Pound for pound, Saudi Arabi is the richest country in the world because the oil fields are owned as a co-op -- every citizen there gets a kickback in the form of a paycheck.
Jason, your comments are spot on. I don't know what Rym was thinking. Saudia Arabia, the richest country in the gulf, has spent millions of dollars supporting terrorism. Heck, Osama was one of the richest people in Saudia Arabia.
This may come as a surprise, but for many religion runs deeper than money. That's just a fact. I am against the invasion of Iraq (and was from the very beginning), but Rym's analysis apes the superficial analysis given in Liberal Studies 101. You can't compare the fall of the Eastern Block to the Middle East. There are MAJOR cultural differnces. Look at the muslim ex-soviet republics. They aren't exactly lining up for McDonalds. Heck, even in the "west" you have severe conflict. Look at Bosnia. You can't erase conflicts that are hundreds of years old by making sure everyone can afford Nikes. You can try for peace (by coming up with something that both sides can accept), but you aren't going to erase the tension.
This is why I'd rather you guys stick to geek topics. I love your show... but you're out of your league here.
One other fact to accept... as long as Israel exists, a large segement of the Arab world will want to see it destroyed. It doesn't matter how much money or western influence the Arabs have. It's just reality.
The funny thing about the Arab feelings about Israel is that they feel it's existence is an indicator of the end times. They believe it's destruction will bring back the (13th??) Imam etc etc etc...
It's very strange... read up on it.
As for the Iranian leader speaking at the UN... Muslims are allowed to lie to non-muslims, almost encouraged.
The pope was right, conversion by the sword is still alive and well in many muslim lands... As for acting indignant over being called a spade when you are a spade... I blame the press!
Too many liberals in the USA are living by the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra in regards to Iran. The same liberals who decry "collateral damage" when bombs are dropped have no qualms about the political "collateral damage" caused by allowing the US presidency and US prestige to be bombed.
Too many liberals in the USA are living by the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra in regards to Iran. The same liberals who decry "collateral damage" when bombs are dropped have no qualms about the political "collateral damage" caused by allowing the US presidency and US prestige to be bombed.
Booo. Poor analogy. We have the Constitutional right to disagree with our leaders. That's what makes us different (and in my opinion, much, much better) than the Islamic Extremists and the Communists in Central/South America. For all his populist rhetoric, Hugo Chavez is the same kind of dictator that we've overthrown countless times.
What really hurts our nation is the intolerance of the right & left for each other's viewpoints. 70% of Americans fall into the moderate category, whether slightly right or slightly left. 15% sit on each side of that in the far right or far left. Those are the people who I can't stand. They refuse to acknowledge the right that everyone has to express their viewpoints.
Damn, if I hear being Liberal being used as a bad word again I'll... something!(Damn my Pacifism)... Who thought that having an open-mind and being willing to change was a bad thing?
The government and the world need Balance and a sense of humor. I mean gees, in that video Apreche linked to, that one guy responded by saying, "Aren't you a Heretic?" Come on, you could have said a joke and completely deflated the argument. I can't remember what comedian said it, but what religious extremists need is a sense of humor! Then all would be well. Otherwise, you're just scary!
It infuriates me when people blame liberals on any issue in this mess. Liberals said "Don't go to Iraq until we fix Afghanistan", liberals said "If we don't send more troops and money into Iraq, we are in trouble", liberals said "don't piss off other countries because we might need there help in your ill-advised and seemingly random acts of aggression".
Because the neo-con retards running the nation at the moment do not listen to anyone outside of their circles, because the never, ever, ever admit being wrong about anything, ever, because this administration would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11 (which that idiot monkey-man still uses as a reason for the war), their insinuated racism, their fear-mongering, and because of their demands for unquestioning nationalism/patriotism/fascism/loyalty from a nation that is built on the right to question their government, are the reasons the nation I used to love and see as my own as grown to be one which I feel nothing for but venomous hate and pity at the same time.
Don't you dare blame any liberal or progressive for this situation. We did not have the power.
Itinfuriatesme when people blame liberals on any issue in this mess. Liberals said "Don't go to Iraq untill we fix Afghanistan", liberals said "If we don't send more troops and money into Iraq, we are in trouble", liberals said "don't piss off other countries because we might need there help in your ill-advised and seemingly random acts of aggression".
Because the neo-con retards running the nation at the momentdo not listento anyone outside of their circles, because thenever, ever, ever admit being wrongabout anything, ever, because this administration would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11 (which that idiot monkey-man still uses as a reason for the war), their insinuated racism, their fear-mongering, and because of their demands for unquestioning nationalism/patriotism/fascisim/loyalty from a nation that is built on the right to question their government, are the reasons the nation I used to love and see as my own as grown to be one which I feel nothign for but venomous hate and pity at the same time.
Don't you dare blame any liberal or progressive for this situation. We did not have the power.
The Democratic Party voted almost unanimously to wage war against Iraq. Check the Congressional record. Several high-ranking dems have since apologized for it -- ironically, one who has not is NY senator and assumed left wing 2008 presidential forerunner Hilary Clinton. She has in fact consciously made an effort to defend her vote.
And I'd decry ad-hominem attacks if only I hadn't recently referred to the president on this forum as "commander coocoo bananas."
Saudi Arabia may well be rich, but many of its people still live in poverty and are denied many of the luxuries of the west. There was also a long period of economic recession from the mid-80s until just a few years ago where per capita income dropped by an order of magnitude. I specifically didn't mention Saudi Arabia because they would have to be the primary and long-term target of these efforts, not an example of prior success.
Also, Saudi Arabia has a controlling majority Muslim population that by and large practices and believes in Salafism. It is a far different case from nations like Iran, where the majority of citizens are more moderate and where there are large and vocal non-conforming cultures like the Persians, or like the UAE, where there have been direct correlations between increased economic prosperity and a decrease in the observance of fundamental Islam.
Saudi Arabia cannot be dealt with now short of a major and costly military intervention that would be massively unpopular with the people there. Any attempt at occupation would be an outright disaster. A better strategy would be to help the rest of the Arab world, which is both more moderate and more reasonable, attain prosperity and stability. The Saudis would likely begin to lose the support of the populace if they were the only Arab nation to still be effectively a repressive shitehole.
Iran is a wholly different beast. A great number of the people there resent the Muslim invasions of the past, and have a fierce Persian nationalism. They want nothing more than to see the religious influences on their government wane so that they could "repel the invaders" once and for all. There is also a large and growing population of discontent youths, who have been more and more vocal in their criticism of their nation's Islamic leadership.
Prior to the US's invasion and resulting occupation of Iraq, these discontents seemed to have a fairly neutral view of the United States, and there was a good chance that a popular uprising could have succeeded in the coming decade. After the invasion, popular opinion turned violently against us, and the leaders of Iran were easily able to capitalize on Iranian fears of a US invasion of -them- to create a new sense of national cohesion. The unhappy people fear our military more than they fear their own oppressive leaders.
Of course, it should be noted that the Iranians have a great many reasons to distrust the United States. We backed Iraq in its brutal wars against Iran both financially and militarily. We've systematically destabilized two of their biggest neighboring states, both of which we still occupy. We call them evil, and deny them technology that we ourselves use.
(Note that I am not in any way backing their drive toward nuclear weapons, and indeed I support intervention in order to prevent it from happening. I merely wish to put forth many of the reasons the people of Iran have to distrust and despise the US).
Afghanistan was at first a success story. The majority of the people welcomed us and our end to their totalitarian government. They celebrated in the streets. Much of the more prosperous Arab world accepted our invasion or at least mitigated their anger with sympathy over the attacks of September 11th. The US was riding on a massive wave of worldwide goodwill. We had clear reason to invade, a populace that was somewhat receptive to the idea, and the backing of the world.
By comparison, look at the invasion of Iraq. We had no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction, yet used it as a pretext nonetheless. The world wanted us to wait, yet we charged in anyway. The people feared us as much if not more than they feared Saddam's administration. When it came to light that there was no credible intelligence regarding ANY weapons, we suddenly changed our tune, claiming that the invasion was to liberate the people from Saddam's regime.
Granted, Saddam was a brutal dictator. He was not, however, a military threat to the rest of the world. His armies were decimated from years of sanctions. He had no caches of weapons. He was surrounded by enemies. Iranians hold bitter resentment for the Iran-Iraq wars to this day, and the Kurds have been chomping at the bit for a revolution.
There's also the fact that Saddam was a force of stability, an enemy of fundamentalist Islam, and a secular leader. He brutally put down any attempts at Islamic control of his government and abolished sharia law. His primary goal was to unite the Arab world in a secular and modern empire.
An invasion to depose him may well have come in the end anyway. There was no reason to rush, and the UN would likely have eventually authorized a joint action if the Iraqis didn't rise up first. Had we waited even a year, we would have had more allies, more support, and better pretext.
As it stands, the invasion of Iraq was an utter disaster. We angered the world over, failed to secure the nation, and are now in the middle of a long-term occupation with little hope of exit. We had no real reason to invade Iraq, and certainly no justification on the grounds that he was a threat to the United States.
Had the US not invaded Iraq, we would still have had the global political capital to militarily deal with Iran today. By squandering the goodwill of the world, destabilizing one of the few secular powers in the middle east, and miring ourselves down in the unpopular occupation of a fragmented nation, we've effectively tied our own hands. We're in no position to make demands of Iran, and a military intervention will likely only further remove the chance of a peaceful revolution there.
1) Do you even know what "decimated" means or where the term comes from? It comes from Roman times when a certain commander ordered every tenth man killed for the failure of the unit. It is a 10% reduction, not a wholesale slaughter that it is often misused to represent...
2) I purposefully pointed the finger at "liberals" in my above post to get the expected reaction. It carries the same weight as "neo-con" does and throwing that word about quickly allows you to find out where people stand politically.
3) Not invading Iraq would have sent a strong signal to the world that the UN is a paper tiger. We already showed our strength in dealing with Afghanistan.
4) WMDs were only one of many reasons to take out Saddam. Those who focus on WMDs are doing themselves a disservice and are often perceived as "anti-Bush" no matter what else their argument consists of.
5) I thought Saudi Arabia was a hot-bed of Wahabiism?
6) The whole problem with Iraq began as a misreading of the US by Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam had been getting mixed signals from the USA and thought the USA would not care if he took Kuwait, that's why he ok'd the invasion. I think he was surprised at what happened next.
We could have taken him out then but the coalition was against it. Remember the "highway of death" photos?
There was even a revolt by the Shia (who were expecting USA backing) but they were let down and were killed by Saddam's forces.
1) Do you even know what "decimated" means or where the term comes from? It comes from roman times when a certain commander ordered every tenth man killed for the failure of the unit. It is a 10% reduction, not a wholesale slaughter that it is often misused to represent...
That's a really sad argument, especially to lead with. The word is commonly used in precisely the way I intended to use it. Furthermore, the dictionary definition includes:
"To reduce drastically especially in number (cholera decimated the population) b : to cause great destruction or harm to (firebombs decimated the city) (an industry decimated by recession) "
The origin of the word is well-known, but so is the modern definition. Don't make pedantic arguments if you can't back them up.
2) I purposefully pointed the finger at "liberals" in my above post to get the expected reaction. It carries the same weight as "neo-con" does and throwing that word about quickly allows you to find out where people stand politically.
Neo-conservative is a well-defined term describing a specific political ideology. Calling someone a "neo-conservative" who professes to that ideology is no different than calling a Catholic a Catholic or a Democrat a Democrat.
3) Not invading Iraq would have sent a strong signal to the world that the UN is a paper tiger. We already showed our strength in dealing with Afghanistan.
And we showed our weakness in dealing with Iraq. No one denies that the UN is a paper tiger. The important point was not to get the support of the UN itself, but to get the support of other nations. Iraq did nothing different from what it had been doing for years, and suddenly we decide to invade with no clear substantiated reason?
4) WMDs were only one of many reasons to take out Saddam. Those who focus on WMDs are doing themselves a disservice and are often perceived as "anti-Bush" no matter what else their argument consists of.
WMDs were the sole given reason in the run-up to the war. Read all of Bush's speeches and arguments for the war, and the sole argument is the danger Saddam's weapons presented to the United States and its allies. There was practically no talk at all about any other reasons for the invasion until after the weapons were not found. Suddenly, Bush's speeches talked about liberating the Iraqi people instead.
There's also the problem that much of the evidence Bush used to prove his case for war was shown to have been known faulty long before I was used.
5) I thought Saudi Arabia was a hot-bed of Wahabiism?
Wahhabism and Salafism are essentially the same thing, and both terms are often used interchangeably. Adherents in Saudi Arabia prefer the latter term, so that is what I use.
6) The whole problem with Iraq began as a misreading of the US by Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam had been getting mixed signals from the USA and thought the USA would not care if he took Kuwait, that's why he ok'd the invasion. I think he was surprised at what happened next.
No. The whole problem with Iraq (at least in modern terms) stems from US involvement in backing Iraq against Iran long before the Gulf War. Saddam came to power after a turbulent time of revolutions within Iraq, and we tried to leverage him against our enemies in Iran, leading to a massive and tragic war between the two powers. This is not to even speak of the problems stemming from earlier interference in Iraq by colonial forces.
To say that the Iraq problem began with the invasion of Kuwait is just silly, and ignores the greater history of our involvement there.
We could have taken him out then but the coalition was against it. Remember the "highway of death" photos?
Why do you think we didn't? For one, Bush Sr. and the military command at the time knew full well that a total collapse of the regime would lead to a long and tireless occupation, much like what we're mired in today. We also would have had to fight a still powerful military struck in a defensive posture. It would have destabilized the region and lead to chaos. Bush Sr. spoke at length about these reasons for choosing not to "finish the job."
There was even a revolt by the Shia (who were expecting USA backing) but they were let down and were killed by Saddam's forces.
We've encouraged revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and many other nations over the years, often failing to provide promised support at the last minute and causing the needless deaths of many people.
I love political arguments more than anything. Religion and philosophy are had to debate for obvious reasons. Debates about culture or gaming or anime are never very heated and usually come down to taste.
But politics! We all have the same information, and we're all watching the same world. Unless you claim that Bill Clinton was actually a Dragon, or that god is manipulating George Bush's actions, then you're all set for a good old argument. ^_^
That's a really sad argument, especially to lead with. The word is commonly used in precisely the way I intended to use it. Furthermore, the dictionary definition includes:
"To reduce drastically especially in number (cholera decimated the population) b : to cause great destruction or harm to (firebombs decimated the city) (an industry decimated by recession) "
The origin of the word is well-known, but so is the modern definition. Don't make pedantic arguments if you can't back them up.
Just because everyone uses a word improperly does not make it's use proper.
2) I purposefully pointed the finger at "liberals" in my above post to get the expected reaction. It carries the same weight as "neo-con" does and throwing that word about quickly allows you to find out where people stand politically.
Neo-conservative is a well-defined term describing a specific political ideology. Calling someone a "neo-conservative" who professes to that ideology is no different than calling a Catholic a Catholic or a Democrat a Democrat.
Much as "decimated" is often used improperly, so are tags such as "liberal" and "neo-con." Are you beginning to understand why I started the above post with those two points?
3) Not invading Iraq would have sent a strong signal to the world that the UN is a paper tiger. We already showed our strength in dealing with Afghanistan.
And we showed our weakness in dealing with Iraq. No one denies that the UN is a paper tiger. The important point was not to get the support of the UN itself, but to get the support of other nations. Iraq did nothing different from what it had been doing for years, and suddenly we decide to invade with no clear substantiated reason?
So... If everyone knows the UN has no teeth why bother passing UN resolutions?
4) WMDs were only one of many reasons to take out Saddam. Those who focus on WMDs are doing themselves a disservice and are often perceived as "anti-Bush" no matter what else their argument consists of.
WMDs were the sole given reason in the run-up to the war. Read all of Bush's speeches and arguments for the war, and the sole argument is the danger Saddam's weapons presented to the United States and its allies. There was practically no talk at all about any other reasons for the invasion until after the weapons were not found. Suddenly, Bush's speeches talked about liberating the Iraqi people instead.
There's also the problem that much of the evidence Bush used to prove his case for war was shown to have been known faulty long before I was used.
WMDs were one of many reasons. They were never the sole reason. They may have been the "sole" reason the media grabbed onto but they were never the "sole" reason we went in.
5) I thought Saudi Arabia was a hot-bed of Wahabiism?
Wahhabism and Salafism are essentially the same thing, and both terms are often used interchangeably. Adherents in Saudi Arabia prefer the latter term, so that is what I use.
No argument here...
6) The whole problem with Iraq began as a misreading of the US by Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam had been getting mixed signals from the USA and thought the USA would not care if he took Kuwait, that's why he ok'd the invasion. I think he was surprised at what happened next.
No. The whole problem with Iraq (at least in modern terms) stems from US involvement in backing Iraq against Iran long before the Gulf War. Saddam came to power after a turbulent time of revolutions within Iraq, and we tried to leverage him against our enemies in Iran, leading to a massive and tragic war between the two powers. This is not to even speak of the problems stemming from earlier interference in Iraq by colonial forces.
To say that the Iraq problem began with the invasion of Kuwait is just silly, and ignores the greater history of our involvement there.
You are obviously not reading what I am writing. I say this because your response is in agreement with what I wrote. Iraq was given help in fighting the Iran-Iraq war. When Saddam began to make his intentions known about Kuwait the USA did nothing. This lead him to believe it was OK to take over Kuwait and annex it.
We could have taken him out then but the coalition was against it. Remember the "highway of death" photos?
Why do you think we didn't? For one, Bush Sr. and the military command at the time knew full well that a total collapse of the regime would lead to a long and tireless occupation, much like what we're mired in today. We also would have had to fight a still powerful military struck in a defensive posture. It would have destabilized the region and lead to chaos. Bush Sr. spoke at length about these reasons for choosing not to "finish the job."
Again we are in agreement. I merely stated we could have taken him out. I did not elaborate on why not to except to point out the coalition was against it. Please do not assume more from my answer then that which I write.
There was even a revolt by the Shia (who were expecting USA backing) but they were let down and were killed by Saddam's forces.
We've encouraged revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and many other nations over the years, often failing to provide promised support at the last minute and causing the needless deaths of many people.
I agree. This leads to a loss of trust in other nations (towards us) as well as a fear of us sticking our noses in where they do not belong and causing trouble. At the same time... the "support" for these revolutions she be proportional to the amount of energy we are willing to provide (as a nation) to the revolutionaries.
If we are not willing to go "all the way" we should not be encouraging them at all.
Itinfuriatesme when people blame liberals on any issue in this mess. Liberals said "Don't go to Iraquntilwe fix Afghanistan", liberals said "If we don't send more troops and money into Iraq, we are in trouble", liberals said "don't piss off other countries because we might need there help in your ill-advised and seemingly random acts of aggression".
That is total revisionist history. You should know better than to post that.
That's a really sad argument, especially to lead with. The word is commonly used in precisely the way I intended to use it. Furthermore, the dictionary definition includes:
"To reduce drastically especially in number (cholera decimated the population) b : to cause great destruction or harm to (firebombs decimated the city) (an industry decimated by recession) "
The origin of the word is well-known, but so is the modern definition. Don't make pedantic arguments if you can't back them up.
Just because everyone uses a word improperly does not make it's use proper.
Rym uses the same argument for his piss-poor pronunciation.
Just because everyone uses a word improperly does not make it's use proper.
The word "girl" originally meant any young child of either gender. The word has evolved over hundreds of years to mean "female," and our dictionaries reflect that. To hold "decimate" to the origin word's definition requires that you also hold "girl" to its. Decimate is clearly defined in the dictionary. Now, if you want to argue against the validity of English dictionaries in their entirety, that's your battle to fight.
Much as "decimated" is often used improperly, so are tags such as "liberal" and "neo-con." Are you beginning to understand why I started the above post with those two points?
If that was your intention, you did a poor job of making the connection in your writing and used an incorrect example.
More to the point, you seem to be the only one who used a term like "liberal" in a broad-brush negative sense. The only uses of the term "neo-conservative" in the thread are wholly correct. The Bush administration is indeed holding to many neo-conservative ideals, and the "retarded" adjective was simply the opinion of the poster.
Itinfuriatesme when people blame liberals on any issue in this mess. Liberals said "Don't go to Iraquntilwe fix Afghanistan", liberals said "If we don't send more troops and money into Iraq, we are in trouble", liberals said "don't piss off other countries because we might need there help in your ill-advised and seemingly random acts of aggression".
That is total revisionist history. You should know better than to post that.
You seem to be confusing "liberal" with "Democrat." The Democratic party did jack all to prevent the war. A great many liberals, however, protested from day one, and continue to protest.
Again we are in agreement. I merely stated we could have taken him out. I did not elaborate on why not to except to point out the coalition was against it. Please do not assume more from my answer then that which I write.
Why did you even bring it up, then? Are those reasons for not invading then any less valid than they are today? We could have "taken him out" at any point from the end of the Gulf War until now. Why did we suddenly invade when nothing in the situation had changed at all?
You are obviously not reading what I am writing. I say this because your response is in agreement with what I wrote. Iraq was given help in fighting the Iran-Iraq war. When Saddam began to make his intentions known about Kuwait the USA did nothing. This lead him to believe it was OK to take over Kuwait and annex it.
I simply meant that the problems with Iraq began long before the Gulf War. We invaded to take down a dictator we essentially put into power to begin with.
We've encouraged revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and many other nations over the years, often failing to provide promised support at the last minute and causing the needless deaths of many people.
I agree. This leads to a loss of trust in other nations (towards us) as well as a fear of us sticking our noses in where they do not belong and causing trouble. At the same time... the "support" for these revolutions she be proportional to the amount of energy we are willing to provide (as a nation) to the revolutionaries.
If we are not willing to go "all the way" we should not be encouraging them at all.
This I agree with.
WMDs were one of many reasons. They were never the sole reason. They may have been the "sole" reason the media grabbed onto but they were never the "sole" reason we went in.
Bush said very clearly in his speeches that we were invading to protect the United States against the threat of a massive attack from Iraq. He justified going against the UN on the grounds of national security. He presented evidence not of a brutal regime, but of a massive secret weapons program. He ignored all of the evidence showing that Iraq had no such weapons.
I also want to point out the new and old uses of the word liberal. Today many people use the word to mean lefty, hippy or member/supporter of the democratic party in the US. When I use the word liberal I mean the meaning in the dictionary. I use the word liberal the way political science professors do, not the way yelling guys on TV and radio use it.
I also want to point out the new and old uses of the word liberal. Today many people use the word to mean lefty, hippy or member/supporter of the democratic party in the US. When I use the word liberal I mean the meaning in the dictionary. I use the word liberal the way political science professors do, not the way yelling guys on TV and radio use it.
Which is another reason you two should not do politics on the podcast!
When you talk tech your audience knows what you are talking about. Liberal and Conservative are probably the most often re-defined words in the English language. Depending where in the world you are they mean different things.
Hard line Iranians are called "conservatives" but the conservatives in the USA are far different from the conservatives in Iran.
Even if everyone in the world had blue skin you would encounter people who claimed their skin was a darker (or lighter) shade of blue then the rest of the people in the world. Liberal and Conservative are directions on the political scale, they are not end points. Everyone on the left is a liberal, everyone on the right is a conservative...
I agree, except that they're not on the same continuum. I am liberal, but I am certainly not leftist. ^_~
Whenever we use loaded words like that, we try to define the terms, as we did in the religion episode. If we ever talk political ideology, we'll be sure to clearly define the starting points and the words we'll be using.
If anything, we'd probably talk more about actual policy and its effects than ideology, and we'd probably stay away from internal US issues altogether. We, like most of the FRC, are very politically active, and we'd probably get a few guests on the show and argue with eachother for an hour. ^_~
Every "root" to a political situation has a root itself and, unfortunately, all political problems have their roots in religion.
Let's just cut to the chase and blame Adam for only willing to pay a single rib for a woman... If he'd been willing to pay an arm or a leg we'd all be happier.
The real problem with talking about politics on the show is simply that my opinions are extremely complex coupled with the fact that I'm mostly ambivalent. I could just as easily argue for the opposite side of whatever argument I'm making at the time, and there's half a chance I could convince myself to swap ships any moment. I could count on one hand the number of issues where I have a clear and unwavering opinion.
We'd really have to take on a narrow, specific issue and dedicate an entire show to it. Even then, we'd have to get Cremlian or someone on the show to provide some counterpoint and break up the rhythm.
I'm thinking we'll try our hands with some technological issue the first Thursday we hit where we don't have another topic ready to go. Members of Congress tend to be particularly in the dark regarding it, which usually leads to hilarity.
Indications that the U.S. is going to get involved with Iran sometime in the very near future:
First: Robert Baer, the former middle-East CIA operative and a man who is not unconnected in the intelligence world (c.f., Syriana), says his peeps tell him we're planning to "hit" Iran.
Second: Barnett Rubin, a scholar and one of the Serious people in the academic foreign policy establishment, says we're already committed to an attack on Iran, and that the marketing for this attack will be ramped up after the long weekend. [In this light, Bush's speech to the American Legion and various Cheney remarks of the last month can be seen as test-marketings. As Bush said in that speech, "We will confront this danger before it is too late." Meaning, I suspect: "before I no longer have my finger on the button."]
Third: the foreign press, which during the run-up to Iraq was far less blinkered than, say, the Gray Lady, has been over this weekend treating an attack on Iran as a fait accompli. See this from the Telegraph (UK) . The Times (UK) ran today a headline with the flat declaration, Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran. They quote Alex Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus." [One can't help but recall the strategic calculus of General Buck Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."]
Fourth: I doubt that David Addington believes that Bush, under the AUMF, really needs the permission of congress, or of anyone. As a courtesy, of course, he'd likely, as the planes are on their way, inform a bipartisan leadership group (several Republicans plus an independent from Connecticut). But what's sadder is that this Congress, whose Democratic leadership is talking about opposing the war but not mentioning the words "withdrawal" or "timetable"; which cowed before the FISA revisions; whose Senate this year blithely passed, 97 to zip, a resolution condemning Iran for attacking U.S. forces in Iraq -- When push comes to shove, will Reid and Pelosi (and Clinton, and Obama) put their political capital where their mouth is? As the magic eight ball says, "Signs point to no." (See Glen Greenwald's astute assessment of the political situation.)
Fifth: Regardless of the politics, in the Gulf of Hormuz the ships are in position, and, according to one unverified account, the targets are targeted, the planes are rehearsing even as we speak. In what are purported to be the words of one Navy officer on scene: ""I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens."
Comments
This may come as a surprise, but for many religion runs deeper than money. That's just a fact. I am against the invasion of Iraq (and was from the very beginning), but Rym's analysis apes the superficial analysis given in Liberal Studies 101. You can't compare the fall of the Eastern Block to the Middle East. There are MAJOR cultural differnces. Look at the muslim ex-soviet republics. They aren't exactly lining up for McDonalds. Heck, even in the "west" you have severe conflict. Look at Bosnia. You can't erase conflicts that are hundreds of years old by making sure everyone can afford Nikes. You can try for peace (by coming up with something that both sides can accept), but you aren't going to erase the tension.
This is why I'd rather you guys stick to geek topics. I love your show... but you're out of your league here.
One other fact to accept... as long as Israel exists, a large segement of the Arab world will want to see it destroyed. It doesn't matter how much money or western influence the Arabs have. It's just reality.
It's very strange... read up on it.
As for the Iranian leader speaking at the UN... Muslims are allowed to lie to non-muslims, almost encouraged.
The pope was right, conversion by the sword is still alive and well in many muslim lands... As for acting indignant over being called a spade when you are a spade... I blame the press!
Too many liberals in the USA are living by the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra in regards to Iran. The same liberals who decry "collateral damage" when bombs are dropped have no qualms about the political "collateral damage" caused by allowing the US presidency and US prestige to be bombed.
What really hurts our nation is the intolerance of the right & left for each other's viewpoints. 70% of Americans fall into the moderate category, whether slightly right or slightly left. 15% sit on each side of that in the far right or far left. Those are the people who I can't stand. They refuse to acknowledge the right that everyone has to express their viewpoints.
The government and the world need Balance and a sense of humor. I mean gees, in that video Apreche linked to, that one guy responded by saying, "Aren't you a Heretic?" Come on, you could have said a joke and completely deflated the argument. I can't remember what comedian said it, but what religious extremists need is a sense of humor! Then all would be well. Otherwise, you're just scary!
Because the neo-con retards running the nation at the moment do not listen to anyone outside of their circles, because the never, ever, ever admit being wrong about anything, ever, because this administration would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11 (which that idiot monkey-man still uses as a reason for the war), their insinuated racism, their fear-mongering, and because of their demands for unquestioning nationalism/patriotism/fascism/loyalty from a nation that is built on the right to question their government, are the reasons the nation I used to love and see as my own as grown to be one which I feel nothing for but venomous hate and pity at the same time.
Don't you dare blame any liberal or progressive for this situation. We did not have the power.
And I'd decry ad-hominem attacks if only I hadn't recently referred to the president on this forum as "commander coocoo bananas."
Also, Saudi Arabia has a controlling majority Muslim population that by and large practices and believes in Salafism. It is a far different case from nations like Iran, where the majority of citizens are more moderate and where there are large and vocal non-conforming cultures like the Persians, or like the UAE, where there have been direct correlations between increased economic prosperity and a decrease in the observance of fundamental Islam.
Saudi Arabia cannot be dealt with now short of a major and costly military intervention that would be massively unpopular with the people there. Any attempt at occupation would be an outright disaster. A better strategy would be to help the rest of the Arab world, which is both more moderate and more reasonable, attain prosperity and stability. The Saudis would likely begin to lose the support of the populace if they were the only Arab nation to still be effectively a repressive shitehole.
Iran is a wholly different beast. A great number of the people there resent the Muslim invasions of the past, and have a fierce Persian nationalism. They want nothing more than to see the religious influences on their government wane so that they could "repel the invaders" once and for all. There is also a large and growing population of discontent youths, who have been more and more vocal in their criticism of their nation's Islamic leadership.
Prior to the US's invasion and resulting occupation of Iraq, these discontents seemed to have a fairly neutral view of the United States, and there was a good chance that a popular uprising could have succeeded in the coming decade. After the invasion, popular opinion turned violently against us, and the leaders of Iran were easily able to capitalize on Iranian fears of a US invasion of -them- to create a new sense of national cohesion. The unhappy people fear our military more than they fear their own oppressive leaders.
Of course, it should be noted that the Iranians have a great many reasons to distrust the United States. We backed Iraq in its brutal wars against Iran both financially and militarily. We've systematically destabilized two of their biggest neighboring states, both of which we still occupy. We call them evil, and deny them technology that we ourselves use.
(Note that I am not in any way backing their drive toward nuclear weapons, and indeed I support intervention in order to prevent it from happening. I merely wish to put forth many of the reasons the people of Iran have to distrust and despise the US).
Afghanistan was at first a success story. The majority of the people welcomed us and our end to their totalitarian government. They celebrated in the streets. Much of the more prosperous Arab world accepted our invasion or at least mitigated their anger with sympathy over the attacks of September 11th. The US was riding on a massive wave of worldwide goodwill. We had clear reason to invade, a populace that was somewhat receptive to the idea, and the backing of the world.
By comparison, look at the invasion of Iraq. We had no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction, yet used it as a pretext nonetheless. The world wanted us to wait, yet we charged in anyway. The people feared us as much if not more than they feared Saddam's administration. When it came to light that there was no credible intelligence regarding ANY weapons, we suddenly changed our tune, claiming that the invasion was to liberate the people from Saddam's regime.
Granted, Saddam was a brutal dictator. He was not, however, a military threat to the rest of the world. His armies were decimated from years of sanctions. He had no caches of weapons. He was surrounded by enemies. Iranians hold bitter resentment for the Iran-Iraq wars to this day, and the Kurds have been chomping at the bit for a revolution.
There's also the fact that Saddam was a force of stability, an enemy of fundamentalist Islam, and a secular leader. He brutally put down any attempts at Islamic control of his government and abolished sharia law. His primary goal was to unite the Arab world in a secular and modern empire.
An invasion to depose him may well have come in the end anyway. There was no reason to rush, and the UN would likely have eventually authorized a joint action if the Iraqis didn't rise up first. Had we waited even a year, we would have had more allies, more support, and better pretext.
As it stands, the invasion of Iraq was an utter disaster. We angered the world over, failed to secure the nation, and are now in the middle of a long-term occupation with little hope of exit. We had no real reason to invade Iraq, and certainly no justification on the grounds that he was a threat to the United States.
Had the US not invaded Iraq, we would still have had the global political capital to militarily deal with Iran today. By squandering the goodwill of the world, destabilizing one of the few secular powers in the middle east, and miring ourselves down in the unpopular occupation of a fragmented nation, we've effectively tied our own hands. We're in no position to make demands of Iran, and a military intervention will likely only further remove the chance of a peaceful revolution there.
2) I purposefully pointed the finger at "liberals" in my above post to get the expected reaction. It carries the same weight as "neo-con" does and throwing that word about quickly allows you to find out where people stand politically.
3) Not invading Iraq would have sent a strong signal to the world that the UN is a paper tiger. We already showed our strength in dealing with Afghanistan.
4) WMDs were only one of many reasons to take out Saddam. Those who focus on WMDs are doing themselves a disservice and are often perceived as "anti-Bush" no matter what else their argument consists of.
5) I thought Saudi Arabia was a hot-bed of Wahabiism?
6) The whole problem with Iraq began as a misreading of the US by Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saddam had been getting mixed signals from the USA and thought the USA would not care if he took Kuwait, that's why he ok'd the invasion. I think he was surprised at what happened next.
We could have taken him out then but the coalition was against it. Remember the "highway of death" photos?
There was even a revolt by the Shia (who were expecting USA backing) but they were let down and were killed by Saddam's forces.
"To reduce drastically especially in number (cholera decimated the population) b : to cause great destruction or harm to (firebombs decimated the city) (an industry decimated by recession) "
The origin of the word is well-known, but so is the modern definition. Don't make pedantic arguments if you can't back them up. Neo-conservative is a well-defined term describing a specific political ideology. Calling someone a "neo-conservative" who professes to that ideology is no different than calling a Catholic a Catholic or a Democrat a Democrat. And we showed our weakness in dealing with Iraq. No one denies that the UN is a paper tiger. The important point was not to get the support of the UN itself, but to get the support of other nations. Iraq did nothing different from what it had been doing for years, and suddenly we decide to invade with no clear substantiated reason? WMDs were the sole given reason in the run-up to the war. Read all of Bush's speeches and arguments for the war, and the sole argument is the danger Saddam's weapons presented to the United States and its allies. There was practically no talk at all about any other reasons for the invasion until after the weapons were not found. Suddenly, Bush's speeches talked about liberating the Iraqi people instead.
There's also the problem that much of the evidence Bush used to prove his case for war was shown to have been known faulty long before I was used. Wahhabism and Salafism are essentially the same thing, and both terms are often used interchangeably. Adherents in Saudi Arabia prefer the latter term, so that is what I use. No. The whole problem with Iraq (at least in modern terms) stems from US involvement in backing Iraq against Iran long before the Gulf War. Saddam came to power after a turbulent time of revolutions within Iraq, and we tried to leverage him against our enemies in Iran, leading to a massive and tragic war between the two powers. This is not to even speak of the problems stemming from earlier interference in Iraq by colonial forces.
To say that the Iraq problem began with the invasion of Kuwait is just silly, and ignores the greater history of our involvement there. Why do you think we didn't? For one, Bush Sr. and the military command at the time knew full well that a total collapse of the regime would lead to a long and tireless occupation, much like what we're mired in today. We also would have had to fight a still powerful military struck in a defensive posture. It would have destabilized the region and lead to chaos. Bush Sr. spoke at length about these reasons for choosing not to "finish the job." We've encouraged revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and many other nations over the years, often failing to provide promised support at the last minute and causing the needless deaths of many people.
But politics! We all have the same information, and we're all watching the same world. Unless you claim that Bill Clinton was actually a Dragon, or that god is manipulating George Bush's actions, then you're all set for a good old argument. ^_^
Discuss.
^ Sarcasm.
Much as "decimated" is often used improperly, so are tags such as "liberal" and "neo-con." Are you beginning to understand why I started the above post with those two points? So... If everyone knows the UN has no teeth why bother passing UN resolutions? WMDs were one of many reasons. They were never the sole reason. They may have been the "sole" reason the media grabbed onto but they were never the "sole" reason we went in. No argument here... You are obviously not reading what I am writing. I say this because your response is in agreement with what I wrote. Iraq was given help in fighting the Iran-Iraq war. When Saddam began to make his intentions known about Kuwait the USA did nothing. This lead him to believe it was OK to take over Kuwait and annex it. Again we are in agreement. I merely stated we could have taken him out. I did not elaborate on why not to except to point out the coalition was against it. Please do not assume more from my answer then that which I write. I agree. This leads to a loss of trust in other nations (towards us) as well as a fear of us sticking our noses in where they do not belong and causing trouble. At the same time... the "support" for these revolutions she be proportional to the amount of energy we are willing to provide (as a nation) to the revolutionaries.
If we are not willing to go "all the way" we should not be encouraging them at all.
More to the point, you seem to be the only one who used a term like "liberal" in a broad-brush negative sense. The only uses of the term "neo-conservative" in the thread are wholly correct. The Bush administration is indeed holding to many neo-conservative ideals, and the "retarded" adjective was simply the opinion of the poster. You seem to be confusing "liberal" with "Democrat." The Democratic party did jack all to prevent the war. A great many liberals, however, protested from day one, and continue to protest. Why did you even bring it up, then? Are those reasons for not invading then any less valid than they are today? We could have "taken him out" at any point from the end of the Gulf War until now. Why did we suddenly invade when nothing in the situation had changed at all? I simply meant that the problems with Iraq began long before the Gulf War. We invaded to take down a dictator we essentially put into power to begin with. This I agree with. Bush said very clearly in his speeches that we were invading to protect the United States against the threat of a massive attack from Iraq. He justified going against the UN on the grounds of national security. He presented evidence not of a brutal regime, but of a massive secret weapons program. He ignored all of the evidence showing that Iraq had no such weapons.
When you talk tech your audience knows what you are talking about. Liberal and Conservative are probably the most often re-defined words in the English language. Depending where in the world you are they mean different things.
Hard line Iranians are called "conservatives" but the conservatives in the USA are far different from the conservatives in Iran.
Even if everyone in the world had blue skin you would encounter people who claimed their skin was a darker (or lighter) shade of blue then the rest of the people in the world. Liberal and Conservative are directions on the political scale, they are not end points. Everyone on the left is a liberal, everyone on the right is a conservative...
Whenever we use loaded words like that, we try to define the terms, as we did in the religion episode. If we ever talk political ideology, we'll be sure to clearly define the starting points and the words we'll be using.
If anything, we'd probably talk more about actual policy and its effects than ideology, and we'd probably stay away from internal US issues altogether. We, like most of the FRC, are very politically active, and we'd probably get a few guests on the show and argue with eachother for an hour. ^_~
Let's just cut to the chase and blame Adam for only willing to pay a single rib for a woman... If he'd been willing to pay an arm or a leg we'd all be happier.
/wonders how Iranians would take a giant white naked Rei running around turning them to goop.
We'd really have to take on a narrow, specific issue and dedicate an entire show to it. Even then, we'd have to get Cremlian or someone on the show to provide some counterpoint and break up the rhythm.
I'm thinking we'll try our hands with some technological issue the first Thursday we hit where we don't have another topic ready to go. Members of Congress tend to be particularly in the dark regarding it, which usually leads to hilarity.
Users
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
Pornography
bringbacktheporn.com takes you to...a porn site.