SPONSORED LINK
Hi Jeff,
Btw just a very quick diversion from the topic for a sec., did u know that the main root to ur name "Jeff" comes from the name "Ja'fariyyeh" which in reality originates from an area in Syria for many many yrs ago!??
Anyways i find this to be somewhat of a big irony...! LOL
But lets get back to the topic at hand....and ive decided to end this interesting(yet fruitless) discussion after im done with this post, due to many reasons which i find as GOOD ones!
With regards to the things that u mentioned in ur very last post, as i mentioned before, i did enjoy reading them, because it gives me the confidence & assurance that im speaking to a deeply idealistic person, regardless of ur Republican tendencies, which on the one hand is deeply touching(i.e. ur engagement in the world politics & also ur idealism) & beautiful, but on the other hand, disturbing & even dangerous, because it is rooted in the same 'policies' of the NeoCons. & the right-wing Republicans!
The thing that i find so threatening & even dangerous about ur latter tendencies, is that such an idealogy & 'politics' is SO FAR from the kind of idealogy & politics based on a GLOBAL view of the world....in other words, it is so narrow-minded that for the most part (almost 99%) derives from an American Republican view of the world, for which there only exists a VERY MINUTE group of followers & believers in the rest of the world!
In other words, it does NOT even transpire itself further than the American soil, which mind u, is shared by less than 40% of her own population...and even now after 7 yrs of constant efforts in "advertizing"(hence:propoganda) these 'policies' by mainly the Americans, the world still fails to agree with it whole-heartedly....and my pt. is that if u cant get the hearts & minds of the world to go along with ur VERY SPECIFIC 'policies', then how can u expect to see it prevail over the remaining "skeptics" of the world, and if the world does not want to buy it, then why persist on pushing & pushing relentlessly forward....it just won't lead to anything positive nor constructive in the end, FOR ALL PARTS!
Besides, the world of politics is a VERY VERY rotten & dirty world, and it has always been this way eversince the dawn of civilization, yeah, one may even claim that it's just as old & dirty as prostitution, but it's still a MUST...."an evil necessity" so to speak, which almost always have consisted of COMPROMISES, even with ur worst enemies, in order for the critical situations or "hard political clashes" within the society/societies to be "deflated" & "tamed" over time...
And fortunately we have reached a time where we have evolved in so many areas, namely in politics, and with the growth of the media....plus the fact that the "human resources" in politics is limitless...there are millions of ppl around the world who are doing this dirty job, and they must be given substantial authority & permission to do their diplomatic jobs....therefore there must ALWAYS be concensus among the politicians & also within the laws of every state that a militaristic solution must ALWAYS be the very last resort in any situation, and if that step is to be taken, it should ALWAYS be with the support of an overwhelming majority!
In response to ur constant mentioning of the 2nd WorldWar, i just have one comment: The WWII was a time in which THE WHOLE WORLD was caught up in almost a "global mad euphoria", and although we are condemning solely the Nazi-Germany & Hitler(plus Italy & Japan), we will one day be able to see in retrospect, and condemn the WHOLE event as a tragic & dark era, instigated by EVERY SINGLE NATION & THEiR LEADERS, and not just the Germans, because we will realize & see that euphoric madness that the whole world had been possessed by during those yrs.!
Ofcoarse if we have to get technical about it, sure it was Hitler & the Germans who started the whole thing, but this fact alone will not escape the moral eyes of our future generations!
Mind u, i know how that may have sounded, but i can assure u that im NOT what we call a "New Nazi" or what not...im just commenting on the whole event of WWII as something that we should NOT be proud of....and this includes ALL OF US!
In conclusion i also have to tell u that i've realized that i have had to be EXTRA EXTRA careful about what i say to u Jeff...because afterall it's been pretty clear to me that im speaking to someone who has boldly(hence:foolishly) called the global warming--caused by mankind-- as a "myth", and later on when commenting on the docu.film, TOTALLY misunderstanding its whole pt., calling it among others as "distorted", & believing that it was actually trying to glorify the old Soviet regime, & even ppl like Zawaheri!
So let me try & give u a clue to what the pt. of the aformentioned docu.film was....and to do this i've selected 2 rather brief quotes that were commented by 2 ppl interviewed in the film, which i believe to be in essence the best & the most apt explanation of the whole pt. of the film "in a nut shell":
:The government had a legitimate concern at the beginning, but they let that concern, and they took it, and they made it a panic. They had reasonable questions and took them and made a complete fantasy out of them. They started out with a conclusion and then filled in all the blanks to the questions. So this was totally driven by the need—or the desire—to have terrorists. You build this conclusion based on this assumption, and this assumption, and this assumption, and, sure, if you go—if you build assumptions upon assumptions, you can go anywhere.
And...
:“Invention” is too stringe a term. I think we projected it—um, we projected our own worst fears, and that what we see is a fantasy that’s been created....I’m not saying that an atrocity might not happen on the British mainland. What I am saying is that we have an exaggerated perception of the possibility of terrorism that is quite disabling, and we only need to look at the evidence to understand that the figures simply don�t bear out the way that we have responded as a society.
Sorry for the long post!
Humbly,
/sphs
S.ph.s,
After reading your post, I think I've identified where it is we fundamentally disagree. Before I get into this however I want to set the record straight on something. You mischaracterized my comments about the documentary... I did not say that "it was actually trying to glorify the old Soviet regime, & even ppl like Zawaheri". What I said was that it made the "Soviet Union look like a benevolent and peaceful regime, and justifies the actions of terrorists like Zawahiri". I probably should have used the word "explains" rather than "justifies" when referring to Zawahiri, which in both cases is irrelevant to me. I'm way past caring about why these crazy people are killing innocent lives and more interested in wiping them out. It's like the Virginia Tech murderer, if you read my post, I was disgusted when NBC aired this lunatic's video's and pictures in the name of "explaining" to the American People why he did it. This video did not shed any additional light on why he did it and only served to confirm what we already knew... that he was a sick and twisted murdering mental case, just like Zawahiri.
If I may, let me focus on something I know you and I agree on:
Despite the numerous attacks we have endured from these Islamic extremists over the years including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, most Americans were oblivious that this enemy even existed until after 9/11. After the brutal indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of innocent American lives on our soil, Americans watched in shock as thousands of people in various Arab nations rejoiced and danced in the streets praising the actions of Osama Bin Laden. As a Muslim, didn't this disgusting display make you sick to your stomach like it did to me? I know you and I agree that this calculated action against innocent civilians is deplorable and must not be tolerated, but can we also agree the IslamoFacists who seek nuclear/biological weapons for use on more civilian targets are a very real and serious threat?
Every animal has a basic instinct of self preservation. You may not understand this, but as a nation of "free people", it is just as important for us to protect our liberties as it is to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones. Most of us would rather die than to live in tyranny. I've heard people like yourself say that you condemned what happened on 9/11, but that "this war against terror was beginning to take a wrong turn, mainly from the American's side". This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You believe we have not shown enough restraint and that our reaction to what happened on 9/11 is overblown. You believe our response is unbalanced... that perhaps the scope should have been narrowed down significantly to more closely match what happened to us on 9/11. Clearly this is not what we are doing nor should it be. What you and many others do not understand is that 9/11 was only the latest in a series of unprovoked attacks on Western society that has been going on for decades. Our goal is not to retaliate for a specific event, but rather attack the source of the problem by transforming the Middle East away from tyrannical regimes. Selectively bombing one or two terrorist camps is not going to stop these IslamoFascists from continuing to spread their ideology of hatred which will lead to more and more attacks. We have no problem coexisting with with other people. Diversity is what makes our country great. We cannot however coexist with terrorists what wish to spread their extremist religion through fear and violence. You believe it's possible to "control" terrorism and live side by side with these murders by treating it like a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement only works after the crime has been committed, and in this case we cannot afford to keep waiting for new attacks to occur before taking action. All it takes is one nuclear weapon to go off in a populated area which could kill millions of people and transform our country into a military state which would take much more drastic and far reaching measures. Do you really believe we should back off, stay home, lock our doors, fortify our borders, etc and hope they will not eventually reach our doorstep (AGAIN)? I've heard many people say that groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and others are primitive cave dwellers that pose no threat to the world. Do you believe this? So when the former CIA chief says that Al Qaeda has been seeking nuclear weapons in Pakistan and wants to make history by setting them off in an American city... this does not concern you? With Iran and Syria's known support for terrorism, don't you think it is critical to treat this as the most pressing threat we face today?
Jeff
Well Jeff, i could have mentioned a 1000 other things that i find so wrong about the war in Iraq(im not talking about the war on terrorism!), instigated by the right-wing Reps & the NeoCons, and infact i feel somewhat scared for my own safety when i think about voicing my own concerns & highly-contraversial opinions about the current US gov't & its policies.....so honestly i kind of feel 'out of steam'(a little exhausted) right now, which is actually quite a typical thing for me often, when i get into political discussions, because ultimately i find them quite un-inspiring & 'out of MY element'!
Im much MUCH MORE in favor of discussions revolving around the "spiritual universe"(astrology, tarots, spirituality, iChing, u name it...), rather than getting into the political hemisphere which to me is only a 2Dimensional universe, that ultimately leaves me totally un-inspired & even with a headache in the end, because quite often it ends up with me getting upset or angry at the whole world, which believe u me, is NOT something that i personally can afford, due to the circumstances of my own life(something that i explained to u briefly before)!
in any case Jeff, i do appreciate ur last reply(and also ur intense & passionate engagement the whole time), eventhough we may not have reached any desirable agreements or compromises....only in minor instances we did agree, but nothing major!
Best Regards,
Hi S.ph.s,
Understood... not a problem. I do want you to know I understand where you are coming from even if we disagree with many of each other's basic sentiments. At least we are in agreement that the overall war of terrorism is a fight we must win. I hope you don't mind... I just can't help myself, I want to point out that technically the war in Iraq was not "insticated by the right-wing Reps/Neocons". Clinton in fact signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998 which put into motion a policy of "regime change". As you know, Clinton was a Democrat, not a Republican and certainly not a Neocon. After 9/11 Bush had the overwhelming support of Democrats in both House and Senate, and if you go back and read many of the statements made by Democrats before the Iraq war, you will see how outspoken they were about using force against Saddam. This contradicts your statement that the Neocon's instigated the war in Iraq. I know you do not agree with this, but Iraq is the main front on the war on terrorism which Bin Laden and Zawahiri have both publically stated.
Peace!Jeff (God's Peace)
u know what man...GwB may have had very good reasons for being paranoid over the fact that Saddam Hussein had been too easily "let off the hook" after the Desert Storm back in 90-91, which one can ALMOST buy as a relatively reasonable motive for wanting to attack a 2nd time, to make sure that ALL of his political & military powers were COMPLETELY dismantled, so that he wouldnt be getting any "funny ideas" about wanting to retaliate Bush Sr. for the Desert Storm, and GwB for the current one....
So obviously he succeeded in getting that VERY PERSONAL, POTENTIAL-THREAT TO HIS OWN FAMILY, out of the way!
But what he hadnt anticipated sufficiently about, obviously, was the prospect of having now more than 10Million Iraqy ppl's hatred against him...Not only that, he also now has MANY heartfelt enemies throughout the whole of the Middle East region!!
And ironically, by doing what he has done since 2003, he made sure that this HORROR would follow him permenantly until the end of his life, and he will end up becoming a prisoner of his own lonely mansion!
As ruined & miserable as my life may be, i can tell u this much though: I certainly do NOT envy him & his powers AT ALL, and i am glad that im not in that man's shoes!
It's just so very unfortunate though that he's also ruined his own children's lives & future, by doing what he did.....and perhaps it will be this very factor that will eventually up his eyes one day, to the magnitude of the distruction that he caused during his prez. period!
The other day i saw a footage of him standing in between some African precussion drummers & dancers, and dancing & playing the precussions & looking happy....it struck me, that i had a mixed feeling of amazement & sorrow for this man, because he could have actually done more GOOD if he had just stayed away from power, and lived the simple life....my god, he wouldve achieved SO MUCH MORE in a role like that, than his current role as a prez....i almost felt sorry for the man!
But let me also in the end tell u a little about an important fact that he(& also u!) have seemed to misunderstand in the world of politics:
There is a famous saying that says; "sometimes if u want to win, u have to lose!"
This means naturally that sometimes u realize that eventhough u "seemingly" won a situation or whatever, that u've actually lost!
This fact will become more & more appearant to the world, when/if GwB continues to surge ahead with the same strategy as in 2003, and EVEN if he does manage to "pull a last trick out of his sleeves" to win the war in Iraq, he will realize sooner or later that he actually was the sole responsible man who "put the grave stone on top of the burrial spot" of the very political ideas that he once TRUELY believed in himself!
That is the grim irony of politics my friend, if u only happen to have a 2Dimensional(black&white) concept of when to 'procced ahead' & when to 'retreat', because these 2 options do NOT necessarily mean the same as "victory" or "defeat"(in that order)....but actually meaning BOTH of them at the same time!
But why do i still feel as if im talking to a pair of deaf ears(or "blind eyes" in this instant) Jeff?!!
best regards & GODs PEACE,
ps- u'll hear/read NO MORE comments from me again!!! i do however appologize for whatever animosity "felt" throughout the whole of this discussion, because it certainly is NOT a reflection of the reality, i can assure u that....and at the same time, my biggest thanks for having this dialogue with me in here Jeff for as long as it lasted...
May u have a SERENE & prosperous future, my dear "adversary rival"!
PEACE OUT!
My Dearest and most worthy adversary S.ph.s!
No need to respond, but I had to correct your erroneous statement that "...one can ALMOST buy as a relatively reasonable motive for wanting to attack a 2nd time". May I remind you that George W Bush attacked Saddam for the 3rd time, not the second. How quickly you forget that his predecessor William Jefferson Clinton was in office for 8 years, during which time he launched a full scale attack against Saddam's forces with the backing of Congress and without the approval of the UN. I've mentioned twice that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which specifically changed US policy to one of Regime change in Iraq, but you have not commented on this once. If this does not dispel the idea that Bush acted alone to overthrown Saddam, then perhaps some of these quotes will change your mind:
(Al Gore - 1998): "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."
(Hillary Clinton - 2002): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." (Hillary Clinton)
(John Kerry -2003): "It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism"
I can list a hundred quotes from other Democrats in Congress as well as other leaders from around the world all saying Saddam was a threat and all saying he should be disarmed in the run up to the war. This contradicts the notion that this was "George Bushes war" or that this was a Neocon operation started by Neocons. The facts speak for themselves... if you are willing to open your eyes. Loosing the war in Iraq is not an option because if we loose, it means terrorists win. Can you live with that? I can't. The Iraqi government as well as a majority of the people want us to stay until they can assume security over their own country. They have said so publicly and polls have shown this as well. Join me S.ph.s in supporting our efforts in Iraq. Shed your hatred for George Bush now that you know the truth! It's easy if you just try.
God bless you my friend, and hopefully we can discuss other less contentious topics!
Thanks for the kind regards sir....and NO worries mate....eventhough we may have totally different approaches to the 'means' of getting there, we both more&less agree with the 'ends'....
we both want terrorism anhilated from the roots....the same with fanaticism or religious dictatorship, etc...etc....i can give u a long list, but as i said we have 2 very different ideas on how these 'ends' can be achieved!
Kudos! [a new term ive picked up & learned from talking to u]
PEACE!
1 of the most beautiful & wise proverbs ive heard recently, reads:
There is no way to peace......peace is the way!
Let's talk about who put Saddam into power in the first place.
I would like to see our troops come home too, but not until Iraq's Government is stable and secure from Al Qaeda and the other terrorists. Osama Bin Laden and his number 1 Zawahiri both publicly said that Iraq is the main front in their "Jihad", and I think we should take them very seriously. This is not an "endless" war. The end will come when either we give up, or the Iraqi government becomes stable enough and capable enough to take full control of their own country. The Iraqi government AND the people both want us to stay just long enough to accomplish this goal, and if we pull out our troops prematurely, that country will fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and Iran where they will most certainly launch attacks against the United States and the rest of the world.
I just have to say that the idea that the United States "put Saddam into power" is such a distortion and manipulation of the truth that it's not even worth a comment. Let's talk about what should be done going forward. I'm sure we all agree that Al Qaeda is a real threat and should be dealt with whether it's in our own country or elsewhere. They are murderers on a massive scale and we cannot afford to let them spread and get their hands on modern day weapons which they would not hesitate to use.
Stan, I hope it's Ok for the repeated posts on this topic. It's obviously a passionate subject for me.
J
Jeff, nice to see someone has a braincell or two functioning. Two Thumbs Up!!!!! I am with you on every one of your statements!!
Regards,
Lynn
Quack Quack. Agreed.
The act of killing another human for revenge, killing for profit, or any other form of killing wich leads to personal advancement at the expense of anothers life, Is deemed wrong. Killing in self defense, for food, for no other reason than from being forced by another individual, this, is deemed acceptable.
Humans Kill to Live.
Humans kill to survive.
Humans kill because Humans are naturally at the top of the food chain, and there is really nothing else that can kill us (Other than the odd animal attack, wich is usually brought on by Human carelessness more than anyhting).Because nothing can kill us to any great degree, other than ourselves, that naturally makes our only enemy, ourselves. so we deem killing to be wrong, because animals dont hold protests, animals dont start wars, animals dont hold funerals, or create weapons of mass destruction. Only humans do. How do you stop an enemy, before he strikes? you enforce a Law, or rule that states this is wrong (Wich may not work 100%, but the majority of the world follows this Rule). this rule or law is then ingrained into our minds as we live our life, to keep Humans from destroying themselves.
Killing is wrong because if it was not, we would destroy ourselves. But in this lies a contradiction. We Give a Military Unit 'Permission' To kill the enemy. The enemy being whomever the leader doesnt like. We follow these orders blindly. The enemy kills our Military Units because their leader gives THEM permission. The enemy Kills our Military units because of retaliation to our orders to kill.
We are In the right, they are in the wrong?
Why then Can I not Kill whomever I do not like?
What gives a Military unit the 'Right' to do this act of injustice?If anything the enemy has more of a right to kill than our Military units, because it is socially acceptable throughout the entire world to kill in self defense.The way around this Injustice? provoke the enemy to attack US, so we may assume the position of 'Defender', thereby giving us the right to kill.
And here we cycle back to the reason why people kill. Personal Advancement at the expense of others lives.
Feudalism in the Guise of Democracy?
