doing so poorely in the current round of 4th generation warfare. It's like Rummy said - deadenders and saddamites. Bring 'em on!

Besides, as the WaPo article says today, everybody is blaming the Iraqis - heck their violent, wild, uncivilized ways is what is preventing us from helping them build their beautiful pro-American country. What's Arkin's riff on this today - Iraq is simply just being what it has always been - a violent hell hole. Not our friggin fault!

anti-antichrist writes"Some US officials have called for Sadr to be removed from the political scene and the Mahdi Army to be disbanded by force with American troops if necessary. But the Mahdi Army, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Ha mas in the Palestinian territories, has long developed a local humanitarian effort."

Hiz, hamas and sadr have bought a constant cycle of violence, they celebrate death like some sort of holiday. There is nothing in these organizations that are even close to what we would call a promising society. They promise death and deliver bigtime. They use there religion as a crutch. You may say the west is the same , but nobody given a choice would in there right minds choose to live in societies ruled by these death mongers. At the very least people clamor to immigrate to the west. Where as with hamas , hiz and sadr, people who can afford a bus ticket run for there lives.

The Arab, largely Sunni, world wants to see an American defeat, but what it will do is bring even more suffering to those they support.

WTM,

Where did you get your information from? As I understand it, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others are standing hand in hand with the United States!

WTM

Who needs a dictionary when I have [terrorvision] and you?

Let's see, you said, "A failure wont be...". How long have you and Mr. Bush been sharing the same dictionary?

Could we stay with the subject?

"Why isn't the world talking about the innocuous behavior of the U.S.A.?"

Get yourself a dictionary Rev.

One thing that has begun to make some news recently is the idea of giving up on national reconciliation in Iraq. See Tom Ricks' comments from today. Many people seem to assume that if America gives up in Iraq the largely Sunni insurgent forces will take power. Every effort to accomodate the Sunnis has been met with attacks by Al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups. Even the overwhelming choice that the Sunnis made to vote has been subverted. But all that this will do if it persists is bring the temple down on the Sunnis heads. A failure wont be Americans taking off in helicopters with Al-Qaeda chasing close behind. Rather it will be an unleashing of Shia anger, armed by the US, with American special forces still chasing Sunni militants in Anbar. The Arab, largely Sunni, world wants to see an American defeat, but what it will do is bring even more suffering to those they support.

I dont support such an outcome, but the US should be very careful not to push Sadr too far away from the government. The real preponderance of political and military power should remain in the government if the seats of power are to hold. Right now I see that as very likely unless the US attacks Sadr.

Looking at the people who got us into this mess, I'm amazed at how dumb such smart people were (not W. W started out dumb and it's been down hill from there.) Regardless of being lft right or center, the whole war was botched from the start. From Franks, who hadn't the spine to stand up to Rumsfield, from Bremmer, who was totally clueless, to the basic premise pushed forward by Wolfowitz, Cheaeny, and Perl. Democracy cannot be imposed at the point of a gun.

Call the violence in Iraq whatever you want, I'll call it a crime and were there any justice, the cast of characters mentioned above would be in the dock.

Civil or un-Civil war!

Either way you look at it, the emphasis is being shifted away from how the U.S.A., acting illegally, broke and possibly destroyed the once sovereign nation of Iraq, whereby upsetting the balance in the Middle-East forever.

No matter which camp you are in, shifting the responsibility of the Iraq problem to the people of Iraq would be unfair. Had any other nation done to Iraq what the U.S.A. has done, the U.S.A. would have been in the Security Council of the United Nations screaming bloody murder. Subsequently we would have attacked them, just as we did when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait!

Why isn't the world talking about the innocuous behavior of the U.S.A.? And how come the world is not discussing sanctions that should be brought against the U.S.A. for causing this problem in Iraq, if not ordering and evicting the U.S.A. from Iraq's borders? And why aren't Americans calling for madman George Bush to be impeached?

When Bush finally decides to cut-and-run from the mess that he made in Iraq, he will then call it a civil war explaining that the U.S.A. cannot do anything in the midst of a civil war; he will then use the civil war explanaiton for a pre-text to get out of there.

He doesn't want to leave there yet, he still has a slither of hope in terms of controlling the scenario, as well as the power vacuum in the middle-east; besides he has not received permission from Israel to leave yet, I suspect!

I have a copy of the "Dictionary of Military Terms" put out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the term Civil War is not in the book. However "Black' Law Dictionary" Defines it as, "An internal armed conflict between people of the same nation". By the latter definition, Iraq is a civil War. I'll go with the law dictionary and call it a Civil War.
However, the basic point is we do not have enough troops in Iraq to provide any security for the Iraq people, and the well is dry when it comes to troops. They don't even have enough troops to provide a decent rotation schedule for the people we have there. I heard yesterday on Lou Dobbs that the repair facilites for army equipment is not working overtime on repairs. Our people are going over there with less and less equipment. This administration is making war on the cheap, and it is costing lives. Our troops there getting are getting killed, just so Bush can say he stayed the course.

Saddam,

...so in light of all this, was Saddam truly responsible for the anarchy in Iraq or did he simply do what he had to do in order to manage it (the same as the United States has been doing since bringing down the Saddam government).

If the latter is true, Saddam was only guilty of doing the same thing that the United States has been doing over the past 3 years, managing an untenable situation and a group of disparate people by force!

Or, perhaps on the other hand nominalism has been revived?

In the meantime, Free Saddam or put George Bush in jail with him!

Let's not mention that the CIA, SAS, and Mossad are actively helping to foment the unrest!!! Let's just say that the Iraqis are violent people unable to fit into a civilized world! Let's just say that the NWO is and was correct all along! Let's just say that curfews and lockdowns are stepping stones to a future utopian society that will one day thank us for all the thievery, torture, death and rape we implemented in the name of democracy!

One thing is correct...People feel the Mahdi Army is doing more than the government! Their popularity has increased because they prevent terrorists from bringing down Sadr City. People now think they are heroes; they are champions!

Some US officials have called for Sadr to be removed from the political scene and the Mahdi Army to be disbanded by force with American troops if necessary. But the Mahdi Army, like Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, has long developed a local humanitarian effort.

Sadr loyalists hold 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament as well as four cabinet posts.

What's in a name?

attacked another country under false pretenses in order to gain control of OIL in that country.

They are busy die ing and fighting amongst themselves as that goes on.

They have not so much as farted in the United States...

Iraq is under attack from enemy invaders...

If you were going to compare it to WWII, we would be Hitler invading POLAND, or something like that....

_That_ would be an accurate portrayal....especially given the use of Israel as a Mussolini-led-state, and the trying to paint the Iranians as aggressors...when the US supplied the Iranians with plans for NUCLEAR DEVICES...so they could accuse them of building them...sorta like giving the Indians guns and barrels of whiskey so that the calvary could accuse them of being drunk dangerous Indians and kill them women, children, all of them....

It is so sad to be an American writing such an obvious truth, waiting for the police, fbi, secret service or some branch of enforcement to drag these vermin from the WhiteHouse.... and nothing happens. It is like overnight, the American Dream has become stale baloney, and truth justice and the American Way! exists only in comic books... how sad....how sick, how pathetic, and there are even writers here Archimedes and a few others who try to spray parfume on the corpse of liberty and say she lives in their fetid lines....

Phew the stench is deafening...