He sees the weakness of the democracies, just as Osama bin Laden did after the Black Hawk incident, and just as Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. From Iran Focus, with thanks to Jihad Watch News Editor Eric Schwappach:
Tehran, Iran, Oct. 24 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad charted an intransigent course for his country’s controversial nuclear program and mocked the West’s response to the recent resumption of nuclear activities by Iran, which was sharply condemned in a European-sponsored resolution by the board of governors of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.Speaking at a gathering of university students in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said of the West’s response, “At first, they made a lot of noise about it, but gradually they were made to sit down quietly”....
“The Islamic Republic reached the conclusion that continuing the status quo was harmful to our national security”, he said.
“The more we retreated, the more they stepped forward, to the extent that Mohammad ElBaradei, the secretary general of the [International Atomic Energy] Agency [IAEA] recently told us, ‘They don’t want you to have nuclear technology’.”, Ahmadinejad said, referring to the now suspended negotiations between Iran and the European trio of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
“Why should we give in?” the ultra-Islamist president asked. “Where does it say in our laws that we have to beg the Europeans for our rights?”
Ahmadinejad expressed confidence that the West will be forced to retreat in the face of the Iranian regime’s uncompromising stance, and he indicated that his government was emboldened by what it perceived as the West’s “feeble” reaction.
“God willing, the West will accept our position since Iran’s political power in the world is very great and in certain regions unrivalled. We need the world but we have shown that we can achieve development without them”.
I'm with the Iranian Prez on this one, at least as far as the ridiculing the West's lame response part goes -- and that's mainly aimed at our illustrious "allies" France and Germany --
As Mr. Chirac said -- "As far as I'm concerned, war ALWAYS means failure!" -- and since the French have a 200 year old record of orchestrating failures and thereby causing wars -- I guess he would know best -- Looks like they're at it again, with the usual perpendicularity au Francaise... or lack...
“At first, they made a lot of noise about it, but gradually they were made to sit down quietly”
“Why should we give in?”
-------
They are 100% corrrect.
(W)ahabbster has no intention of confronting islam. Duh.
Now look what (W)ahabbster IS doing...condoleeza reich today urged Israel to allow more Jew-killing, filthy, arab, muslim terrorists into Israel...to kill more Jews.
Such is The Plan.
“At first, they made a lot of noise about it, but gradually they were made to sit down quietly”....
Monseuir L'Enfant Terrible
He's correct.
Our inertia damns us.
The characteristic that most qualifies an individual as "evil" is that of having zero respect for human life and the suffering this characteristic causes. The present caudillo or strongman of Iran (whatever his name is) has it as did Islam's alleged founder, Mahomet. There are tactical advantages to this. In fact, this is what Iran's leader believes to be the strength from which he is operating with.
The Qu'ran epitomizes this tactical advantage of disregard for human life and suffering and enabled Islam to become an empire built on human bloodshed and enslavement. The leaders of the Islamicized parts of the globe demonstrate this disregard for human life and suffering every day as they sentence countless numbers of folks to stonings, beheadings and other horrors. Although Islam has displayed this quality to a far greater degree than any other section of humanity in fairness other groups such as Communists and Nazis have also displayed it on a vast scale. To all you America-haters out there...and to be sure there are GADZILLIONS of them...the United States's history contains much less of this quality than almost any other nation or geo-political entity of its size and importance (including Europe). Vietnam, America's greatest snafu was responsible for about 4,000,000 deaths---which is atrocious, but pales in comparison with the estimated 400 million lives Islam has taken without apology. 80 million died brutally in China's Boxer 'Rebellion.' Communism in Russia and China resulted in the murders of over 150,000,000 in the 20th century. The USA has no comparable crimes against humanity on its record.
Islam has deprogrammed its followers ('Muslims'), brainwashing them into becoming totally desensitized to the fate of the world...and not only the 'infidels' I might add. Leaders such as Iran's WILL use nuclear weapons to tactical advantage because if they turn the Earth into a concrete block of a cemetery it means nothing to them...or so they have been led to believe by Islamic orthodoxy. Because such individuals have so little respect for life. Which is the logical outcome of all ideologues who believe that life is subordinate to ideology.
And it is the belief that all human life is secondary to ideology that has led Muslims on to murdering HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS in ice-cold blood.
The present leader fits this mold exactly. World, beware.
"...Iran’s political power in the world is very great and in certain regions unrivalled. " The poor man is clearly delusional. Has he forgotten what hapened to Iraq when Saddam tried to build a nuclear reactor?
American intervention in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein led to, could only have led to, an increase in Shi'a power in Iraq. Already a majority, the Shi'a nonetheless had been persecuted or terrorized, their attempts to revolt always crushed, and this had been the rule since the days of Gertrude Bell. Indeed, the Sunnis have been mistreating the Shi'a, as virtual Infidels, since -- since about 661 A.D. -- which is to say, a little more than 1100 years before the United States was even founded.
Now that the Americans have removed from power the most dangerous local enemy of both the Islamic Republic of Iran and of the (Wahhabi) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia -- Saddam Hussein, with his dreams of Saladinesque King of the Arabs glory, the Administration does not know what to do further in Iraq, nor does it seem to know what to do about Iran. It has used up what political capital it had, by remaining in Iraq to bring the non-existent "Iraqis" freedom, and remains there still, to train "Iraqis" (i.e. Shi'a, Kurds, and Sunni, all of whom feel distrust and often, with reason, hatred for each other, which is not exactly a prescription for the proper functioning of a military unit), to bring "freedom" to "millions of (non-existent) Iraqis" who share, we are told, in that universal and unquenchable desire for such freedom, and at the same time we who can do anything have set in motion, in Egypt, in Lebanon, and so many other places (which places, exactly? Libya? Algeria? Morocco? Oman? Yemen? which places?), that March Toward Democracy, or Democracy On the March, or something, that will inevitably, in some act of political prestidigitation that the American poliycmaking magicians can perform as a trick but simply cannot -- it would spoil the trick -- explain how the trick is performed -- necessarily lead to a weakening of Islam here, there, and everywhere, beginning with the threat of Da'wa and demographic conquest of that indispensable part of the West (whatever silly mutterings go on about how the "Europeans deserve it" and we should "just abandon them" and so on), Europe.
Meanwhile, 150,000 Ameriocan troops are now held hostage both to Iraq and to Iran. It is extraordinary. They are held hostage first to teh government of Iraq, and it is this government, controlled by the "Iraqis" as the Americans call them -- that is, the Shi'a and the Kurds -- who want the Americans to stay as long as possible, in order both to have those Americans do the fighting against the Sunni Arabs (and take the military casualties), and continue to train (and if they are lucky, even equip) the so-called "Iraqi" forces which, in the end, will be the Shi'a forces and the Kurdsih forces, whether the Badr and Sadr militias and the pesh merga, or some other group that pretends, in order to find favor with the Americans, to be a true-blue patriotic "Iraqi" unit, where Sunni and Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds, all pitch in to suppress Sunnis in that Sunni isosceles triangle we -- for we are all euclideans now -- hear so much about. And of course the Kurds and the Shi'a know that the longer we remain, the more American largesse is likely to be lavished, whenever possible, whenever things lighten up here and there, on Iraq, because poor Iraq, the country with the 2nd or possibly the largest oil reserves in the world, cannot conceivably be asked, now that it has received nearly $100 billion in debt relief from the Infidel lands (but only promises of similar relief from the Arab Muslim countries that supplied money to Saddam Hussein to fight the Shi'a in Iran), to borrow against future oil earnings -- but we, the long-suffering, nearly-going-mad with how our money is flung about all over the known universe, by those who here want to bring "democracy" and over there -- see Paul Wolfowitz's grandiose vision for the World Bank -- end "world poverty." Oh, and while we're at it, can we also make sure that everyone in the whole wide world is just as happy as they can possibly be made to be through the efforts of the Americans? Yes, that's what we all feel that the United States was put on this earth to do and be -- to serve others, to serve every damn other all over the world. Stop it.
Now Bush prates about the "terrorists" who "hate freedom." Does he think the Shi'a "love freedom"? Does he think the Shi'a imposing the Shari'a in Basra and points north, south, east and west, are true democrats? Doesn't he realize that if the Sunnis constituted 60% of the population, they would not be "hating freedom" at all, but loving it, and it would be the Shi'a who would demonstrate that they "hated freedom"? And doesn't he realize that the Kurds cannot stand the Arabs for their decades, even centuries of persecution, for stealing Kurdish lands and using the revenues from oil under those lands to fund the Sunni Arab regime that used Kurdish oil to fund the killing of Kurds? Why, in god's name, should the Shi'a or the Kurds want to have anything to do with the Sunins, or share the wealth with those who never made a move to share anything with them?
Yet still, our soldiers will remain "as long as the Iraqi government needs them."
Oh, and then there is one other party to whom American policy is held hostage. No one quite knows the connection between the need, the absolute necessity, to destroy Iran's nuclear potential, or at least to damage it sufficiently so that a long delay will ensue, and the regime itself so humiliated that its internal (and external enemies) may finally overthrow it, no doubt in a long and very unpleasant -- for Iranians -- conflict, with lots of score-settling, and mullahs all over getting what they deserve from that large enraged portion of the Iranian population that is less enthusiastic about Islam now than it has been in at least the last thousand years. For the Islamic Republic of Iran was the perfect political expression of Shi'a Islam, and that perfect expression has done more to damage Islam than anything that could be imposed or suggested from Infidels outside.
But the Americans are inhibited, and will continue to be inhibited, in dealing with Iran as long as Americdan soldiers remain so close to Iran, such easy targets for Iranian agents (already swarming into southern Iraq) and for Iranian military retaliation. And furthermore, the American military has to assume that if there were an attack on Iranian nuclear installations or laboratories by American or other forces (e.g. Israel) that this would turn the Shi'a in Iraq from being passive observers of the Americans fighting the Sunnis and dying for a phony cause -- "Iraq's freedom" --that really translates as "Shi'a-dominated Iraq," but into active, and murderous, enemies of those American soldiers.
So far from being part of an intelligent anti-Jihad strategy, the efforts to create a stable nation-state are futile. They are futile because they depend upon ignoring the real nature of Iraq, its history, and the sectarian and ethnic conflicts that, while found elsewhere in Dar al-Islam, are perhaps nowhere else so powerful and so obvious -- except of course to those who either support, or for that matter oppose, the American presence in Iraq.
The efforts to create a stable nation-staet are foolish, because they rely on the American soldiers somehow being able to create an "Iraqi" identity out of people who do not have one, and do not want one, and where the struggle is over money, and power, and whether or not the Sunnis will continue to dominate or, rather, be dominated. Whether those Sunnis are local Iraqis, or are the kill-the-infidel-rafidite-dog-Shi'as under Zarqawi's control, doesn't matter -- both are fighting to ensure Sunni rule, and that means to fight the idea of democracy, both because it goes against Islam, and because, in Iraq, it goes against continued Sunni dominance.
One is furious that American soldiers are being asked to risk their lives, in the service of the impossible, and the silly, by those who will not admit that they knew little or nothing about Islam, still have a lot to learn, and similarly knew little or nothing about Iraq. If they think that Bernard Lewis was the last word in the matter they were dead wrong, and he has been dead wrong again and again. Perhaps his least finest hour, next to his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords (does Lewis really understand Islam? Or is he just a gifted synthesizer? What does he think Muslims think of Infidels? What does he think in Turkey is permanent, and what transient? What does he think of Majid Khadduri's discussion of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya as the model for all treaties with Infidels? That it is old hat, vieux jeu, irrelevant to the brand-new and improved Islam that has somehow suddenly appeared? Appearances on Charlies Rose, fawning articles in the Wall Street Journal, just won't make up for the harsh judgment of posterity, if Lewis does not, somehow, take the occasion to admit he was wrong about this "democracy" project in Iraq, and we should, instead, exploit the Iraqi fissures for all that they are worth. There's still time for him to do so -- is he capable of admitting, as he never did publicly about the Oslo Accords --not only that he was wrong, but that he was necessarily wrong -- because his professional and personal ties, to the very best that the Islamic world has to offer, made him forget what Islam, and 95% of Muslims, are all about, and always will be as long as they remain Muslims.
There sit, or fight, and are wounded, or die, the troops. There sits the equipment, desert-degraded so that it wears out 10 or 15 times faster than it otherwise would. There goes the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, that might be spent on energy and conservation projects to undermine the funding of the Jihad.
And there sits Iran, with its nuclear weapons project, being worked on, a kind of inexorable juggernaut, unless the Americans act.
But how can they -- with all those men, within range not only of the Iranians, but also of the Shi'a in Iraq? They can't.
Iraq is holding us back. Iraq is damaging, in every possible way, the counter-Jihad.
It is stupid. It is dangerous. There is not a single thing, at this point, to be argued in its favor. Loyalists to Bush, more concerned with scoring points against Cindy Sheehan, or the MSM, or something like that, will not stop to analyze the opportunites that Iraq presents, and that are being wilfully ignored, by policymakers too narrow, too inflexible, and too unintelligent and uncunning to be dealing with a very cunning and insidious enemy, whose weapons are various, and whose patience essentially endless.
It maddens. It is as great a failure, despite all the tough-guy rhetoric from the All-Hat-and-No-Cattle Leader or Person-Taking-A Leadership-Role, as any in recent memory. And what being there prevents the Americans from doing in Iran is reason enough to get out of Iraq now.
"We can't just cut and run." "We have to stay the course." "Freedom is never free." "We shall neither falter nor fail." "The universal desire for freedom." "We won't leave until our mission is accomplished." (Define that goddam mission, will you please, in a way that makes sense, that connects to the need to constrain and divide and demoralize Islam? Because if "the mission" does not do that, then "the mission" makes no sense).
Enough stupidity. Enough slogans. Enough failure to think things through. Basta.
Comments above notwithstanding, it would be a catastrophe to walk away from the Iraq project now -- Nothing could do more to confirm the Ummah's sinister appraisals of the American and Western willingness to confront the Great Jihad -- Their estimation that we could not endure their onslaught is largely what fueled the ascendancy of this Great Jihad for 3 decades... Dreams of dominion seemed to them to be real...
Today, Iraq is as good a place as any to learn their tactics, conduct target practice, and prepare and streamline our forces to confront a bigger conflagration, which is sure to come...
One of the reasons I supported this war was to place a fully deployed American military in the midst of the Islamic sewer -- hot and ready to serve -- no 6 to 9 month leadup up, hat in hand begging this Muslim or that for 'permission' --I won't make light of the stupendous costs, mainly in the lives of our noble soldiers, but boots on the ground are priceless...
" America, at least, has always had the courage to acknowledge its mistakes. It admitted [its] crime of slavery against the blacks, and it took action, and continues to take action, to make amends for that historical crime. But the Sunnis have persecuted the Shi'ites, declared them infidels, and continue to treat them in their countries as second-class citizens. It seems that they are not making do with that, and have returned today to complete what they started in previous centuries.
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD101005
Apropos the 1st line, does Bush have the courag3e to see the situation for what it really is and adopt a new course.
I`m sorry i do not see him rising to the occasion on this.
The moral obligation has been accomplished and now different tactics and strategies need to be introduced.
Iran is a greater danger to Saudi Arabia which has to take pre-emptive action. The US should help this from the outside.
Hugh: Cindy Sheehan, the peace now crowd are the backboard against which the reactionaries bounce.
The more vocal becomes the "peace now" loonies, the more adamant the reactionaries dig in their heels, because that is what reactionaries do.. they react blindly
I vivdly recall my own emotions, on returning from Viet Nam, and encountering those unwashed hippies and peaceniks, chanting Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, waving NVA flags led by Marxists professors and the SDS.
I, and millions of other Americans reacted and the war drug on another 7 years, at the cost of another 40 - 50,000 American lives, millions of Viet Namese lives and an economy ravaged by deficit war spending which never recovered until after 1992.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have added my voice to the peace now rabble, then again maybe not, because it was the unwashed bearded sandled peace now rabble that was responsible for keeping middle America behind the policies of the Administrations - reactionaries reacting as programmed and expected.
Reverse psychology being employed against middle America as psyops? Nah. Then again Lenin's Dictum of Indirect Reversal: "Oppose what you propose and propose what you oppose and your enemies will hand you victory on a silver platter"
Perhaps if it weren't for those unwashed bearded Ho Chi Minh loving "peaceniks" middle America would have got fed up seeing flag draped caskets coming home a lot sooner, and we would have done what was inevitable.. let the Viet Namese have their jungle, they got it anyway, didn't they.
Maybe that is why the present administration hides flag draped coffins from the public,and why statistics of dead and wounded are downplayed and hidden in local papers and why no real political noise is made about the despoiling of our economy by war debt (not even by "Democrats" strangely) hmmm, is there really such a thing as an opposition party, or both "parties" merely facades and charades for an oligarchial regime?
I do wish the Cindy Sheehan's would evaporate, and that the MSM would find some principles, ethics and/or cajones and start doing a job they stopped doing a decade ago...honest, serious, investigative reporting... muck raking journalism about our government and it's corporate owners.
Okay, anyone who reads Hugh's posting above, and Bush's speech from today...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051025.html
... can see who is the pie-in-the-sky, desperately-wishful-thinking, rose-colored-glasses-wearing, the-glass-is-2-percent-full, bleeding-heart-on-their-sleeve, and who is the hard-nosed realist dealing with the actual situation.
I'm not even going to bother quoting Bush's speech, it's just feels like piling on at this point.
Once again Mr. Fitzgerald has hit the nail on the head. Iraq is a monumental disastrous misadventure which is threatening the future of the U.S. Ironically, Sadam was the only man capable of checking both the Wahabisits and the Shiite fanatics, a task that the US military, for all its efforts, has failed to accomplish.
The joke of all jokes is that Sadam for all of his blood stained reign has proven that his repression was necessary due to the nature of his country, and repression is the only method for maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrality and crushing separatists.
We're painted in this corner due to the sickness called political correctness our government engages in. This is policy? We're committing suicide with our flaccid, No balls no grit dialoguing.
The security of our nation, our lives have been sacrificed to the machinations of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Karen Hughes! Where are the men for christs sake? Doesn't Bush know when he's being led by the nose?
Please, somebody shoot me for voting for George Bush. The man is F*^#@ing cursed. He and "Condi"(Get out of Gaza)Rice are taking us down...
John Wayne, Winston Churchill, Charles Bronson, where are you? Save up from these feminized, political correct ninnies...
Well, what do they have to fear? More warnings, diplomatic notes, and threats to 'pass the case to the UN'? Don't make me laugh.
The mullahs know all to well that Europe will never have enough guts to make a sacrifice to avert a greater tragedy. Pacifism rules the Old World today.
-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org
Kemaste
Don't kick yourself over voting for Bush. I don't that Americans had much choice in the elections anyway. W is just the lesser of the two evils. Had Kerry won the election, we would have been deep in a romantic relationship with Iran by now.
-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org
From a previous comment:
"As Mr. Chirac said -- "As far as I'm concerned, war ALWAYS means failure!" -- and since the French have a 200 year old record of orchestrating failures and thereby causing wars -- I guess he would know best -- Looks like they're at it again, with the usual perpendicularity au Francaise... or lack..."
A perfect example why not every soldier becomes a general. You may blame the French for being arrogant and chauvinistic (even though from my personal experience, both those atributes are false), you may blame them for being smelly (this one is even more ridiculous), you may even blame them for having a stupid president (not that yours is some sort of genius, btw), but... blame France for military failures?! This is prepousterous. For your information, just two days before Waterloo, Napoleon utterly defeated a Prussian army in Ligny that outnumbered his by almost 40,000 soldiers.
Do you want to know about another "French military failure"? How about the expeditionary "failure" that gave France extraordinary victories both against the British army (thanks to Laffayette) and against the Royal Navy (thanks to Villeneuve), victories without which your country would still be a British colony to this day?
Know your own history, for Christ's sake! Criticize the French or the Germans for what they should be criticized, but please do not resort to stupidity.
Here: http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html
Hopefully you will learn something.
Dolfin...Kerry would kick butt...rather than romance Iran, he would lead the charge. Ignoring the advice of his advisors, and spoiling for a fight, he would be the first one on the beach.
His heroics would be legendary (again). 'The Fighting President', he did it before and he can do it again. All he needs is a chance to redeem himself on the battlefield and people will forget all that 'swift boat' stuff. He's still an army officer, so if he wanted to he could re-up and go spend some time in Iraq fighting alongside his men. He's probably just been too busy to think of that. So next time he comes over for beer and wrestling, I will suggest it to him. Then we will see what kind of a warrior he is...
duh_swami:
Michael Moore gets to carry the camera - i hope.
"it would be a catastrophe to walk away from the Iraq project now -- Nothing could do more to confirm the Ummah's sinister appraisals of the American and Western willingness to confront the Great Jihad..."
-- from a posting above
No -- the reverse is true. The Muslims do not expect any kind of cunning or ruthlessness from the Infidels. They cannot believe that we, instead of bringing "democracy" to Iraq, might realize that Islam, not the absence of "democracy," is the problem, and that the presence of the democracy will do nothing or almost nothing to constrain Islam, to divide and demoralize the camp of Muslims. It would require, apparently, a great mental effort on the part of some American policymakers. Just as some of them, no doubt, have simply put the idea of an independent Kurdistan out of their minds because they cannot conceive of obtaining Turkish acceptance or approval, rather than ask themselves not how to obtain heartfelt approval, but rather how to force begrudging cooperation. No pressure is ever put anywhere, except on countries in Europe to accept Turkey into the E.U. (that hectoring phone call to Karamanlis that went entirely unreported in the American press), and of course there is constant pressure on Israel to play fast and loose, even faster and even looser, with its own security, and to surrender, or not even raise, the matter of its legal, moral, and historic rights.
If leaving Iraq -- as has been written about possibly in a hundred or two hundred postings here over the past two years -- is combined with a series of other measures, it will be clear that the Americans are not leaving in defeat (for eventually the toll, the toll on the army, the toll on the treasury, the toll on American views, will force the American government to leave Iraq, and the sooner it is done, for the right reasons and in the right way, the better)--but leaving because they are willing, coldly, to allow the Sunnis and Shi'a to attack, or kill each other. It need not be presented that way. It need only be presented as "we have done our job, the Constitution was ratified, and now the second set of elections will be over, and our presence here does more harm than good for national reconciliaton." Go right ahead, write the phony but entirely plausible speech announcing the American decision to leave Iraq yourself.
And then ask what that freeinig up of troops, and of money, attention, energy, will do. The great sigh of relief, the delight every morning as we read of casualties in Iraq, and realize that the 10 dead, or the 1000 dead, are not Americans but Sunnis killing Shi'a or vice-versa, and that the money and men who flow in from outside are helping the Sunnis kill the Shi'a, or the Shi'a kill the Sunnis. And if the Iranian involvement weakens the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it will, as it drains off the True Believers, and if the Iranian fanatics wish to volunteer, let them.
And in the meantime, a thousand possible measures can be undertaken, and discussions about reversing attitudes of appeasement everywhere, ending Muslim immigration, cutting off money from abroad that pays for 80% of the mosques in the United States, and even preparing acts to win over, or buck up, black Africans under Muslim assault (including a campaign that distributes information about the Arab slave trade, and especially the "hideous trade" in castrated young blacks, that should be discussed far and wide, in Africa, and in the Western world, among that black population that has clearly been targeted by Muslim missionaries).
And then there is the point raised above that you do not answer. Is it more likely that the American government will deal as it should with Iran's nuclear project with those "boots on the ground" (your phrase, not mine) in Iraq, or is it in fact less likely, because those American troops are more easily reached by Iranians bent on retaliation, whether from Iran, or from within Iraq, by either Iranian agents themselves, or Iraqi Shi'a who are happy to have us kill and be killed by the Sunnis, but in no sense are, or ever could be, our friends?
If you were worrying about Iran's bomb, would yo want the Americans to stay in Iraq, or get out now, so as to deal with that?
If you were worrying about the islamization of Europe, would you want the Americans to stay in Iraq, and use up whatever attention not wasted on the trivial (who told what to whom about Valerie Palme, and will Karl Rove go, and who's going to win the pennant, and did you miss the last episode of "Desperate Housewives" or of "Prison Break"?) on the "Iraq project" whatever that damned project is supposed to be?
Those who make policy didn't think clearly about either Iraq or about Islam. Many of those who want the Americans out of Iraq went them out for precisely the wrong reasons. Fine. Get out of Iraq, for all the right reasons -- and they, those appeasers, will not be able to utter a peep. They will have to agree. Meanwhile, the great mass of the population, delighted to be free of the Iraqi business, the Light-Unto-the-Msulim-Nations Project that, even were it to be "successful" (and what does that mean -- what would constitute success?) would do nothing to constrain or limit the power or menace of Islam, will be more, not less, willing to realize that Islam needs to be treated as Soviet Communism was treated during the Cold War.
Would the United States at the very beginning of the Cold War have put all of its efforts, say, into some impossible task -- let's say, putting ground troops in China and attempting to stave off a Communist takeover, and staying, and staying, and taking casualties, even as the Communist parties of France and Italy came to power, and the Communist appeal seemed unstoppable in Western Europe, and Latin America, and everywhere, while the Americans kept thinking that they could make a difference in China? They couldn't, at that point. But now the siren-song of capitalism is changing China and, for that matter, Vietnam, in ways both good and not-so-good. But there is no way to change Islam, unless Muslims themselves are forced to confront the reality of Islam, and to make the connection, obvious to many of us, between their long history of political, economic, social, intelllectual, and moral failure, and the teachings of Islam itself, and the attitudes and atmospherics that Islam necessarily gives rise to. That is the "LIght-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" that must be brought, or rather, the conditions for observing that Light must be created. And to observe that light, you may have to turn out all the other lights, leaving the Dar al-Islam, as much as possible, to wallow in its own violence and craziness, and to exploit, at every step, whatever ethnic or sectarian fissures exist within Islam.
They exist, to the highest degree, in the most obvious way, in Iraq itself. Yet we are doing everything we can to patch up those fissures, to create and prop up and support and rebuild a non-existent nation-state, and a non-existent (save for a handful) sense of "Iraqi" nationhood.
This is crazy. This is genius in reverse.
Nariz:
There's a vast difference between Vietnam and Iraq, the primary one being the Vietnamese communists of the north and the imegre Vietnamese community abroad weren't blowing up civilian targets in Europe and North America.
The Saudis have to be at least as uncomfortable with the Iranians having nukes as the Israelis are, if not more so.
Cindy Sheehan, pathetic post-menopausal media whore who has already exhausted her 15 minutes of "fame".....
The reaction of the West has been feeble. That's why our leaders in the West need to stiffen their spines, walk upright, and do what is necessary to show these people who really is boss!
What this news does not say is why he wants the nuclear power:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001/20051026/0840116376.htm&sc=1107
Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
``There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,'' Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called ``The World without Zionism.''
``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,'' Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.
``As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,'' said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.
Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a ``trick,'' saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel.
The conclusion is to say afterwards: USA imperialistic, Muslim=from the religion of peace. Einstein said: there are two things that tend to infinite: the stupidity and the Universe, but I am not sure about the last one. Now we can see it plainly.
Is it fair to say that we could significantly disrupt Irans nuclear program with air strikes alone? I believe we could.
I also believe that we made a mistake by going into Iraq, when it seems clear to me that Iran is far more of a threat. FOr all saddam's evil, his ability to make was was greatly reduced after the gulf war. Resources and political capital are limited, we must use them sparingly.
And, it seems to me that of the 3 ethnic groups in Iraq, only the Kurds have any hope of developing into a pro-western, anti-jihad force. Why not allow the birth of a kurdistan?
Dear Cruzado:
Sorry to ruffle your plumes -- your souffle post is very funny! There's a hilarious site called "The complete military history of France" --
For a fun read go to
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
It makes for good reading Cruzado, perhaps before you got all lathered up about France's military prowess, a brief interlude at this site is in order... And by the way, who ever said the French were "smelley" ? I didn't even think of saying that until you mentioned it... My post was mainly dealing with their perfidy and cowardice but perhaps I could have developed it further... Your are the judge!
One must search very far back in history to find significant French victories -- I am prepared to generously credit them with their defeat of the Muslims in 732 AD by my favorite Frenchman -- Charles the Hammer -- in Poitiers over a thousand years ago ! Without wishing to insult Charles's memory, I am nevertheless sad to say this was a near complete anomaly (French victory, that is...)
As for Napolean's military record, I concede he sometimes was a brilliant tactition, and won some stunning victories -- But holding up his rapine nonsensical rampages across Europe until his psychotic ass was dumped on an island and his favorite aide-de-camp poisoned him to get away from his utterly detestable personality, well -- do so if you must, but it hardly makes your case -- In addition, I had limited my comments to their track record for the last 200 years -- OK OK - you got me on a technicality -- I SHOULD HAVE SAID INSTEAD that "since the French have a 190 year old record of orchestrating failures and thereby causing wars ..."
Anyway some good highlights from the site I mention above are in order as several touch directly on your ludicrous assertions...
- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
(Cruz, mon ami, I would also insert here that France still lost this affair, not long after, if YOU remember your history... the French King and Queen lost their heads, and the French lost their monarchy in part for their support for the American cause -- Even when the French win, they lose, mon ami)
- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
Anyway -- it goes on an on, and is quite informative/entertaining...
jsla
You previously said that not all soldiers become generals. Well, "some" soldiers don't have the brains to become a corporal, let alone generals.
Let me just give you a hint: more French soldiers died in WWI than Americans died in all the confrontations during all their history as an independent nation. Get the picture, moron?
If you weren't a complete fool, you would have at least realise that the site you mentioned is the very site that my source trashes to the oblivion. Of course, reason and mob-thinking do not mix, so by all means remain as you are.
I am not even French nor do I have any particular reason to praise the French military records other than the fact that - unlike you - I like to live in the real world.
That Scottish character from Trainspotting chose life. You apparently chose ignorance. Good for you.