Moktada al-Sadr, Emperor of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm disturbed by what has gone down in Iraq the past week.
The Iraqi Prime Minister tried to crack down on the militias in Basra, sounds encouraging, those bastards are siphoning off more than half the country's oil exports down in that port city.

But the shits is that it seems the government has lost the battle. The government demanded that the militias turn-in their weapons within 48 hours. There were scenes of groups of 50 or so GOVERNMENT troops and police turning THEIR weapons over to the militia!! (A symbolic gesture of support.)

A truce has been brokered, looks like the fighting will wind-down in a stalement and overall embarassment for the government.

God almighty, we are in a hellacious mess over there. We were stuck helping the government in this latest battle, no choice but to help. But getting stuck in the middle of a power struggle between Shitte factions is a dubious mission.

Well, the reason I am popping-off here is I am concerned that if the U.S. were to withdraw troops, Sadr is strong enough to seize power. What a lovely result of 6 years of blood and treasure! God, we're so fucked.

[Joemailman]

Bush knows he can't fix this mess. The whole point of the surge was to prevent all-out Civil War from breaking out during this term. In another 9 months this will be someone else's problem, not his. Someday, we as a country may have to face up to the fact that maybe the Iraqis need a Civil War to iron out their differences, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. That would be tragic for sure. But we made a monumental error in invading Iraq, and sometimes monumental errors lead to tragic results.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see things getting better and we have to continue to sit on it. Hopefully with decreasing troop commitment.

The next president is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

[Joemailman]

One of the defining debates this fall will be whether Americans are going to vote for a candidate (McCain), who raises the possibility of a more or less permanent occupation of Iraq.

The danger in leaving Iraq is that it will turn into a huge proxy war, with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia all trying to influence the results. The great challenge of the next President will be to try to convince these countries to refrain from actions that destabilize Iraq. The current administration is utterly incapable of doing that, which is why we are stuck there for the time being.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ya, but will a real debate occur?

What do you suppose Obama really thinks about Iraq? I have no idea. Does he dare say?

I can guess about Clinton: she intends to keep a heavy troop commitment because of her pragmatic/conservative streak. But that is just a guess. I don't know that we can trust what Clinton or Obama are saying now because the voters want to hear easy answers.

Either democrat are likely to be better in Iraq than McCain. As you point out, diplomacy is the key, and new US faces & attitude will help.

Honestly, I wonder if there will be a huge difference in what any president can do. I think we are stuck with a slow drawdown as a policy. That's why I can consider voting for McCain next fall.

[Joemailman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080330/iraq/



BAGHDAD — In a possible turning point in the recent upsurge in violence, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shiite militiamen off the streets Sunday but called on the government to stop its raids against his followers.

The government welcomed the move, which followed intense negotiations by Shiite officials, including two lawmakers who reportedly traveled to Iran to ask religious authorities there to intervene.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose offensive that began Tuesday in the oil-rich southern city in Basra sparked the crisis, called al-Sadr's statement "a step in the right direction."

But fighting continued in the Basra area after the announcement. Seven people also were killed when a mortar struck a residential district in Baghdad's Karradah district, and witnesses reported clashes in the Shula area in a northern section of the capital.

A U.S. airstrike killed 25 suspected militants after American ground forces came under heavy fire during a combat patrol in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad, where the fiercest clashes in the capital have occurred.

The nine-point statement by the anti-American cleric, which was broadcast through Shiite mosques in Baghdad and across the south, called for an end to the "armed presence" in Basra and other cities and urged followers "to cooperate with the government to achieve security."

Al-Sadr, however, also demanded that the Iraqi government stop "illegal and haphazard raids" and release security detainees who haven't been charged, two issues cited by his movement as reasons for fighting the government.

The Sadrists have complained that the government has released few of their followers under a new amnesty law, which they complain has favored Sunnis who have recently joined with the Americans to fight al-Qaida.

The cleric's decision offered a way out of a widening Shiite conflict at a time when government forces appeared to be making little headway against the well-armed militias in Basra.

Al-Sadr's order stopped short of calling on his fighters to disarm. And the government insisted it would still target "outlaws."

Iraqi authorities in Baghdad said a citywide curfew would be lifted Monday morning, although a vehicle ban remained on three strongholds of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the capital.

Before al-Sadr's statement, dozens of Shiite gunmen Sunday stormed a government TV facility in central Basra, forcing Iraqi troops guarding the building to flee and setting armored vehicles on fire.

One of al-Maliki's top security officials also was killed in a mortar attack in Basra, officials said. The prime minister's Dawa party issued a statement of condolences identifying the slain official as Salim Qassim, known by his nickname Abu Laith al-Kadhimi.

In an effort to curb the growing violence, two senior Shiite lawmakers close to al-Maliki _ Hadi al-Amri and Ali al-Adeeb _ traveled to Iran and asked authorities there to stop the flow of weapons to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, according to two officials.

The lawmakers _ both of whom have close ties to Iran _ also asked the Iranians to pressure al-Sadr to come up with a face-saving initiative, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The U.S. has accused Iran of supplying weapons, money and training to all major Shiite factions in Iraq. Those include the Mahdi Army as well as groups closely allied with the Americans. Tehran denies the charges.

Scattered firing could be heard in central Baghdad hours after al-Sadr's statement was released, and rockets or mortars were fired toward the Green Zone, where U.S. diplomats were holed up in the embassy at Saddam Hussein's former palace and ordered to stay under hard cover as the sprawling area has come under frequent fire this week.

At least seven Iraqis were killed and 21 wounded when two rounds apparently fell short, striking houses in the commercial district of Karradah, police said.

Suspected Mahdi Army gunmen also attacked an Iraqi checkpoint in eastern Baghdad, killing six troops, police said. The attack came hours after al-Sadr's statement was issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf.

The strength of the resistance to the week-old offensive has taken the U.S.-backed government by surprise, forcing it to bring in reinforcements as the number of Iraqi security forces involved in the effort topped 30,000.

The prime minister, himself a Shiite, has called the fight "a decisive and final battle," although he acknowledged later that he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash the offensive would provoke.

An estimated 400 people have been killed as fighting spread to Baghdad neighborhoods and other southern cities.

Several clashes have involved U.S. forces and the U.S. military launched airstrikes in Basra and American special forces were on the ground helping the Iraqi ground troops. The military said 16 enemy fighters were killed when an AC-130 gunship strafed heavily armed militants attacking Iraqi troops during clashes on Saturday.

The Shiite violence threatened to jeopardize recent security gains due to an influx of American troops, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Sadr's cease-fire that was announced in August.

Attacks bearing the hallmark of al-Qaida militants also continued in northern Iraq.

A suicide car bomber killed five U.S.-backed Sunni fighters and wounded eight other people near the oil hub of Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad.

Gunmen also killed five policemen in Duluiyah, a Sunni-dominated area 45 miles north of Baghdad.

Also Sunday, a U.S. soldier and a Marine were killed in separate roadside bombings in Baghdad and in Anbar province west of the capital, the military reported. That raises to 4,010 the number of American service members killed since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The U.S. military said separately that American and Iraqi troops unearthed 14 badly decomposed bodies in a mass grave on Saturday in Muqdadiyah, northeast of Baghdad. It was the second such find since Thursday, when 37 bodies were found.

___

Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Hamid Ahmed contributed to this report.


Seems to me al-Sadr has been sending a message that he can create havoc any time he wants, and there will be more havoc if things don't change.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's clear what McCain is going to do in Iraq, he's going to be conservative in drawing-down troops.

Clinton says she'll start withdrawing troops within 60 days of her inauguration. This vague and deceptive statement is equivalent to "Dem voters won't like hearing my real policy." Which leads me to believe that she too will withdraw troops based on conditions on the ground.

I have no idea what Obama will do. He says he wants the U.S. out within 18 months, except for a small force to guard the Embassy and act as a sort of SWAT team against Al-Qaida. Does he mean it? I doubt it, but I'm very concerned about some recent comments by an Obama operative:


Someday, we as a country may have to face up to the fact that maybe the Iraqis need a Civil War to iron out their differences, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. That would be tragic for sure. But we made a monumental error in invading Iraq, and sometimes monumental errors lead to tragic results.

Holy Christ. This sounds like Obama won't be taking responsibility for what happens in Iraq. Blame it on Bush if the region erupts as we get out. Could Obama really mean what he said about 18-months-and-out?

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

This was NOT an insurgent offensive. It was an Iraqi government offensive to defeat a long term thorn in its side. People, many of them leftists, in this country have been saying for a long time something should be done about the Shi'ite militias. Well, al Maliki is doing it. And by objective accounts, he is doing it successfully.

Muqtada al Sadr tried standing up to the American military in 2004, and he got slapped down hard, so much so that he has grudgingly agreed to a ceasefire and then a renewal of that ceasefire. That ceasefire appeared to be in jeopardy as Sadr's fighters were resisting government attempts to assert control. However, they were beginning to lose in large numbers--another beatdown like in '04, this time mainly at the hands of Iraqi government troops.

However, as of Sunday morning our time, al Sadr ordered is people off the streets and NOT to stand in the way of government efforts to beat down the Shi'ite militias. That's hardly the behavior of the "Emperor of Iraq".

It is becoming an increasingly moot point what Obama or Hillary would do in Iraq, as they are fading and will IMO fade a lot more. Unquestionably, though, either would pull the plug and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

McCain pretty obviously will do what it takes to get the job done. Will the new Iraqi leadership do its part to expedite that conclusion and allow the withdrawal of our troops sooner rather than later? Well, the events of this week are a defining moment in that, both in the words of Bush and al Maliki.

And based on the latest news, things are proceding nicely.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

:lol: I guess you did not read my posts.


This was NOT an insurgent offensive. It was an Iraqi government offensive to defeat a long term thorn in its side.

??? Who are you arguing with? Nobody talked about an insurgent offensive.


And based on the latest news, things are proceding nicely.

You couldn't be more mistaken.

It was a poorly planned maneuver intended to make a show of force. They didn't expect much resistance. The government didn't inform the U.S. before hand.

In theory it was a good thing, cracking down on the militias. I saw it as good news when I first heard about it. But in reality it was a boondoggle.

Al-Maliki was greatly embarrassed, and some think his government will fall as a result.

Reports today indicate that the fighting ended primarily because of pressure from Iran. (Sadir is an Iraqi Nationalist, has not been so close to Iran, but he is currently directing his organization from Iran.)

[texaspackerbacker]

I DID read your posts, Harlan, although I did kind of lump your posts and Joe's in together. And yes, I know neither of you claimed this was an insurgent offensive. I was just pointing that out to illustrate that the events are NOT a sign of enemy strength, but a sign of the new government flexing its muscles in a way many--apparently even you--thought was long overdue. The fact that he did so seemingly without American permission only serves to belie liberal claims that the new government and Maliki in particular are mere pawns of America.

Why would you say the offensive is "poorly planned" and "likely to bring down Maliki's government" when the whole thing is going reasonably well? Al Sadr was AGAIN getting beat, so he reverted to his ceasefire--clearing the way for the government troops to handle the other renegade Shi'ite militias. That is a very good thing!

Where do you get your information that al Sadr is in Iran? There was a rumor about that 6 months or a year ago, but it wasn't substantiated then, and I haven't even heard it suggested recently.

The Iranian backed militias are exactly the ones that Maliki's troops are going after. If indeed, Iran orders them to stand down, that too is a very good thing, as it would basically indicate complete success for the good guys.

[Freak Out]

From what I've heard and read over the last few days Sadr was/is in Iran...Iraqi government officials stated they went to Iran to negotiate with him...and I would hesitate to say the government gave his forces a beat down...they held off the Iraqi government troops easily enough and still held out when the US was called in to help out with air power and backup troops. The national police were once again useless and basically sided with Sadr to save their skin. Maliki is just another Iraqi thug making a fortune off our tax dollars and Iraqi oil....no better than Sadr in those respects.

All this really was was a fight for power between two Shiites.

[Joemailman]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

:lol: I guess you did not read my posts.

Tex saw right through your clever ruse. Welcome to the club! :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Freak Out is right. This guy surveys today's reports, he's pretty honest:
http://www.juancole.com/

Perhaps there is something postive to salvaged. At least the government made an effort to deal with a problem.

The reason I started this thread is I am wondering if the Iraqi government is really any closer to controlling the country minus the U.S. troops.

Sadir's base of support is in Baghdad. He has expanded to the south, where he has growing political and military strength. Very worrying. He used to be anti-Iran, but it seems he is mending fences there.

And Sadir's militia is competing with the Badir militia (loosely allied with the government) for the privilege of heisting oil deliveries out of Basra. Warring mafia families.

I don't know what is going on.

[Freak Out]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

[Harlan Huckleby]

the beatings will continue until morale improves

[hoosier]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

that would be LOL funny if it weren't so sad

[Scott Campbell]

I'm disturbed..........



Agreed.

[oregonpackfan]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

Iraq = The Three Trillion Dollar War

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

Without the USA's presence in Iraq the balance of power will be totally shifted to Iran in the Middle East. Iran is going to run rough shot over Iraq with sending in their little milita men and what not to stir up problems and disrupt the already floundering government of Iraq.

So I think you got the goatfuck part correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

sorry for interrupting the war, but thought you might want to take a break to see Paul McCartney's man boobs.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/16910/thumbs/s-NANCY-SHEVELL-large.jpg

[Freak Out]

sorry for interrupting the war, but thought you might want to take a break to see Paul McCartney's man boobs.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/16910/thumbs/s-NANCY-SHEVELL-large.jpg

Is he using Grecian formula or something? Who's the woman he's with?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The huffingtonpost.com to me is the flagship of the demogogueing left of the Democratic Party. Maybe this year is their season. I'm sad that they are driving moderates out of the party with their relentless hate and name calling. But enough about my sorrow.

Arianna Huffington wrote a column Closing the Message Gap on Iraq: A Responsible Plan to End the War (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/closing-the-message-gap-o_b_94074.html)

Look at her summary of the this plan:
The 20-page plan (which you can read in its entirety here), doesn't just lay out how to end the war -- it also addresses the institutional failures that led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This includes rebuilding the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, banning the use of armed military contractors like Blackwater, banning torture, promoting government transparency, and restoring accountability through the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution.

How idiotic. As if spending more time reviewing 2003 is going to provide us with answers on dealing with Sadir. And replacing the evil, evil private contractors like Blackwater with U.S. military will improve matters significantly.

I read the report. The military recomendation is to pull-out U.S. troops and replace them with peace-keeping troops from "international organizations." This is just laughable. The U.N. won't even put in an office in IRaq. Can you imagine blue helmets providing security on the streets!?

John McCain may have the advantage next fall on Iraq. Everybody wants to unload this mess, but few realistic answers. McCain at least makes sense when he says we have to see the process through. Iraq will be having Provincial elections next October, which may provide a shot of optimism about political reconciliation. Getting the regional governments functional and legitimate is important step forward.

[Harlan Huckleby]

using Grecian formula or something? Who's the woman he's with?

that's his new girlfriend. i suppose u guessed that much. his breasts are real but the hair is fake.

[The Leaper]

The only way to deal with Iraq is to split it up 3 ways geographically, giving each main group a chance for autonomy...and brokering an oil agreement to split the proceeds of everything produced and sold from Iraq between the groups in a way that promotes civility at least in a financial respect between the sects.

Forcing Iraq to have a centralized government representing all three groups combined is a recipe for failure.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You might be right, Leaper. But I'm not positive. The tensions are not so much between the three main ethnic groups (as we saw recently), it's more of a mass clusterfuck.

The Provincial elections next fall are a step in the right direction.

[texaspackerbacker]

Leaper, the three part thing, i.e. Joe Biden's plan is unrealistic. There is just too much geographic overlap of ethnicities. Baghdad alone would be block by block in some parts. You'd end up with ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia only worse.

Actually, the whole "mess" as it is characterized by detractors, really isn't that bad. The whole problem of stabilization/nation-building/harmony among the groups would NOT have been significant and would have long since been solved for the overall good of all Iraqis if not for one factor: the outside force of al Qaeda deciding to prioritize screwing up of Iraq--bombing mosques, killing a bunch of civilians, etc., stirring up ethnic hatred that was always there, but NOT a serious active problem. You can pinpoint the start of the whole "mess" to the bombing of that shrine in Najaf, I think it was.

In sending in outsiders to instigate trouble in Iraq, however, al Qaeda had to de-emphasize committing terrorist acts against American--which, thanks to the Patriot Act and other Bush security measures, had become a "harder target".

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually, the whole "mess" as it is characterized by detractors, really isn't that bad..
:shock: 3 million people have left the country, very few have been able to come back.


the outside force of al Qaeda deciding to prioritize screwing up of Iraq--bombing mosques, killing a bunch of civilians, etc.

outside force? estimates are that less than a thousand foreign fighters remain in Iraq. We've been fighting a native insurgency, that's 90% of the story.

You seem to shape reality to fit your ideology. Although I do generally agree that we have to keep a lid on Iraq and see it through.


People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

there is ZERO evidence that the Iraq War has been anything but harmful in our struggle with terrorism. I do agree it is criticial that this FIASCO end on decent terms. In that sense, yes, it is critical.

And I hope that Iraq can someday serve as a succesful influence on other countries in the region. I'm still on that rickety neocon bus.

[Joemailman]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Actually, that's hundreds of billions of dollars. But with this administration, who's counting?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Actually, that's hundreds of billions of dollars. But with this administration, who's counting?

Stop your whining. The whole thing will be paid with Iraqi oil. :roll:

[Joemailman]

The huffingtonpost.com to me is the flagship of the demogogueing left of the Democratic Party. Maybe this year is their season. I'm sad that they are driving moderates out of the party with their relentless hate and name calling. But enough about my sorrow.

Actually, Huffington Post is the moderate wing of the left wing blogosphere. Have you read Daily Kos?

[Harlan Huckleby]

there is nothing moderate about the Huffington Post.

They are a Daily Kos for grownups, the same politics of demonization without swear words. They are about like Air America.

I saw Ariana Huffington on a panel group discussing election returns on Charlie Rose. She essentially stopped the show. All the other guests were attempting to place the returns in context, like real journalists. Huffington went on an angry tirade, claiming BArack OBama was still king of the hill. (It must have been Super Tuesday when Clinton did well.) Charlie Rose's jaw dropped, and they didn't allow her to speak again.

I think she is smart, but she is suffering from Obama fever, something like dengue fever only the hallucinations last longer. She's become a raging extremist, like Nancy Pelosi when she's alone in her car.

I'm beginning to think Tex may be correct that the Republicans will successfully portray Obama as an extreme liberal. I have no idea if it is true, as I have little feel for OBama. But his supporters are gripped with an extreme confidence and ideological rightousness that doesn't sell well.

Joe Lieberman had some interesting quotes yesterdays. He feels that the Dems have swung to the left and are driving him out of the party. (He must be reading the Huffington Post) :

"[The Dem Party] has been taken over by a group on the party left that is protectionist, isolationist and hyperpartisian. It's a strange turn in the road when I find that among the candidates this year, the one closest to the Kennedy legacy is John McCain."

I must be a Lieberman Democrat.

[Joemailman]

The Dems are driving Leiberman out of the party? I'd say he left the party when he ran against the Democratic nominee in the general election for Senate in 2006. Now he's traveling with McCain wherever he goes. He's not a Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but I think he ought to be honest about where he is politically.

By the way, the Huffington Post isn't just about Huffington. I rarely read her stuff.

[oregonpackfan]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Texas,

The U.S. has spent almost $500 billion(that's with a "B" not an "M") dollars thus far in Iraq. Most of that money has been borrowed from countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Two leading economists estimate we will pay $3 Trillion(that is with a "T") dollars before the war is over when you factor in interest on the borrowed money, care for injured soldiers, replacement of used military equipment, etc.

The Iraq War has not prevented another 9/11. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Of those 19 terrorists on the 4 hijacked planes, none of them were from Iraq! Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't dream of holding Saudi Arabia responsible for that attack because they are the United States' importer of foreign oil.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission also reported that Saddam Hussain was not affiliated with al-Qaida in any fashion nor were there any al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People whine about the "mess" in Iraq, how it has cost us 4,000 troops, how it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, etc. Well, even one repeat of 9/11 or worse would have cost us near that or more than that, both in money and human cost.

Texas,

The U.S. has spent almost $500 billion(that's with a "B" not an "M") dollars thus far in Iraq. Most of that money has been borrowed from countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Two leading economists estimate we will pay $3 Trillion(that is with a "T") dollars before the war is over when you factor in interest on the borrowed money, care for injured soldiers, replacement of used military equipment, etc.

The Iraq War has not prevented another 9/11. The President's own bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Of those 19 terrorists on the 4 hijacked planes, none of them were from Iraq! Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't dream of holding Saudi Arabia responsible for that attack because they are the United States' importer of foreign oil.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission also reported that Saddam Hussain was not affiliated with al-Qaida in any fashion nor were there any al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

Trying to discuss this with Tex is the definition of pissing into the wind.

[texaspackerbacker]

You guys can spin it any way you try to spin it, but the indisputable fact is that there have been no repeats of 9/11 or worse on Bush's watch.

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

As for the idea that there are less than a thousand al Qaeda outsiders remaining in Iraq, if that is so, then I'd say it is a sign that our troops are making real progress. It is indisputable, however, that the "domestic insurgency" or whatever it was somebody referred to, was instigated by al Qaeda blowing up mosques and barbarically murdering both Shi'ites and Sunnis to stir up latent ethnic hatred.

Yeah, as somebody corrected me on, it was hundreds of billions, not millions--but STILL well under the economic hit we took from 9/11--and presumably would again from a repeat. Most of that money was injected into the economy--salaries, equipment, contractors, etc., thus doing more good than harm anyway--in a Keynesian sense--as opposed to money simply and deleteriously taken OUT of the economy from 9/11.

As for characterizing Obama as an extreme liberal, talk about a slam dunk, the guy is about as extreme as it gets--generally acknowledged as the most liberal person in the Senate.

As for pissing into the wind, yeah, that's a fair assessment. And when your piss blows back in your face, what does that prove? Damn straight! It proves the wind was right and you were wrong.

[BallHawk]

sorry for interrupting the war, but thought you might want to take a break to see Paul McCartney's man boobs.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/16910/thumbs/s-NANCY-SHEVELL-large.jpg

Is he using Grecian formula or something? Who's the woman he's with?

It's Nancy Shevell. It seems he knew her through ties with Linda.

Hopefully he recovers from having that bitch Heather Mills as his "wife."

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dems are driving Leiberman out of the party? I'd say he left the party when he ran against the Democratic nominee in the general election for Senate in 2006.

The party rejected him in the primary. For an amateur who's only credential was he was against the war when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Or some such thing.

Lieberman has a rather liberal voting record, he's a Dem. He continues to attend the Dem meetings, in fact the Dems wouldn't have the majority in the Senate without him. But he is out of step on the IRaq war, so the left demonizes him as a rotten character.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, the three part thing, i.e. Joe Biden's plan is unrealistic. There is just too much geographic overlap of ethnicities. Baghdad alone would be block by block in some parts. You'd end up with ethnic cleansing like in Yugoslavia only worse.

If you created the geographical boundaries, the different ethnic groups would migrate to those areas. If you give each group autonomy over their own affairs, you'll have far less trouble long term. There is already ethnic cleansing going on Tex...what the hell do you think the daily bombings are?


Actually, the whole "mess" as it is characterized by detractors, really isn't that bad.

I'd love to see you go live over there for a year before you claim how great it is.

Iraq is a mess. The situation was handled poorly throughout by an inept administration. Sure, there are some positives emerging from the mess...but the negatives continue to outweigh the positives by a long shot.

[The Leaper]

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

It could've been done far cheaper and more effectively here at home...without occupying a foreign nation at a massive cost and bearing the brunt of world contempt.

[Deputy Nutz]

You guys can spin it any way you try to spin it, but the indisputable fact is that there have been no repeats of 9/11 or worse on Bush's watch.

That can be attributed to two factors: enhanced security AND occupying the terrorist enemy--by THEIR choice to prioritize messing up Iraq. Or are you guys going to claim it was all luck or something?

As for the idea that there are less than a thousand al Qaeda outsiders remaining in Iraq, if that is so, then I'd say it is a sign that our troops are making real progress. It is indisputable, however, that the "domestic insurgency" or whatever it was somebody referred to, was instigated by al Qaeda blowing up mosques and barbarically murdering both Shi'ites and Sunnis to stir up latent ethnic hatred.

Yeah, as somebody corrected me on, it was hundreds of billions, not millions--but STILL well under the economic hit we took from 9/11--and presumably would again from a repeat. Most of that money was injected into the economy--salaries, equipment, contractors, etc., thus doing more good than harm anyway--in a Keynesian sense--as opposed to money simply and deleteriously taken OUT of the economy from 9/11.

As for characterizing Obama as an extreme liberal, talk about a slam dunk, the guy is about as extreme as it gets--generally acknowledged as the most liberal person in the Senate.

As for pissing into the wind, yeah, that's a fair assessment. And when your piss blows back in your face, what does that prove? Damn straight! It proves the wind was right and you were wrong.

I feel that when posters on here try to have a debate with you, you refer to it as spin, even though they mostly back up their writing with facts. You remind me of my mother, she has rose colored glasses on when it comes to her beloved republic party along with her fearless leader in the White House.

No there has been no 9-11, thank God. If George Bush can take total responsibility for that then I guess he did his job. He could have done an even better job if he would have focused his attention 100% towards terrorist cells instead of fighting a war with Iraq and spent 500 billion on going after Bin Laden then he really would have secured this countries future. Iraq was a platform for him, unfortunately Americans have either bought into his speak that this was for the security of the nation and freedom for Iraqis, or still don't really understand the real truth of the agenda of Iraq, because my gas prices certainly haven't gone done in 5 years.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the fear that al-Sadr could be a future leader of IRaq was borne-out last week. He is much stronger militarily than the central government, according to reports, this surpised me. And also he has gone from zero political support in the South two years ago to being the most popular. He could do well in provincial elections next fall, and some say this is what the whole fight was about, trying to knock him down and out.

I just wonder if we are fighting a losing battle. Maybe we have to not support any side and let the country reach its own equilibrium.

[Freak Out]

Paltry results of Iraqi offensive silence U.S. withdrawal talk

Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: April 01, 2008 09:26:19 PM

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration was caught off-guard by the first Iraqi-led military offensive since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a weeklong thrust in southern Iraq whose paltry results have silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon.

President Bush last week declared the offensive, which ended Sunday, "a defining moment" in Iraq's history.

That may prove to be true, but in recent days senior U.S. officials have backed away from the operation, which ended with Shiite militias still in place in Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki possibly weakened and a de facto cease-fire brokered by an Iranian general.

"There is no empirical evidence that the Iraqi forces can stand up" on their own, a senior U.S. military official in Washington said, reflecting the frustration of some at the Pentagon. He and other military officials requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak for the record.

Having Iraqi forces take a leadership role in combating militias and Islamic extremists was crucial to U.S. hopes of withdrawing more American forces in Iraq and reducing the severe strains the Iraq war has put on the Army and Marine Corps.

The failure of Iraqi forces to defeat rogue fighters in Basra has some in the military fearing they can no longer predict when it might be possible to reduce the number of troops to pre-surge levels.

"It's more complicated now," said one officer in Iraq whose role has been critical to American planning there.

Questions remain about how much Bush and his top aides knew in advance about the offensive and whether they encouraged Maliki to confront radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

A senior U.S. lawmaker and four military officials said Tuesday that the Americans were aware in general terms of the coming offensive, but were surprised by the timing and by the Iraqis' almost immediate need for U.S. air support and other help.

One senior U.S. military commander in Iraq said the Iraqi government originally told the United States about a longer-term plan to rid Basra of rogue elements. But Maliki changed the timing, and the nature of the Iraqi operation changed, he said.

"The planning was not done under our auspices at all," the American commander said. The plan changed because "the prime minister got impatient."

There's no evidence, however, that the U.S. tried to dissuade Maliki from executing either plan.

"My instinct is that we knew but did not anticipate" that American forces would be called on to help, said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden stressed that he's still seeking information from the Bush administration on the matter.

Another senior American military official in Baghdad said Maliki notified Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker less than two days before launching the operation.

"By then it was a done deal," this official said.

Biden, who'll hold hearings on Iraq over the next 10 days, spoke shortly before lawmakers were to be briefed on an updated, classified National Intelligence Estimate on security, political and economic trends in Iraq.

The apparent misjudgment of the Iraqi security forces' capabilities and the strength of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, as well as the revived political controversy over the war, come at an inopportune moment for the White House.

Petraeus and Crocker are due to testify to Congress next week about the strategy in Iraq now that the 30,000 troops Bush ordered there in a "surge" are being withdrawn.

In the larger sense, "this is a reminder that nothing has changed," said a senior State Department official, who also wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

As if to underscore that point, Britain announced Tuesday that it's freezing plans to withdraw 1,500 of its 4,000 remaining troops from southern Iraq due to the failure of the Iraqi offensive to crush Shiite militias.

Bush already has signaled that, following the Petraeus-Crocker report, he'll order a pause in further drawdowns of U.S. troops in Iraq below about 140,000, which is slightly more troops than were in Iraq before the "surge" began.

As part of its post-surge plan, the Pentagon planned to reduce troop levels by one brigade a month, thin out its presence in Iraq and lean more heavily on Iraqi forces. But the Basra offensive has some in the U.S. military fretting that Iraq's forces, while better than they were six months ago, cannot fully defend their communities.

Some say that Iraqi security forces are entangled in the intra-Shiite battle for power in southern Iraq. The Iraqi forces that Maliki sent to Basra contained a large number of one-time fighters in the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which vies for power with Sadr's Mahdi Army.

"We're not going to stop the tensions between the Shiite camps. Those were there all along; we've just seen them emerge," said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and a longtime war critic, during a conference call.

Indeed, violence began rising in places where the U.S. military drew down its forces. The first brigade left in December from the volatile Diyala province in northeast Iraq. The U.S. military moved two battalions out of Baghdad to cover parts of Diyala and Mosul, a Sunni stronghold in northern Iraq, according the military.

Violence in the capital then increased, according to statistics compiled by McClatchy.

In January, civilian casualties and improvised explosive device attacks rose. U.S. military statistics showed that suicide vest attacks increased in January and February. The second brigade is leaving Iraq now.

According to icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. troop deaths, American losses rose slightly in March to 38, compared with 29 in February. Troop deaths also shifted toward the capital this year.

Biden said that the Iraqi offensive may indeed have been "a defining moment," but not in the way Bush intended. "The president may be half-right," he said.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Joemailman]

I think the fear that al-Sadr could be a future leader of IRaq was borne-out last week. He is much stronger militarily than the central government, according to reports, this surpised me. And also he has gone from zero political support in the South two years ago to being the most popular. He could do well in provincial elections next fall, and some say this is what the whole fight was about, trying to knock him down and out.

I just wonder if we are fighting a losing battle. Maybe we have to not support any side and let the country reach its own equilibrium.

What happened last week is a prime example of why we need to get out of Iraq, and the sooner the better. You had the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by the United States, going after the Shiite-led Mahdi Army which wants the U.S. out of Iraq. The main reason these two groups are fighting each other is the U.S. occupation. As long as we occupy the country, there will be groups like the Mahdi Army that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government. I realize we can't just pack up and leave tomorrow. I just don't think there will peace in Iraq until we really turn the country over to the Iraqis.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You had the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by the United States, going after the Shiite-led Mahdi Army which wants the U.S. out of Iraq. The main reason these two groups are fighting each other is the U.S. occupation. As long as we occupy the country, there will be groups like the Mahdi Army that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government.

The Mahdi Army wants to U.S. out so that they can seize power in a miltary coup. That's been the story all along.

Recall that the Mahdi Army was a huge importer of Sears Black & Decker drills. They specialized in drilling holes in peoples heads and bodies before murdering them. And I'm not talking about a few instances, this is their signature. The Mahdi Army has cleansed 80% of Baghdad of Sunnis.

The provincial elections next fall are a HUGE deal. Right now, the provinces have little power, and they don't have much legitimacy. The elections next fall will really show which groups are popular and where. I think (finally) having those election will bring some measure of stability to Iraq. The frustration of the inept central government will be diffused by increasingly empowered regional alternative.

al-Sadr seems to be following a political tract now, he figure out this can work for him.

I agree with you in a general sense, U.S. has to be out for stability. I disagree with McCain's mention of a permanent presence. But your "sooner the better" I just can't buy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30

Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no."

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons -- are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The "unipolar moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization -- all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations

I have trouble with people who call on the U.S. to "End the War." It is not in our power to do so. If you look at Iraq March 2008 and March 2007, it's pretty obvious we are keeping a lid on the violence.

Is there enough political progress to justify continuing our presence for HUMANITARIAN & STRATEGIC purposes? I had my doubts until recently.

[Freak Out]

You had the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by the United States, going after the Shiite-led Mahdi Army which wants the U.S. out of Iraq. The main reason these two groups are fighting each other is the U.S. occupation. As long as we occupy the country, there will be groups like the Mahdi Army that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government.

The Mahdi Army wants to U.S. out so that they can seize power in a miltary coup. That's been the story all along.

Recall that the Mahdi Army was a huge importer of Sears Black & Decker drills. They specialized in drilling holes in peoples heads and bodies before murdering them. And I'm not talking about a few instances, this is their signature. The Mahdi Army has cleansed 80% of Baghdad of Sunnis.

The provincial elections next fall are a HUGE deal. Right now, the provinces have little power, and they don't have much legitimacy. The elections next fall will really show which groups are popular and where. I think (finally) having those election will bring some measure of stability to Iraq. The frustration of the inept central government will be diffused by increasingly empowered regional alternative.

al-Sadr seems to be following a political tract now, he figure out this can work for him.

I agree with you in a general sense, U.S. has to be out for stability. I disagree with McCain's mention of a permanent presence. But your "sooner the better" I just can't buy.

The US military is going to be in Iraq for a very long time. Unless of course something dramatically changes. Troop numbers may drop but with the embassy and the permanent bases we are building as well as the agreements for the above with the Iraqi government we will have soldiers stationed there for some time to come.

[texaspackerbacker]

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This says all we need to know about Brzezinski. The crap he spews is nothing more than a grandiose description of the same old cut and run anti-American idiocy that both Dem candidates and most Dem politicians in general are pushing.

I agree with FreakOut that our military will be in Iraq for a long time--the 100 year line from McCain that the Dems are trying to demagogue. It will, however, be similar to our force deployed in Korea or Germany. We already have wound down our role in combat operations considerably. The presence of American forces in reserve should be enough to prevent the Mahdi coup mentioned. I'd really like to see al Sadr and his people co-opted and brought into harmony with the government, same as has been done with the Kurds and the Sunni tribes. A little bit of outreach of that type is not a bad thing--as long as we/our Iraqi government allies are dealing from strength.

Negotiating with Iran, as was suggested by either a poster or Brzezinski, is a bad idea. Rather, we should continue the Bush policy of aiding the anti-government elements in Iran, as well as keeping on the table intimidation and even the threat of taking out their nuclear program.

[Freak Out]

April 2, 2008

Advice of Iraqi, Now in Beirut Cell, Finally Heeded
By ROBERT F. WORTH

BEIRUT, Lebanon — More than a decade before the first American tanks rolled into Baghdad, Mudher al-Kharbit and his family began slipping out of Iraq to meet secretly with C.I.A. officials, pleading for help with their plan to unite Iraq’s tribes against Saddam Hussein. If that effort had succeeded, Mr. Kharbit or his older brother might have become the ruler of Iraq.

Instead, he sits in a Beirut prison cell chain-smoking Marlboros and reliving the past. A gaunt, worn-looking 52-year-old with warm brown eyes and an apologetic manner, he is one of the many people whose fortunes have been utterly transformed by the American invasion.

Yet even by Iraq’s tumultuous standards, Mr. Kharbit’s story is extraordinary. Once one of Iraq’s richest men, he repeatedly escaped death at Mr. Hussein’s hands, only to help shelter him — tribal hospitality required it — after the American invasion. He stood with a weeping Mr. Hussein in April 2003 after American bombs meant for the fleeing dictator had instead killed Mr. Kharbit’s brother Malik and more than a dozen other family members.

Now the Americans are finally taking Mr. Kharbit’s advice in Iraq, and working with the Sunni tribes to fight Islamic extremists, such as the group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. But it is too late for Mr. Kharbit, who was arrested here before the Anbar Awakening movement transformed America’s worst enemies in Iraq into its best friends.

“After the war, the Americans wanted me,” Mr. Kharbit said, smiling sadly, as if to explain his prison surroundings. “But the resistance is an honor I do not claim.”

Although some leaders of the Anbar Awakening — America’s new tribal Sunni Arab partners in Iraq — say Mr. Kharbit could bolster their efforts to fight the insurgency, he is not likely to get back to his native land.

Iraq’s Shiite-led government views Mr. Kharbit as a terrorist. And while the United Nations says the Iraqi warrant on which he was arrested here last year is baseless, and has called for his release, the Lebanese authorities cannot decide what to do with him. An official at the United States Embassy in Beirut declined to comment about Mr. Kharbit’s case.

So he waits in limbo, staring at the photographs of wounded and dead Iraqi children he has pasted to his cell wall. A haggard-looking man who treats his prison guests with elaborate hospitality, he says he has forgiven the Americans for killing his brother and his nephews and nieces, and for appropriating much of his family’s large fortune. The future of Iraq is what matters, he says.

Mr. Kharbit, who worked in the family’s thriving construction business before 2003, says he never took part in the insurgency. But he concedes that the facts of his life are murky and easily misunderstood.

He has a long history with Mr. Hussein, who helped make the Kharbit family rich in the 1970s through construction and oil contracts. Many Iraqis still see his family — which helped to police the Iraqi border for years and served as go-betweens with King Hussein of Jordan — through that lens.

“I think my story has never happened before in history, not anywhere,” Mr. Kharbit says with a smile that looks more like a wince.

In a sense, his predicament can be traced to the night of April 11, 2003, when he arrived back at his family’s palatial compound west of Baghdad to find the main house a heap of burning rubble. The American military had bombed it, having heard that Mr. Hussein was hiding there.

But instead of killing the Iraqi dictator, they had killed Mr. Kharbit’s older brother, Malik al-Kharbit — the very man who had led the family’s negotiations with the C.I.A. to topple Mr. Hussein.

The bombing also killed 21 other people, including children, and the fury it aroused has been widely believed to have helped kick-start the insurgency in western Iraq. That fact may have helped fuel American suspicion toward Mr. Kharbit.

But until now, Mr. Kharbit has not disclosed another crucial detail about the bombing: Mr. Hussein was, in fact, staying at the Kharbit family compound that night, with his two sons and his half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti. They were all in a smaller villa next to the one the bombs struck, and were not harmed.

When Mr. Kharbit arrived that night, he says he found Mr. Hussein weeping outside the burning building. The dictator’s son Qusay was struggling to rescue a wounded child from the rubble.

The Hussein family left soon afterward. American officials said they had not known that Mr. Hussein was there at the time, and the account came from Mr. Kharbit alone.

Later, Mr. Kharbit received a letter from the fugitive Iraqi president to thank him for his family’s hospitality, invoking an old Arab parable about a man who slaughters his wife’s mare to feed a group of guests.

Mr. Kharbit is quick to point out that his family was obligated by Arab tradition to shelter Mr. Hussein, and that the gesture was not a show of support. He is keenly aware of the dictator’s cruelties, he said, having spent years in hiding in the mid-1990s when Mr. Hussein suspected him of backing an insurrection.

“If Bush lost the war and came to my house, we would accept him,” Mr. Kharbit said. “We would do exactly what we did with Saddam; this is our way.”

In the weeks and months that followed, Mr. Kharbit says, he overcame his feelings of rage and betrayal, and tried to help the Americans rebuild Iraq. As the leader of one of western Iraq’s most important tribal families, he urged American officials to work with the tribes to secure peace. Some American military officers were receptive.

But the office of L. Paul Bremer III, then the administration’s top civilian administrator in Iraq, suspected Mr. Kharbit of being an insurgent sympathizer — or worse — and rebuffed him, said a former C.I.A. official who was in Baghdad at the time.

Mr. Kharbit soon moved to Jordan, in 2004, but Jordanian officials — acting under pressure from American officials in Baghdad — later forced him to leave that country, said the former official. Mr. Kharbit moved to Syria.

In 2006, Mr. Kharbit left Syria for Lebanon, seeking treatment for his wife’s brain cancer. By then, Iraq — now ruled by Shiites who were deeply suspicious of anyone with ties to Saddam Hussein — had issued a formal arrest warrant, charging Mr. Kharbit with financing terrorism in Iraq. That was the basis of the Interpol warrant on which he was arrested when he arrived at the Lebanese border.

Mr. Kharbit, who suffers from heart and liver problems, has been in a prison cell inside a Beirut hospital ever since. He still wears well-tailored English suits, a remnant of his salad days in Iraq, when he rode a Mercedes limousine from Ramadi to Baghdad every day.

But his money is running out. The American military took $7 million worth of gravel from a quarry owned by the Kharbit family and paid only $20,000 for it, according to Mr. Kharbit and some of his friends, who provided documents to support their claim. However, that is the least of his problems.

Late last year the Shiite-led Iraqi government nearly succeeded in having Mr. Kharbit extradited to Iraq, where he is wanted on charges that could result in the death penalty. But the Iraqi government has not made public any evidence for its claim that Mr. Kharbit had been involved in financing the insurgency.

And the Iraqi ambassador to Lebanon, Jawad al-Hairi, said in an interview in his Beirut office that he had heard that the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, might agree to drop the charges once Mr. Kharbit is back in Iraq.

The United Nations’ refugee arm, after conducting an investigation, declared Mr. Kharbit to be a refugee this year, saying that the Iraqi charges against him appeared to be baseless. But the Interpol warrant has not been reversed.

Some who know Mr. Kharbit and his family say he could make an important difference in Iraq.

“His absence in the Awakening is not good,” said Ali Shukri, a former general in the Jordanian military. “He could have a tremendous effect.”

Whether he returns to Iraq or not, some say Mr. Kharbit deserves better treatment.

“The Kharbit family was the early backbone of U.S. policy on tribes,” said another former C.I.A. officer who had spent time in Iraq. “It’s a bit odd that no one in the U.S. government really cares about him.”

[texaspackerbacker]

I read this article on Yahoo too.

He is correct on this one very limited point--that we were correct to co-opt the Sunni tribal leaders to our side. I see that, however, as more a matter of those Sunni leaders seeing the light and coming in, rather than our suddenly beginning to try to bring them into the fold.

Beyond that, however, he seems like a leftover Saddamist who is damned lucky to be where he is instead of in Iraq awaiting execution.

And probably, it's better that way, because if the Maliki government had him executed, it night rock the boat regarding cooperation of the Sunni tribes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Half of Iraq's educated people are "leftover Saddamists", and they're hunkered-down in Syria, driving cabs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

More Than 1,000 in Iraq’s Forces Quit Basra Fight
By STEPHEN FARRELL and JAMES GLANZ
Published: April 4, 2008
BAGHDAD — More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.

The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police.

The crisis created by the desertions and other problems with the Basra operation was serious enough that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki hastily began funneling some 10,000 recruits from local Shiite tribes into his armed forces. That move has already generated anger among Sunni tribesmen whom Mr. Maliki has been much less eager to recruit despite their cooperation with the government in its fight against Sunni insurgents and criminal gangs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html

[texaspackerbacker]

The fact that it was a NY Times article says it all.

Inconclusive? When the Mahdis stepped aside--to save their skin, the Iraqi forces went in and arrested the leaders and pacified the members of the renegade militias. Basra is more peaceful than it has been since the Brits turned things over.

1,000 who refused to kill fellow Iraqis, possibly fellow Shi'ites out of 300,000 or so that the new Iraqi army is up to now is not too alarming. The mission got accomplished without them.

Do you know how you can tell when something is successful in Iraq? When you hear damn little about it in the mainstream media. That is the case here. The NY Times has pretty much gone so far to the left that they hardly even qualify as leftist mainstream anymore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Iraqi Troops Say Control Basra Stronghold
Published: April 19, 2008

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi soldiers swooped on the Basra stronghold of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday, saying they had seized control of his militia bastion where they suffered an embarrassing setback in late March.

The dawn raid by government troops on the Hayaniya district of the southern oil city was backed by a thunderous bombardment by U.S. warplanes and British artillery.

It came after more intense fighting in Baghdad between security forces and Sadr's black-masked militiamen. Police said 12 people had been killed in the Shi'ite slum of Sadr City and hospitals said they received more than 130 wounded overnight.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown against Sadr's Mehdi Army militia in Basra last month was criticized by U.S. commanders as poorly planned and hasty.

It failed to drive the militia from the streets and sparked battles across the south and in the cleric's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. The government dismissed 1,300 soldiers and police for refusing to fight.

On Saturday by contrast, Harith al-Idhari, head of the Sadr office in Basra, said the militia had not put up any resistance, in observance of a ceasefire declared by the cleric.

Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an interior ministry spokesman, described the operation as a major success.

"Our troops deployed in all the parts of the (Hayaniya) district and controlled it without much resistance," Khalaf told Reuters. "Now we are working on house-to-house checking. We have made many arrests."

Maliki, himself a Shi'ite, has threatened to ban Sadr's mass movement from political life if the cleric does not disband the Mehdi Army. In response, Sadr has threatened to formally scrap a ceasefire he imposed on his militia last August, a move that could trigger a full-scale uprising.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've come to conclusion that the government will have to crush Sadr and other militias militarily. Unfortunately. You can't move forward w/ democracy if you have political parties with powerful armies not under control of the regional or central government. It appears Sadir intends to seize power in the south, using provincial elections as a means to that end.

It's gonna be a very bloody summer, which is much in the interest of Sadr & friends. (They don't want to see McCain in office, I suspect.)

[texaspackerbacker]

What leads you to this conclusion about al Sadr?

I haven't heard anything about him since he tentatively agreed to disband his Mahdi Militia.

Al Sadr just might be one of the few Iraqis who wouldn't want McCain to win, because if we cut and ran, and the whole place degenerated into chaos or Iranian hegemony, al Sadr might eventually end up in power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What leads you to this conclusion about al Sadr?

Just a guess. We learned in the last couple weeks that the militias in Basra area are no joke. They apparently have been trained in Iran, they used sophisticated, coordinated, battlefield tecnhniques and fought well. And they have high end weapons. Some of the Iraqi Army guys who retreated (deserted) said they did so because they were massively out-gunned.

As long as the militias control Basra-area, they siphon off a large percentage of total oil wealth thru corruption.

Sadr has been very hostile to Iran in the past, in fact that was his calling card. It's disturbing the degree to which he is now evidently cooperating with Iran.

It's a complicated picture. Maybe Sadr will reconcile w/ other Shitte without massive bloodshed. But I think Iraq is at crossroads.

[texaspackerbacker]

Good Grief, Harlan, where do you get such all out CRAP?

Al Maliki returned from Basra victorious over the renegade militias. The Iraqi troops did so easily without the small remnant--of police, not military--who skipped out on the fight. Because they were out-gunned? That's just laughable! The Iraqi military alone had far superior numbers and even farther superior firepower to the enemy, not to mention having American airpower and British artillery backing them up.

Al Sadr stood down his militia--if you want to talk about superior firepower, there it is--stacked against the Mahdis. Then, al Sadr gives a very large hint--stating that if the Shi'ite leadership i.e. the Grand Ayatollah--wants his militia disbanded, he would comply. That brings us to the present.

Reading your previous post, it sounded like maybe you heard some new news that I hadn't heard. Barring something like that, all we have are the FACTS at hand based on the events of the past couple of weeks--which are COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what you posted.

Iraqi troops control the oil facilities. Al Sadr was hostile to Iraq? He practically commuted back and forth from there; He got his weapons from them. I have no idea whether al Sadr will "reconcile" with other militias; Who says they even have any differences? Who cares--they all are mostly irrelevant?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tex,

You have some interest and knowlege about Iraq, but I have much more.

Almost every word you said was wrong. Since you won't accept that I know the basic facts well, I would have to dig around the internet for references to cite for you. Even then, you tend to dismiss articles written by the NY Times or Washington Post. (BTW these are the ONLY western papers with staffs in Iraq. )

I love to hear myself talk, I'd take the time to explain myself, but I don't want to do it as an argument.

[Harlan Huckleby]

looks like positive developments, but fuzzy:
Iraqi Army Seizes Basra From Militia as Cleric Threatens New Uprising (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?hp=&pagewanted=all)

not so positive:
Cleric Sadr Threatens "Open War" on Iraq Government (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq.html)

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, I just now read those stories too.

Positive: Facts and Events, Negative: Threats and Bluster.

I'd sure like to know how you claim to know so much about Iraq, Harlan. Aside from just what I read over the internet, etc., I have almost daily contact with troops who have been there very recently. That's where my news over and above mere media articles comes from. How about you?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd sure like to know how you claim to know so much about Iraq, Harlan. Aside from just what I read over the internet, etc., I have almost daily contact with troops who have been there very recently. That's where my news over and above mere media articles comes from. How about you?

The best sources for info are Iraqslogger.com (altho they became a pay site recently for some content), juancole.com provides analysis and translations from Arabic press, NPR has good discussions on the ON Point radio show streamed online, I read Jeruselum Post and Daily Star (english language Lebanese paper) online, CSPAN interviews many people about Iraq - a real treasure trove, Charlie Rose periodically has good interviews available online, And the main reporting comes from BBC News, NY Times, and Washington post.

You make comments, and with great beligerency, indicating you have superficial and confused knowledge. For instance, you didn't know anything about Sadr's history and politics the last 5 years. And you don't know about the diversion of oil and refined oil to militias. The reality of what happened in Basra 2 weeks ago completely escaped you, it seems you either don't read any reports or analysis, or you simply believe what suits you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Very encouraging news. Of course piece was written by same reporters who wrote extensively of the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Army two weeks ago, maybe they got smarter and more honest since then. :)

I'm glad Sadr is being fought, it had to be done. Could mean more fighting in coming months, hard to know. It doesn't prove a whole lot that Iraqi Army can kick tail with backing of U.S., but at least it's a good start.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm BELLIGERENT, Harlan?

I'm merely expressing NORMALCY and rational belief in the positive reporting of our own military--the leadership--as well as the rank and file troops who have no ax to grind. How do you perceive that as belligerent?

You, admittedly, are quoting media sources with notorious left wing/anti-American agendas--the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, Arabic language newspapers. The first thing you cited is a blog. You really don't realize that the great majority of contributors in ANY of these blogs and forums are leftist types who really ARE belligerent? Normal people with a simple normal positive outlook--like myself--usually don't get involved in that sort of thing. But make no mistake about it, we NORMAL types are the huge majority. Somebody, I think it was you, Harlan, even described the situation in this forum that way.

YOUR article and your comments about the writers illustrate exactly the screwedupedness of those with your perspective. You have difficulty comprehending how these guys would write a run-of-the-mill leftist piece of subjective crap about the Iraqi Army, then when an actual event happens, they at least have the journalistic integrity to report the facts on the ground--which you yourself characterize as "very encouraging".

You don't want to believe the American military; You don't want to believe Fox News; Then when even some of your own come through with a simple factual report that is positive, you are completely flummuxed.

Why is good news so are for you to believe and be happy about? Maybe YOU are belligerent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You, admittedly, are quoting media sources with notorious left wing/anti-American agendas--the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, Arabic language newspapers.

By eliminating these sources, you are pretty much in the dark. Your first-hand accounts aren't going to educate you about the history & politics.
I agree that some of these sources can be biased at times. If we eliminate news sources that have bias we disagree with, we become dumber and dumber.

All the interview programs I mentioned - CSPAN, Rose, NPR are fantastic and essential. There is ZERO bias there, they bring in a broad range of opinions. You can't ignore all the experts and actors in a situation and think you know what is going on.


The first thing you cited is a blog. You really don't realize that the great majority of contributors in ANY of these blogs and forums are leftist types who really ARE belligerent?

IraqSlogger.com is a website run by the former news director of CNN, they are well-financed. They have a large staff of Iraqi reporters on the ground. And they have links and summaries to ALL Iraq-related content on the internet. Some of their stuff is free, but to access all their info costs something like $100 per month! That's right. Very specialized people - congressman, journalists, business contractors - will pay that kind of money to access the expensive and dangerous reporting they do.

JuanCole.com is CERTAINLY a blog written from a left perspective. So what? Be a big boy and apply your own filter. His analysis and information is unique and essential.

Not only do I watch Fox, I read opinions of the right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, etc. on internet. These right wing perspectives get plenty of play on CSPAN.

Look Tex, I am largely on your side on Iraq issues. The difference between us is I make choices after looking at all the information. You block-out the bad news. And it also explains why I can sound ambiguous and uncertain. I'm not ashamed to be a flip-flopper. I thought in 2006-2007 that the U.S. could not play positive role in Iraq. The Iraqis themselves showed no interest in compromise. I'm back to conditional support.

[texaspackerbacker]

I know you have written a lot of decent and intelligent things about the war--and a few not so much. I've never had anything against flip-flopping either. I always said, the reasons to detest John Kerry were not the things he flip-flopped on, but the things he stayed consistently BAD on.

You said what sources other than ....... ? Oh not much, only CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, and a ton of others. Obviously, I listen to a lot of those, too. I would especially single out MSNBC, which does a better job of keeping its news separate from its editorializing than anybody other than Fox. Many years ago, I even used to read Arabic language papers in Arabic, but my command of that language has slipped a bit.

Again here, all of this stuff, of course, is beside the point--that point being the POSITIVE truth about Iraq, and most of the media's failure to give equal coverage to the great deal of boring good news as they do to spectacular but much rarer bad news.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This comment from www.JuanCole.com summarizes what's going on in Basra:

Kudos to James Glanz and Alissa Rubin of the NYT for getting the story (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/mideast/shiite.php)! They point out that the US and Iran are on the same side in southern Iraq, both fearful of the nativist Sadr movement. This correct narrative is completely the opposite of what Americans have been spoon fed on television and by Bush / Pentagon spokesmen. I had pointed out this Bush- Iran convergence last week and also pointed out that US intelligence analysis admits it. The article is the first one I have seen to say that Iran supports al-Hakim's ISCI in its bid to create a Shiite superprovince in Iraq's south. I've never been able to discover what the Iranians feel about this and had wondered if they weren't at least a little bit worried about a soft partition of Iraq because of its implications for Iranian Kurdistan, which might become restive and seek to join Iraqi Kurdistan. But it is plausible that Tehran might risk this scenario in order to gain a permanent regional ally in the form of the Shiite Regional Government in southern Iraq.

[texaspackerbacker]

So you're telling me that Iran OPPOSES al Sadr--who they routinely supply weapons to, and who has worn a trail to and from Iran? And you're saying Iran DOESN'T lust for control of Iraq's southern oil fields which they fought a ten year war in the 80s over? And Iran DOESN'T want to get America out too soon so they can dominate the whole area? Ahmedinijad and company are just good hearted types who only want to see a nice positive conclusion for Iraqis?

A big YEAH RIGHT! to all of that.

If anybody has a goal of Shi'ite separatism, it seems like it would be al Sadr.

Does it not occur to you at all, Harlan, that this blog and the NY Times writers have an anti-Bush, if not completely anti-American agenda saturating their writing?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tex,

It is worth the time to read that article, I'm pretty sure they nailed the situation.

You are correct about Juan Cole being anti-Bush. And he is against big powers meddling in the Middle East. I don't always agree with him philisophically, I have been for the war in Iraq, he is obviously against it. For 6 years I have occasionally sent him emails arguing with his blog, and he often takes time to write me back.
Juan Cole knows more about Shitte world and history than anybody, he is the foremost scholar & author in this area. From reading his blog over the years, I learned that I didn't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the details on the ground over there, but I've learned along the way.

You have not yet reached that critical phase of understanding, you don't get how ignorant you are of the situation. I am not insulting you, just trying to open your eyes.


So you're telling me that Iran OPPOSES al Sadr--who they routinely supply weapons to, and who has worn a trail to and from Iran?

Sadr's whole game has been anti-Iran from day one. That's why I've been so confused and surprised the past year that he seemed to be moving under Iran's influence. (It is not surprising or contradictory that Iran might have provided him with weapons in past, in that they have a tactical mutual interest in harassing U.S. troops.)

Sadr's base of support is in north, in Bhagdad. He is an Iraqi Nationalist who wants a strong central government. He has built his reputation upon being anti-Iran and anti-U.S. Sadr & his father spent the Hussein years in Iraq, which he is proud of. The other main Shia group (they used to be called SCRI but changed named to some other acronymn) are closely allied with Iran. Their militia, the Badir Brigade, actually fought with Iran against Iraq during the Hussien years. This Iranian-friendly group is allied with al-Maliki, and also is tactically allied with the U.S.

So the main dymanic going on now are the elections next fall, which will likely lead to the soft partition of Iraq by creating an autonomous region in Southern Iraq. Sadr has been fiercely opposed to this, this is the main point of contention with the other Shitte group. Think of it: Sadr's people are centered in Bhagdad, they are fearful of being cut-off from the southern goodies.

Sadr's political influence has spread across the south. Since he has been in Iran lately, I theorized that he had become Iran's new agent in Iraq, wanted to be king of Southern Iraq. Looks like that theory is wrong.


Iran DOESN'T want to get America out too soon so they can dominate the whole area? Ahmedinijad and company are just good hearted types who only want to see a nice positive conclusion for Iraqis?

Of course Iran wants the U.S. out, and it wants great influence in Iraq. Read the article. It appears we have little choice but to allow the Iranians to have great influence in the coming South Iraq autonomous region. The writing is on the wall, most of the Shitte want close relations with Iran. Paradoxically, Sadr is the only Shitte on the scene that ever pushed against Iran.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, your reply was thoughtful and civil, and I will try to do the same.

Don't you think calling this blogger one of the "foremost authorities" in Iraqi Shi'ites is a little bit of hyperbole? I think I would take whoever the State Department or the military or the CIA has over some guy who may be highly intelligent, but basically has an ax to grind. I did read his article, BTW.

It still seems that what you say about al Sadr contradicts pretty much everything he has done and said.

This Cole guy is basically falling into the same trap Obama falls into--over-estimating the power and importance of Iran, and undervaluing the evil intentions of Iran. No way we can trust them or expect them to negotiate in good faith. Robert Gates, who has been the most dovish person in the Administration, said yesterday, that eventual war with Iran is a strong possibility.

The BIGGEST QUARREL I have with what you wrote is your quoting of--and apparently agreeing with--the article saying we "have little choice but to allow the Iranians to have great influence in the coming South Iraq autonomous region". The United States of America has "little choice" but to yield to allowing Iranian influence? And worse yet, to agreeing to this off-the-wall idea of a separate "autonomous region" or whatever in the south? I don't think so.

That is tantamount to Jimmy Carter saying America had to be resigned to becoming a second-rate power. It's as if somebody said the Packers can't hope to compete in their division. They will be lucky to end up second or third.

America bringing regime change in Iran seems a lot more likely than that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don't you think calling this blogger one of the "foremost authorities" in Iraqi Shi'ites is a little bit of hyperbole?

He is my favorite expert on the Mideast. Altho he is very politically biased, he presents the facts very completely. He's a history professor, and president of the Association of Mideast Scholars. Discussions of Shittes often refer to his books. He's Mr. Big. Yet he takes time to write a blog and appear on tv interviews all the time.


It still seems that what you say about al Sadr contradicts pretty much everything he has done and said.

Everything I said is factually correct. It is very hard to understand Sadr, he is a ball of contradictions.


This Cole guy is basically falling into the same trap Obama falls into--over-estimating the power and importance of Iran, and undervaluing the evil intentions of Iran.

What is "Iran"? The people? The regime? They seem to be very diverse and divided. There is a very nasty faction in Iran that is causing us all manner of trouble.
We made a terrible mistake by explicitly and implicitly threatening them when we went into Iraq. How can we expect them to help us when our policy is, "once we succeed here, you're next."


The BIGGEST QUARREL I have with what you wrote is your quoting of--and apparently agreeing with--the article saying we "have little choice but to allow the Iranians to have great influence in the coming South Iraq autonomous region". The United States of America has "little choice" but to yield to allowing Iranian influence? And worse yet, to agreeing to this off-the-wall idea of a separate "autonomous region" or whatever in the south? I don't think so.

The Iraqi Constitution has the mechanism for provinces to form autonimous regions written right in. This is how Kurdistan will formalize their status as an autominious region. And the Shitte wish to do the same thing in the 9 Southern provinces. This is not theoretical, this is underway, the elections next October kick-off the process. Sadr is against this partition, the more mainstream Shitte Party, SCRI, is all for it.

I think it is an arrangement that we can easily live with. And the Shitte of southern Iraq WANT to have close relations with Iran. We established Democracy, this is their choice. And the Sunni are not powerful enough to stop them.

I think Iraq can serve a role in reconciling Iran with the U.S. and the rest of the Arab world. This is not a bad outcome.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, that "very nasty faction" in Iran controls virtually ALL the power and decision-making. And police states being what they are, that isn't likely to change--unless maybe America makes it change.

As for the autonomous Shi'ite region idea in the south, first of all, you have the oil revenue problem--the majority of the population in the middle of the country is NOT just going to sit back and let themselves get cut out of the money by both the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. That could probably be overcome if there was some compromise in people's hearts--remember, we're talking about Muslims/Arabs here--the people several of the forum lefties deemed unsuitable for democracy a couple of days ago.

Secondly, if you subtract the southern Shi'ites from the ruling Shi'ite majority, there is no more ruling Shi-ite majority. Does that not seem like the kind of thing the Maliki government, and probably the U.S. government is NOT gonna allow to happen? I wonder what Professor Cole would have to say about that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, that "very nasty faction" in Iran controls virtually ALL the power and decision-making. And police states being what they are

Iran is not a police state. And Iran is not autocratic, in the sense that there is no single leader or party with absolute control. Power is shared across many people, and there is a lot of political disagreement and tension.

You know that Iran was an important ally of ours in war against Taliban in Afghanistan? They are a mixed bag. They have a secret service that seems to be kind of a wild card, as is the case in Pakistan.


As for the autonomous Shi'ite region idea in the south, first of all, you have the oil revenue problem--the majority of the population in the middle of the country is NOT just going to sit back and let themselves get cut out of the money by both the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south.

The plan is to share the oil money. But there is the large issue of corruption. Plus the center would be cut out if the country did completely break apart in future. Certainly the Iraqis in the Bhagdad area (such as Sadr) must have some concerns.


Secondly, if you subtract the southern Shi'ites from the ruling Shi'ite majority, there is no more ruling Shi-ite majority. Does that not seem like the kind of thing the Maliki government, and probably the U.S. government is NOT gonna allow to happen? I wonder what Professor Cole would have to say about that.

They aren't leaving Iraq. Kurdistan & Shiastan (as some have taken to calling it) will still be part of the country. Its federalism.

The danger is they might decide to cut and run some day, have their own oil-rich little state. That sounds appealling, but Iraqis claim that is not something they want, evidently there is still national identity there. There are Shiite shrines north of Bhagdad, for instance, and many Shiite still live in the center and north. Something like 26% of the Iraqi population lives in Baghdad area, and that will not be part of any region.

[texaspackerbacker]

Iran is NOT a police state? Come on! Technically, it's a theocracy, not an autocracy. But the result is the same. No rights, no freedoms, a lot of people disappearing and never heard from again. Sure it LOOKS democratic on paper. The Soviet Union was very democratic on paper too. But in FACT, nobody gets power that the ayatollahs don't want to get power.

And Iran was an ALLY of ours in defeating the Taliban? That's just laughable. What do you claim as a source for such a thing?

Federalism and autonomous regions simply do NOT go together. Federalism is what we have in America. The states are clearly subordinate to the Federal government. That would not be the case in Iraq. It would basically be a confederation of three fairly equal units. And I really doubt whether the "Shi'istan" voters would have representation in the Iraq national parliament.

If you want a comparison, think Puerto Rico--autonomous, but ruled by the U.S.--and NOT represented in Congress.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Iran is NOT a police state? Come on! Technically, it's a theocracy, not an autocracy. But the result is the same. No rights, no freedoms, a lot of people disappearing and never heard from again.

Actually there is a fair amount of political freedom in Iran. More than in, say, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Syria. And the clerics are not of one mind.

I'm not painting Iran as a democracy or friend of the U.S. But don't be too shocked if our relations improve as Iraq stabilizes. I'm not sure we have that many points of contention. Iraqi Shiite seem adverse to a theocracy. Iranian shipment of missles to Hezzbollah in Lebanon is their most offensive behavior. But their support of Hezzbollah, a grassroots, minority Shiite group, is not so surprising.


And Iran was an ALLY of ours in defeating the Taliban? That's just laughable. What do you claim as a source for such a thing?

Tex, my source is the fact that I read a range of media and know what is going on. I don't doubt that you have knowlege of the region, but the holes in your knowlege are gaping.
The Taliban are cut from the same ideological cloth as al Qaida - fundamentalist Sunnis. The #1 apostates in their view are the Shiite. So Iran is the kingdom of evil to them.
I just did a google search on "Iran Taliban", and this was the first article that popped up:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm
You can do your own searches and research, and do stop laughing.


Federalism and autonomous regions simply do NOT go together. Federalism is what we have in America. The states are clearly subordinate to the Federal government. That would not be the case in Iraq.

Federalism can mean a range of arangements.
Iraq is headed towards a weak central government, unless you or Sadr or the Sunni insurgents have their way.
The central government will still handle currency, national defense (altho even that will be shared), electrical grid.

If you look at the current relationship between Iraq & Kurdistan, that is where Shiistan is headed.


It would basically be a confederation of three fairly equal units. And I really doubt whether the "Shi'istan" voters would have representation in the Iraq national parliament.

The plan is to keep a unified country with autonomous regions. Of course the parliment would continue to include all, just like there are Kurds in the current parliament. Sorry to shock you, but you are not well informed.

[texaspackerbacker]

No No No, Harlan. If your sources tell you Iran is somehow freer than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, then it is a product of horrible anti-American bias, and by proxy, bias against countries allied with us. I know people from Egypt. The great majority of people there live normal pleasant lives. Ditto that, I'm fairly sure, for Saudi Arabia. BOTH those countries are PRIME TARGETS for the evil forces within Islam to try and tear down the regimes in place--and thus, those regimes take a harsh no nonsense approach toward keeping those enemies at bay. But the good normal people who make up the bulk of the population are NOT the targets--as they most certainly are in the all out TYRANNY which is Iran.

A unified country with autonomous regions is oxymoronic.

Harlan, you are to be applauded for reading a lot. You are to be booed for not taking bias sources with a huge grain of salt. You seem especially prone to taking at face value propaganda of anti-American people and groups.

[Scott Campbell]

I have neighbors that left Iran shortly after the Shaw's departure and Khomeini took over. These folks insist there is very little freedom in Iran today, or they'd be back there. Unlike Iraq, its supposed to be a beautiful country.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No No No, Harlan. If your sources tell you Iran is somehow freer than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, then it is a product of horrible anti-American bias, and by proxy, bias against countries allied with us. I know people from Egypt. The great majority of people there live normal pleasant lives.

I think a lot of people in that region have decent lives - as long as they keep their political views to themselves.

My view of Iran really has nothing to do with anti-American bias, just accounts from visitors. Iran has a much larger middle class than in the Arab countries.


A unified country with autonomous regions is oxymoronic.

I agree it is a little hard to picture. Did you know that the autonomous region of Kurdistan currently forbids the flying of the Iraqi flag on their territory, and forbids the introduction of federal troops on their territory without permission? Yet Kurds also participate in the national army.

It's a dicey situation. But remember how our country started as a loose confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps the new Iraq will start that way, and will voluntarily form tighter integration as trust builds.

[texaspackerbacker]

And remember, the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as I said, are targeted by evil outside forces aiming for regime change to something much more tyrannical and much more belligerent toward civilized neighboring states--yes including, but not limited to Israel.

Iran ALREADY IS that belligerent tyranny radical Muslims would like to turn Egypt and Saudi Arabia into.

The only people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia endangered by the degree of police state are legitimate anti-government terrorists. Conversely, in Iran, the terrorists have the power of government already, and the normal citizens are the ones endangered to the point of disappearing and dying without a trace.

The only possible motive for falsely equating Egypt and Saudi Arabia with Iran is hating Egypt and Saudi Arabia for being allies of America. And no, Harlan, I'm not talking about you. I am talking about your sources, though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And remember, the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

No. They were the best arrangement that could be achieved politically at the time. They served as a reasonable transitional bandaid until a tighter integration was acceptable to all parties. Iraq is in much the same position.


Iran ALREADY IS that belligerent tyranny radical Muslims would like to turn Egypt and Saudi Arabia into.

We were discussing what it is like to live in these countries. Freedom House does an annual study of political and civil rights in every country. Their scoring is 2 for most free, 14 for most oppressive. Rather than argue blindly, lets see what they say about some representative countries:

Belgium 2
United States 2
France 2
Austrailia 2
Czech Republic 2
Costa Rica 2
Finland 2
Germany 2
Estonia 2
Poland 2
Japan 3
Greece 3
South Korea 3
Belize 3
Israel 3
Mongolia 4
Brazil 4
Croatia 4
Mexico 5
India 5
Albania 6
Turkey 6
Bolivia 6
Guatemala 7
Liberia 7
Georgia 8
Kuwait 8
Nepal 9
Morocco 9
Lebanon 9
Singapore 9
Afghanistan 10
Ethiopia 10
Thailand 10
Bahrain 10
Algeria 11
Belarus 11
Russia 11
Syria 11
Egypt 11
Pakistan 11
China 11
Vietnam 12
Cameroon 12
Iraq 12
Iran 12
Saudi Arabia 13
Syria 13
Cuba 14
Burma 14
North Korea 14
Lybia 14
Turkmenistan 14

Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia are grouped near the bottom in that order. So not much separates them. I was wrong too, I would have expected Iran to score a little better.


The only possible motive for falsely equating Egypt and Saudi Arabia with Iran is hating Egypt and Saudi Arabia for being allies of America.

We could find other independent evaluations, but Freedom House is well respected. As is so often the case, your views are based mostly on ideology.

www.freedomhouse.org

[Harlan Huckleby]

Very positive development

Sunnis Agree to End Boycott, Rejoin Iraq Government (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/world/middleeast/25iraq.html)
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc has agreed to return to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet after a nine-month boycott, several Sunni leaders said on Thursday, citing a recently passed amnesty law and the Maliki government’s crackdown on Shiite militias as reasons for the move

[texaspackerbacker]

I know nothing about "Freedom House", but I'll take your word for it that they are well respected.

Just the same, freedom, however it may be defined, is only part of the picture. The other is the where the country stands in the worldwide good versus evil picture--either on the side of civility, compassion, and culture, or against it.

I think it's indisputable that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are at least marginally on the right side, while Iran is blatantly on the wrong side.

Still another factor is the capacity to do harm. And there too, Iran is grossly more in position to perpetrate serious bad acts than the other two.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think it's indisputable that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are at least marginally on the right side, while Iran is blatantly on the wrong side.

Ya, Egypt and Saudia Arabia are our allies in some situations, and Iran is a negative force in Iraq & Lebanon. But look at the support of Saudi Arabia of all the madrassis around region. With friends like that....

We SHOULD have been treating Iran like China or Pakistan. They can be situational allies, as they were against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In particular, they are an obvious tactical ally in struggle against Al-Qaida.

Bush's demonization of Iran has been disasterous. It is so obvious that it is not debatable. It has cost us a couple thousand American lives in Iraq. By taking a "you're next" stance, we guaranteed that Iran would fervently support the insurgency against us in Iraq. And we are not superior to Iran in this context! They have many advantages as next door neighbors in projecting power and influence into the fray.

With an improving situation in Iraq and a drawdown in troops, I expect tensions between Iran & U.S. will ease in next administration. I don't doubt that they are our enemy now. But I think the end result in Iraq will be a democracy with a heavy Shiite flavor in the South, a result that both Iran & U.S. can live with.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bush demonizes Iran because Iran is demonic. It's as simple as that. Obama is an extremist of the left and horribly naive because he, like you, apparently, Harlan, believes otherwise. Would you actually put the fox in charge of the hen house by letting the abject EVIL which is the leadership of Iran dominate Iraq?

Saudi Arabia--the House of Saud--is almost continuously in survival mode. That is the reason for support of the madrasas, etc. They have SO-O-O much money that they can certainly afford to spend it, and they basically try to cover all the bases by throwing some money in the bad guys' direction. And can you honestly blame them, considering the attitude of the American left, both politicians and media, who would be so bonehead stupid as to hang the Saudis out to dry and let the forces of evil get control of the world's largest supply of oil.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Would you actually put the fox in charge of the hen house by letting the abject EVIL which is the leadership of Iran dominate Iraq?

Is or is not Iraq a sovereign nation? I thought we were promoting a democracy, not a puppet state of the United States. They make their own choices. A Shiite goverment won elections, we should not be surprised that they want to have cozy relations with IRan.

[texaspackerbacker]

That is not the issue at all. The issue is Iranian military hegemony over Iraq--which is exactly what would happen if we cut and ran/withdrew prematurely.

Didn't you say yourself, we had "no choice" but to let Iran dominate what you called Shi'istan--southern Iraq? Maybe it was Tyrone or somebody else.

It ain't letting democracy happen if you throw them under the bus of Iranian domination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Iran is not going to dominate or threaten Iraq militarily. They fought a long war with Iraq, and you can't blame them for wanting a government next door that is friendly towards them.

And BTW, many of today's Iraqi leaders spent many years in exile in Iran. Some fought with Iran against Sadam Hussein. They have warm relations with the Iranian people. The Iranian people make regular trips to Shitte holy sites in Iraq. Sistani, our favorite cleric in Iraq, was born in Iran and is said to speak with an Iranian accent. A country is more than their government.

And the senior Iranian Clerics that hold power are not admired or liked by the Iraqis. They aren't admired or liked by the Iranians, for that matter. The Iraqis seem to have decided they don't want to repeat the Iranian theocratic model, even if a lot Islamic law is part of the legal system in the south.

The U.S. and Iran ultimately share a joint interest in peace & stability in Iraq. I think Iran is a country that we will achieve a detente with in time.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you continue to perpetuate the ILLUSION that the leadership of Iran is rational, sane, maybe even altruistic. They simply aren't. They are tyrannical theocrats who keep their own people in bondage, and thirst for power over Iraq as well.

Hell yeah, they fought a war with Iraq--ten years long, with no decision. They don't want a "friendly government" next door. They want a client state.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who has done so much for sanity, unity, and an enlightened pro-American outlook in Iraq, left Iran over 50 years ago. If he has any ethnic loyalty in that direction at all, it certainly doesn't extend to the abominable regime there now.

You are correct that both Iraqis and the Iranian people detest the theocratic tyranny in Iran. What you don't seem to be able to grasp, however, is that just as those Iranian people have little or no hope of throwing off the yoke of that regime, neither would the Iraqi people be able to prevent having themselves dominated and tyrannized in the same way by the same evildoers, if the American left gets its way and pulls our troops out of Iraq prematurely.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I never hinted that Iran's government is altruistic, you made that up.

The government in Iran is no more tyranical than most other countries in the region - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc

I do understand the rationale for treating Iran like an evil foe. The Bush administration's policy has been a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they are certainly opposing us now.

There are more productive ways of dealing with Iran. The belligerent approach has been disasterous. We are virtually alone in the world in this stance, and we have only strengthed the hand of hardliners. We should seek relations with Iran similar to those we have with China or Pakistan, crappy governments that we nevertheless sometimes find common cause with.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, do you have Iranian relatives or what? Why are you so blind to the fact that Iran is an ENEMY COUNTRY--by Iran's choice--which is doing everything it can to become a nuclear enemy country? It can't be that you have relatives there, or you would realize how horribly tyrannical the Iranian regime is to its own people.

You keep trying to play the old liberal game of moral equivalence--in this case, Iran to friendly pro-American regimes in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which while not perfect models of democracy and freedom, are certainly less hostile to the vast majority of their people than the tyranny which is Iran.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why are you so blind to the fact that Iran is an ENEMY COUNTRY--by Iran's choice

This is not completely true. The United States has had a very belligerent policy towards Iran that has played a destructive role.


pro-American regimes in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which while not perfect models of democracy and freedom, are certainly less hostile to the vast majority of their people than the tyranny which is Iran.

We've already dealt with this false statement. Independent agencies rate Iran no worse than the countries you name in terms of freedom and human rights.

But this is typical. Facts mean nothing to you, you believe want you want to believe.

[texaspackerbacker]

Opinions put forth by LIBERAL independent agencies are FACTS to you?

Why do you HATE the pro-American nations, and spew nothing but respect and apologies for the regime that has BEEN A VILE AND HATEFUL ENEMY OF AMERICA SINCE ITS INCEPTION, the highlight of which was taking over our embassy and holding a bunch of innocent Americans hostage? Are you going to deny that this is the same Iranian regime with the same policies and methods, both foreign and domestic going back to Ayatollah Khomeini? Or are you somehow going to try and excuse their vile and hateful deeds?

You claim Iran is only belligerent because America has been hostile to Iran? Do you still cling to such a horrendously wrong and anti-American statement in light of the indisputable history of Iran's regime?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Opinions put forth by LIBERAL independent agencies are FACTS to you?

well, this is a new turn. So you believe your own hunch about freedom within foreign countries is more reliable than the judgement of Freedom House. And what exactly is your evidence that they have a "liberal" bias?


Why do you HATE the pro-American nations?

I have never expressed hatred for pro-American nations. You are lying.


and spew nothing but respect and apologies for the regime that has BEEN A VILE AND HATEFUL ENEMY OF AMERICA

I have never expressed respect for Iran. I detest the Iranian regime. You are lying again.


SINCE ITS INCEPTION, the highlight of which was taking over our embassy and holding a bunch of innocent Americans hostage?

The US could and should have rebuilt relations with Iran 25 years ago. To hold a grudge does not serve our interests, and has in fact cost us dearly. There is no reason why we could not have relations with Iran like we do with Pakistan, or Vietnam, or China, or Saudi Arabia.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, this whole back and forth over Iran is getting boring. What is gonna happen is gonna happen regardless of any of this, and unlike Iraq and other venues, it's all future speculation, rather than actual events.

Anyway, how does one recognize a "liberal" independent agency? Maybe because they say "liberal" things? Regardless of that, however, even your pet independent agency doesn't seem to regard Iran as better than Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, domestically speaking, only equally bad. That being the case, I continue to ask, how can you place Iran--blatantly ANTI-American on such a pedestal above the other three--all of which have been loyal allies in the War on Terror and legitimate members of the civilized portion of nations of the world?

You say I'm "lying" about your being hateful of these three American allies and respectful and apologetic for Iran? Well, how would YOU characterize all the nice things you've said about Iran and all the bad things you've said about the three American allies?

I haven't called you a liar--as you've called me. I haven't called you an America-hater or even anti-American. I'm just asking you to explain what seem like inexplicable and indefensible positions you've taken regarding what would seem to be an undeniably evil regime in Iran. How could you possibly think otherwise?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Anyway, how does one recognize a "liberal" independent agency? Maybe because they say "liberal" things? Regardless of that, however, even your pet independent agency doesn't seem to regard Iran as better than Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, domestically speaking, only equally bad.

You reject Freedom House as a liberal mouthpiece, but you base this on zero evidence. If you look at the list of countries I posted a while back, it's obvious they have no ideological bias. They rate Cuba and North Korea worst of all.

Freedom House rated Iran more tyranical overall than Saudi Arabia based on a reasonable and thorough analysis. You dismiss their judgement simply because it doesn't happen to fit your ideology, as you dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit your views.

Coincidentally, I saw an AP article today where Freedom House looked specifically at freedom of the press, and they rated Iran as the worst in the world in this respect. Do you theorize that Freedom House temporarily shed their liberal bias in making this particular judgement? :lol: :lol: Let me find that article, then I will grouse at you some more.....

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i17syAITvC41t92IJKTVvtmiH3ZAD90BM71G8

I was wrong about Iran being very worst, but Freedom Press singled them out for condemnation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, how would YOU characterize all the nice things you've said about Iran and all the bad things you've said about the three American allies?

I haven't said bad things about those American allies, other than to note that objective analysis rates them similar to Iran in terms of human rights.

And as far as my supposed praise of Iran, again, I'm just trying to be objective. They have pluses and minuses. Overall, I think of them like the regime in China, I detest their government. But they also hover over a generally pro-American population, they have checks and balances within their government, and we can cooperate with them on a number of issues.

You are incapable of dealing with a complex world. You paint everything in black/white.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, there's nothing all that complex about it in one sense, and it's you that doesn't understand the complexity in the other sense.

First and foremost, we have the SIMPLICITY of a GOOD versus EVIL world--those who promote freedom and compassion and enlightenment versus those who promote tyranny and barbarism and ignorance. Iran undeniably is the latter. They support terrorism; They threaten genocide; They strive for the means to carry out that genocide; And that pro-American population you mentioned (talk about over-simplification and exaggeration), the tyrannical regime in Iran oppresses, represses, and suppresses it.

There's no complexity at all in recognizing evil. The COMPLEXITY is in how to deal with that evil, given the context of America NOT exerting anywhere near the full weight of our military force because the American left has a sizeable portion of our population conditioned to oppose that.

Just to throw you a bone, I would include in that complexity dealing with domestically evil, but internationally pro-American regimes like the Saudis, Egypt, etc.

Your biggest failing, Harlan, is that you overvalue the domestic evil and undervalue the factor of loyalty to America in the overall Good versus Evil picture.

[Freak Out]

Isn't today "Mission Accomplished" day?

I remember when the comb sucker told congress that by the end of 2003 we would only have a division left in Iraq.

[Freak Out]

Bush makes historic speech aboard warship

ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) --The following is an unedited transcript of President Bush's historic speech from the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, during which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq:

Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.

Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before.

From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history.

You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American armed forces.

This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country.

And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.

The character of our military through history, the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies is fully present in this generation.

When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country and I am honored to be your commander in chief.

In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale.

In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.

Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime.

With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians.

No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.

Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world.

They have failed.

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.

Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan.

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers.

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all.

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.

And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.

Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition, declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire.

We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine.

The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope.

When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life.

American values and American interests lead in the same direction. We stand for human liberty.

The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways: with all of the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence and finance.

We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it.

The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.

Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger.

The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.

No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost; free nations will press on to victory.

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight.

After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000 miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound.

Some of you will see new family members for the first time; 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.

We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, "He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier."

Every name, every life is a loss to our military, to our nation and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray in God's time their reunion will come.

Those we lost were last seen on duty.

Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others.

All of you, all in this generation of our military, have taken up the highest calling of history: You were defending your country and protecting the innocent from harm.

And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, come out; and to those in darkness, be free."

Thank you for serving our country and our cause.

May God bless you all. And may God continue to bless America.

[texaspackerbacker]

And that's exactly the way it would have happened ......... except for the fact that al Qaeda intervened--blew up the mosque at Samarra, killed a bunch of innocent Iraqis of all three major ethnic groups, successfully blaming the killing on the other groups, and damn near gave the sick Bush-hating American leftists exactly what they hungered for: a civil war.

Fortunately, the Iraqi leadership of all three groups held firm. There were insurgents in the streets, but NO CIVIL WAR because the leadership of the three groups resisted the temptation to sink to that. Slowly but surely, American troops have eradicated much of al Qaeda in Iraq and co-opted or neutralized most of the other insurgents. That success is undeniable and increasingly difficult for the leftist saturated American media to stonewall.

Before that commitment to destroy the America-installed Iraqi regime, all of the landmarks were being met. Iraq was progressing successfully and in a timely manner toward stability. THAT was the news of the first half year or so after the military victory.

And what has been the cost versus benefit summary of the years since the military victory was achieved? We have lost 4,000 + troops--a major tragedy, yet a tiny fraction of Vietnam, Korea, and other wars, barely more than were killed in an hour or so on 9/11. We also have had dollar costs in the hundreds of billions--still totalling less than the estimated economic hit of 9/11.

Have there been benefits of the war? Only if you value the lives of Americans who have NOT been killed by repeats of 9/11 that have been prevented. Amercan leftists like to deny this link--between the war and Bush's preventing repeats of 9/11. Some of the]m correctly point out the OTHER FACTORS--enhanced security, harsh treatment and interrorgation of terrorist prisoners, monitoring of terrorist communication between America and overseas. What they conveniently ignore is the fact that the leftists who hate the American effort in the war also STRONGLY OPPOSED ALL OF THOSE OTHER FACTORS WHICH HAVE SAVED AMERICAN LIVES--I'm talking about Obama and Hillary, Reid and Pelosi, Durban, Murtha, and all the rest of those degenerate scumbags of the left who whine and rant against ALL the factors which have saved huge numbers of American lives--INCLUDING the war in Iraq--which according to al Qaeda itself, was prioritized by al Qaeda ahead of hitting America at home.

I call that a benefit which far outweighs the cost. That conclusion is obvious and not even considered controversial to the huge majority of our troops who are the ones actually making the sacrifices. Only assholes of the leftist media and political persuasion question it. Hopefully, that doesn't include any of you upstanding anti-war types in the forum. I guess we'll see about that by what you guys post in response to this.

[MJZiggy]

Why would ANYBODY want a civil war in Iraq? Remember all the leftists you're criticizing have humanitarian efforts going on there and would lose all their Peace Corps folks.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ya see, there's this little thing called "politics"--which is the road that leads to another little thing called "power".

One way to have success in that area is to REFLECT the views and values of the huge majority of good normal Americans--love of and pride in country, desire for low taxes and lack of government intrusion in their lives, traditional Judeo-Christian moral values and heritage, and MOST OF ALL, having America safe and secure from mass murder by terrorists. That would be the Republicans.

Then you have the other way to success in politics and power. You get the complicity of the media and the educational establishment to hoodwink people and inflict on them a horrible elitist agenda of alternative values, althernative morality, de-emphasis of Christianity in favor of basically any two-bit crap religion or no religion at all, subordination of American power and prestige to international organizations run by crap little countries, many of which are dictatorships, some of which are terrorist-supporting, and most of which are anti-American--while these elitist assholes concentrate on what WE did wrong to make them anti-American, etc. etc. etc. That would be the Democrats.

Which brings us back to the question, why would anybody want to see civil war in Iraq--or why would anybody want to see American failure in Iraq and elsewhere?--or why would anybody want to see economic problems--and indeed, conjure up economic problems where there really aren't any? The answer, of course, is to make the party in office--the one that got there by REFLECTING the views and core values of the people--look bad so they lose in the next elections.

It worked wonderfully for the Dem/libs in 2006, hopefully not so well this time.

[MJZiggy]

First off, I don't believe anyone (well, maybe besides George) is stupid enough to want something like a civil war just to have their party win an election. George looks plenty bad enough to cost his party the election all by himself with no help from any civil war. Then again, we're supposed to be electing the most qualified CANDIDATE, no?

Also realize that these are not Judeo Christian countries we're talking about so maybe they're anti-American because they're pissed that we keep trying to stuff our American Judeo Christian values down their throats...

[texaspackerbacker]

Why would you call a Yale graduate with a higher GPA than that leftist icon, John Kerry, stupid? I'll tell you why: Because the God damned elistist biased leftist media and scummy entertainment establishment portrays him that way. And why do they do that? Because they can't find any REAL degenerate or scandalous aspect to his life, as with Bill Clinton. And why did they apologize for and do their best to cover up the behavior of Clinton? Because he had the same sick leftist and anti-American philosophies as they do. Only recently when Clinton has dared to attack somebody even more rottenly left wing have the damned media and entertainment community turned on him.

Bush actually was liked by the leftist media when he got the Republican nomination as one of the least conservative of those running in 2000. When did they start really attacking him? Right after the military victory in Iraq and the stunning economic recovery from probably the worst calamity in American history, Bush appeared unbeatable. That is when they started to irrationally savage him as has been done to no president in history, not even Reagan.

And as for our "stuffing our Judeo Christian values down their throat"--I assume you mean the Muslims, do you honestly have the gall to suggest that our American Way and all that goes with it is not superior in every way to the barbarism, tyranny, ignorance, sexism, etc. that characterize the Muslim way?

[MJZiggy]

If they wanted to nail Bush on his scandals, they could simply go back to his drinking days. He ain't so squeaky clean, but he gives them plenty of fodder without having to resort to that like they had to with Clinton.

I'm not suggesting that our way of life is superior or inferior as MY view has very little to do with whether they hate us or not, but I'm pretty sure THEY think Islam is superior to Christianity (or they'd have simply adopted our values without struggle), and I'd be pretty willing to bet that if they tried stuffing their ways down your throat it would piss you off.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not merely suggesting that our way of life is superior, I'm STATING it in no uncertain terms that America, Americans, the American Way of life, Christianity, our Judeo-Christian values and heritage, basically ALL of that is indisputably extremely superior to the trash religion called Islam, its followers, and basically everything about it--the barbarism, the tyranny, the ignorance, the sexism, and all the other evil which is basically institutionalized in that crap excuse for a religion.

It would be interesting to hear if any American who isn't ...... let's just say, totally misguided, could possibly disagree with that and have the courage to state exactly what part of that and why they are in disagreement with.

If in fact, anybody in this forum actually is that wrongheaded, speak up. You have Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durban, and a whole lot of other liberal Democrats in your corner.

[Harlan Huckleby]

evil which is basically institutionalized in that crap excuse for a religion.

doesn't sound like coexistance is possible. if we're faced with an evil ideology, containment is unlikely to be sufficient, those people will have to be killed or converted.

http://www.cinemapolitica.org/files/cinemapolitica/pastfilms/strangelove.gif

[texaspackerbacker]

I think recognizing them for what they are and their religion for what it is would be sufficient.

We tolerate and coexist with a lot of evil and trash. Why should Muslims be any different?

[MJZiggy]

I'm not merely suggesting that our way of life is superior, I'm STATING it in no uncertain terms that America, Americans, the American Way of life, Christianity, our Judeo-Christian values and heritage, basically ALL of that is indisputably extremely superior to the trash religion called Islam, its followers, and basically everything about it--the barbarism, the tyranny, the ignorance, the sexism, and all the other evil which is basically institutionalized in that crap excuse for a religion.

It would be interesting to hear if any American who isn't ...... let's just say, totally misguided, could possibly disagree with that and have the courage to state exactly what part of that and why they are in disagreement with.

If in fact, anybody in this forum actually is that wrongheaded, speak up. You have Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durban, and a whole lot of other liberal Democrats in your corner.

It has nothing to do with what you think or STATE. It has to do with what THE PEOPLE in those countries believe and they believe we are ramming ideas down their throats that they don't want. Just the same as if they tried ramming Islam down your throat because THEY feel it's superior to Christianity in every way.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you or do you not acknowledge the SUPERIORITY of America, Christianity, and our way of life in general over all aspects of the trash Muslim religion and way of life?

If so, then how can you refer to it as "stuffing it down their throat"? Did we "stuff it down the throat" of the Nazis that genocide was wrong? Did we "stuff it down the throat" of the slavery advocates that slavery was wrong?

Your weirdly misguided "moral equivalence" is a little flawed, don't you think?

You care so much about what practitioners of evil think and want; By that standard, we would have just left the Nazis and the slaveholders keep and practice THEIR beliefs--who are we to think OUR way is superior?

I can't wait to hear why you think the situation is somehow different with the evils of Islam now.

[MJZiggy]

You're missing my point. We're talking about people being pissed off with America. That has nothing to do with how we think or see the world. It has to do with their viewpoint. And to the confederates way of thinking, right or wrong, we stuffed it down their throats.

And I don't give a flying fuck what they want, I'm just saying that this is a reason they are pissed off at America which is NOT what we want...

You're just pissed because I HAVEN'T made a judgment. That's not moral relativism. It's just stating a fact from an objective viewpoint.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It doesn't matter a hill of beans if you think our ways are superior to those of Muslims.

Now, when you start talking about Nazis and genocide, well then a call to action seems in order.

All that matters is what you propose we do about our differences.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're missing my point. We're talking about people being pissed off with America. That has nothing to do with how we think or see the world. It has to do with their viewpoint. And to the confederates way of thinking, right or wrong, we stuffed it down their throats.

And I don't give a flying fuck what they want, I'm just saying that this is a reason they are pissed off at America which is NOT what we want...

You're just pissed because I HAVEN'T made a judgment. That's not moral relativism. It's just stating a fact from an objective viewpoint.

And you don't think the Nazis were pissed off at us? Why do you care so much about what the Muslims think when you didn't care about their moral equivalent, the Nazis? Oh yeah, you don't "give a flying fuck" about that. Well, if that is the case, then WHY did YOU bring up in the first place what you somehow perceive as negative--America trying to improve their lives? And before somebody brings it up, hell yeah, why should we care about improving their lives ....... except that our own peace, prosperity, and security benefits from having free, happy, stable, and educated people in foreign countries. Long ago, that kind of compassion actually was the position of liberals--apparently, no more, though. Or is it that you libs don't actually BELIEVE that what we are "stuffing down their throats" is better than the rotten way of life they have now?

[MJZiggy]

What makes you believe I care what they think? What makes you think I don't think we should finish what we started when I clearly told you I did? I fully agree that having free, stable, happy and educated people in foreign countries, But they can be free happy, stable and educated without being Christian. Perhaps they should all convert to Buddhism or Taoism? Those religions have lots of free happy, stable and educated people. And you already know I don't think along party lines.

I merely wanted you to step outside your own thinking and address the concept from a different world view. Not ALL Muslims have it so bad as you suggest. It is not the same as Nazism. Not even close and you know it.

[texaspackerbacker]

So you are convinced that people in Muslim countries are not as bad and do not have as bad conditions as people in Nazi Germany? Think again. It is every bit as bad on both counts, and it is NOT isolated cases, but institutionalized EVIL in Islam, just as with Nazism.

And yes, just as some tumors are benign, not all are cancerous, some bogus religions are benign and not patently evil like Islam. Oh, shame on me, I'm making a value judgment that Christianity and Christian beliefs are true, correct, and superior to all others. But don't worry, this is America, not some crap Muslim country. You have a perfect right to deny our majority religion and express belief in any two-bit crap philosophy, no matter how bogus it is--or no belief at all, for that matter. Isn't America wonderful--and superior to ....... basically anywhere else? Or don't you think so?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I feel like i need a shower after reading Tex's post.

I get dumber every time i read one.

[MJZiggy]

Ummm...I work with some of these people...and the clients they work with lead me to believe that you just may be absolutely and horrifically wrong to categorize them so...I'll never say that there aren't evil Muslims in the world, just like the things we discussed in the conversation that we had about the religious right, but the generalizations you make are unreasonable and based on what you've seen in the news. It's coming to my attention that people really do hear what they want to hear out of the media (except in your case it's to label it as liberal and use that as an excuse to dismiss it.) If all Muslims were inherently evil as you suggest, then how is it possible that the humanitarian and rebuilding efforts are seeing success?

[Gunakor]

So you are convinced that people in Muslim countries are not as bad and do not have as bad conditions as people in Nazi Germany? Think again. It is every bit as bad on both counts, and it is NOT isolated cases, but institutionalized EVIL in Islam, just as with Nazism.

And yes, just as some tumors are benign, not all are cancerous, some bogus religions are benign and not patently evil like Islam. Oh, shame on me, I'm making a value judgment that Christianity and Christian beliefs are true, correct, and superior to all others. But don't worry, this is America, not some crap Muslim country. You have a perfect right to deny our majority religion and express belief in any two-bit crap philosophy, no matter how bogus it is--or no belief at all, for that matter. Isn't America wonderful--and superior to ....... basically anywhere else? Or don't you think so?


What does it matter how we feel about it Tex? We don't govern thier country. We don't live thier lives. We don't get to choose how they act or what they believe in. I'm sure most Muslims feel thier way of life is superior to ours. Realize, Tex, that one religions superiority over another is based purely on perspective. Any Muslim could use the same justification of percieved superiority for coming to America and force feeding Islamic values on Christians as you use in going to Iraq and force feeding Christian values on Muslims. And he'd be just as wrong in doing so as you would be.

Christ man, how much do you truly value freedom? I want to believe you are grateful as an American for the freedoms we have, but then I see you rip on one freedom after another. Freedom of choice is bad. Freedom of religion is bad. Freedom of the (liberal)press is bad. Yet without these freedoms, America would not be so superior to the nations you wish to Americanize.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ummm...I work with some of these people...and the clients they work with lead me to believe that you just may be absolutely and horrifically wrong to categorize them so...I'll never say that there aren't evil Muslims in the world, just like the things we discussed in the conversation that we had about the religious right, but the generalizations you make are unreasonable and based on what you've seen in the news. It's coming to my attention that people really do hear what they want to hear out of the media (except in your case it's to label it as liberal and use that as an excuse to dismiss it.) If all Muslims were inherently evil as you suggest, then how is it possible that the humanitarian and rebuilding efforts are seeing success?

And I didn't say ALL Muslims are bad--I've known a few good ones. The huge majority, however, are true believers in their sick rotten excuse for a religion which promotes hate, barbarism, ignorance, sexism, genocide, and tyranny. Could you possibly deny that? Certainly not rationally.

As for what "liberals" push, I have gone into great detail in several posts on that and never gotten a denial or a defense of it from any of ya'all, which is understandable, because the detestable tenets of liberalism in this country are both undeniable and indefensible. If you think otherwise, feel free to deny or defend them.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, I think your reading must be flawed. I'm ripping Freedom of this and Freedom of that? Didn't I just say, people are free to believe or practice or express or defend any old piece of shit excuse of a religion they want to? You don't see that as defending freedom? And as for Freedom of the Press, how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.

You say, "Yet without these freedoms, America would not be so superior to the nations you wish to Americanize". That's precisely the point, we AREN'T without those freedoms; Muslim nations do not have those freedoms; Thus, you apparently agree with at least that one of many aspects of the superiority which I am speaking of.

And as for your view of religion--all a matter of perspective, no absolutes, crap like that, that basically translates to universalism, which basically translates to atheism. Yes, you certainly have the freedom to believe bogus shit like that, and I feel sorry for you and anybody who does.

[MJZiggy]

Ummm...I work with some of these people...and the clients they work with lead me to believe that you just may be absolutely and horrifically wrong to categorize them so...I'll never say that there aren't evil Muslims in the world, just like the things we discussed in the conversation that we had about the religious right, but the generalizations you make are unreasonable and based on what you've seen in the news. It's coming to my attention that people really do hear what they want to hear out of the media (except in your case it's to label it as liberal and use that as an excuse to dismiss it.) If all Muslims were inherently evil as you suggest, then how is it possible that the humanitarian and rebuilding efforts are seeing success?

And I didn't say ALL Muslims are bad--I've known a few good ones. The huge majority, however, are true believers in their sick rotten excuse for a religion which promotes hate, barbarism, ignorance, sexism, genocide, and tyranny. Could you possibly deny that? Certainly not rationally.

As for what "liberals" push, I have gone into great detail in several posts on that and never gotten a denial or a defense of it from any of ya'all, which is understandable, because the detestable tenets of liberalism in this country are both undeniable and indefensible. If you think otherwise, feel free to deny or defend them.

You'll never convince me by aggression. Convince me by being right. The basic tenets of Islam are not as you suggest. (and since when is ignorance a religious belief?) What you describe is extremism adopted by some. Consider that there are some Christian extremists who believe similar things.

[texaspackerbacker]

What aggression?

So a FERVENT BELIEF IN THE LITERAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY IS EXTREMISM NOW? Is that REALLY your position?

[GrnBay007]

how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.


Vintage Tex! :D

Does your blood pressure go up as you type this? :wink: :P

[Gunakor]

Gunakor, I think your reading must be flawed. I'm ripping Freedom of this and Freedom of that? Didn't I just say, people are free to believe or practice or express or defend any old piece of shit excuse of a religion they want to? You don't see that as defending freedom? And as for Freedom of the Press, how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.

You say, "Yet without these freedoms, America would not be so superior to the nations you wish to Americanize". That's precisely the point, we AREN'T without those freedoms; Muslim nations do not have those freedoms; Thus, you apparently agree with at least that one of many aspects of the superiority which I am speaking of.

And as for your view of religion--all a matter of perspective, no absolutes, crap like that, that basically translates to universalism, which basically translates to atheism. Yes, you certainly have the freedom to believe bogus shit like that, and I feel sorry for you and anybody who does.


My apologies then Tex. I misinterpreted what you said. So, it's a good thing for people to have these freedoms but dispicable for people to use them? Or am I still misunderstanding?

My view on religion that it's all a matter of perspective does not translate to athiesm. It translates to DIVERSITY. That does include athiests, but it also includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindus, and every other religion you could think of. It means that people should be allowed to believe in whatever religion they choose and not be labeled as tyrants or barbarians simply because they aren't Christians. Thier religion isn't just some "piece of shit excuse for a religion" - that is just YOUR perspective. I disagree with that perspective, as do many others here in America. After all, our country is one of the more diverse on the entire planet.

As for your whole deal with superiority, I guess to put an end to it I'll even AGREE with you that our way of life is in many ways superior to that of Arab countries. At the same time, I don't feel that gives us the right to impose upon thier lifestyle. Especially on religious grounds.

[Zool]

how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.


Vintage Tex! :D

Does your blood pressure go up as you type this? :wink: :P

Does it ever go down?

[texaspackerbacker]

how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.


Vintage Tex! :D

Does your blood pressure go up as you type this? :wink: :P

Does my blood pressure go up? Yeah, in a good adrenalin rush way. Sometimes it's darn near orgasmic. :D

Does what ever go down, Zool? :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, I think your reading must be flawed. I'm ripping Freedom of this and Freedom of that? Didn't I just say, people are free to believe or practice or express or defend any old piece of shit excuse of a religion they want to? You don't see that as defending freedom? And as for Freedom of the Press, how is criticizing the content of what the sick damned left-biased media spew the same as being against their freedom to spew the vile crap? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they were despicable for doing so.

You say, "Yet without these freedoms, America would not be so superior to the nations you wish to Americanize". That's precisely the point, we AREN'T without those freedoms; Muslim nations do not have those freedoms; Thus, you apparently agree with at least that one of many aspects of the superiority which I am speaking of.

And as for your view of religion--all a matter of perspective, no absolutes, crap like that, that basically translates to universalism, which basically translates to atheism. Yes, you certainly have the freedom to believe bogus shit like that, and I feel sorry for you and anybody who does.


My apologies then Tex. I misinterpreted what you said. So, it's a good thing for people to have these freedoms but dispicable for people to use them? Or am I still misunderstanding?

My view on religion that it's all a matter of perspective does not translate to athiesm. It translates to DIVERSITY. That does include athiests, but it also includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindus, and every other religion you could think of. It means that people should be allowed to believe in whatever religion they choose and not be labeled as tyrants or barbarians simply because they aren't Christians. Thier religion isn't just some "piece of shit excuse for a religion" - that is just YOUR perspective. I disagree with that perspective, as do many others here in America. After all, our country is one of the more diverse on the entire planet.

As for your whole deal with superiority, I guess to put an end to it I'll even AGREE with you that our way of life is in many ways superior to that of Arab countries. At the same time, I don't feel that gives us the right to impose upon thier lifestyle. Especially on religious grounds.

Yeah, Gunakor, you pretty much nailed it--even though you misspelled "despicable". If somebody spewed out a line of blatant racism--which Freedom of Speech certainly allows, wouldn't you characterize that as "despicable"? And if somebody denied the Holocaust or even more extreme, said Hitler had the right idea, that person would absolutely be free to say it. However, I assume you would view it as "despicable", right? Are you getting the idea? Or do I need more examples. IMO, denial of the greatness and superiority of the American Way or claiming some other crap way of life is morally equivalent to our own fits right in with those examples--more so, because it is our own ox being gored.

And since you were rational enough in your last paragraph to come around to the right point of view about American superiority, I will throw you a bone too. Yes, in the strictest legal sense, we don't have a right to impose good things on the people of countries by regime change or whatever. However, when you are dealing with forces of evil who don't play by any civilized rules, why should we handicap ourselves with legalities. I have no problem at all with "Might makes Right"--when the side with the Might actually IS Right. And I basically dare anyone to claim that America isn't--and hasn't been for a century or more now.

Oh yeah, religious "diversity": If any old crap belief is just as good as any other--which seems to be what you are saying, then NONE of those beliefs are any good--which is tantamount to atheism (which you also misspelled).

[Freak Out]

Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths, U.S. Says

By Avram Goldstein

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.

Community mental health centers, hobbled by financial limits, haven't provided enough scientifically sound care, especially in rural areas, said Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He briefed reporters today at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington.

Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post- traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment. About 1.6 million U.S. troops have fought in the two wars since October 2001, the report said. About 4,560 soldiers had died in the conflicts as of today, the Defense Department reported on its Web site.

Based on those figures and established suicide rates for similar patients who commonly develop substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder, ``it's quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths,'' Insel said.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, is the failure to cope after a major shock, such as an auto accident, a rape or combat, Insel said. PTSD may remain dormant for months or years before it surfaces, and in about 10 percent of cases people never recover, he said.

Difficult to Predict

``We don't yet know how to predict who is going to be the person to be most concerned about,'' Insel said.

The Pentagon didn't dispute Insel's remark.

``The department takes the issue of suicide very seriously, and one suicide is too many,'' said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith in an e-mail.

The department has expanded efforts to encourage soldiers and veterans not to feel stigmatized if they seek mental health treatment, Smith said.

Soldiers who'd been exposed to combat trauma were the most likely to suffer from depression or PTSD, the Rand report said. About 53 percent of soldiers with those conditions sought treatment during the past year. Half of those who got care were judged by Rand researchers to have received inadequate treatment.

Failure to adequately treat the mental and neurological problems of returning soldiers can cause a chain of negative events in the lives of affected veterans, the researchers said. About 300,000 soldiers suffer from depression or PTSD, the report said.

Treatment Options

Researchers aren't sure whether it's appropriate to treat such patients with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of medications that include Prozac, and other anti- depressants, Insel said. His institute is examining that question and novel treatments for PTSD, including using so-called virtual reality technology.

The psychiatric association reported last week that a survey of 191 military members and their spouses found 32 percent said their duty hurt their mental health, and six in 10 believed seeking treatment would damage their careers.

More than 15,000 psychiatrists are attending the professional group's meeting.

To contact the reporter on this story: Avram Goldstein in Washington at agoldstein1@bloomberg.net.

When I was in the service (years ago....) if you even mentioned going to the shrink you were labeled a pussy but I know from family that were in recently or are in now there is a huge push to get people to request treatment...but old attitudes are hard to break.

[MJZiggy]

What aggression?

So a FERVENT BELIEF IN THE LITERAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY IS EXTREMISM NOW? Is that REALLY your position?

You know very well I didn't call you extremist. Please do not try to deny that there are Christian extremists in the world.

Please remember our discussion on the religious right, because this kind of stuff is part of what I was referring to. I wonder what Jesus' stance in these discussions might have been...

[Gunakor]

If somebody spewed out a line of blatant racism--which Freedom of Speech certainly allows, wouldn't you characterize that as "despicable"?


Sure, I can agree with you there. So when you say that all Muslims are inherently evil, or that any religion other than Christianity is just a piece of shit excuse for a religion, you can understand how people could view that as despicable as well, right? I mean, it's akin to racism as far as I'm concerned. So to you placing an evil stereotype on a certain race is despicable, but placing an evil stereotype on a certain religion or a certain culture is okay?


Oh yeah, religious "diversity": If any old crap belief is just as good as any other--which seems to be what you are saying, then NONE of those beliefs are any good--which is tantamount to atheism (which you also misspelled).


No, you don't get it do you. I'm suggesting that ALL of these beliefs are good, depending on what you choose to believe in. I'm not saying everybody believes in nothing(atheism), I'm saying everybody believes in something different(diversity). What I'm suggesting is completely on the other end of the spectrum as what you are interpreting. What I'm saying is that NO religion is just a piece of shit excuse. Just because I don't worship Allah doesn't mean I hate Muslims...

[texaspackerbacker]

What aggression?

So a FERVENT BELIEF IN THE LITERAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY IS EXTREMISM NOW? Is that REALLY your position?

You know very well I didn't call you extremist. Please do not try to deny that there are Christian extremists in the world.

Please remember our discussion on the religious right, because this kind of stuff is part of what I was referring to. I wonder what Jesus' stance in these discussions might have been...

Ziggy, I didn't say you accused me, specifically, of being an extremist. What I said is that you clearly implied that it is extremism--and the Christians are extreme--to believe in the absolute literal truth of Biblical Christianity, and thus, the falsehood of all other religions. Do you or don't you see THAT as extreme? If THAT is now considered extreme, it just shows how demonically effective the left has been at propagandizing people.

FreakOut, come back when those ridiculous doom and gloom predictions come true. I talk to returning troops all the time, and they consider all this stupidity about depression, etc. to be totally laughable--purely the product of the anti-war/anti-military idiocy of the so-called experts whining about such things.

[texaspackerbacker]

If somebody spewed out a line of blatant racism--which Freedom of Speech certainly allows, wouldn't you characterize that as "despicable"?


Sure, I can agree with you there. So when you say that all Muslims are inherently evil, or that any religion other than Christianity is just a piece of shit excuse for a religion, you can understand how people could view that as despicable as well, right? I mean, it's akin to racism as far as I'm concerned. So to you placing an evil stereotype on a certain race is despicable, but placing an evil stereotype on a certain religion or a certain culture is okay?


Oh yeah, religious "diversity": If any old crap belief is just as good as any other--which seems to be what you are saying, then NONE of those beliefs are any good--which is tantamount to atheism (which you also misspelled).


No, you don't get it do you. I'm suggesting that ALL of these beliefs are good, depending on what you choose to believe in. I'm not saying everybody believes in nothing(atheism), I'm saying everybody believes in something different(diversity). What I'm suggesting is completely on the other end of the spectrum as what you are interpreting. What I'm saying is that NO religion is just a piece of shit excuse. Just because I don't worship Allah doesn't mean I hate Muslims...

Actually, Gunakor, I said "you would consider despicable .....". I didn't say anything about what I thought--except that bad-mouthing and disrespecting America is far worse.

On your second point, it's YOU that don't get it. If you think ALL beliefs are good, then you are denying that ONE is the CORRECT ONE--which basically means you are denying the correctness of all those which claim to be THE correct religion--which really is tantamount to atheism because you are saying religion is nothing more than feel-good psycho-babble--the opiate of the people, in the words of Marx.

And did I anywhere that Muslims are INHERENTLY evil? Hell no! What I said is that Muslims are much more apt to buy the beliefs of their religion than Christians or anybody else--and that their CRAP EXCUSE FOR A RELIGION IS IN FACT, THOROUGHLY EVIL. If you don't believe THAT, then how would YOU describe the barbarism, tyranny, sexism, ignorance, and genocide which are institutionalized in the Muslim religion?

[Harlan Huckleby]

their CRAP EXCUSE FOR A RELIGION IS IN FACT, THOROUGHLY EVIL. If you don't believe THAT, then how would YOU describe the barbarism, tyranny, sexism, ignorance, and genocide which are institutionalized in the Muslim religion?

If such evil is institutionalized in their religion, then how do you explain that Islamic violent behavior has reared its head mostly in the last 25 years or so? Historically, Christians have been far more war-like and violent.

We had this discussion once before, and your answer was that mass violence from the western world was "back in the olden days." (I guess Hitler and Stalincount as the olden days. :lol: )

Elaborate on this "institutionalized" theory. When do you figure that happened?

[Gunakor]

Actually, Gunakor, I said "you would consider despicable .....". I didn't say anything about what I thought--except that bad-mouthing and disrespecting America is far worse.

You call any other religion besides Christianity a piece of shit religion. That is a stereotype. Racisim is a stereotype. Sexism is a stereotype. They are all the same. As it relates to America, Christianity does not go hand in hand with America. America is diverse in religious beliefs. Refusing to convert to Christianity is not an insult to America.

In any case, don't try to deflect the discussion away from what I asked just so that you don't have to explain yourself. Answer the question. You are wholly against racism and sexism, that much I get. But you don't feel labelling religions with nasty stereotypes is just as evil as labelling races and sexes with nasty stereotypes?

Now, when you answer that, don't give an answer to a question I didn't ask - i.e. pointing out the bad mouthing of America. What I am asking you is your feeling twoards stereotypes, and if you feel it is okay in one instance but despicable in another. Because it isn't ALL Muslims that are bad mouthing America. There are many Muslims that harbor no ill will twoards America. There are many Christians who do bad mouth America. The stereotype itself is every bit as wrong as a racist or sexist stereotype.


On your second point, it's YOU that don't get it. If you think ALL beliefs are good, then you are denying that ONE is the CORRECT ONE--which basically means you are denying the correctness of all those which claim to be THE correct religion--which really is tantamount to atheism because you are saying religion is nothing more than feel-good psycho-babble--the opiate of the people, in the words of Marx.

You cannot prove to me that the Bible is entirely non-fictional, and 100% historically accurate. You cannot therefore state as fact that Christianity is the one and only correct religion. Being a Christian does not make you superior to those who are not Christian. I know I will never be able to convince you of that, because acceptance of others and equal rights and such just aren't a part of your personality. You truly DO believe that your shit doesn't stink as bad as the rest of ours does. I hope that arrogance doesn't come back to bite you in the ass one day...


And did I anywhere that Muslims are INHERENTLY evil? Hell no! What I said is that Muslims are much more apt to buy the beliefs of their religion than Christians or anybody else--and that their CRAP EXCUSE FOR A RELIGION IS IN FACT, THOROUGHLY EVIL. If you don't believe THAT, then how would YOU describe the barbarism, tyranny, sexism, ignorance, and genocide which are institutionalized in the Muslim religion?

Well, maybe not in those specific terms. But you implied very strongly that all Muslims are evil based upon the religion they worship. You can word it any way you'd like, but it's clear as day what you meant. And, no, the Muslim religion is not throughly evil. The Muslim RADICALS that you see on TV are thoroughly evil, but they are less motivated by the Koran than they are by thier own personal agendas. They are fanatics, nothing more.

True Muslims denounce thier despicable acts. True Muslims are a peaceful people who long for knowledge, not violence. You should go out and mingle with a few of them. There are many living right here in America. They are incredible people. They would be more than happy to enlighten you to the TRUE Muslim Way. I wish that you could sit down with them and have a civil open-minded discussion about the true teachings and values of Islam. Unfortunately, I couldn't see you giving them 2 seconds of your time before you called them tyrants, and sexists, and barbarians, and above all liars. You are too set in your own beliefs. So it's really not worth arguing about I suppose.

[woodbuck27]

WOW! This thread is HOT!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

their CRAP EXCUSE FOR A RELIGION IS IN FACT, THOROUGHLY EVIL. If you don't believe THAT, then how would YOU describe the barbarism, tyranny, sexism, ignorance, and genocide which are institutionalized in the Muslim religion?

If such evil is institutionalized in their religion, then how do you explain that Islamic violent behavior has reared its head mostly in the last 25 years or so? Historically, Christians have been far more war-like and violent.

We had this discussion once before, and your answer was that mass violence from the western world was "back in the olden days." (I guess Hitler and Stalincount as the olden days. :lol: )

Elaborate on this "institutionalized" theory. When do you figure that happened?

It's not all that complicated, Harlan.

The Christian violence, etc. you refer to--unless you go back to the REALLY olden days--is in spite of the Christian religion, while the Muslim violence, etc. is because of the religion.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't set Hitler and Stalin up as religious icons--atheistic Communism and Nazism which was essentially void of religion (Hitler didn't kill Jews for religious reasons so much as because they were the "haves" in his class and ethnic warfare scenario). The only modern example I can think of with Christians is Northern Ireland, and arguably, even that didn't have much religious belief behind it.

Muslim, on the other hand, in the present or very recent past, have been barbaric and murderous across northern Africa toward Christians, in Kashmir toward Hindu, as well as in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines--and that's just the violence and barbarism toward others. What they have done to other Muslims for religious reasons is on display in just about every Muslim dominated country in the world. And that's not even mentioning the genocide of Israel, which if you took a poll of all Muslims, would probably be favored by 80 or 90% of them.

You're oozing with that old liberal standby, "moral equivalence", Harlan, but it just isn't there.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, Gunakor, I said "you would consider despicable .....". I didn't say anything about what I thought--except that bad-mouthing and disrespecting America is far worse.

You call any other religion besides Christianity a piece of shit religion. That is a stereotype. Racisim is a stereotype. Sexism is a stereotype. They are all the same. As it relates to America, Christianity does not go hand in hand with America. America is diverse in religious beliefs. Refusing to convert to Christianity is not an insult to America.

In any case, don't try to deflect the discussion away from what I asked just so that you don't have to explain yourself. Answer the question. You are wholly against racism and sexism, that much I get. But you don't feel labelling religions with nasty stereotypes is just as evil as labelling races and sexes with nasty stereotypes?

Now, when you answer that, don't give an answer to a question I didn't ask - i.e. pointing out the bad mouthing of America. What I am asking you is your feeling twoards stereotypes, and if you feel it is okay in one instance but despicable in another. Because it isn't ALL Muslims that are bad mouthing America. There are many Muslims that harbor no ill will twoards America. There are many Christians who do bad mouth America. The stereotype itself is every bit as wrong as a racist or sexist stereotype.


On your second point, it's YOU that don't get it. If you think ALL beliefs are good, then you are denying that ONE is the CORRECT ONE--which basically means you are denying the correctness of all those which claim to be THE correct religion--which really is tantamount to atheism because you are saying religion is nothing more than feel-good psycho-babble--the opiate of the people, in the words of Marx.

You cannot prove to me that the Bible is entirely non-fictional, and 100% historically accurate. You cannot therefore state as fact that Christianity is the one and only correct religion. Being a Christian does not make you superior to those who are not Christian. I know I will never be able to convince you of that, because acceptance of others and equal rights and such just aren't a part of your personality. You truly DO believe that your shit doesn't stink as bad as the rest of ours does. I hope that arrogance doesn't come back to bite you in the ass one day...


And did I anywhere that Muslims are INHERENTLY evil? Hell no! What I said is that Muslims are much more apt to buy the beliefs of their religion than Christians or anybody else--and that their CRAP EXCUSE FOR A RELIGION IS IN FACT, THOROUGHLY EVIL. If you don't believe THAT, then how would YOU describe the barbarism, tyranny, sexism, ignorance, and genocide which are institutionalized in the Muslim religion?

Well, maybe not in those specific terms. But you implied very strongly that all Muslims are evil based upon the religion they worship. You can word it any way you'd like, but it's clear as day what you meant. And, no, the Muslim religion is not throughly evil. The Muslim RADICALS that you see on TV are thoroughly evil, but they are less motivated by the Koran than they are by thier own personal agendas. They are fanatics, nothing more.

True Muslims denounce thier despicable acts. True Muslims are a peaceful people who long for knowledge, not violence. You should go out and mingle with a few of them. There are many living right here in America. They are incredible people. They would be more than happy to enlighten you to the TRUE Muslim Way. I wish that you could sit down with them and have a civil open-minded discussion about the true teachings and values of Islam. Unfortunately, I couldn't see you giving them 2 seconds of your time before you called them tyrants, and sexists, and barbarians, and above all liars. You are too set in your own beliefs. So it's really not worth arguing about I suppose.

Calling every religion other than Christianity a piece of shit religion is a FACT--or at least what I fervently believe to be a fact. And as little as 2 or 3 decades ago, that concept wouldn't have even been controversial in this country. If in fact, it is now, that is a tribute to the effectiveness--and rottenness--of the propaganda of the left-biased media, education establishment, and entertainment community--the sinister promotion of idiotic multi-culturalism and moral equivalence.

While we obviously don't have a state religion, and do have Freedom of Religion, religious diversity in this country basically means a very diverse bunch of different kinds of Christianity, and maybe Judaism thrown in. That certainly doesn't mean that wrongheaded followers of any old piece of crap religion don't have the benefit of our glorious Freedom of Religion. But it does mean they should be recognized for what they are--either benignly or deleteriously contrary to the true and dominant religion in this country.

And if you want to deny the literal truth of the Bible or be an atheist, or whatever, you are certainly free to have those beliefs--or lack of them--too. It's not a matter of superiority. It's a matter of one belief being true and the others being false. This CRAP being pushed that all beliefs are nice and equivalent or all beliefs are equally false--the two concepts amount to the same thing--is simply bogus. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, more accurately, somebody is right and everybody else is wrong. It's as simple as that.

You said true Muslims denounce all those despicable acts? Then what percentage of Muslims would you estimate to be "true"? 1%? 2%? Maybe 3% tops? And there's a reason for those low percentages: The badness is institutionalized--much of the tyranny, sexism, genocide, ignorance, and barbarism is in the Koran, and virtually all of it is promoted by virtually all of the Muslim clergy.

[Gunakor]

Calling every religion other than Christianity a piece of shit religion is a FACT--or at least what I fervently believe to be a fact.


"Or at least what I fervently believe to be a fact". Well, I'm glad that you've come around to the fact that it's simply what YOU believe to be a fact. Which simply means that it is your opinion, and cannot be called fact at all.


While we obviously don't have a state religion, and do have Freedom of Religion, religious diversity in this country basically means a very diverse bunch of different kinds of Christianity, and maybe Judaism thrown in.

Many religions are practiced in this country Tex. They aren't just a bunch of different branches of Christianity. There must not be any Muslims or Hindus or Scientologists living in Texas, but there are plenty of them up here in Wisconsin.


But it does mean they should be recognized for what they are--either benignly or deleteriously contrary to the true and dominant religion in this country.

It's not simply about the FREEDOM of religion here in America Tex. It's about religious EQUALITY. Which means there IS no dominant religion. I will agree with you that there are more Christians in America than any other religion, but that does not make Christians dominant or superior to thier neighbor who is not Christian.


And if you want to deny the literal truth of the Bible or be an atheist, or whatever, you are certainly free to have those beliefs--or lack of them--too. It's not a matter of superiority. It's a matter of one belief being true and the others being false. This CRAP being pushed that all beliefs are nice and equivalent or all beliefs are equally false--the two concepts amount to the same thing--is simply bogus. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, more accurately, somebody is right and everybody else is wrong. It's as simple as that.

Tex, the definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in ANY religion. Muslims are not atheists, nor are Jews or Hindus or Buddhists or followers of any other religion. Just because you don't practice Christianity does not make you an atheist.

Again, prove to me that Christianity is the one and only true religion. Show me factual evidence that proves beyond a doubt that all other religions are false.

You realize, Tex, that your percieved superiority as a Christian is simply due to the crap being pushed by the Christian church. You being decieved by the Bible is the same as a Muslim being decieved by the Koran. You cannot prove the Bible to be fact, so you cannot convince any American with a brain that Christianity is the one and only true and correct religion simply because that's what you choose to believe in.


You said true Muslims denounce all those despicable acts? Then what percentage of Muslims would you estimate to be "true"? 1%? 2%? Maybe 3% tops? And there's a reason for those low percentages: The badness is institutionalized--much of the tyranny, sexism, genocide, ignorance, and barbarism is in the Koran, and virtually all of it is promoted by virtually all of the Muslim clergy.

Tex, I know Muslims. I went to school with several at UWM. We have regulars that come into the hotel I now work for. We have regular discussions on this topic, so I can guarantee that I know more about Islam than you do. You only know what you see on TV. You have never spoken with a Muslim, you have never studied the religion, and you know nothing about it except for the radicals you see on TV.

Put it like this Tex. The current leaders of Iraq that you so fervently believe can set up and effectively run an American-style democracy are in fact MUSLIM. The Iraqi civilians that pose no threat to America and are, by your own accord, happy that America had stepped in and removed the tyrant Saddam Hussein from power... THEY are also Muslim. True, peaceful, non-violent MUSLIMS. Maybe 5% are radicals, and they are the ones getting all the face time on CNN. So you believe this 5% you see on CNN represent the other 95% who you don't see? That's not the case at all Tex. True Muslims, both here AND in Iraq, denounce the violent acts committed by radicals such as AQ and the Taliban.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, you just blew your chances all to hell for having any shot at the Constitutional high ground.

"IT'S NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION"--your words!

Well, it sure as hell ain't about "equality". There's not a shred about religious "equality" in the Constitution. We were then and are now a Christian nation--WITH a DOMINANT religion, accompanied by the unintended consequence of the founding fathers in allowing the practice of any old piece of crap excuse for religion that comes along--the establishment of Freedom of Religion was meant to accomodate the various shades of Catholic and Protestant believers that existed in the early days, and maybe to tolerate an occasional Jew that came along. You need only to consider how they handled Indian tribal religions to understand what they thought of off-the-wall and wrongheaded pagan things--or maybe the Salem witch trials too.

Christianity is THE DOMINANT religion in this country not only because it is THE true and correct religion, but because it is the MAJORITY religion. And majority rule is the hallmark of our Constitution--along with tolerance, of course, of the usually rotten and wrong minorities.

NEVER confuse tolerance of multi-cultural CRAP for equality.

As for Muslims, yeah, I've known a few Muslims who were pretty decent people too--also very successful practicers of the American free enterprise system. The fact is, though, that by percentage, my Muslim friends, your Muslim friends, and all Muslims in general are MUCH more likely to be DEVOUT followers of the dogma of their religion than most Christians, or Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion. And that religious dogma, strongly promoted by inflexible Muslim clerics, preaches TYRANNY, SEXISM, IGNORANCE, BARBARISM, HATE, and GENOCIDE.

While your 5% figure may be pretty accurate, maybe even on the high side for people out there strapping on suicide bombs or otherwise committing acts of terror, you'd be damn lucky to find 5% who do NOT enthusiastically support the evils I mentioned above. Why? Because those evils are institutionalized in the miserable excuse for a religion that they practice.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Muslim, on the other hand, in the present or very recent past, have been barbaric and murderous across northern Africa toward Christians, in Kashmir

You dodged the question. If violence is institutionalized in ISlam, why has it not historically been more violent than people of other faiths?

[texaspackerbacker]

Muslim, on the other hand, in the present or very recent past, have been barbaric and murderous across northern Africa toward Christians, in Kashmir

You dodged the question. If violence is institutionalized in ISlam, why has it not historically been more violent than people of other faiths?

Who says it hasn't? Sharia Law is nothing new.It has always been practiced, and the whole Muslim expansion, from the 600s on to the slave merchants on to the Turkish Empires on down to the present has ALWAYS been characterized by TYRANNY, IGNORANCE, SEXISM, GENOCIDE, BARBARISM, etc.

Through much of that time period, Europeans/Christian areas didn't have much contact with Muslims and probably weren't much less barbaric themselves, but that doesn't lessen the fact that Muslims were that way. It just makes that time period a lot less relevant--nothing more than a bogus straw for you to try and grasp in defending the indefensible.

The recent time period, when Christianity and basically the whole rest of the world has progressed beyond those evils, while Muslims continue to embrace them, THAT is the relevant time and fact.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the whole Muslim expansion, from the 600s on to the slave merchants on to the Turkish Empires on down to the present has ALWAYS been characterized by TYRANNY, IGNORANCE, SEXISM, GENOCIDE, BARBARISM, etc.

you believe what you want to believe.

[texaspackerbacker]

the whole Muslim expansion, from the 600s on to the slave merchants on to the Turkish Empires on down to the present has ALWAYS been characterized by TYRANNY, IGNORANCE, SEXISM, GENOCIDE, BARBARISM, etc.

you believe what you want to believe.

What a cop-out!

That's historical fact. Dispute it if you can--but you can't!

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's historical fact. Dispute it if you can--but you can't!

The middle east was a RELATIVELY peaceful place prior to the 20th century, certainly as compared to Europe.

[Gunakor]

Gunakor, you just blew your chances all to hell for having any shot at the Constitutional high ground.

"IT'S NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION"--your words!

Well, it sure as hell ain't about "equality". There's not a shred about religious "equality" in the Constitution. We were then and are now a Christian nation--WITH a DOMINANT religion, accompanied by the unintended consequence of the founding fathers in allowing the practice of any old piece of crap excuse for religion that comes along--the establishment of Freedom of Religion was meant to accomodate the various shades of Catholic and Protestant believers that existed in the early days, and maybe to tolerate an occasional Jew that came along. You need only to consider how they handled Indian tribal religions to understand what they thought of off-the-wall and wrongheaded pagan things--or maybe the Salem witch trials too.

Dhristianity is THE DOMINANT religion in this country not only because it is THE true and correct religion, but because it is the MAJORITY religion. And majority rule is the hallmark of our Constitution--along with tolerance, of course, of the usually rotten and wrong minorities.

NEVER confuse tolerance of multi-cultural CRAP for equality.

As for Muslims, yeah, I've known a few Muslims who were pretty decent people too--also very successful practicers of the American free enterprise system. The fact is, though, that by percentage, my Muslim friends, your Muslim friends, and all Muslims in general are MUCH more likely to be DEVOUT followers of the dogma of their religion than most Christians, or Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion. And that religious dogma, strongly promoted by inflexible Muslim clerics, preaches TYRANNY, SEXISM, IGNORANCE, BARBARISM, HATE, and GENOCIDE.

While your 5% figure may be pretty accurate, maybe even on the high side for people out their strapping on suicide bombs or otherwise committing acts of terror, you'd be damn lucky to find 5% who don NOT enthusiastically support the evils I mentioned above. Why? Because those evils are institutionalized in the miserable excuse for a religion that they practice.


Oh my gosh, Tex. This is going nowhere. You now are resorting to taking my words out of context and twisting them around to fit your side of the arguement. I said it isn't SIMPLY about Freedom of Religion - which means there is MORE to it than JUST freedom. There was a sentence following the one you quoted that has as much to do with the point I was making, but of course you wouldn't quote that one as well. Classy.

Do me a favor Tex. Instead of continually posting that Christianity is the one and only CORRECT religion, post your PROOF that Christianity is the one and only CORRECT religion. PROVE IT. PROVE that it is more than just YOUR opinion - that it is FACT. FACTS can be proven or disproven. You sir cannot prove or disprove religion.

Oh and Tex, NEVER confuse EQUALITY for TOLERANCE. At least up here in Wisconsin, we actually RESPECT others instead of simply TOLERATING them. I don't know how things work in Texas (it's beginning to sound like a terribly biased culture, one that I'd never want to encounter), but up here people really do acknowlege equality and respect those who are different than us.

You'd be hard pressed to find 5% of Iraqi citizens that weren't in fact living in fear of AQ and the Taliban and other radical Muslim groups. I mean, when the bombs go off, innocent Muslims die alongside Americans. Christians and Muslims fear radicals the same.

You are a hardline Republican, so can you at least acknowlege that your boy GW has made it very clear to all those who would listen that he is NOT at war against Islam? That he is at war with TERRORISTS, not MUSLIMS. They are NOT one in the same, and even the Republicans you worship have said so.

Lastly, until you have spent at least an hour studying Islam (excluding time on CNN or any other media outlet, right or left), do not pretend to know what has been "institutionalized" in Islamic culture or religious beliefs. You DON'T know. That point has been made very clearly. When you make statements like "those evils are institutionalized in the miserable excuse for a religion that they practice" you come across as being every bit as ignorant as those you despise. EVIL is not institutionalized in Muslim culture.

[texaspackerbacker]

Maybe because it was OWNED by the British and French, ya think?

The Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks were anything but peaceful; The Barbary pirates actually gave us the word "barbarism"; And the Muslim slave merchants probably weren't all that docile and gentle either.

[Freak Out]

Who is killing America? It sure as fuck isn't Islam...it's us. Were destroying ourselves. Greed, fear. slovenliness...its endless. Were borrowing money from who to do what? Were spending it where? Who is going to pay for it? And to top it all our great President has to go begging to the fucking Saudis to pump a little more so gas prices will go down. We invaded a country for this? Blame Islam or Al Qaeda or Saddam all you want but the problem starts right here at home.

Whoops...sorry for the rant in your religion thread. I'll go back to work now.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who is killing America? It sure as fuck isn't Islam...it's us. Were destroying ourselves. Greed, fear. slovenliness...its endless. Were borrowing money from who to do what? Were spending it where? Who is going to pay for it? And to top it all our great President has to go begging to the fucking Saudis to pump a little more so gas prices will go down. We invaded a country for this? Blame Islam or Al Qaeda or Saddam all you want but the problem starts right here at home.

Whoops...sorry for the rant in your religion thread. I'll go back to work now.

Somebody is killing America? Where? When? How?

I'd say, America, the people, America, the way of life, America, the dominant world power, etc. is ALIVE AND EXTREMELY WELL.

Greed and slovenliness? Hey, now your bad-mouthing MY minority group.

We have a RIGHT to be just as lazy and slovenly and comfort-loving and luxury -loving as we can get away with financially, and some of us wallow in that right. Ya got something against it?

[MJZiggy]

Maybe because it was OWNED by the British and French, ya think?

The Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks were anything but peaceful; The Barbary pirates actually gave us the word "barbarism"; And the Muslim slave merchants probably weren't all that docile and gentle either.

The Christian slave merchants were docile and gentle? And Tex, earlier when I was referring to the Christian extremists, I was referring to anyone who blew anyone else up in England or Northern Ireland. Don't pretend they didn't exist and don't pretend they were peaceful and don't pretend it wasn't about religion. I have a hard time believing that it's what Jesus wanted them to do...

[Harlan Huckleby]

arguing with Tex is like hunting squirrels in a city park. they're practically tame, no sport in it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Maybe because it was OWNED by the British and French, ya think?

The Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks were anything but peaceful; The Barbary pirates actually gave us the word "barbarism"; And the Muslim slave merchants probably weren't all that docile and gentle either.

The Christian slave merchants were docile and gentle? And Tex, earlier when I was referring to the Christian extremists, I was referring to anyone who blew anyone else up in England or Northern Ireland. Don't pretend they didn't exist and don't pretend they were peaceful and don't pretend it wasn't about religion. I have a hard time believing that it's what Jesus wanted them to do...

Where have you heard of these phantoms you call "Christian slave merchants"?

The slaves came from Africa--i think we can agree on that--mainly west Africa--places like Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, etc., as they are now known. The way slavery happened is that African tribes would conquer other African tribes and sell them to MUSLIM wholesalers--slave merchants--who would consign them to sea captains, mainly Dutch, who would transport them to the Americas--actually only about 10-15% to what is now the U.S.--the great majority to the Caribbean islands. So unless you're talking about the Dutch sea captains, there simply weren't any Christian slave merchants.

[Freak Out]

Maybe because it was OWNED by the British and French, ya think?

The Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks were anything but peaceful; The Barbary pirates actually gave us the word "barbarism"; And the Muslim slave merchants probably weren't all that docile and gentle either.

The Christian slave merchants were docile and gentle? And Tex, earlier when I was referring to the Christian extremists, I was referring to anyone who blew anyone else up in England or Northern Ireland. Don't pretend they didn't exist and don't pretend they were peaceful and don't pretend it wasn't about religion. I have a hard time believing that it's what Jesus wanted them to do...

Where have you heard of these phantoms you call "Christian slave merchants"?

The slaves came from Africa--i think we can agree on that--mainly west Africa--places like Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, etc., as they are now known. The way slavery happened is that African tribes would conquer other African tribes and sell them to MUSLIM wholesalers--slave merchants--who would consign them to sea captains, mainly Dutch, who would transport them to the Americas--actually only about 10-15% to what is now the U.S.--the great majority to the Caribbean islands. So unless you're talking about the Dutch sea captains, there simply weren't any Christian slave merchants.

...and who would BUY these people? Christian Europeans to work their land holdings in the America's and US citizens to do the same.

[texaspackerbacker]

No argument there, although, as I said, 85-90% were not in what is now the U.S., but the Caribbean.

The point was, though, slave "merchants"--the providers/the enablers/ the ones who began the whole process--the Muslims.

[hoosier]

Maybe because it was OWNED by the British and French, ya think?

The Seljuk Turks and Ottoman Turks were anything but peaceful; The Barbary pirates actually gave us the word "barbarism"; And the Muslim slave merchants probably weren't all that docile and gentle either.

I'm reading through this thinking to myself that, as usual, there goes Tex embellishing half of what he's saying and pulling the other half straight out of his ass. Then I get to this--which is admittedly a pretty innocuous point in his larger argument--and I can't help but bust out laughing. Tex, you've become a parody of yourself. (Hint: the word "barbarism" comes from the Ancient Greeks, who used it to describe anyone who didn't speak Greek--to their ear it sounded like "bar bar bar bar," which isn't so very far from where this little discussion has gotten ("blah blah blah"). Thanks for the laugh.

[MJZiggy]

There's no supply without demand, and no one in America sold slaves? From what I recall, that was a triangle they showed us in history class for the slave trade routes...

[Harlan Huckleby]

most slaves went to South America. The slave trade was HUGE.

[texaspackerbacker]

most slaves went to South America. The slave trade was HUGE.

Exactly, and the Caribbean islands.

Just 10-15% to the U.S,.

Funny, Ziggy, how the exact argument you are making about slaves is totally rejected by liberals when applied to drugs.

[MJZiggy]

Ok, I'll bite. Do only Muslims do drugs? Or is it that Christian terrorists don't? I'm confused. Damn liberals.

[Freak Out]

most slaves went to South America. The slave trade was HUGE.

Exactly, and the Caribbean islands.

Just 10-15% to the U.S,.

Funny, Ziggy, how the exact argument you are making about slaves is totally rejected by liberals when applied to drugs.

Thats correct...but who was buying the slaves? Not the Incas! The Spanish and all the other Christian empires. People can be pretty evil..doesn't matter if they came from Spain, Germany, Japan, America or Turkey.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ok, I'll bite. Do only Muslims do drugs? Or is it that Christian terrorists don't? I'm confused. Damn liberals.

The point, which maybe I didn't explain well enough, is that on a totally different issue, drug use--nothing remotely to do with Muslims here, liberals get all bent out of shape when anybody suggests cracking down (no pun intended) on the users by locking them up for a longer time or whatever. That would be the DEMAND side. Instead, they want to lessen the penalties and vilify the producers--who should be vilified, but not as the ONLY aspect of the solution.

I'm just saying that turning around and giving primary blame to the buyers/users/demand side in the slavery issue is being very inconsistent.

What it is consistent with is the sick BLAME AMERICA FIRST mentality of the left in this country.

And this whole tangent is just a diversion from the OBVIOUS EVIL AND BARBARIC BELIEFS AND PRACTICES INSTITUTIONALIZED RIGHT NOW--IN THE PRESENT BY MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE--including--but certainly not limited to--the only remaining bastion of slave trade--the cusp between Muslims and black Christians in north Africa.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok, I'll bite. Do only Muslims do drugs? Or is it that Christian terrorists don't? I'm confused. Damn liberals.

The point, which maybe I didn't explain well enough, is that on a totally different issue, drug use--nothing remotely to do with Muslims here, liberals get all bent out of shape when anybody suggests cracking down (no pun intended) on the users by locking them up for a longer time or whatever. That would be the DEMAND side. Instead, they want to lessen the penalties and vilify the producers--who should be vilified, but not as the ONLY aspect of the solution.

I'm just saying that turning around and giving primary blame to the buyers/users/demand side in the slavery issue is being very inconsistent.

What it is consistent with is the sick BLAME AMERICA FIRST mentality of the left in this country.

And this whole tangent is just a diversion from the OBVIOUS EVIL AND BARBARIC BELIEFS AND PRACTICES INSTITUTIONALIZED RIGHT NOW--IN THE PRESENT BY MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE--including--but certainly not limited to--the only remaining bastion of slave trade--the cusp between Muslims and black Christians in north Africa.

Once again, you completely misrepresent the liberal side.

Liberals don't get bent outta shape over locking people up. They get bent outta shape over stupid things like mandatory minimums.

They get bent outta shape because they realize that drug users and addiction are medical issues..not criminal issues. You'll not find one liberal that is decrying locking up drug lords.

Liberals realize that to end the demand you don't do it by incarceration alone, you need education, medicalization, etc. That will reduce demand.

Not looking people up or telling them to Just Say NO.

[texaspackerbacker]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

[Gunakor]

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

You say the point now is the institutionalized evil in PRESENT DAY Islam... Does that mean that somebody has rewritten the Koran in the last 20 years, weaving in messages of evil that were not originally there? Before you implied that Islam has always been an institutionalized evil, now you are stressing present day Islam as the institutionalized evil. I personally can't bring myself to believe that the religion itself has changed. It seems more likely that the fanatics that commit these horrid acts of terror and destruction have interpreted the Koran wrongly, or even more likely, that they have simply focused on certain parts of the Koran - disregarding the other parts of the Koran which do not promote thier own agenda. That they do not represent thier religion, rather they represent themselves. How hard is it for you to grasp that concept? I mean, that's far more believable than to say that the entire religion and all of it's followers have subscribed to a brand new belief in such a short period of time, wouldn't you agree?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

It is stultifying how you can miss the point. The point is that there is a DEMAND...how to cure the demand is the issue.

So, Americans/Christians were demanding slaves.

[MJZiggy]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter. I would hardly classify slavery as a physical or mental problem and they all most certainly had a choice. Considering what God went through to get the Israelites out of Egypt, you'll have a tough time making your case that God was OK with people owning his children.

[Scott Campbell]

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter.


Well, yeah, I suppose that's true enough. But only after they've taken a ton of it of their own volition. The Just Say No program was designed for those who still had a choice in the matter.

[MJZiggy]

Right. That and the DARE program. In other words they used new and inventive ways besides punitive measures after the fact to attempt to address the problem.

[texaspackerbacker]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

It is stultifying how you can miss the point. The point is that there is a DEMAND...how to cure the demand is the issue.

So, Americans/Christians were demanding slaves.

The POINT, Tyrone, is that DEMAND would be non-existent or meaningless if there was no supply offered up. That is true both for drugs and slaves.

Everything is "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" with you lefties.

All of this fades to irrelevance, however, next to the tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too which characterize Muslims of today.

Somebody brought up the Koran; Hell yeah, much of this IS in the Koran--the sinister institution known as Sharia Law, among other things. The dogmatic and barbaric attitudes of practically all Muslim clerics is another major reason for the rottenness of the Muslim world.

Whatever the reason, however, the sure things in all of this sick mess are the horrible observable facts and situations abundantly on display in virtually all but a very few Muslim countries.

[texaspackerbacker]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter. I would hardly classify slavery as a physical or mental problem and they all most certainly had a choice. Considering what God went through to get the Israelites out of Egypt, you'll have a tough time making your case that God was OK with people owning his children.

Any way you cut it, it is inconsistent of you to either excuse the users of drugs, while condemning those whose way of life was addicted to slavery.

Ziggy, you pick these completely weird things out of thin air. Did I say anything anywhere anytime to remotely suggest the God approves of slavery? I don't think so. For a person who doesn't even believe in God to bring up something like that is the height of disingenuousness and demagoguery.

[GrnBay007]

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter.


Well, yeah, I suppose that's true enough. But only after they've taken a ton of it of their own volition. The Just Say No program was designed for those who still had a choice in the matter.

ALL addicts have a choice in the matter. It's no different then someone that's been smoking cigarettes for years. You have a physical addiction as well as mental. You always have a choice...drugs/tobacco/alcohol. It may be hard as hell to quit, but you have a choice. The addict may need medical attention to quit, but that's a choice too.

[the_idle_threat]

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter.


Well, yeah, I suppose that's true enough. But only after they've taken a ton of it of their own volition. The Just Say No program was designed for those who still had a choice in the matter.

ALL addicts have a choice in the matter. It's no different then someone that's been smoking cigarettes for years. You have a physical addiction as well as mental. You always have a choice...drugs/tobacco/alcohol. It may be hard as hell to quit, but you have a choice. The addict may need medical attention to quit, but that's a choice too.

:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Drug use is a physical addiction. Many users no longer have a choice in the matter.


Well, yeah, I suppose that's true enough. But only after they've taken a ton of it of their own volition. The Just Say No program was designed for those who still had a choice in the matter.

ALL addicts have a choice in the matter. It's no different then someone that's been smoking cigarettes for years. You have a physical addiction as well as mental. You always have a choice...drugs/tobacco/alcohol. It may be hard as hell to quit, but you have a choice. The addict may need medical attention to quit, but that's a choice too.

That is medically wrong. Perhaps in the beginning stages, but once you are a full fledged addict you aren't the same person, your brain wiring has changed, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

It is stultifying how you can miss the point. The point is that there is a DEMAND...how to cure the demand is the issue.

So, Americans/Christians were demanding slaves.

The POINT, Tyrone, is that DEMAND would be non-existent or meaningless if there was no supply offered up. That is true both for drugs and slaves.

Everything is "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" with you lefties.

All of this fades to irrelevance, however, next to the tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too which characterize Muslims of today.

Somebody brought up the Koran; Hell yeah, much of this IS in the Koran--the sinister institution known as Sharia Law, among other things. The dogmatic and barbaric attitudes of practically all Muslim clerics is another major reason for the rottenness of the Muslim world.

Whatever the reason, however, the sure things in all of this sick mess are the horrible observable facts and situations abundantly on display in virtually all but a very few Muslim countries.

That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever written.

Demand doesn't simply go away because the product isn't there. Convenient for you to ignore the laws of economics when it suites you.

[Partial]

That's because the medical experts are fucking pussies. Anyone can quit doing anything, it takes will power and self control. It is hard work, but what isn't that benefits you!?!? That's such a load of BS.

I have no use for someone who is so mentally weak they cannot break a horrible, self-destroying habit.

[Freak Out]

This is your brain on drugs.

[Freak Out]

So is Sadr running drugs and slaves now?

[texaspackerbacker]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

It is stultifying how you can miss the point. The point is that there is a DEMAND...how to cure the demand is the issue.

So, Americans/Christians were demanding slaves.

The POINT, Tyrone, is that DEMAND would be non-existent or meaningless if there was no supply offered up. That is true both for drugs and slaves.

Everything is "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" with you lefties.

All of this fades to irrelevance, however, next to the tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too which characterize Muslims of today.

Somebody brought up the Koran; Hell yeah, much of this IS in the Koran--the sinister institution known as Sharia Law, among other things. The dogmatic and barbaric attitudes of practically all Muslim clerics is another major reason for the rottenness of the Muslim world.

Whatever the reason, however, the sure things in all of this sick mess are the horrible observable facts and situations abundantly on display in virtually all but a very few Muslim countries.

That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever written.

Demand doesn't simply go away because the product isn't there. Convenient for you to ignore the laws of economics when it suites you.

Did I say demand "goes away"? No. I said it becomes irrelevant.

The key to the disagreement here between several posters making very valid points about addiction and you, Tyrone, claiming--with a degree of correctness--that an addict's brain evolves/devolves/whatever to where it can't survive without the commodity of the addiction is TIMING.

What I and others are saying is that WITHOUT THE SUPPLIERS PROVIDING THE SUPPLY, the addiction would never even have started. That is equally true with drugs as with slaves--as is YOUR assertion about the addiction reaching a point where it indeed can't be overcome without extreme interventionist procedures.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's because the medical experts are fucking pussies. Anyone can quit doing anything, it takes will power and self control. It is hard work, but what isn't that benefits you!?!? That's such a load of BS.

I have no use for someone who is so mentally weak they cannot break a horrible, self-destroying habit.

Right. I guess this is another of the 7 topics you know something about. When you aren't coding you happen to know about drugs and their interaction with the brain.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about I agree with everything you said, Tyrone--and then say IT EXACTLY PROVES MY POINT about how liberals think on the drug issue. Apply the same thinking to the slave issue, and you have to blame suppliers, not users--as the posters in this thread seem to do--BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

As I said, though, this is all a diversion from the real point, the institutionized evil of the Muslim religion in the PRESENT time period--tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too.

It is stultifying how you can miss the point. The point is that there is a DEMAND...how to cure the demand is the issue.

So, Americans/Christians were demanding slaves.

The POINT, Tyrone, is that DEMAND would be non-existent or meaningless if there was no supply offered up. That is true both for drugs and slaves.

Everything is "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" with you lefties.

All of this fades to irrelevance, however, next to the tyranny, barbarism, genocide, ignorance, sexism, and yes, slavery too which characterize Muslims of today.

Somebody brought up the Koran; Hell yeah, much of this IS in the Koran--the sinister institution known as Sharia Law, among other things. The dogmatic and barbaric attitudes of practically all Muslim clerics is another major reason for the rottenness of the Muslim world.

Whatever the reason, however, the sure things in all of this sick mess are the horrible observable facts and situations abundantly on display in virtually all but a very few Muslim countries.

That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever written.

Demand doesn't simply go away because the product isn't there. Convenient for you to ignore the laws of economics when it suites you.

Did I say demand "goes away"? No. I said it becomes irrelevant.

The key to the disagreement here between several posters making very valid points about addiction and you, Tyrone, claiming--with a degree of correctness--that an addict's brain evolves/devolves/whatever to where it can't survive without the commodity of the addiction is TIMING.

What I and others are saying is that WITHOUT THE SUPPLIERS PROVIDING THE SUPPLY, the addiction would never even have started. That is equally true with drugs as with slaves--as is YOUR assertion about the addiction reaching a point where it indeed can't be overcome without extreme interventionist procedures.

Oh. I get it. YOu were planning on not letting people know about drugs? when was that going to happen? Couple of thousand years ago?

Perhaps you should start by examing humans and there constant usage of drugs...across all cultures. Or maybe america where "good, normal" americans were hooked on patent medicines.

I will give you credit for at least knowing acknowledging that addicts and their bodies change.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, I say again, the whole discussion of drugs is a diversion away from slavery--which is itself, a diversion away from the original--THE INSTITUTIONALIZED EVIL WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

As for what you said, Tyrone, now you are trying to change the direction of the discussion from individuals to cultures.

And you STILL are trying to EXCUSE the addicts of drugs and NOT excuse/condemn the addicts of slavery.

The way it is with BOTH slavery and drugs, if suppliers had never injected that element into the lives of the addicts, then there would be no addiction. On an INDIVIDUAL basis, take away the product, and you will 1. have no new addicts and 2. have very little choice for existing addicts except to take steps--help if needed--to get cleaned up or die--or maybe leave the country.

Perhaps you don't like limiting choices to those for druggies. That is pretty much what the choice was for slaveholders after the Civil War, though. I'm just saying it's inconsistent not to apply the same standard to BOTH addictions.

[MJZiggy]

The way it is with BOTH slavery and drugs, if suppliers had never injected that element into the lives of the addicts, then there would be no addiction. On an INDIVIDUAL basis, take away the product, and you will 1. have no new addicts and 2. have very little choice for existing addicts except to take steps--help if needed--to get cleaned up or die--or maybe leave the country.



If this is true, please explain huffing to me.

[Partial]

That's because the medical experts are fucking pussies. Anyone can quit doing anything, it takes will power and self control. It is hard work, but what isn't that benefits you!?!? That's such a load of BS.

I have no use for someone who is so mentally weak they cannot break a horrible, self-destroying habit.

Right. I guess this is another of the 7 topics you know something about. When you aren't coding you happen to know about drugs and their interaction with the brain.

No man, I am just less of a pussy and am mentally strong. How many kids are diagnosed as depressed or have ADD because they are mentally weak?!? Many. The medical community is a joke. They would rather drug everyone up and take their money then actually help someone by telling them to get out there, work hard, stop being a pussy, and do what it takes to succeed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

First of all, I say again, the whole discussion of drugs is a diversion away from slavery--which is itself, a diversion away from the original--THE INSTITUTIONALIZED EVIL WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

As for what you said, Tyrone, now you are trying to change the direction of the discussion from individuals to cultures.

And you STILL are trying to EXCUSE the addicts of drugs and NOT excuse/condemn the addicts of slavery.

The way it is with BOTH slavery and drugs, if suppliers had never injected that element into the lives of the addicts, then there would be no addiction. On an INDIVIDUAL basis, take away the product, and you will 1. have no new addicts and 2. have very little choice for existing addicts except to take steps--help if needed--to get cleaned up or die--or maybe leave the country.

Perhaps you don't like limiting choices to those for druggies. That is pretty much what the choice was for slaveholders after the Civil War, though. I'm just saying it's inconsistent not to apply the same standard to BOTH addictions.

Really? Which supplier introduced alcohol?

Which supplier introduced hallucinogens to the native americans? Which supplier introduced coca leaves to the indians? Which supplier introduced kwat.

Humans have long searched for drugs. It is in our systems.

No one is excusing anything. All i ever said was that the demand creates supply.

What is hilarious is that you now are going against basic econ. Yep, supply makes demand. LOL

We got a ton of supply of houses right now...guess we should expect a lot of demand. :roll:

Demand spurrs supply. Labor was necessary...and there wasn't cheap labor..so they needed slaves..or indentured servants.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, Tyrone, you blundered into a lot of truth.

I don't know who first introduced alcoholic beverages, but if nobody ever did, then you wouldn't have alcohol addicts--could you possibly argue against that idea?

And I suppose your point regarding the drugs you mentioned is that they are "natural". Yeah, that's true, but somebody way back had to discover the high they produced or whatever, thus becoming the original supplier. Anyway, if they didn't exist, you, indisputably, wouldn't have people addicted to them. The only difference is that unlike refined drugs, alcoholic drinks, slavery, etc. you can't really assign blame to a specific supplier with so-called "natural". And no, don't even think about including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, etc. in that group, as those generally are planted like crops, harvested and refined.

As for slavery, if the slaves had never been imported, planters could have provided their own labor or paid for it. Costs would have been higher; It would have been less efficient; But if all the competitors had to do the same--do without slavery also, then there would have been no competitive disadvantage. People STILL would have grown cotton, tobacco, sugar, etc. even without slaves--just like many people survive just fine without any drugs to use and abuse.

Your economics is flawed, Tyrone. Sure, demand spurs supply. However, it does NOT create it from the beginning. It is SUPPLY and SUPPLIERS that create the original DEMAND--like the drug pusher passing out free samples at the school grounds--planting the seeds of necessity or at least desire. Without that, BOTH in the realm of drug use and slavery, you simply wouldn't have the addiction. You don't need or desire that which does not exist--and if you do, it's only a vague fantasy, not an addiction.

[MJZiggy]

I'm serious Tex, if you need initial suppliers, explain huffing...

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm serious Tex, if you need initial suppliers, explain huffing...

Those things, like the stuff Tyrone brought up, exist--were supplied by somebody.If they didn't exist/were not supplied, they wouldn't have abusers/addicts. Could you possibly disagree? You are confusing lack of supply/supplier with lack of a BLAMEWORTHY supplier. The stuff they huff (no rhyme intended) generally has legitimate uses too, unlike most hard drugs, and unlike slavery. If you are looking for somebody to blame, I guess it would be the first person to figure out he could get high off the stuff.

Even if you happen to scratch around enough and find an exception, it would just be the exception that proves the rule.

And all of this, whether intended to be or not, is just a diversion from the REAL discussion--slavery, which originated with Muslims wholesaling the slaves provided by rival black tribes. That's straight out of Roots, isn't it?

And even THAT discussion is a diversion from the REAL REAL discussion, which is the evil barbaric tyrannical genocidal ignorant attitudes and behaviors that are STILL institutionalized in the Muslim religion even in the present.

[MJZiggy]

Yes I disagree!! They are common household agents. No one needed to push them, kids were experimenting, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET HIGH.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes I disagree!! They are common household agents. No one needed to push them, kids were experimenting, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET HIGH.

So what's your point? By your own admission, this is an entirely different situation than the supplying of hard drugs, and even more different than the supplying of slaves by African Muslims.

Why even bring up such an admitted irrelevancy except to try and divert from the real discussion(s)?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yes I disagree!! They are common household agents. No one needed to push them, kids were experimenting, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET HIGH.

So what's your point? By your own admission, this is an entirely different situation than the supplying of hard drugs, and even more different than the supplying of slaves by African Muslims.

Why even bring up such an admitted irrelevancy except to try and divert from the real discussion(s)?

Because it shows their is a demand for "drugs." No matter how you try and classify it..americans and humans like drugs...alcohol, asprin, pot, coke, etc.

[MJZiggy]

Kids are killing themselves snorting canned air trying to get a high. Huffing is seeking out a high. People put themselves at risk all the time taking medications etc. either differently than how they were intended or drugs that weren't prescribed to them to try and hunt down a good high. People risk jail to get high. Funny how the moment slavery became illegal, it ended. No so much for drugs.

[texaspackerbacker]

Kids are killing themselves snorting canned air trying to get a high. Huffing is seeking out a high. People put themselves at risk all the time taking medications etc. either differently than how they were intended or drugs that weren't prescribed to them to try and hunt down a good high. People risk jail to get high. Funny how the moment slavery became illegal, it ended. No so much for drugs.

I'm not trying to minimize the badness of this "huffing" thing. I'm just saying it's apples and oranges and grapefruit from a discussion of hard drug use as well as a discussion of slavery.

I'd rather discuss the undeniable institutionalized evil of the Muslim religion, but if you want to go off on this drug and slavery tangent, I'll do that too.

You talk about how slavery ended when it became illegal, and drug use did not.

Two things about that:

First, making slavery illegal had nothing to do with demand--the cotton still needed to be picked, etc.. It took away the SUPPLY--illegal human cargo being a lot harder to smuggle in, and very easy to detect in use.

Second, arguably your choice of diversion--huffing--is the equivalent of what happened in the south for a hundred years or so after the Civil War. The aerosol spray is a legal product used to get around the outlawed hard drugs--just like all the poll taxes, segregation, tenant farms, etc. were ways to have de facto slavery. Just ask a "black" person like Tyrone.

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel, there is a high demand for the various drugs, etc. you mentioned, but that situation is EXTREMELY much less prevalent among the huge majority which I like to call good normal Americans. Ditto that for the extremely overrated prevalence of huffing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Kids are killing themselves snorting canned air trying to get a high. Huffing is seeking out a high. People put themselves at risk all the time taking medications etc. either differently than how they were intended or drugs that weren't prescribed to them to try and hunt down a good high. People risk jail to get high. Funny how the moment slavery became illegal, it ended. No so much for drugs.

I'm not trying to minimize the badness of this "huffing" thing. I'm just saying it's apples and oranges and grapefruit from a discussion of hard drug use as well as a discussion of slavery.

I'd rather discuss the undeniable institutionalized evil of the Muslim religion, but if you want to go off on this drug and slavery tangent, I'll do that too.

You talk about how slavery ended when it became illegal, and drug use did not.

Two things about that:

First, making slavery illegal had nothing to do with demand--the cotton still needed to be picked, etc.. It took away the SUPPLY--illegal human cargo being a lot harder to smuggle in, and very easy to detect in use.

Second, arguably your choice of diversion--huffing--is the equivalent of what happened in the south for a hundred years or so after the Civil War. The aerosol spray is a legal product used to get around the outlawed hard drugs--just like all the poll taxes, segregation, tenant farms, etc. were ways to have de facto slavery. Just ask a "black" person like Tyrone.

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel, there is a high demand for the various drugs, etc. you mentioned, but that situation is EXTREMELY much less prevalent among the huge majority which I like to call good normal Americans. Ditto that for the extremely overrated prevalence of huffing.

Circles i travel in? LOL

I live in the United States which has been fighting a "war on drugs" for over 30 years...with no visible signs of success. Drug use has not gone down...same overall percentages since the end of the 19th century.

Let's see..marijuana scares, lsd scare, coke scare, heroin scare, crack scare, meth scare....hmmn...yep there is no demand.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nobody said no demand--just that you are trying to give an EXTREMELY false picture--greatly inflating the percentage of that kind of half-assed loser.

If that's what you see, the yes, it's the limited circles you travel in, and NOT America in general.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Probably stumbles and bumbles in--if he's anything like the persona he likes to project. I actually doubt he is even black, much less the rest of the crap he pretends to be.

Here we go--off on another tangent--away from the discussion oof the evils of the Muslim enemy, etc.

[Zool]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel, there is a high demand for the various drugs, etc. you mentioned, but that situation is EXTREMELY much less prevalent among the huge majority which I like to call good normal Americans. Ditto that for the extremely overrated prevalence of huffing.

You need to get out of your circle of friends if you think this is in any way true. If you are disagreeing for the sake of it, I'll buy that. To say that the demand for drugs is low is naive and dangerous. If you have kids from 12-18 you might want to check things out.

Also, sports are not the out from drugs most baby boomers think they are. 2/3rds of my high school football team smoked pot. Thats not an exaggeration.

Good normal americans are on drugs. Prescription drugs are still drugs. Even the voice of the right is a drug addict. My favorite Rush quote was "all drug users should go to prison". How's that oxycontin Rush?

[GrnBay007]

How's that oxycontin Rush?

:lol: :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

It may come as a shock to you, Zool, but even Rush Limbaugh, for all his wonderful normal American rhetoric, is NOT a shining example of American normalcy.

And as for the BULLSHIT about some overly large percentage of Americans being into drugs, just like the similar bogus percentages of Americans into homosexuality or various other perversions, it is nothing more than the same old haters comprising the American left, trying to paint a false picture, and trying to drag the country down to the level of depravity they would like to inflict on the country.

Which only leaves the question: are you an elitist who knows damn well what you are spewing about the rottenness of American culture is wrong? Or are you merely a dupe who believes the crap others spew?

[Zool]

Which only leaves the question: are you an elitist who knows damn well what you are spewing about the rottenness of American culture is wrong? Or are you merely a dupe who believes the crap others spew?

Uhh neither actually. I'm a person who have lived many different places and had a very large cross section of people I've met and worked with. Called most of them friends. I'm only speaking from experience. I never actually gave a percentage other than my specific football which I watched do illegal drugs. Hell there was a yearly party for the team called 420.

Also a shocker, as I've explained, I dont identify left or right. Both sides have extremists who are so far off their fucking rocker that they should be euthanized.

Have you ever met a gay man or woman? They are just like you and me except for their sexual preference. You call them perverse, yet there's plenty of politicians having bathroom sex, diddling their interns with cigars and catholic priests fucking alter boys. Now thats what I call perverse.

People are just people Tex. There isn't a line drawn between what you consider good ones and bad ones. They just are who they are.

And for the record, I'm against illegal drug usage. I'm just not naive enough to think its a small % of Americans using them. Prescription drug use just keeps going up, and not by people whom they were prescribed to. Driving high is just as stupid and dangerous as driving drunk.

[texaspackerbacker]

No argument with much of what you say, Zool, EXCEPT for the disparity--huge, I suspect--between you idea and my idea of how common the various (shall we say) departures from normalcy are in the population.

I've known flaming fags who were nice people--just wanting to be left alone, and not trying to inflict their abomination on others. I've known straight liberals who hugely inflated the percentage of homosexuality, and were intent on pushing that perversion on kids in schools and others--characterizing it as merely an alternative form of normal.

I've known druggies too, including a few hard drug users who shaped up and went on to live normal lives. The key word is "few". You talk about marijuana use--2/3 of your football team and all. First of all, as liberals are usually so intent on pointing out, pot is not even close to the same degree of badness as hard drugs. And while it's true, if you asked the question, who has used pot in the past, you would get a large percentage of yeses, you would be asking the wrong question. The proper question would be: do you STILL get high regularly--does it cause your life to depart from what most would call normal behavior?

Sure, there are a small minority of degenerates, perverts, whatever on both sides of the political spectrum. My point, though, is that if you get beyond occasional pot use, the aberrant behavior is EXTREMELY rare as a percentage of the population.

I ask again, are you knowingly pushing a wrongly over-inflated picture of how many Americans are into those kinds of depravity? Or are you merely expressing misguided belief in the false percentages you are implying--if not actually stating?

[Zool]

Well if those are my only options then I'm misguided by personal experience.

[texaspackerbacker]

Does that mean you are sticking to the concept that a large percentage of Americans are hard drug users--the kind of stuff Tyrone or whoever described on the previous page--not merely occasional marijuana use?

[Zool]

Never said that at all. But you come across as assuming less than 1% do and thats not at all accurate in my experience.

Marijuana is just as illegal as the "hard" drugs. Right or wrong.

[texaspackerbacker]

Never said that at all. But you come across as assuming less than 1% do and thats not at all accurate in my experience.

Marijuana is just as illegal as the "hard" drugs. Right or wrong.

What is this, role reversal? The liberal position has always been that marijuana is relatively harmless. I don't know if I'm ready to concede that, but I certainly would acknowledge that it is much less harmful than hard drugs and other things. The fact that it is "just as illegal", isn't that supposed to be my line?

So you are setting the threshhold for large scale hard drug use at 1%, and asking me if I'm assuming less than 1% are into that sort of thing? Hell yeah, that's what I'm assuming.

As I stated earlier, if you're talking about "ever used in their life", then the number would undoubtedly be higher. But if you're talking about regular users of hard drugs in the present, absolutely I would put the figure at well under 1%, and the bulk of that would be concentrated in limited geographic and class area--apparently where you have had your "experience".

[Zool]

<-------not a liberal.

[texaspackerbacker]

<-------not a liberal.

Did I say you were--in this post, anyway?

If you say you're not a liberal, great. Then I guess you can't be all bad. You do, however, sort of quack like one.

[Zool]

What is this, role reversal? The liberal position has always been that marijuana is relatively harmless.

Maybe I took this line wrong?

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't leap to the assumption that YOU were a liberal--just that your position on this issue seemed kinda unliberal--which was surprisingly in contrast to a lot of other stuff you say.

I tend to be very supportive of anybody who hates to be labeled with that dirty word, "liberal".

We AGAIN seem to be straying--or diverted--from the subject of institutionalized evil in the Muslim religion and in Muslim nations. We even have strayed--by design of you guys, some of whom at least, don't want to be called liberal, or not--from the first removed topic, similarities of slavery and drug use--the supply and demand side of both. We have even been estranged from the second level of diversion, the percentage of depravity in our culture--drugs, homosexuality, other aberrant behavior.

Let me take this opportunity to accuse the leftist media and leftists in general--not necessarily Zool because he denies being one--of INTENTIONALLY OVER-ESTIMATING VARIOUS DEGENERATE ELEMENTS IN OUR CULTURE IN ORDER TO DISRESPECT AND DISPARAGE AMERICA, AND IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY PROMOTE THE TYPES OF DEPRAVITY THEY OVER-ESTIMATE--drug use, homosexuality, other perversions and evils.

[hoosier]

Let me take this opportunity to accuse the leftist media and leftists in general--not necessarily Zool because he denies being one--of INTENTIONALLY OVER-ESTIMATING VARIOUS DEGENERATE ELEMENTS IN OUR CULTURE IN ORDER TO DISRESPECT AND DISPARAGE AMERICA, AND IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY PROMOTE THE TYPES OF DEPRAVITY THEY OVER-ESTIMATE--drug use, homosexuality, other perversions and evils.

That's absolutely right. But thankfully we have Tex to remind us of all of the Leftist media's hidden agenda, which dates back to the Cold War with its efforts to promote flouridation of our water and precious bodily fluids. Never forget that the Leftist media was also the leading culprit in permitting the mine-shaft gap that nearly led to this country's being overrun by Godless Communism in the early 1960s. Buck Turgidson, where art thou now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY&feature=related

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

[Joemailman]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

I was thinking more along the lines of Shaft.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

I was thinking more along the lines of Shaft.

Shaft is for good guys. Tyrone favors:

Hard to understand
What a hell of a man
This cat of the slum
Had a mind, wasn't dumb

Tyrone sometimes also employs Ice-T's "I'm your pusher"

I know you're lovin' this drugs as it's comin' out your speaker
Bass thru the bottons,highs thru the tweeters
But this base you don't need a pipe
Just a tempo to keep your hype

[texaspackerbacker]

As I've said a couple of times, I don't even believe Tyrone is black--maybe a wannabe or something.

You lefties are letting me down. Are none of you gonna chime in and claim America is saturated with druggies, homosexuals, and other degenerates in some ridiculous percentage? I'm sure Obama thinks so, Reid and Pelosi too, probably even Hillary. You guys aren't gonna stand up for your team?

[hoosier]

As I've said a couple of times, I don't even believe Tyrone is black--maybe a wannabe or something.

You lefties are letting me down. Are none of you gonna chime in and claim America is saturated with druggies, homosexuals, and other degenerates in some ridiculous percentage? I'm sure Obama thinks so, Reid and Pelosi too, probably even Hillary. You guys aren't gonna stand up for your team?

What's the point in arguing statistics and percentages with someone who feels free to make it all up as they go and conveniently disregard whatever facts don't fit their ideology? It's like trying to convince my three-year old that there aren't witches in her closet.

Just for yucks, though...

Estimated percentage of US military that is gay according to the non-partisan Urban Institute: 2.8%
http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html

Estimaged percentage of young adults (18-25) in Vermont who have smoked dope: 40%

Who have used coke or heroin in last year: 12%

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NEWS04/803070370/1004/NEWS03

[texaspackerbacker]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

[hoosier]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

[Freak Out]

Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 15, 2008; A04

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.

"I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said.

The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

Others, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful.

Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."

"One of the things that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time," Gates said. Khatami was replaced in 2005 by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gates was also a member of the bipartisan 2006 Iraq Study Group, which advocated reaching out to Iran. He resigned from the group when President Bush nominated him as defense secretary in November that year; the report was published on Dec. 6, the day of his confirmation.

The administration charges that Iran is now deeply engaged in training and arming Shiite militias fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. In his remarks yesterday, Gates said evidence to that effect is "very unambiguous."

But, he said, "I sort of sign up" with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote yesterday that the "right question" for the United States is not whether to talk with Iran but "whether we have leverage or don't have leverage."

"When you have leverage, talk," Friedman advised. "When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."

A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. "I'm a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. "The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table," Mullen said, is an option of "last resort."

Gates said yesterday that the U.S. military remained "stretched" by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he said that all service branches had met their recruitment and retention goals last month. "There is no doubt that . . . we would be very hard-pressed to fight another major conventional war right now," he said. "But where would we sensibly do that, anyway?"

Future conflicts, Gates said, will be asymmetric. "Other countries are not going to come at us in a conventional war."

[texaspackerbacker]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

So there it is IN YOUR OWN WORDS: an organization founded by liberals. Headed by a former head of the CBO? Gee, I wonder which party controlled Congress when the guy held that position.

If the organization exists to try and give credibility to rotten anti-American agendas, then it simply is what it is: a propaganda machine with NO CREDIBILITY--except to other liberals gullible enough to swallow the crap.

And when I call you gullible, Hoosier, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt--assuming that you actually believe the sick anti-American idiocy, as opposed to being a demagogue, and dishonestly spewing anti-American crap knowingly. If I didn't give you that benefit of the doubt, I have to break my perfect record of not calling anybody in the Rats forum an America-hater.

[hoosier]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

So there it is IN YOUR OWN WORDS: an organization founded by liberals. Headed by a former head of the CBO? Gee, I wonder which party controlled Congress when the guy held that position.

If the organization exists to try and give credibility to rotten anti-American agendas, then it simply is what it is: a propaganda machine with NO CREDIBILITY--except to other liberals gullible enough to swallow the crap.

And when I call you gullible, Hoosier, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt--assuming that you actually believe the sick anti-American idiocy, as opposed to being a demagogue, and dishonestly spewing anti-American crap knowingly. If I didn't give you that benefit of the doubt, I have to break my perfect record of not calling anybody in the Rats forum an America-hater.

You dismiss any information that doesn't come from the extreme Right as demogogery, and you thereby condemn yourself to living in a world of ignorance. Which you then proceed to celebrate by wrapping in the false flag of ostentatious patriotism. As if limiting your information to reactionary sources were proof of love of country. Talk about spewing crap. Go and break your "perfect record"--your words are nothing more than the repetetive rantings of a right wing lunatic.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, I dismiss any information that defies logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

[hoosier]

Hoosier, I dismiss any information that defies [b]logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

No, you dismiss anything that threatens your ideology, anything that doesn't reconfirm the imaginary world you're living in. You're nothing more than a dogmatist who tries to pass off his own self-assured ignorance as truth.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, I dismiss any information that defies [b]logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

No, you dismiss anything that threatens your ideology, anything that doesn't reconfirm the imaginary world you're living in. You're nothing more than a dogmatist who tries to pass off his own self-assured ignorance as truth.

Hoosier, all I have to do--all anybody with a brain in their head has to do--is open my eyes and look around at the wonderfulness of America and the American Way.

Fantasy world? That would be the socialist dream, the amoral dream, nanny-state/government intrusion/tax increasing, the absolute idiocy of manmade the theory of manmade global warming, preaching multi-culturalism and moral equivalence in our schools, the delusion of an all world idiot that he can/should negotiatate with the Hitler-esque Holocaust denying genocidal maniac ruling Iran, the overall sick leftist agenda of dragging America down. Show some backbone, for once, Hoosier, and try DEFENDING some of this CRAP which constitutes YOUR fantasy world--and that of your piece of shit America-hating presidential candidate.

As for me, my "dogma" is right here for all the world to see--America and Americanism in action, and the concept that we and our way are far and away superior to anything else out there--all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

[Zool]

all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

I knew you were an exhibitionist.

[texaspackerbacker]

all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

I knew you were an exhibitionist.

If you want to see an old fat guy in a red, white, and blue thong, you can subscribe to my webcam--but it ain't cheap.

[Zool]

Laughing and gagging at the same time. Its like a party at Skins house.