[aberdeenwriter]

Hi! You know me as an avid Kerry supporter and while I can't say I've switched camps after finding the website, linked below, I will say it has re-framed and forever changed the way I view this election.

The previous debates in the threads of this forum (draft dodger, war protestor, LIDS, Heinz, forged documents, WMD's and etc.) now seem unimportant to me.

Since reading a few of the analysis pieces and profiles I keep wondering if the Bush Administration's Neo-conservative plan really could work, or might a Kerry win lead to an American Holocaust?

The website has a slight 'left' slant:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analy.../0403anniv.php

However, it is pretty even in tone and lays out the facts (with citations) without hype or emotional sensationalism.

By clicking the link you'll go to a piece entitled, "Baghdad and Beyond."

There are other links on that page which will take you to profiles of the people advising the President, with contextual information about them, their relationships to/with other Administration figures. Their background, histories, their previous jobs and organizations and how everything fits in the whole scheme of things.

Here's a brief description and an excerpt from, "Baghdad and Beyond."

* The overall mission of the administration is to spark a process of creative destruction that will transform the region through a process of regime change, preventive war, and global democratic revolution.
Right Web Analysis: Baghdad and Beyond

"An overly narrow focus on the missteps and misadventures in the political quicksand of Iraq misses what administration officials and neoconservative polemicists call “the big picture.” "

"...in the right-wing think tanks and policy institutes, most of the specific policy discussion focused on formulating a “regime change” strategy for Iran, Syria, and Iraq and on bolstering U.S. support for the Likud government of Ariel Sharon in Israel--all as part of an overall strategy to restructure the Middle East in line with U.S. and Israeli interests."

"“The awesome power of a free society committed to a single mission is something [our enemies] cannot imagine. ... Our unexpectedly quick and impressive victory in Afghanistan is a prelude to a much broader war, which will in all likelihood transform the Middle East for at least a generation, and reshape the politics of many countries around the world.”

"PNAC's cofounders William Kristol and Robert Kagan have repeatedly stressed the moral rationale for remaking the Middle East as part of the global democratic revolution of the new American century. PNAC's two policy blueprints--Present Dangers and Rebuilding America's Defenses--both of which were published during the 2000 electoral campaign and charted the foreign and military policy course that the Bush administration has followed.

A more recent articulation of the neocon global strategy is found in a new book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, by AEI fellows Richard Perle and David Frum. Billed as a “manual for victory” in the war on terror…Among the book's proposals are: funneling U.S. aid to Iranian dissidents to help them overthrow their government; promoting the secession of Saudi Arabia's oil-rich Eastern Province; and rejecting the jurisdiction of the United Nations Charter, unless it is modified to accommodate the doctrine of preemption. According to Frum and Perle, militant Islam has replaced communism as the main threat to U.S. and global security. “There is no middle way for Americans,” they write. “It is victory or holocaust.” '

It's a fascinating and thought provoking read. No matter which candidate you favor.

[mikellanes]

What's more, there is little evidence to support CDI's claims that Iran has a “preeminent role in global terrorism” or that it is developing “far-reaching and accurate delivery systems” for deploying weapons of mass destruction. 16


But the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction or had close ties with international terrorist networks proved no obstacle to advancing the long-held neocon vision of occupying Iraq. With their front groups in place for regime change in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and having secured bipartisan support for their democratization resolutions, the neocons are leading the nation down the same path that has led to quagmire in Iraq.

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why they are LYING to get the nation in a war. Why lie when there is real evidence? Where is the real evidence, 18 months later and no WMD, no ties to terrorists, no nothing except a fixation on turning the ME into a democracy.

I have a strong feeling that If Bush is re-elected then there will be many more wars and many more deaths all throughout the ME in an effort to further their campaign, with no re-election to worry about things should progress much faster, I just hope it does not all blow up in our faces and we realize we can't just go in and terrorize any nation we see fit and expect the years and years of doctrinarian to not effect our efforts.

[chris v]

Hmmm... global domination through military superiority. Worked great for the Romans, the Ottomans, the British, the Germans and the Japanese. Why not give it a try?

PNAC are such a fun-loving bunch of party animals, too. They really know how to have a good time. I say let's get to invading now!

[Zimphire]

[vmarks]

Yeah, just ignore that Bin Ladin's representatives asked Hussein for training camps in Iraq, never mind that Hussein funded Palestinian terrorism, or that he also hosted Hizb-allah and other international terrorists. Never mind that Iraq has exported about 130,000 tons of scrap metal to Jordanian trading companies following the U.S.-led invasion, including SA-2 missile engines and equipment that could have been used to make banned weapons, according to U.N. weapons inspectors. The inspectors, who left Iraq before the fighting began in March 2003, said they are concerned that several sites in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction could have been produced, have been plundered. Using satellite imagery, they also have determined that some sites were razed.

There's a fire burning down the street. We can help put it out and save the house, or we can let it burn until hot ash rises and catches our roof on fire.

Or, perhaps we should consider the http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...vwath.asp?pg=2 -- read down and begin with the words "he Iraq war started as a fight to knock out a regime that invaded its neighbors, murdered its domestic enemies with poison gas, subsidized terrorism, and flouted the international community. "

But above all, I'm gladdened that this discovery of yours has caused you to consider new elements of the election, whether it strengthens your resolve for one candidate over another.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[B]Yeah, just ignore that Bin Ladin's representatives asked Hussein for training camps in Iraq, never mind that Hussein funded Palestinian terrorism, or that he also hosted Hizb-allah and other international terrorists. Never mind that Iraq has exported about 130,000 tons of scrap metal to Jordanian trading companies following the U.S.-led invasion, including SA-2 missile engines and equipment that could have been used to make banned weapons, according to U.N. weapons inspectors. The inspectors, who left Iraq before the fighting began in March 2003, said they are concerned that several sites in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction could have been produced, have been plundered. Using satellite imagery, they also have determined that some sites were razed.

Asked, did they have camps? Could have made weapons, did they have any? WMD could have been produced? DID THEY HAVE ANY?

Hey, if your cool with being lied to thats fine by me, whatever works for you...

So here we have speculation and could have's? Meanwhile N. Korea is actively producing weapons... Is GW too puss to attack N Korea who is a real threat and could harm us back?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Asked, did they have camps? Could have made weapons, did they have any? WMD could have been produced? DID THEY HAVE ANY?

The camps are factual. Them having WMD is factual.
What happened to the WMD?

Hey, if your cool with being lied to thats fine by me, whatever works for you...

Lied to? Heh, do you even know what your talking about? Obviously you don't. You are just repeating left wing tripe.

So here we have speculation and could have's?

AGAIN there is NO DOUBT Iraq helped these groups. NO SPECULATION.

Meanwhile N. Korea is actively producing weapons... Is GW too puss to attack N Korea who is a real threat and could harm us back?

mike I have said this before. When they have nukes, it's too late. You go after them BEFORE.

Had Clinton taken care of NK back in the 90s instead of just giving them a bunch of money and declaring victory, maybe they wouldn't have nukes now.

But it's too late.

[ebuddy]

mikellanes;Asked, did they have camps? Could have made weapons, did they have any? WMD could have been produced? DID THEY HAVE ANY?

You're really stuck on this WMD thing aren't you? I dare say so stuck that if/when they're found you'll say Bush planted them there. Please quit with the WMD ideal. It's lose/lose. If they're found, we planted them. If they're not found; WHERE'S THE WMD??? Almost the entire world believed Saddam had WMD, He claimed to have WMD, He threatened to use the WMD, his soldiers had chemical suits, there were camps, there was funding, they could've made weapons and had missiles designed for no other purpose. If we don't find them quess what, they could've been moved to be used another day? Maybe they weren't intended for use in America or on Americans, there's substantial evidence that Saddam was seeking war heads capable of reaching Israel. If you have a problem with evil Zionists why don't you just come clean with us too then? I'm sorry you can't see further into the future than one week.

Hey, if your cool with being lied to thats fine by me, whatever works for you

Kerry worked in the intelligence community at the time, supported the action, and wants to send MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ. He lied to you too buddy. Does that make you feel a little more warm and fuzzy? Does it make LIES a little more pallitable knowing one of the liars has a (D) after his name? Wake up brah, it's time for schoolin'. Even if he is President, do you suppose the majority Republicans will be kinder to Kerry than the Dems have been to Bush?

So here we have speculation and could have's? Meanwhile N. Korea is actively producing weapons...

Funny you should mention N. Korea. They're the ones holding hostages in the name of Allah right? Slitting throats, cutting off heads to influence elections and legislation, bombing busses, ramming airplanes into highrises, bombing schools full of children, Christian churches, clinics, etc... N. Korea has nukes. We have a nuclear commission trying to deal with them first.

Is GW too puss to attack N Korea who is a real threat and could harm us back?

Let's say Mexico came up with nukes, do you suppose China would march in? I doubt it my friend. This is a war on terror. N. Korea is not insighting terror world wide, terrorists are. I appreciate you being all hell-bent on immediate global domination and all, but slow down my young padiwan.

[ebuddy]

So...What turned upside down for you again Aberdeen? Nothing? Were you the one who claimed to be a fence-sitter 'til a couple of weeks ago? Just checking.

I Love these, "Ya know, I was kind of in the air on this election, but today I decided BUSH IS A CRIMINAL LIAR AND NEEDS TO BE TRIED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!!" kind of posts.

[vmarks]

North Korea- Bush arranged and implemented six country talks- US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea- diplomacy to lean on North Korea.

Back on topic:

PNAC posits a big picture view to reform wayward trouble area. As I say, the house is on fire, and they show a good reason for putting the fire out before it spreads.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
... never mind that Hussein funded Palestinian terrorism,...

Obviously this would be a concern to you, but it really is no concern to the rest of the world. Almost every country in the region gives Palestinian movements, including ones you call terrorists, money. Not the least, the US's big buddy Saudi Arabia. Very many of us see the Palestinian resistance as justified. Most of our states turn a blind eye. The US did not invade Iraq for its support of Palestinian terrorists.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Never mind that Iraq has exported about 130,000 tons of scrap metal to Jordanian trading companies following the U.S.-led invasion, including SA-2 missile engines and equipment that could have been used to make banned weapons, according to U.N. weapons inspectors,...

You obviously haven't read the UN report! The scrap metal that turned up in Holland came from missiles that had been destroyed as part of the UN-monitored destruction programme. Those missiles were known to exist and its debatable whether they even constituted banned weapons. In any event, what the UN was concerned about was the fact that looters had access to this stuff and were able to cart it away and sell it on the international market under the nose of the US occupiers. The US created the danger that the sale of that scrap represents.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Almost the entire world believed Saddam had WMD

That's because they all read the same document. And you can too. The UN reports are public domain. What did they say? That there was a possibility that Iraq might have maintained less than 5% of the WMD of it may have had before. Given the reliability of this information, 99% of the countries on the planet thought that military force against Iraq was not justified.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
He claimed to have WMD, He threatened to use the WMD

Bullsh1t.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
his soldiers had chemical suits

What does that prove? The firestation down the road from me has chemical suits. You think they have WMD? If I was facing the USA (a country that I KNOW has nuclear and biological weapons) in battle, don't you think I'd also equip my soldiers with suits? Wouldn't I do the same if one of my enemies was Iran?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
there were camps

Indeed there was. One terrorist training camp located in Northern Iraq. The airspace over that part of Iraq was controlled by the Coalition. The land was controlled by the Kurdish Northern Alliance. Why didn't the US shut it down earlier?

A lot of people BELIEVED Iraq had WMD. I was one of them. But only one (with a few arse-licking cronies) put his balls on the line and decided to kill 10,000 innocent people and over a thousand American servicemen on a whim. Bush took a massive risk in invading Iraq for what he BELIEVED to be true. And the failure that Iraq represents is evidence of the fact that a leader needs to be more than just decisive. He needs to be intelligent enough to understand the risks and he needs to make the right decisions. Bush's gamble didn't pay off.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Troll:
Obviously this would be a concern to you, but it really is no concern to the rest of the world. Almost every country in the region gives Palestinian movements, including ones you call terrorists, money. Not the least, the US's big buddy Saudi Arabia. Very many of us see the Palestinian resistance as justified. Most of our states turn a blind eye. The US did not invade Iraq for its support of Palestinian terrorists.

In case you had not noticed, Palestinian terrorism is international terrorism. Attacking Jordan, attacking Lebanon, attacking Israel, attacking the Achille Lauro, attacking athletes in Munich, using Iraq as a base of operations, coordinating with Hizb-allah in Syria. America did not invade Iraq for its support of Palestinian terrorists, Iraq supported terrorists besides Palestinians- but they were among the long list of terrorists Hussein welcomed. The fact that the US and Israel both contribute money into the Palestinian authority is to try and ease the human condition there- the fact that it goes to support terror in the end is a very real problem- as you say, your states turn a blind eye to this problem. I hope you sleep well at night, knowing you contribute to it.

You obviously haven't read the UN report! The scrap metal that turned up in Holland came from missiles that had been destroyed as part of the UN-monitored destruction programme. Those missiles were known to exist and its debatable whether they even constituted banned weapons. In any event, what the UN was concerned about was the fact that looters had access to this stuff and were able to cart it away and sell it on the international market under the nose of the US occupiers. The US created the danger that the sale of that scrap represents.

You obviously didn't read my post- Jordan, not Holland. The US failed to secure the borders well, so not only scrap but likely whole weapons pranced right across into Syria and Iran as well.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The fact that the US and Israel both contribute money into the Palestinian authority is to try and ease the human condition there- the fact that it goes to support terror in the end is a very real problem- as you say, your states turn a blind eye to this problem. I hope you sleep well at night, knowing you contribute to it.

The US turns a blind eye to the problem! It doesn't invade Egypt or Saudi Arabia or any number of other countries that support Palestinian terrorism. Largely because Palestinian terrorism is not the threat to international peace that the Israelis would like us to believe it is.

Actually, I have more trouble sleeping at night as a result of the support states give to Israel than the support they give to Palestinians but that's irrelevant to the present discussion. The point is that Saddam's support for Palestinian terrorism was completely irrelevant to the decision to invade.

Originally posted by vmarks:
You obviously didn't read my post- Jordan, not Holland. The US failed to secure the borders well, so not only scrap but likely whole weapons pranced right across into Syria and Iran as well.

I read your post. The scrap metal that passed through Jordan wound up in Holland. It was there that the pieces were identified as missile parts (from the UN tags).

[ebuddy]

That's because they all read the same document. And you can too. The UN reports are public domain. What did they say? That there was a possibility that Iraq might have maintained less than 5% of the WMD of it may have had before. Given the reliability of this information, 99% of the countries on the planet thought that military force against Iraq was not justified.

bullsh1t! Read the list of countries contributing to our efforts in Iraq. Quit being dishonest.

A lot of people BELIEVED Iraq had WMD. I was one of them. But only one (with a few arse-licking cronies) put his balls on the line and decided to kill 10,000 innocent people and over a thousand American servicemen on a whim. Bush took a massive risk in invading Iraq for what he BELIEVED to be true.

No, he was following on a mandate set forth by the former President Clinton regarding WMD's and Saddam's threat to the global community.
Clinton on Iraq prior to his initiating an attack

Again, quit being dishonest!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
bullsh1t! Read the list of countries contributing to our efforts in Iraq. Quit being dishonest. [/URL]

Again, quit being dishonest!

Countries such as Iceland? (90%+ of population against an Iraq campaign but ruled by an insane Bush asskisser) Spain? (90%+ of population against Iraq capmpaign but also ruled by a fool - fortunately we got rid of him and Zapatero pulled us out of that crap)

The only countries you got in your coalition were insignificant or ruled by a spineless leader. Not one of the countries had a majority of the population that desired an Iraq campaing. Who are you kidding. The Coalition of the Silly is a paper alliance. It is just the US.

[vmarks]

Back on topic:

The PNAC posits that the area in question needs reformation, and proposes a big picture to help the area achieve it.

It has changed how the original poster reflects on the area, and on the election.

What say you?

[voodoo]

So now aberdeenwriter is a Bush supporter?

I didn't read anything in that article that would have shocked me that much! Maybe I'm just too cynical.

[Cody Dawg]

This is a GREAT thread.

However, I would have to say that is has only confirmed and solidified my belief that we acted appropriately in going into both Afghanistan after BL, then into Iraq - because we wanted to prevent Iraq from remaining a terrorist regime that tortured and killed hundreds of thousands and because we wanted to make sure that we eradicated any home base for future terrorists.

How many times does a person have to say that the OFFICIAL label of "WMDs" does not matter?

How long does it take for someone like Hussein to GET them - if they weren't there all along? ANSWER: NOT LONG.

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why they are LYING to get the nation in a war. Why lie when there is real evidence? Where is the real evidence, 18 months later and no WMD, no ties to terrorists, no nothing except a fixation on turning the ME into a democracy.

Yeah, Iraq was a real nice place there, guy. You could go there on vacation, visit the sites, do some shopping, and enjoy the tourist attractions.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by voodoo:
So now aberdeenwriter is a Bush supporter?

I didn't read anything in that article that would have shocked me that much! Maybe I'm just too cynical.

He avoids saying that outright. It has simply altered his view on the candidates and is a bigger issue to him than the ones that focus on service records from over 30 years ago.

[chris v]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Back on topic:

The PNAC posits that the area in question needs reformation, and proposes a big picture to help the area achieve it.

It has changed how the original poster reflects on the area, and on the election.

What say you?

It makes me ever more vigilant against any signs of their success. Not the long-term goal of democracy in the Mid-East, but rather their idea for its implementation at the barrel of a gun. It's not logistically feasible.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
mike I have said this before. When they have nukes, it's too late. You go after them BEFORE.

Had Clinton taken care of NK back in the 90s instead of just giving them a bunch of money and declaring victory, maybe they wouldn't have nukes now.

But it's too late.

A good point, Zimph, but it seems lost on a lot of people. You don't just go and attack someone who can wipe entire cities off the map at the press of a button. Once they can do that, you can't stop them through such means.

That is, as you say, they have to be dealt with before they reach that stage. Otherwise, you get bogged down in real quagmire, not this "OMG Bush didn't have a Magic +5 Wand of Instant Nation-Building" crap we're seeing now.

[Cody Dawg]

I agree, Millenium.

However, North Korea is a little too close to China for comfort, geographically and politically. I think that NK is a hard one to deal with for that reason. I don't believe that there was ever a time when we might have effectively been able to go in there and deal with them because of China.

With that much said, squeezing them to death in other ways, like what we've done to Cuba and some countries in the ME, is a good tool. We squeeze, they squirm, then they start begging (or demanding) for discussions about their sorry situation.

I find it interesting that Ghadafi is now "reforming" himself. His son actually approached Harvey Weinstein about a documentary about his father. Weinstein said he'd think about it -- as long as Ghadafi publicly accepts Israel as a sovereign nation. (Ghadafi said he'd think about it.)

Ghadafi was once a target on the bullseye just like Hussein, remember? He was able to redeem himself enough such that we no longer want to hunt him down like a dog...Hussein had ample opportunity to do the same. He didn't want to -- that dictator mentality screws a lot of people up, it seems.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
bullsh1t! Read the list of countries contributing to our efforts in Iraq. Quit being dishonest.

Dishonest? In its heyday, the "Coalition of the Willing" consisted of 48 members. Many of them have now departed. There are 268 nations on the planet. Which means that the Coalition of the Willing has never represented more than 17% of the countries on this planet. Even if you took it as a given that all of the people in each of the nations in the "Coalition" supported the war, you'd still have a figure even smaller than that 17%. China's people alone outnumber the combined populations of the "Coalition". No dishonesty here ebuddy.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No, he was following on a mandate set forth by the former President Clinton regarding WMD's and Saddam's threat to the global community.
Clinton on Iraq prior to his initiating an attack

Again, quit being dishonest!

You should read the articles you post links to. Clinton specifically says that he based his beliefs on the UN work! Just as everyone else did.

[Zimphire]

The funny thing is, when Clinton was saying the EXACT same thing Bush said before he went after Iraq, no one ever attacked him like they did Bush.

The knee-jerkers will say "Well Clinton never did anything about it"

Bush was being ATTACKED BEFORE he went into Iraq for having the EXACT same opinion as Clinton had.

Heck some Dems don't even know what Clinton's opinion on Iraq was. I've had to tell them.

This speaks MILES on what this is all about.

Pure political nonsense.

[BlackGriffen]

Yes, the neoconservatives paint a pretty picture: a few short wars, and then all the world's a bunch of peace loving friendly democracies.

Then reality sooner or later slaps you in the face. The people of the world are not eager to adopt the American system whole hog, per se, and get especially intractable about it when told to adopt it at gunpoint. For the Bush administration's vision to work, they would have had to have been right - we would have needed to be greeted as liberators enthusiastically by the public. The Iraqi reaction was more akin to, "Yay, Saddam's gone, now when are you leaving? Soon, I hope."

What has happened in Iraq is more than just a minor setback. Because of it, we may end up making the mistake of propping up a strongman, Allawi, again.

We may no longer be capable of keeping the peace properly in Iraq. The only viable solution may be for America to let go completely - remove all troops - and get the international community, even if it means funding their expeditions, to handle it. Preferably, get Arabic speaking nations to do it, or at least help.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

BlackyG, I think you are exaggerating just a tad?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Back on topic:

The PNAC posits that the area in question needs reformation, and proposes a big picture to help the area achieve it.

It has changed how the original poster reflects on the area, and on the election.

What say you?

I bought into the democracy-promotion argument, which allowed me to support the invasion in principle if not practice. I even overlooked the WMD hype (and I called it hype at the time) for that reason.

Unfortunately, there's always that nagging problem of execution. Nevermind the obvious fact that you can't have democracy overnight: the Bush administration has ****ed up virtually every aspect of the venture, not just within the margin of error, but badly. They grossly underestimated (and probably misrepresented) the costs. They grossly underestimated the troop requirements. They grossly underestimated the depth and breadth of the resistance. They grossly misread the political situation. They didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. They alienated some of our most important allies, Turkey among them, as well as many of the people we were supposed to be turning against radicalism. Almost nothing they predicted would happen has happened. At present, they have no real plan - they've ceded major areas to the insurgents and are basically keeping their fingers crossed (and people expect Kerry to be more specific? What about the guy who's actually in office?). Need I go on?

As I've said ad infinitum, it's as much a matter of competence as ideology. You don't go invading Iraq unless you know exactly what you're doing, unless you have solid intelligence and a sound plan. This administration had neither. I have little or no confidence that Bush can do an effective job going forward. Since he'll probably win, I hope I'm wrong.

Does it piss me off? Yes - I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Not only has he not earned it, but he's gone on a domestic spending spree while trying to finance an intractable war. Call me disenchanted.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

What has happened in Iraq is more than just a minor setback. Because of it, we may end up making the mistake of propping up a strongman, Allawi, again.

We may no longer be capable of keeping the peace properly in Iraq. The only viable solution may be for America to let go completely - remove all troops - and get the international community, even if it means funding their expeditions, to handle it. Preferably, get Arabic speaking nations to do it, or at least help.

BlackGriffen

Let's see:

1) democratic Iraqi elections are coming. Whether or not Allawi remains is unforseen and unpredictable.

2) Arabic speaking nations? Are you sure?

Quoting from Dershowitz:

Jordan is the West's favorite Arab nation. And for good reason, since it is the best of a generally bad lot. Most westerners admired King Hussein, adore his best-selling widow Queen Noor, and respect his son, King Abdullah. U.S. President George W. Bush recently, and appropriately, praised King Abdullah for his devotion to peace in the region.

A few largely unknown facts about Jordan:


Jordan has a law on its books explicitly prohibiting any Jew from becoming a citizen, or any Jordanian from selling land to a Jew. It has refused to amend this law despite repeated demands.


Jordan has perfected the art of torture and uses it routinely against dissidents, suspected terrorists and perceived opponents of the monarchy. I'm talking about real torture here, not the kind of rough interrogation occasionally employed by the U.S. and Israel. Jordan even threatens to torture and tortures the entirely innocent relatives of suspected terrorists, as it did with Abu Nidal's mother.


The United States is fully aware of Jordan's proficiency in torture, having "subcontracted" some of its own difficult cases to Jordanian "experts" (along with Egyptian and Philippine torture experts). Yet the UN has never condemned Jordan for its use of torture.


Jordan killed more Palestinians in one month -- September 1970, known as Black September --_than Israel has killed during the three years of suicide bombings that began in the fall of 2000. The brutality of the Jordanian Army toward Palestinian dissidents and terrorists was far more egregious than anything Israel has ever done.


The Jordanian Army has deliberately bombed civilian areas of Israeli cities in clear violation of international law. In 1967, before Israel fired a single shot at Jordan, the Jordanian Army fired 1,600 missiles into west Jerusalem, targeting apartment buildings, shops and other non-military targets. Israel did not respond by bombing Amman, which it easily could have done. It responded by attacking Jordanian military targets and then offering a cease-fire, which Jordan rejected.


Jordan is not a democracy. It is a hereditary monarchy which stifles dissent, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Its democratic facades a legislature, cabinet, judiciary are all subject to control by the Hashemite minority rulers who were placed in charge of the majority Palestinian population by a colonial decision.


Why do Americans not know the case against Jordan? Because it is in no one's interest to make it. Jordan is an ally of the United States (at least some of the time). It is a peace partner with Israel (at least now). It is the best of the Arab states in the Middle East, but "best" is a comparative term with a relatively low basis for comparison.


Why then am I making the case against Jordan? Simply to demonstrate the double standard so widely employed in judging Israel. Nothing justifies this double standard. Yes, Israel receives American aid, but so does Jordan (as well as Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and other Arab states). Indeed Jordan receives, on a per capita basis, more actual aid than Israel, if aid is defined as receiving assistance in return for nothing. Israel earns its aid by giving back an enormous amount especially in the area of military intelligence and technology. The aid given to Jordan is entirely a one-way street that goes primarily into propping up its minority monarchy and preventing its Palestinian majority from taking over.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Yay, Saddam's gone, now when are you leaving? Soon, I hope."


Of course, the Iraqi people have earned little respect from the US and the world community - by virtue of their profound unwillingness to participate in the security, government, or future of their country.

They show as much appreciation for their undeserved gift of freedom as a highschool kid shows for a brand new Corvette.

The only things held sacred are the ones obtained through sacrifice and toil.

Everyone knows that.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yes, the neoconservatives paint a pretty picture: a few short wars, and then all the world's a bunch of peace loving friendly democracies.

Then reality sooner or later slaps you in the face. The people of the world are not eager to adopt the American system whole hog, per se, and get especially intractable about it when told to adopt it at gunpoint. For the Bush administration's vision to work, they would have had to have been right - we would have needed to be greeted as liberators enthusiastically by the public. The Iraqi reaction was more akin to, "Yay, Saddam's gone, now when are you leaving? Soon, I hope."

What has happened in Iraq is more than just a minor setback. Because of it, we may end up making the mistake of propping up a strongman, Allawi, again.

We may no longer be capable of keeping the peace properly in Iraq. The only viable solution may be for America to let go completely - remove all troops - and get the international community, even if it means funding their expeditions, to handle it. Preferably, get Arabic speaking nations to do it, or at least help.

BlackGriffen

Precisley my point. By the neocons own admission, Iraq was the country identified as being most receptive to and mostly likely to benefit from regime change. The fact that Iraq hasn't turned out the way they hoped proves that their policy for the region can't work.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:

2) Arabic speaking nations? Are you sure?

Mostly with two ideas in mind. First, it might get the Arabic media off our back a little bit. Second, they might have an easier time winning the trust of the Iraqis, given cultural similarities, a common language, and all that.

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I bought into the democracy-promotion argument, which allowed me to support the invasion in principle if not practice. I even overlooked the WMD hype (and I called it hype at the time) for that reason.

Unfortunately, there's always that nagging problem of execution. Nevermind the obvious fact that you can't have democracy overnight: the Bush administration has ****ed up virtually every aspect of the venture, not just within the margin of error, but badly. They grossly underestimated (and probably misrepresented) the costs. They grossly underestimated the troop requirements. They grossly underestimated the depth and breadth of the resistance. They grossly misread the political situation. They didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. They alienated some of our most important allies, Turkey among them, as well as many of the people we were supposed to be turning against radicalism. Almost nothing they predicted would happen has happened. At present, they have no real plan - they've ceded major areas to the insurgents and are basically keeping their fingers crossed (and people expect Kerry to be more specific? What about the guy who's actually in office?). Need I go on?

As I've said ad infinitum, it's as much a matter of competence as ideology. You don't go invading Iraq unless you know exactly what you're doing, unless you have solid intelligence and a sound plan. This administration had neither. I have little or no confidence that Bush can do an effective job going forward. Since he'll probably win, I hope I'm wrong.

Does it piss me off? Yes - I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Not only has he not earned it, but he's gone on a domestic spending spree while trying to finance an intractable war. Call me disenchanted.

Excellent post!

[Zimphire]

Excellent post.. full of baseless accusations, and subjective opinions..

[Cody Dawg]

They show as much appreciation for their undeserved gift of freedom as a highschool kid shows for a brand new Corvette.

The only things held sacred are the ones obtained through sacrifice and toil.

Everyone knows that.

EXCELLENT POINT.

Here's a point:

The spouse felt sorry for an employee and bought this employee a car in order to get back and forth to work.

This employee is 28 years old and for two years had ridden a bicycle to the job place. Has 2 small children.

When I heard that we'd forked out $200 for a car (it was not great, but ran well), I thought, "Bad decision. There's a reason that guy doesn't have a car."

Within two weeks this guy had been arrested for driving without a license or insurance. He did not show up for work 3 out of 10 days. Then, best of all, he ran a stoplight and smashed a car and was in trouble for that also.

All because my spouse wanted "to do someone a favor and help someone out."



Sometimes "helping" people is not really helping people.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Precisley my point. By the neocons own admission, Iraq was the country identified as being most receptive to and mostly likely to benefit from regime change. The fact that Iraq hasn't turned out the way they hoped proves that their policy for the region can't work.

Troll hasn't turned out the way we hoped? COME ON! IT JUST STARTED!

It will take at least a decade for things to fall into place.

Things don't happen overnight. And us "neocons" never expect it to.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Excellent post.. full of baseless accusations, and subjective opinions..

Posted by a man who has truly earned his title: The King of Nothingness.

Bravo!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
Posted by a man who has truly earned his title: The King of Nothingness.

Bravo!

You don't have a clue what that title means. I am the one that requested it.

And yeah, this post of yours was well worth posting wasn't it.

[Cody Dawg]

(I actually like the title of "King of Nothingness")

This is rapidly turning into a +1 thread...

...it's a shame because it was/is a great thread.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Excellent post.. full of baseless accusations, and subjective opinions..

That is, of course, unless you can read...

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You don't have a clue what that title means. I am the one that requested it.

And yeah, this post of yours was well worth posting wasn't it.

I was simply noting that you truly lived up to your title. That you requested it, makes it even funnier!!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by deedar:
I was simply noting that you truly lived up to your title. That you requested it, makes it even funnier!!

Totally

Very fitting.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by vmarks:
He avoids saying that outright. It has simply altered his view on the candidates and is a bigger issue to him than the ones that focus on service records from over 30 years ago.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Had Clinton taken care of NK back in the 90s instead of just giving them a bunch of money and declaring victory, maybe they wouldn't have nukes now.

But it's too late.

Yeah it's too bad that Clinton spent his two terms making America prosperous istead of making war with every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the middle east.

Quick question: What gives us (The U.S.) the right to dictate which countries can have nukes and which can't?

[chris v]

Republican rules of civilized debate:

1. If bad things happened while Clinton was in office, it's Clinton's fault.
2. If a bad has happened since Clinton left office, it's Clinton's fault.
3. If good things happened while clinton was in office, they're entirely to Bush Seniors' credit.
4. If good things have happened since Clinton left office, they're entirely to GWB's credit.
5. If bad things happened during Bush Senior's tenure, they're either Carter's or LBJ's fault.

Do keep up.

[aberdeenwriter]

If we awoke to a whole new world political landscape where:

Israeli & Palestinian hostilities had ceased and each had a land where they could live in peace.

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen et al, were no longer hot beds of dissention and terrorist activity.

N. Korea and all other rogue nations faced certain annihilation unless they totally divested themselves of WMD's...

Wouldn't we be safer and wouldn't the world be a better, safer place to live?

Perhaps so.

Would I, for one, be able to 'forgive' the "LIDS" and other transgressions and 'missteps' of the Bush Administration if said landscape evolved?

I think so.

I can see why the Administration and the neo-cons suggest we try to see the "BIG PICTURE."

But, there are still a bunch of unknowns which make me nervous.

You remember the adage, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely." What have we seen from the present Administration which suggests their wisdom and benevolence if they sat atop this kind of new world order?

What checks and balances would exist to prevent abuse?

Would a NEW AMERICA, use it's new power wisely, respect Islam and other religions and etc.?

Reagan showed us what can be accomplished by negotiating from a position of strength. But if we enjoyed virtual world dominance would we even need to go through the motions of negotiating with anyone?

What unintended, unconsidered (and unforeseen!) consequences would we face along the way? Wave upon wave of terrorism, the likes of which no one has ever seen? A coalition formed to oppose our plans? WWIII???

I think it's unfair that the Bush Administration isn't really telling us, in so many words, that committing to him for a second term is committing to the neo-con plan mentioned in the link which began this thread.

But, as they said, the goal isn't truth, it's victory. If the ends justify the means will anyone seriously have a problem with being lied to?

I'm sure the Bush team understands that a national debate framed around his real intentions would lessen his chances for four more years. People HATE change. Especially one so drastic as this.

But, now that we know his real plan this election boils down to this choice:

Do we want to preserve the status quo? (Kerry)

Or, do we take advantage of this unique period in world history to use our strength to impose a "re-shuffling of the deck?" (Bush)

It's a HUGE gamble.

BTW, would referring to it as NEW DEAL II cause FDR to spin in his grave? <wry smile>

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Yeah it's too bad that Clinton spent his two terms making America prosperous istead of making war with every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the middle east.

America's prosperity had nothing to do with Clinton. It would have been that way no matter who was in office.

That being said, the stock market crash that happened at the end of Clinton's term that eventually caused the economy to dive wasn't Clinton's fault either.

At least I am consistent.

Originally posted by chris v:
Republican rules of civilized debate:

1. If bad things happened while Clinton was in office, it's Clinton's fault.
2. If a bad has happened since Clinton left office, it's Clinton's fault.
3. If good things happened while clinton was in office, they're entirely to Bush Seniors' credit.
4. If good things have happened since Clinton left office, they're entirely to GWB's credit.
5. If bad things happened during Bush Senior's tenure, they're either Carter's or LBJ's fault.

Do keep up.

Bzzzt Go back try again. I don't play that game.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
I was simply noting that you truly lived up to your title. That you requested it, makes it even funnier!!

And I am telling you, you have no clue what it means. So you wouldn't know if I lived up to it or not. Either would the fanboy that replied to your post.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That being said, the stock market crash that happened at the end of Clinton's term that eventually caused the economy to dive wasn't Clinton's fault either. [/B]

What stock market crash that happened at the end of Clinton's term? The economy was on the up in Clinton's last quarter in office. It had only one negative quarter in all 8 years of Clinton Administration. The economy went South a few quarters after Bush took over culminating in the first recession in America since Dubya's daddy had been at the helm.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll hasn't turned out the way we hoped? COME ON! IT JUST STARTED!

It will take at least a decade for things to fall into place.

Things don't happen overnight. And us "neocons" never expect it to.

If it's going to take 10 years of shooting civilians with helicopters to make things "fall into place" into Iraq which is the biggest pushover of all the ME states, how long is it going to take to swing Iran around, or Syria? And if Israel is the last in line, how long before the Palestinian question is resolved? Frankly, if that's the timeline the neocons are working on, the new American Century won't be due for at least another century!