Spain pulls out of Iraq

[BB]

In WWII, Japan was heavily religious. Germany was heavily anti-religious. They became allies. Islam is both a form of religion and government that cannot be easily separated. The US went to war against Japan and Germany in WW II. But I don't remember Germany attacking the US at Pearl Harbor--What gives there? See any interesting parallels?

War Against America (WWII)

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of this controversy, nearly all historians do agree that (ye who shan't be named)'s biggest blunder, and the one that cost Germany any chance of victory, was his unilateral declaration of war against the United States.

Few people realize that the United States did not declare war on Germany at the same time congress approved FDR's request for a declaration of war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It was not until December 11 that (ye who shan't be named), entirely on his own and to the astonishment of his closest advisors, declared war on the U.S.

(ye who shan't be named) had urged the Japanese to attack America or its interests in the Pacific. He had even promised to declare war on the U.S. if they launched this attack but he was under no duty to follow through. The Tripartite Pact among Germany, Italy and Japan did not require this action on Germany's part. Anyway, (ye who shan't be named) was accustomed to violating agreements he had made. So why did he do it?

Pearl Harbor instantly brought America's outrage to a boiling point…but only against Japan. In the U.S. there still existed significant resistance to joining in the war in Europe. Accordingly, it is questionable if (ye who shan't be named) had not made the first move whether the U.S. would ever had gone to war against Germany. By some conciliatory message (ye who shan't be named) could have made it known that Germany's fight was not against the Americans and that he intended to stay out of the Pacific fray. This would have made it quite difficult to sell to Americans that a commitment in the European conflict was necessary or even advisable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afghanistan and its Taliban were religious. Saddam's Baathist Party (including Syria) is not religious and is based on the National Socialist model of Germany in the 1930's and 1940's (I am trying not to be the reason this thread gets closed--so being very "clinical").

The war the Islamic Terrorists (warriors, solders, freedom fighters, or whatever you wish to call them) are fighting does not believe that there are any civilians in this battle. There aim is to convert or kill the enemy--there is no other option.

Frankly, I don't believe that it is useful to try and treat the war on terror as something different because, in this case, it is Islam. And Islamics don't seem to have any major issues with killing each other (Iraq/Iran war, Shi't attacking Sunni (sp?) Mosque and civilians in Iraq).

And Pres. Clinton did not have any problem getting a resolution for "regime change" against Iraq in 1998 by the US Congress and Pres. Clinton even launched more cruise missiles against Iraq than Pres. Bush did in Gulf War I.

And how many UN resolutions did Pres. Clinton get passed in the UN before we and NATO got involved in Serbia and bombed them from 15,000 feet with NATO war planes? Was it zero?

I even have posted zn article about Iraq's continued support for al-Qaida using the UN Food for Oil program. Terrorists out of Syria have been caught with massive explosives and chemical caches (whether these are WMD's from Saddam--it is not clear at all yet) going into Jordan--they were not concerned at all about the possible death of thousands of Jordanian Moslems (who are some 60% ethnic Palestinians).

And it is not about "poor" Arabs... Osama Bin Laden's and his family is one of the world's richest families. Most of the 9/11 hijackers where from very well off Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden's own reasons for his war seem to revolve around events in 1920. Another quote from the article I posted on the first page of this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
In his videotape broadcast, Osama Bin Laden made two references to "80 years." The first: "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Later, Osama repeated the temporal reference, saying "the sword fell upon America after 80 years." What's he talking about? What happened around 80 years ago?

It's impossible to be certain from such an oblique reference, but here's a plausible (albeit speculative) theory: Bin Laden is referring to the Sykes-Picot agreement, which divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between the British and the French after World War I. Osama's prime goal is said to be the restoration of the Islamic caliphate, and the Sykes-Picot agreement may signal, to Bin Laden, the collapse of Muslim political and military power. Historian Bernard Lewis observes that the end of World War I meant "the destruction of the old order which, for better or for worse, had prevailed for four centuries or more in the Middle East."

[/ QUOTE ]

Recognize the names of any countries in the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

[ QUOTE ]
The Sykes-Picot Agreement : 1916
It is accordingly understood between the french and British governments:
That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the blue area France, and in the red area great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of mecca...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, whether it was 1920, 1916, or 1492 (conquering in 1492 of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada (southern Spain) by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella), the roots are long before most of us were born. If you wish to see what OBL has his sights set on, see some maps of the Islamic Empire.

To say that this war is response to something Pres. Bush II or Pres. Clinton did--ignores history and OBL himself. This is a war, an asymmetrical war to be sure, but it is war all of the same. No matter what we may think of it--the Islamic Terrorists are following a plan with an end goal in mind. And we ignore it at our own peril.

-Bill

 

[BB]

[ QUOTE ]
Muppet said:
I really think we should ditch income tax and move to a sales tax with exemptions for clothing, food, and rebates to the poor covering their share of transport and stuff like that. It's a lot less intrusive, for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters, I agree pretty much with everything in your post. But, I do want to address the above:

Income Tax at the Federal level has been ditched "for the poor". The bottom 50% of the income earners pay less than 4% of Federal Income Taxes.

In California, food you take home and cook (i.e., cold food) is sales tax exempt. There is certainly lots of used clothing (both through Goodwill and distributed for free) available.

Poor at the Federal and California State levels get "income tax" money back even if they didn't pay any income taxes. Renters get a tax rebate from the state of California (so that it does not go to the landlords).

Section 8 Housing can pay for much of the cost of rent.

Food Stamps can pay for much of the cost of food.

Public Transportation is, for the most part, 25%-30% funded by the fare box--the rest is subsidized.

-Bill

 

[Sub_Umbra]

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
Just one question for you, Dave.

[ QUOTE ]
Good or bad Iraq is not a war we can lose or abandon.

[/ QUOTE ]How do we determine when we've "won" this war?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very good question. While I am, by and large, pro-war, I am very much dissatisfied with the administrations rhetoric that the war is couched in. The administrations war rhetoric is just as crippled as it was 30 months ago. He has not brought the public along. He (Bush) has not even advanced his semantics to the point where he will say that we are at war with militant Islam. After 30 months the best he can do is War on Terror. That is stupid, disgusting and unwinnable.

Part of the problem right from the beginning has been that there is no cohesive opposition to the war. For 18 months before the war the only opposition to the war took the form of of the detached, disjointed rhetoric of the anti-Viet Nam war days with people saying things as deep as 'War is not healthy for children or other living things.' The Dems couldn't sum up the brainpower to start a dialog about an exit strategy. Likewise they apparently swallowed the nation-building-democratization folly without a whimper. We are now approaching a presidental election and there is still no anti-war movement or candidate to foster any kind of meaningful dialog.

In the pre-war months (18 of them) Bush obliterated the mamby-pamby, rag-tag opposition without ever having to draw a deep breath. We went through an election cycle and there was no organized anti-war offensive. Think about that. The Dems have no domestic issues at all with the Repubs giving perscription med welfare to seniors and wanting to give amnesty to all illegal aliens. There are countless other examples of the GOP completely embracing the Dems issues and taking them away for themselves. Yet the one issue that the Dems have, they won't make use of. We are now approaching a presidental election and there is still no anti-war movement or candidate, from either party, to foster any kind of meaningful dialog about the war.

As I have said, I am pro war. But I believe we are in real trouble here because without intellegent opposition to the war the administration NEVER has to bring any rational to maturity. A WAR ON TERROR? That is absurd.

I've noticed on this and other threads a real hatred for Bush and a willingness blame him for the war. Consider this. Iraq is no Kosevo. Bush wasn't driven by scandal to invade Iraq. Bush went to Congress. He made his case. They not only abrogated their duty to declare war, they voted to give Bush permission to wage the war at any time he wished. Then they voted again and approved the spending. Clinton never went to Congress -- he just did it. Bush crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is. This is what the anti-war crowd should be thinking about. Are they going to just continue to wring their hands and blame Bush for everything and vote for the same Congressmen who got us into this in the first place?

To those of you with a visceral hatred of Bush who blame him for the war, suck it up! If you don't like it fire your Congressman! There has been no coup! Iraq is no Kosevo. Bush did not drag us into Iraq! Your Congress did. Try to remember that.

Back to the original question. Because of the administration's loopy, infantile rhetoric I don't know how we could ever know we won.

I do know how to tell if we have lost the war, however. We will have lost if the vast oil wealth of Iraq is turned over to people who will use the money to fund an endless series of attacks on the West. We will have lost when they destroy our economy and our way of life. We will have lost when you go into a US courtroom and the judges are hooded.

 

[Nitro]

[ QUOTE ]
Muppet said:
The "casus belli" - the cause for war, matters.

In Vietnam, we had the "gulf of tonkin" incident, later proved to be a fraud. In Iraq, we have the claim of WMD.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Claim"?, Did you say "Claim"?
Obviously you don't believe he ever had them and actually used them. You also don't believe he could have hidden or moved them. Do you not believe in the holocaust either?

I keep hearing NO WMD's, NO WMD's, NO WMD's. It's a tiring argument that nobody with any common sense believes.

[ QUOTE ]

In both cases, the people starting these wars almost certainly believe that what they're doing is, in the long run, for the good of us all. I'm the first to say that communism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to humanity: roughly 140,000,000 - one hundred and forty million - people murdered by their own governments in communist or "national socialist" nations. Was the Vietnam war justified? I don't think so, but I can understand that in the big picture of the day, it made sense to the decision makers in government: fight communism here, so we won't ever have to fight it in America.

Iraq is the same. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia. To the Muslim world, US troops in Saudi is roughly the same as the Vatican being occupied by Norwegian Black Metal bands. We're really against everything they stand for: tradition, gender segregation, and above all absolutist religion and the fusion of church and state. Staying in Saudi will produce more terrorism and unite the Muslim world against us.


[/ QUOTE ]

One country at a time. One country at a time.

[ QUOTE ]

But let's cut the crap about oppression. We're in the area because we need to be: if we don't have a military presence on top of a lot of oil, our nation could be choked out almost any time. We're dependent on oil, and need requires control.


[/ QUOTE ]

And your point is?

[ QUOTE ]

America faced down the worst regimes ever seen on earth (Hitler, Stalin and Mao). If we need to use force to maintain our oil supply because that's what it takes to remain strong, I'm willing to say "ok." because I believe we are, in the long run, one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. And I mean that. If there was no America, the world would have been over-run by totalitarian states after World War 2, and 1984 would have looked like Run Spot Run.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more.

[ QUOTE ]

Hussein was a bad guy. I'm sure we knew that when we backed him against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and we (we == "the US Govt") just dealt with it.

Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Best buddies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


[/ QUOTE ]

The world is complicated place. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you go punch them in the face. Sometimes you might have to talk to them. Shaking hands with another leader is called diplomacy. It doesn't mean they are best friends.

Have you ever heard the expression, "lesser of two evils". At the time there was a war between Iraq and Iran. Do you think it would have been better if we sided with Iran? How about if we would have been against both of them? I'm sure we would have been real popular with the Middle East. We would probably have to go to war with all of them.

I personally think we'd be better off if we did. We are going to have to anyway.

[ QUOTE ]

All that I can accept.

But the idea that the Goverment plotted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq from Day One sickens me to the core of my being.



[/ QUOTE ]
Please don't get sick. It's not healthy.

9/11 gave us all the more reason to remove Saddam.

Think about this. Lets say you have a dog, and you get lazy about picking up his droppings. Then one day you find out a neighbor down the street gets sick from his dog's droppings. What do you do? You get Un-Lazy and REMOVE your dog's droppings.

[ QUOTE ]

Think about this. It's the day after 9/11. They're talking to the head of the CIA, and the most experience advisor on Terrorism the goverment has.

Are Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld asking "Who did this, and how do we get them?" No, they are certainly not.

All that they want to know is "How can we use this to invade Iraq?".


[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you know that? I'd like to know.

[ QUOTE ]

Think about that. Invading Iraq is the long term strategic necessity from their point of view.


[/ QUOTE ]

Removing Saddam is long term strategy necessity for the safety of the world and our country.

[ QUOTE ]

And, after the attack on 9/11, their immediate thought is how to use the tragedy to further that long-term strategy. Not immediate countermeasures, not invesitgation. It's "how can we use this to invade Iraq?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how do you know that? Do tell.

[ QUOTE ]

The Cabinet put their long term strategy over your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.


[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, the Cabinet created a long term strategy for your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]

Spain pulled out of Iraq because, at the end of the day, it's a war to ensure long term strategic objectives. We were almost certainly never in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them pressured the CIA to produce intelligence which backed up their plan to invade.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how do you know that? Please inform us.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not happy at what Spain has done in terms of encouraging more terrorism around elections, but having been lied to, I can't see why any foreign government would continue to support us in Iraq, or anywhere else.

A country, like a person, is as good as their word, and we lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually believe he never had and used WMD? Really, I'd like to know. If you say no, there really is nothing else to say. If you say yes, then the real question becomes, where are they now?

 

[pedalinbob]

note: this has bearing on the ongoing discussion of Iraq/WMD/war in general. it is not intended to be a commentary on any particular candidate.

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm



Bob

 

[stockwiz]

 

[pedalinbob]

LOL!

that is funny, stockwiz!!

Bob

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

It really is funny! (but sadly more true than false.!)

I do feel that while nowhere near GREAT (barely even good), Bush is still the lesser of two evils. And unfortunately almost all voting for the last several years is just that!

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
After 30 months the best he can do is War on Terror. That is stupid, disgusting and unwinnable....[protestors haven't started] a dialog about an exit strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, Sub_Umbra. Quite the balanced view on this stuff. I'm quite impressed, and find myself agreeing with most of your views here. Then again, I'm also saddened that we agree - look what we agree on! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[jayflash]

The mess in Iraq, our national deficit, deceit by both parties, and legislative gridlock are all, for the most part, our own damn fault. 50% or more don't vote and most of those who do vote are afraid to elect a third party candidate. So back and forth we go, continuing to choose the lesser of two evils, out of fear. Nothing will change until we do. I keep reading: "I don't like Bush but can't vote for Kerry." So vote for someone else and eventually (perhaps in many years) something will change.

The USA picks and chooses which UN resolutions to take action on. We've ignored, for years, numerous UN resolutions that Israel and other countries have violated.

 

[Nitro]

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
The mess in Iraq, our national deficit, deceit by both parties, and legislative gridlock are all, for the most part, our own damn fault. 50% or more don't vote and most of those who do vote are afraid to elect a third party candidate. So back and forth we go, continuing to choose the lesser of two evils, out of fear. Nothing will change until we do. I keep reading: "I don't like Bush but can't vote for Kerry." So vote for someone else and eventually (perhaps in many years) something will change.


[/ QUOTE ]

I for one will vote for Bush, not against Kerry

[ QUOTE ]

The USA picks and chooses which UN resolutions to take action on. We've ignored, for years, numerous UN resolutions that Israel and other countries have violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Israel hates the US and would love to kill us. Although maybe if Kerry gets elected.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

A Third Party President would be nearly as worthless as sandpaper for wiping!

Neither side would give a hoot to help. UNLESS the 3rd party guy was CONSERVATIVE! Then that MIGHT give the right some nuts.

I'm not at all sure that I could continue to live in the USA if by some bad way Kerry won. I HAVE to vote Bush.

 

[chiaroscuro]

And what country would a Texan conservative go to that would be an improvement on the U.S.,assuming Kerry became President?
Merely for informational purposes. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
PlayboyJoeShmoe said:
I'm not at all sure that I could continue to live in the USA if by some bad way Kerry won. I HAVE to vote Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]Man, Playboy. Sounds like you know some seriously scary things about Kerry. I think to make yourself feel better, maybe you should learn more about Bush? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

OK... so about Spain pulling out....

 

[jayflash]

Is Spain's pulling out early considered a premature evacuation? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

 

[pedalinbob]

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
Is Spain's pulling out early considered a premature evacuation? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!!!!

i guess that based upon what some consider we are doing to Iraq, the term "pull out" is appropriate?

kidding!

back to your regularly scheduled bickering....

Bob

 

[Sub_Umbra]

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
After 30 months the best he can do is War on Terror. That is stupid, disgusting and unwinnable....[protestors haven't started] a dialog about an exit strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, Sub_Umbra. Quite the balanced view on this stuff. I'm quite impressed, and find myself agreeing with most of your views here. Then again, I'm also saddened that we agree - look what we agree on! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words Darell.

I really believe that there are some good reasons for this war and as you've probably figured out, I'm really bummed that there is no dialog on this. I'm not a Republican. I blame both parties for this. Dialog takes two.

The administration will never do a better job of explaining their policies because they don't have to. They are not on the defensive because there is no cohesive opposition to their vague rhetoric.

The system is designed so that the opposition keeps the administration on their toes. That is good for everyone. It sharpens the rhetoric on both sides. It brings the populace up to speed on the real issues which in turn tends to make the dialog tighter still.

In a nutshell, my point is that the system is broken. There is no opposition party. There is no cohesive opposition movement in the public sector either. I would hope that some day the left will see that emotional attacks by Ed Asner, Sean Penn and Martin Sheen only used up the very limited, valuable seconds of face time that is allotted by the networks for coverage of decent. Look back at what those people said in the last 30 months with the face time that they have squandered. There were real things that they could have said that would have helped force an intelligent dialog on the administration, whether they liked it or not. Instead the big lefty stars played right into Bush's hands, used up all of the face time and guaranteed that Bush would not have to justify his actions.

For one brief moment, Jeneane Girafalo lurched into the truth when she said that opponents of the war were being marginalized by the administration, and then she lapsed right back into the standard emotional gibberish. While she was right about the marginalization, she failed to see that it was because she and her friends were taking up all of the face time and had nothing to say. Like the other outspoken members of her industry she never thought to mention an exit strategy, or the fact that Iraq would be almost impossible to democratize because they lack the prerequisites. (A strong opposition party being just one of the missing parts in Iraq, ironically)

I am pro-war and pro-dialog. I believe that the war effort would be more efficient and have taken a different tack if a meaningful dialog existed. If things keep going the way they are now, Bush will never have to clarify anything he's said in the last 30 months -- unless it all blows up in his (our) face. It's a shame. The system is broken. It is hurting all of us, no matter what side of this issue you are on.

I guess that was...kind of a big nutshell...

EDIT:Spellin

 

[Muppet]

Nitro,

Ok, I'll keep this brief.

Hussein had WMD before the first gulf war. We have **NO** evidence that he had WMD immediately before the invasion.

Evidence.

None.

We haven't even found solid evidence of manufacture or the facilities for manufacture. Zero.

Could be we scared him badly enough the first time around that he didn't try it again, or the new theory is that the folks involved reported to Hussein that they were making progress, but in fact they did diddly squat because they didn't have the resources. Who knows? Either way, no weapons, no signs of manufacture of weapons, and that stuff stinks for a long, long, long time.

Secondly, Iraq has never been a sponsor of state terrorism, as far as I know. I've seen no claims to that effect, certainly not one with evidence. What you're saying reads to me as "John Shot Fred, Let's Arrest David." Al Qaeda **hated** Hussein because he suppressed radical islam inside Iraq ruthlessly, bloodily and violently, and there's no evidence they ever cooperated.

You've said, various times, various ways "Removing Saddam Was Necessary For Our Safety". There is no evidence I am aware of that Hussein represented any credible threat to the USA, or our interests abroad. His fangs were pulled pretty well the first time.

Finally, you ask how I know what Bush and Rumsfeld were doing the day after 9/11. The answer is that Richard Clarke, terrorism advisor to four presidents, just went on the record with those statements, and has not at this time been discredited, or even refuted.

He was there, he says that's what was said and done.

I don't think there's much point in discussing this further. You are very clearly of the opinion that what the government has done is all well and good, and appear to have an unshakable faith in G. W. Bush.

In the face of the current evidence against Bush, I can only interpret that as faith, which is clearly beyond my understanding.

 

[zorba]

Well said...

 

[Muppet]

The media has been asked not to show pictures of returning American dead. Instructed might be closer to the mark.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/index.htm

Those, right there, are American citizens who died fighting a war to safeguard us from a threat which, as far as evidence goes, never existed.

I was somewhat ambivalent about the war in Iraq right up until Richard Clarke's testimony. He really made it pretty clear how the cookie crumbled, where our leaders stand, and why they can no longer be trusted.