Drew Bedson

And the Sand People once again return to the wastelands.

Quote please. Something akin to this. or; RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL Really? I don't recall any of them stating that any country should be wiped off the fact of the earth or that Oriental Nations ought to use nuclear weapons against Taiwan. Have you quotes? Quotes please. They are a long ways off from a weapon. Therefore, I don't see anything happening for a year or so outside of sanctions.

Point being is that those in charge of Iran have little respect for human life and, have already gone on the stump saying the first thing they are going to do is use them if, and when they get them. Therefore, you are corect, that the world would be a more dangerous place. Oh, and they don't have any public plans to use them defensively either. Last point, I really can't see the US trying to wipe Israel off the map as any sort of Leftist talking point rationale so your comparisson is very out of tune. Right and wrong. Iraq was a problem that had to be taken care of sooner or later. The opprotunity it provided in the War on Terror made it sooner is all. Iran on the other hand, can be dealt with as their object is not simply to possess nuclear weapons, it is to safeguard themselves against the influence of the West on their society. That influence not being invasion but rather social and political changes within their own borders. Using this nuclear furor is a way of getting attention and, a very effective one. As so many asutely observed, it is so difficult to stop an idea once it's time has come. What they want is selective 21st century benifits without the evil the West brings with it.

You are looking at it from a black or white point of view though Black Dog. You might call Russia Communist during that era but, in reality, it was a dictatorship that was given the opportunity to become that through the vehicle of Socialism and, had no similarity to what Marx ever invisioned. While many show the horrors of left wing politics to be Saddam and Stalin, in effect, they were not left other than the way they got to power. Then, they became your common everyday ruthless dictators. Hitler on the other hand, rounded up those individuals in order to secure his power as well. Then, implemented his social programs in his own way. Possibly that is another indication of him being left in that he didn't like competition.

Well thank goodness. Hopefully it will be either Wal Mart (with it's ability to deal with unions and such) or Haliburton who are also large enough to take this on. This will undoubtedly make Bush stronger on the hill. Win win for everybody!

Great thread Monty! I also believe Hitler was Left. Point being is that he wanted the state to be in control rather than the individual.

It's a political game played out for ulterior reasons. If Iran wanted Nukes, they would make them and shut up. It goes into regional and world relevence as they see a sucessful Iraq as a threat. Also to them, an Iraqw at war with itself is also a threat but, carries with it opportunity What are their options? Lots. They can turn up pressure at will in Iraq, making it more difficult for America or, they can use the same intelligence apparatus they used in post revolutionary 1979 to carry out assasinations and cause trouble worldwide to pressure the west for concessions. Hamas is also a tool they cultivate.

And my second point you found confusing. It was, to put in simpler terms for you to understand, the fact that they cannot see the entire picture from their platoon positions. That picture being an entire country's political weavings with things going on that they are not aware of en masse and so, everything they do is reactionary and but a tiny tactical piece of an overall strategic puzzle. I am sure they can tell you what is going on in their area of operations but, as for the overall political situation - no. You yourself, were unable to grasp it as you refer to my brief example as 'unable to deciepher.' There is a lot more gong on that bullets flying and to see it, you have to step back much further than a sandbagged Humvee and, without preconcieved notions and outcomes in mind. Much of what is gong on is Iranian influenced and, is tied into the landscape of Nuclear aquisition and concessions desired in it's place. Others still are the waning Al Queda influence in the region and the 'quagmire' the Jihadists have found themselves in. A victory in itself. I also touched on some other reasons for the US being there where they positively influence anti terrorism activities by other countries. That action continues to be successful and, directly relates to what is going on in Iraq, but is not a factor in a soldier on the ground's point of view. In that aspect alone, this action has been well worth the effort. So, to a soldier getting shot at when other cross region things are going positive, I can understand why they feel something might not be working. To you, with a world of information at your fingertips and your eyes still closed - inexcusable.

Good for you. I also have a conspiracy theory that is rather far fetched. Belivers in the conservative side of an already conservative religion conspired with othet 'intellectuals' of same to percipitate an act so obscene it would cause the USA to react. This reaction was a supposed win/win for them in that if the US did invade Afganistan where the planners, trainers and leaders resided they would become entrenched in a war in which the true weakness of the infidel would be exposed through the same tactics used against the USSR. The other alternnative was for the US to invade Saudi Arabia and other nations in a clear act of anti Muslim fervor percipitating the sought for street rising which would also in turn percipitate an overthrow of corrupt regimes that were backed by the USA. This would allow them (Al Qeda) to become their namesake (the base) and rise to power and exploit their loyal fifth column within the arab world. Along with the weakening of smaller governments they would , in a movement of anti American and westernism sweep to secondary power across the Middle East. Just a theory mnd you. It doesn't take into account how nylon washers melting at well below diesel temperatures disintigrating and caused metal to become unstable. Washers which are designed to keep metal girders and such tight so they can withstand buffeting from wind and such. Not to mention the uneven stretching from uneven temperature changes in the structures (concrete and metal) which they support. Especially after they have suffered a trumatic hit and extended high degree change under ever changing directional swaying. And, more than half the fuel outside? Quite the aim whoever was in control of the aircraft had. Were they trying to avoid hitting the buildings and had bad aim or, maybe they got enough in there to do the job? Noam Chomsky said it pretty good, actually he said it twice in two quotes (one I couldn't find) one of which was something like 'they're a big time waster' and then this actual quote which says the same thing The truth is out there somewhere....................................................................... ........... Actually, got one for you as a sort of test/partiality check if you will. Why was the Saudi family allowed to fly home right after 911?

Well Gerry, the point is that the troops are a part of the military of the USA. They have a voice when they vote and other than that, they are bound by Military law. Hence, this article is meaningless and may as well have been put forth on an Oprah audience. Very interesting. You have posted about five times on this thread and knowing that the troops (unless there is a simmering forces wide mutiny about to happen) are doing a job which right or wrong they are bound to do, makes this thread redundent doesn't it? So, guess we can all call it a night as you haven't really said anything other than what we know - '72% of troops think US should leave Iraq.' And, of course, the mysterious and ominous ranting of somebody who couldn't deciepher any of my post. yet, is saying ....... what?

What? You mean to say the troops are now in sinc with daily intelligence briefings in the White House and are appraised on how Iraq is doing as a whole in areas they don't get to see? How under the table negotiations are going with Iran on nuclear aquisition which in turn revolves on how much pressure they are willing to risk by ratcheting up their operatives in Iraq? Or, did you mean that the soldiers also have inside knowledge of how Suadi Arabia and other Gulf states are carrying out their war on terror within their own borders knowing the US is fully there to see this operation through? What is the essential briefings these guys are getting that allows them to dictate foreign policy in this war on terror other than through their platoon postition? Very hoping you can tell me. Otherwise, Monty Burns is the smartest guy on the board with his 'they all want to be home, who wouldn't?' observation.

So now, the President, Congress and the Senate have no power? Wow, soldiers rule! Back to work guys - it was only a poll. When they introduce democracy into the military, you get to vote on what you do each day. In the meantime - do what you do best - country, right or wrong. Back up your fellows and 'front towards enemy.' Now, the meaning of this poll furor please? My cleaning lady told me she thought the US should stay in Iraq.

He seemed to say it there. Now, to me, a North American who thinks America is the best thing going, I have no problem with that and, actually welcome his 'leadership.' However, in the minds of the people of the world whom are recuiting centers for Al Queda, Bush's leadership has a whole different meaning and is often used to mean ivasion, support for dictators who subjegate people and so on and forth. I suggest you have a look at the way North America is viewed by these people as it is from an entirely different perspective. His Lawyer said that the course was Quite true. However, people don't like to be forced and, right at this moment, the enemy is using fear against us. This guy is just echoing how much of the world sees the US and the message they are getting in their jaded world. In that world, Bush's remarks sound ominous and can be construed as Hitleresque.

I've thought about how to simplify what I believe wholeheartedly is going on here. If the teacher is a wingnit, which he might be, he cetainly didn't show it in this tape. What is there is him trying to show the students how America is viewed by the rest of the world. How their actions, which are, to us, benevolent and visionary construed by many to be evil and manipulating. The War on Terror is not just a military fight. The ideas that Al Queda use to gain sympathizers for their cause and recruits has to be stamped out as well. Many of these fears the teacher touched upon by showing how the US can, and is percieved by those who do not perscribe to them being the 'best thing that ever happened.' To people like that, freedom is not understood, yet, are we to hate them for that and call them enemy? It's like a war on crime. You don't go out and arrest people and call it a day. You have to also go to the root causes and fight there as well with ideas, social transformation and such. And, taking what Bennish is harping about, doing all that without giving the appearence of shoving it down their throats. Otherwise, you will never change the ideas they have entrenched. To a middle easterner who is not western indoctrinated. Being told that he is going to have freedom and enjoy it because the USA is intent on spreading it to him even though he is raised to hate the infidels and particularily the USA is akin to something Hitler would have said. Bush is also as Bennish observed, not compared to Hitler by him but, to a person who is about to recieve Bush's benevolent side via invasion, he may as well be Point is, this guy is opening eyes, and, from what I can tell, he's only getting kids to think. We are fighting a mind set that the enemy is using against us, gathering strength, recruits, funds and operating resources. Isn't it time we understood how the enemy turns people against us?

I do believe that I mentioned earlier that this tape, if listned to has no 'US bad' ranting in it and, should actually be required listening for people who wish to confront the world with an open mind. I do also believe that if one was to make a case for what many are - where the teacher is being anti American and ranting, to pick a better example. I'm sure that there are more indicative tapes as this one has nothing in it that is bad so, why the uproar? I only going by this particular one as I was instructed to at the beggining of the thread. As on the Left, some are correct simply by chance of position and not reasoning. They try to change facts in order to suit an argument rather than pick an opinion based on the facts presented. What exactly did he say? Transcript Now, did not Hitler say things like that in his speeches? How is a message like that which Bush sent out saying it was America's duty to change the world play out for other people across the planet? That is the questin Bennish is putting forth.

It's called understanding the threat and why it is a viable threat. Most people fall under the opinion that they are a bunch of freaks running around blowing things up indiscriminently. They are not. Each action they take is part of a whole with both strategic and tactical goals in mind. Very terrirfying indeed when you consider that in about twenty years or less, they could have controlling stake in the economies of most of the world as well as a first world military - and be willing to use it. I'm willing to bet that you think Iraq was invaded because Saddam was simply a bad guy or, that it was believed that he had WMDs as well. And the 'War on Terror' is just because a bomb goes off killing ten people here and there. That's not a threat, that's a nuisence. You don't mobilize millions of people and invade countries for a nuisence. You don't listen to the tape, why does it not surprise me you don't read my posts as well? Their philosophy is correct given their goal - to bring an Arab people out of the eight centuries long doldrum they have been under and make them the biggest force in the world both economicly, politically and militarily. All by fire and sword. Now, if you are poor shmuck living in a dirty village in Yemen of whatever, what has more appeal - being 'Son of Saladine' and cleansing the world by fire and sword inthe name of Allah or - living in a dirt hut and shitting in a hole in the ground? Last time. Just listen to the frickin' tape. He explains, like Chomsky does quite often, how others see actions of the US. He is not saying those actions are right, wrong, indifferent but opening minds up to the prism of others as they see actions. He even adds disclaimers as he goes along stating how he is expousing no personal view point and, while I'm willing to bet he voted Democrat last election, I'm also willing to bet that he knows why the War on Terror is importent and was not about oil, knows a lot more about it and it's repercussions than the 'Iraq had WMDs' and 'connected with 911' morons.

I don't believe it. I spent a couple of hours early this morning talking with a guy who hasn't even bothered to listen to the tape. At the end of the tape, he says that he is glad they asked all those questions as it indicates they have an understanding on globalisation and the cause and effect. Then, he goes onto say how they will be doing an entire segment on globalisation and how the world shrinks over time. And then the tape ends as he teaches that segment I assume. here is some advice to all - Listen to the tape in it's entirety. He did not compare Bush with Hitler though. He compared the way the messages were recieved by the public to be similar to how Nazi propaganda was recieved. And, if you bother to download the tape, which you obviously have not and listen to it, he even says he is not. He also makes no derrogatory remark against Bush.

Listened to it. I respect Sean a lot and do listen to him but here, he is mongering up the wrong tree. And, if right, picked the wrong tape to use as an example of a left wing teacher slamming his views down kids throats. It's a good thing that I'm not a teacher otherwise I might say that I can understand why Al Queda has a following and in their part of the world, believe they have legitimate grips and their philosophy is correct. And furthermore, if I were a poor Arab youth with no hope or looking for a purpose in life might take on their cause as it is to them, a very logical and noble cause. But I'm not from there. I don't want to lose so they can win. This is the part that so many people miss. They are not stupid, not insane, not lost, not morons. They can win this war if we don't recognize how serious the threat is. However, I'm from the west. I understand these people can win and don't want them to. Basicly, it comes down to a clash of civilizations and the invasion of Iraq was a visionary step to beggining the War on Terror and pushing back this enemy. Promoting ours and pushing back the one they hope to drop down on us. Hence, we have to win this and, if we don't understand why they want to, then how can we hope to fight them? Dogmatic 'them bad. us good' is not a policy that people can follow unless they are robots. It is a war of ideas, even under all the hidious horror and military might it all comes down to simple ideas. Ours are better and, without people like this guy, nobody will have any clue as to how the enemy might look at us.

Ya did. Were they training to do what they normally do and hold people as hostages? Or fly the thing into the nearest well, it doesn't fly does it? It just ...... kinda, well, it it just sits there doesn't it? Hey look. I don't say Saddam never knew terrorists, never said he didn't enjoy 911. However, I do say that Al Queda would be one sorry assed bunch of people if they conspired with him in any form with this. It would be kind of like phoning up Revenue Canada to ask if it was ok to claim your one eyed and deaf dog as a watch dog. Totally useless and, very risky considering the secrecy involved and the way Saddam operated. The chances of him using that as an 'in' to get sanctions lifted are pretty good. Or, if you prefer not good, they were there. And, if you don't prefer, the way Al Queda, after all the effort and preparations they had gone through to risk that are like driving drunk through downtown Toronto at three am on a Sunday morning. Probably won't get caught but, chances so good that why bother when there really isn't any need to?

Class was globalization. US domination is not an evil thing considering they are the most sucessful country on the planet and are required to keep people like Saddam from dominating the globe in a reign of terror. Bennish did not utter anything that hated America. Rather he was telling students not to accept what was given to them by news and government but to look at it through a point of view of the eastern world. The facts he gave on interference in the latin world along with the reality that the US did supply weapons to Iraq and Iran to keep their power concentrated on each other were correct. That is not evil but an intelligent reality. I looked for it but never once did he expouse any view point from a personal perspective.

Start a new thread or address the one we're on.

Yep. Where is the 911 connection? I explained why every Arab and Muslim country has ties with Al Queda either by front or back door means, now you tell me why Al Queda would risk a third of it's first world operatives, a stategic plan and resources that took them over a year and a half to set up with an unstable dictator like Saddam that may make a deal to turn them in for a weapons system or trade sanction lifing or something. This was the trigger for the entire dream. Now what possibly makes you think they entrusted Saddam with this secret? What could he give them in return that they couln't already get with just being anti American ranters?

I wonder if they talked about 911 in any of those meetings. Did yu hear anything about that? Kadr didn't mention anything about it when he was home in Canada did he? The class was about globalism. I also looked for the relevence of the guy's tangent. It's there.

Yep. Allegations and visits from Al Queda are not indications of pre knowlege, much less collaboration considering every country in the world has or has had Al Queda cells operating in it. If one were to carry this a bit futher and seen how Canada is so weak with Kadr and his ilk we could make an argument of how Cretien planned it alongside them all. Now, go a bit further and involve some Al Queda strategy and Bush's vision. Arab countries are all Muslim, and, all Arab. A fact missed by most people when they view them simply as backward freaks. See, the Caliphate was the last time these guys ever meant anything at all to anybody - including themselves. Since then (twelfth century) they have talked about returning the glory of - THE ARAB NATION - meaning the Caliphate. Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq all have at one time or another talked of this with them being the Leader of same of course. This is the mission that Al Queda is on - to revive the Caliphate. To go against this vision is to pronounce yourself as anti Muslim and anti Arab. Quite the stretch for a weak government to take an active part in. Hence, weak governments of the Arab and Muslim world take a 'fence sitting' approach to it all. Part of Bush's vision was to stop this inactive yet permissive cooperation by proving to the world that the US would stay the course, unlike previous cut and runs like Viet Nam, Lebannon, Somalia and such. Let them know that when they make their choice, the US will be there to back them up. Otherwise, a world full of fence sitters and Al Queda weakening them every day by separating government from people in acts of terrorism. The point being is that they cooperate in a messed up sort of way. They have dealings with one another in official and unofficial ways that we in the west have difficulty in understanding. For an Arab to turn his back on an Arab nationalist group like Al Queda is a big deal. One that sets you up for a fall unless you can withstand it. Saddam was strong but didn't invite enemies from within. In fact, he played the Saladine Arab thing up himself to the hilt. To turn his back on Al Queda if they asked for a favor would be a problem he would not wish upon his country and would use as best he could. On the other hand, Al Queda is smart. Much smarter than people give them credit for. They've seen how Palestinian groups and cells were turned in by intelligence from East Germany in exchange by the Super and the great powers and they didn't colude with anybody that could turn on them later in some sort of deal. Hence, if Saddam knew anything about 911, it was not connected to the overal plan. the plan that took hundreds of Al Queda operatives, English speaking operatives with first world savvy who had proved themselves in battlefields to support, transfer money, set up apartements, set up transport, run to the stores to pul out two hundred dollars and then , undetected reconstitute it into hundreds of thousands of dollars to use for the preparation of the mission. This was Al Queda's mission, to risk giving Saddam an edge or a bargaining chip with the west is unthinkable for Al Queda. Ya, Baer's a moron. And Bennish is only asking people to think.

I'm a flaming right wing bastard and I don't consider for one second that this guy was 'over the top.' His comparisson to Hitler was asking his students to compare language, presentation and the way people recieved the President's speech to what Hitler used and how it was recieved in the era. Not policies, intent, methods or anything of the like. Saddam had squat to do with 911 and anybody who ever believed that is a moron. To play the other side though, Bush never said he did, nor did he infer. He did however, stake out the new reality that things like 911 predelicted that the lines for defense have changed. And, he was dammed if anything like that would happen again if he could help it. History has proven him a good protector in that particular aspect whether by luck or purpose. If you recall, Clinton introduced 'Regime Change' in Iraq as official policy for the US and was approved by Congress. 911 gave Bush the means to change the method and rationale of that to take place.