theloniusfleabag

Dear KK, Islam was not invented by Saddam Hussein. It's roots and adherence to Islamic law date back to 600-700 AD. God may forgive but religious leaders do not. They hold the threat of eternal damnation in Hell over one's head. Some believe more strictly than others, and Islam is probably the strictest of all. 'Foisting' does not sit well with zealots. The problem the west has is in thinking that only a tiny minority are zealous. That is like saying only a tiny minority of Jews care if the State of Israel exists. Or only a handful of Americans really care for the USA.

Dear Mr. Read, Interesting statistics. It seems that you are saying that the more 'Americanized' the world becomes, the more death we could have. Wonderful Ideal. Let's all try to be more like NYC, they have the most murders. More than war. "Become an American and you can die at an unprecedented rate!". Hardly a good PR campaign for tourism in NYC. CNN is exactly what the US (and you) are fighting for. Not 'democracy' and 'freedom', but the right of CNN to grow more influential in swaying public opinion (of you and your children). As to the 'war' on terror, if the US was willing to ever take advice, the world could be a different place. Better, I should say. They refuse to consider anyone else's input, however. To them the only thing that matters, is them. They have built up the world's largest military to make sure everyone respects this position. They have made a grave mistake, however, to possibly the entire world's detriment.

Dear KK, It is not that I do not 'get' the ideals being marketed regarding the US' actions regarding Iraq. I just do not believe: 1. The US is acting according to the intentions they state. 2. The ideal of democracy can be foisted upon a people that do not subscribe to the notion. (Islamic law, and therefore, to a certain degree, Islam itself being 'subjugated' to 'western' ideals. I have never stated that democracy is not a noble notion, in fact I think it is the greatest ideal that is bastardized by most every culture and state in the world today. The US is foolish to think that it can 'dupe the world' by using democracy as a tenet of foreign policy when they crush it when they see fit.

Dear KK, How much time would you allot the US to find proof of WMDs before you agreed or admitted that the US was lying. 1 Year? 6 months? Never? They claimed (without proof, which is their folly) that WMDs were destroyed. Evidence thus far agrees with this. How difficult is it to prove the existence or non existence of something that (is claimed) does not exist? Impossible! Still, one of the main arguments is whether WMDs had anything whatsoever to do with the US/UK invasion. Might I remind you that it was Mr. Blair's sole reasoning and trump card to use the threat of WMDs to disobey the will of the electorate and go to war in Iraq. Without the UK, the US might well have stood alone in squashing Iraq. To say that the US is fighting for 'democratic ideals, etc' is pure hogwash. The world knows it too. That is why few believe in the US anymore.

Dear KK, You seem to be missing about 754 resolutions that the US did not think important enough to declare war over. Is it because most of these 700+ were against them or their allies? Against dictatorships they were currently supporting? Of course, not all of them. My point was that the US, although illegally in Iraq, could have avoided a great deal of ambiguity, and international strife, if they had declared war. Further, they could have ended resistance in Iraq with a far stronger hand than they have now if official war was declared. They could have said, "If reistance continues, so will carpet bombing". They threw away that card before they even started. Foolishness. As much as I deplore violence, I can't believe the US(who adore violence) would toss away their trump card. I suppose I can believe it, though, since they have been military idiots since the Civil War.

Dear Mr. Read, Arafat should have been eliminated when Israel had him holed up in his compound. They didn't, however, an that can only mean one of two things. They are spineless and lacked the conviction to do so, or saw that they would reap greater profit in not doing so. I do not personally think that the Israelis are spineless. He is also not funded mainly by the EU. Even you know this. If you have done any research, you would know that he does not even control the actions of the palestinians, but rather takes the 'credit' where the opportunity presents itself. The Fence? An abomination in the eyes of whatever deity contrived the notion of a garden.

Dear KK, The largest known and confirmed reserves are there. Utter nonsense. The ultimate aim is more power and profit for the US, hence the support of dictatorships where US economic interests are dependent on squashing democracy. I did not miss Morgan's post, I laughed at it. Yes, there was a big difference. The US and coalition did not enter Iraq. They did not act solely on the issuance of a resolution penned by the US/UK only, either.

Dear rightturnonred, You ask Here is but one...Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his 'Party of God'. Fighting the Soviets, to be sure, as was Osama Bin Laden. But for what goal? Democracy in Afghanistan? Surely neither the US nor you could be so blind.The famous quote "the enemy of your enemy is your friend' should be changed to "the enemy of your enemy (and you) all owe the same international bank". When you say I must disagree, Mr. Farrius has directly quoted lots of undeniable facts. The CIA had themselves stated that the installing of the Shah of Iran was one of their greatest coups, as it was done for a mere $60,000US.If you are going to put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA to the truth, then I suggest it is you who twist reality to fit your perceptions. Do you think that the CIA must be lying when they took credit for the coup? The US has only US interests in mind. I believe the logic in this statement is that if the US benefits anyone else other than itself, it is inadvertent, as that was not it's primary goal. It's primary goal is to profit, not share.

Dear Mr. Hardner, I say 'botched' from the point of view that the US' stated intentions have differed from the result. I believe that you are saying that the result will be favourable to their 'unstated intentions'. To this I will not disagree, but will personally doubt. To state: Is true, insofar as the objective of 'peace in the region' will never be acheived by the US, through military force. However, the other objectives acheived are only as 'good' (or value-able) as your planning.

Dear all, It is my contention that the US has botched the Iraq invasion, not only in mine eyes, but in the eyes of the world. Here's why: 1: The lack of proper declaration of war. The US did not follow protocol pertaining to declaration of war. They used 1448 (written by the US and the UK) as a basis for war but did not formally declare it, thus avoiding the clear demarcations of fiscal responsibility accompanying such a declaration. The problem: no clear demarcation to end said hostilities. As we all can see, the hostilities have not ended. If the US (and coalition) had adhered to the rules, they could have said: "surrender or the tanks will roll again". Thus, the impetus to end hostilities would have been on the Iraqi Gov't (which the US and UK blamed for the origin of the hostilities). Howver, with the declaration of 'hostilites' being issued by the US, and ALSO the cessation also decreed by the US, there has been NO SURRENDER document signed by Iraq. The US has not issued surrender terms. This can only mean that there was no official 'war'. (The US chose to declare an end to the hostilities, an incredible folly on their part) 2: One can only assume that a declaration of war on 'terror' means that the terrorists were targetted, not the Iraqi army. Yet it was the Iraqi army that targetted for destruction, not the terrorists. As of yet, I do not believe a single 'Iraqi regular' has commited an act of terrorism. In fact, more US soldiers have been captured and tried for 'terrorism' (or treason) than Iraqi soldiers. I understand that the US was acting on laws regarding 'aiding and abetting', yet I submit that these charges are, as of yet, groundless. 3: WMD's. Perhaps it was folly for the US to use the threat of WMD's as the main impetus for invasion. The threat is real, no one can deny that. However, it is the manipulation of threat assessment that gave the 'proxy' vote on behalf of the American Public to begin hostilites. The actions of 9/11 beg the question: If Iraq funded terrorists, hated the west, and had WMDs, why did they not use them as the first strike? Also, why did they not (if they had them) use them as a last resort? KH11 is old technology. Yet it could read the brand name of a pack of smokes in the desert from space. The US has been less than forthcoming in it's 'evidence'.

Dear malgo, Metaphysically, your question is not specific enough. The causal argument has no parameters in this quote: All theories conform to this flimsy adage.Further, there is no such word (as far as I have heard) as 'fundational'. Perhaps you mean 'fundament' or base. As to the 'International relations theory' do you mean the principles of the CRF? If so, you tread on dangerous ground. Ps. you should have used the word extent, not extend.

Dear KK, and Sirriff, Mr. Kay is doing what he is told to do. He is also doing nothing more than the UN inspectors did. I doubt that his timeframe for research indicates a resumption of open hostilities. The CIA does not produce information for public opinion. I believe the reports supplied by Mr. Kay are to : 1. supercede or 'replace' the exact same evidence as found by the UN, thus reducing the importance and influence of the UN in the eyes of the public 2. establish Mr. K as a 'truthful voice' which the public can believe(even though employed by the CIA) The 'willful suspension of disbelief' can then move from Hollywood to the 'news' through the 'findings' of 'experts'.

Dear KK, Which do you believe the CIA represents? Right &wrong, representing falliability? Wrong all the time representing ignorance? Or right all the time representing omnipotence? I believe it is none of the above. They have their own agenda, mostly directed by the CFR. The report would have been a foregone conclusion, the 'facts and findings' added later to give it an air of legitimacy. The path they are on is inviolable, it is your path they wish to change.

Dear KK, Mr. Kay is employed by the CIA. The CIA is not renowned for unbiased, factual reporting. In fact, the truth is low on the agenda. Finding information is one of their jobs, to be sure, but first and foremost it is to find or create use-able information. (It doesn't even need to be true to be used). I would suggest that any 'evidence' provided by Mr. Kay to be akin to asking the fox about why some of the hens are gone.

Dear rightturnonred, I see the logic just fine. The term 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend' is retarded logic at best. I believe history proves this, especially now.

Dear Nuclear and rightturnonred, It is very difficult for many to fathom how anti-western Muslim extremists can be America's best friend one day and it's mortal enemy the next. I think that is what a lot of people are fed up with. People like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Osama Bin Laden, and also Manuel Noriega and Gen. Suharto, Marcos, etc. ad nauseum are funded and supported by the US, and we are then supposed to believe that they are evil the next day. People are getting fed up with the USA, plain and simple.

Dear righturnonred, your last post is amusing, and somewhat misguided. The culture of America IS what is destroying these values, it is not being done from the outside. Mammon is America's new GOD and all can see how the above values have crumbled before his power.

Dear Mr. Read and rightturnonred, Anti-US sentiment is hardly novel, French, or EU based. It is fast becoming universal. The media does not create, it is simply goes along with what is judged to be marketable, lest they appear 'contrarian', which would soon make them unprofitable. The 'truth' has little to do with news. As to the reference to 'sheeple', America have become the masters of that type of manipulation, for 'entertainment' et al, and media manipulation of said 'sheeple' is the US' #1 export. I find it hilarious that the media and entertainment industries deny their role of responsibility in affecting the behaviour 'of the masses' while at the same time running advertisments.

Dear Mr. Read, These 'terrorist elements' are called 'muslims'. I am not sure 1 1/2 billion can be eliminated totally in that time frame. The choices are: 1. confront Islam (telling muslims that Muhammed was wrong and religious [shari'a] law is not an acceptable to govern a country), and then do battle with those that oppose this notion. 2. Kill them all, Allah will know his own. The US has chosen to implement only the second half of choice #1, and fail to realize that by ommiting the first part, they become a factor in the cycle of terrorism. Which will only lead them to #2. As to the part of Iraq 'rejoicing at the liberation', that can only happen if they do not adhere to the teachings of he Koran. As it stands now, the most rejoicing being done is by the shareholders and executives of Halliburton.

Dear KK, Just for the sake of argument, (which has never happened on this forum before, lol), I was to say that Mr. Read may be correct, that Iraq is in better shape than before. Let us suppose (and I believe that this is Mr. Read's point) that potential US (or 'Western') control over the future of Iraq is a strong possibility, and Saddams future control over Iraq, a weaker one. Theoretically, this (according to Mr. Read) is the basis for the statement "Iraq is in a better position" for fomenting future democractic theology. This would make his statement true in the present, and he would hope that reality would eventually confirm it. Your statement, as well as SirRiff's, are also true. Iraq is a hell-hole, worse than before occupation, to be honest. The 'death toll' bandied about of 'hundreds being exterminated on a daily average' is a manipulation of statistics. Several thousand 'seccesionist Kurds' were killed in battle (brutal though it was) and their deaths were 'extrapolated' to fit the western media. For example, if 3,000 Kurds were killed (including Iraqi's killed for crimes against Islam, etc) then that would mean an average of almost 10 per day were 'ruthlessly exterminated ' by Saddam, and therefore none were killed in battle, only by 'pogroms'. The US is making some of the biggest mistakes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that should have, and have been, forseen by many others, including themselves. They just never learn.

Dear Ender, I was once a big fan of Orson Scott Card, and "Ender's Game" was in my opinion, his best. With regards to 'democracy' in Iraq, it is not possible to compare (as easily as Mr. Read and KK did) Germany and Japan to Iraq. Islam is far older and more entrenched than both of them put together. Besides, the US did put forth a plan to , for it was when the Germans heard of this, they decided to fight to the last.To say that Germany did not understand democracy? The Germans had a strong democratic process, and actually voted to give Hitler dictatorial powers. The same will happen in Iraq, should democracy reach there. The US (and UK) are telling the people of Iraq, "You will grant to you a 'democtatic' nation, but not an Islamic one". That will be the platform that will give rise to the next Islamic 'Hitler'. But, perhaps, that is the plan.

Dear FastNed, Well said. Israel is indeed divided and sometimes the 'settlers' have created problems the IDF is ill-suited to handle. And you are right, terrorism is an abomination. What do you suggest the palestinians try (terrorism was not their first attempt at defense) to stem 'settlements?

Dear KK, As the moderator had previously pointed out to Mr. Read, Islam is not a 'failure'. It is indeed the fasted growing religion in the world today. Perhaps the religions showing no growth could be considered failures, but that would not be Islam. Islam, despite it's fractiousness, still shows remarkable unity throughout the world. I agree that Mr. Mahatir is a lunatic, as was Malcolm X, Yoginatha Das, Osama Bin Laden, perhaps even Muhamed himself. I would also venture that Islam is, perhaps, the greatest menace to face mankind for centuries. Far above Judaism, but closely rivaled by Roman Catholicism, oppression-wise. However, as cknykid pointed out, Judaisim and especially Zionism, is not without fault. To claim that anyone opposed to zionism is 'jealous' is sheer idiocy. Dear KK, I did not read you entire 'interrogative post', for which I apologize, but for many of the questions I did read, the answer to "who" is Henry Kissinger. I would also request you research, from a purely Canadian sstandpoint, the names: the brothers of Bronfman and Reichmann, add to those names their aquaintances: Rothchild, Kissinger and see what influence these few men had. The results are staggering. Not to say that they didn't earn their influence, of course, but to where was the benefit of that influence directed?

Dear Hugo, Well said and almost correct. I have tremendous respect for the IDF and believe that they have one of the toughest jobs of any Armed Forces of ANY nation today. Not only that, they have taken tough moral stands against thier own government which sometimes has 'gone too far'. ( for example, the 'beating' orders and distribution of truncheons in 1988, where IDF soldiers were ordered to beat rioters, instead of shooting, to cause more pain, and less deaths. When the number and severity of beatings rose to certain untolerable proportions, one soldier remarked "What the hell did you think we were going to do with the clubs?") Still, though, the IDF tried to combat violence to the best of their abilities, while still maintaioning basic levels of morality, something that the government did, at times, not even care about. With regards to the rest of your post, this is incorrect. Glad to see someone from the right admit to the fact that they were, however. The US will continue to foster anything that further's the US' interests, no matter what means.

Dear KK, While I do not believe there is a 'conspiracy' against Islam exclusively, I wonder about the 'world domination' thing only when I read information from Israel itself. I do not listen to the rantings of lunatics, and have been personally criticised in The Calgary Sun by such a radical Muslim speaker, Yoginatha Das. However, this particular text makes me wonder. I posted it elsewhere but will re-post for you now. These questions were asked on "Ask the Rabbi", Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews. The answers....