What neocons don't tell you - Page 2

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Ohhhhhhhhhh just take the liberty from your armchair to divert to Saddam and completely FORGET ABOUT all the dead Iraqi civillians.

How lazy and deceptive of you to divert to Saddam when we are talking about the dead Iraqi civillians in this thread.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

So you see no problem with 70,000 civillians dead in Iraq because it is those islamic folk who we have a problem with as you see it?

Originally Posted by Fellowship

You nailed it...

You see we just can't have that well if that were allowed the US $ could end up in a free fall if others followed suit like Iran and Venezuela etc. etc.

Ohhh but it was about WMD right?

Fellows

Originally Posted by Jubelum

The question is- would those people be dead if not for Islamic terrorism? Probably not. But maybe.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

You sicken me with your lack of regard for fellow human lives. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE AMERICANS.

Fellows

Originally Posted by segovius

Certainly Islam did just fine with no terrorism for over 1000 years before the US existed.

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

They've have similar groups for years and years and years. Islamic extremism is not new. It's just that it has been a while since there have been crusaders to butt heads with them.

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Over the last thousand years the middle east has done very little in regard to science, philosophy, etc,.

Arab philosophers like al-Kindi, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Persian philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) played a major role in preserving the works of Aristotle, whose ideas came to dominate the non-religious thought of the Christian and Muslim worlds. They would also absorb ideas from China, and India, adding to them tremendous knowledge from their own studies. Three speculative thinkers, al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Avicenna (Ibn Sina), fused Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism with other ideas introduced through Islam.

From Spain the Arabic philosophic literature was translated into Hebrew, Latin, and Ladino, contributing to the development of modern European philosophy. The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, muslim sociologist-historian Ibn Khaldun, Carthage citizen Constantine the African who translated Greek medical texts, and the muslim Al-Khwarzimi's collation of mathematical techniques were important figures of the Golden Age.

One of the most influential Muslim philosophers in the West was Averroes (Ibn Rushd), founder of the Averroism school of philosophy, and who is regarded as a founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.

The modern scientific method was first developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, especially in the works of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century.

The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) wrote the Book of Optics, and he is known as the father of optics for empirically proving that vision occurred because of light rays entering the eye, as well as for inventing the camera obscura to demonstrate the physical nature of light rays.

Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the "first scientist" for his development of the scientific method and some also consider him the founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology] for his pioneering work on the psychology of visual perception.

Among the achievements of Muslim scientists and mathematicians during this period included the development of algebra and algorithms (see Muhammad ibn M?s? al-Khw?rizm?), the invention of spherical trigonometry, the beginning of modern optics and the development of the scientific method by Ibn al-Haytham, the beginning of chemistry by Geber, and significant advances in astronomy.

These advances included the construction of the first observatory in Baghdad during the reign of Caliph Al-Ma'mun,the first elaborate experiments related to astronomical phenomena by Ab? al-Rayh?n al-B?r?n?, the collection and correction of previous astronomical data, resolving significant problems in the Ptolemaic model, and improved variations of the astrolabe.

Several Muslim astronomers also considered the possibility of the Earth's rotation on its axis and perhaps a heliocentric solar system.It is known that the Copernican heliocentric model in Nicolaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus was adapted from the geocentric model of the Maragheh school in a heliocentric context.

In the mechanics field of physics, early precursors to Newton's laws of motion were developed by Muslim scientists. Newton's first law of motion, the law of inertia, was developed by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) and Avicenna.]

The concept of momentum and the proportionality between force and acceleration in Newton's second law of motion were first discovered by Avicenna and Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi respectively, while the concept of reaction foreshadowing Newton's third law of motion was discovered by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace). Theories foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation were developed by Muhammad ibn Musa, Ibn al-Haytham, and al-Khazini. It is known that Galileo Galilei's mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of impetus grew out of earlier medieval Muslim analyses of motion, especially those of Avicenna[36] and Ibn Bajjah.

Many other advances were made by Muslim scientists in biology (botany, evolution, and zoology), mathematics (algebra, arithmetic, calculus, geometry, mathematical induction, number theory, and trigonometry), alchemy and chemistry, the earth sciences (anthropology, cartography, geodesy, geography, and geology), physics (optics, mechanics, and motion), psychology (experimental psychology, psychiatry, psychophysics, and psychotherapy), and the social sciences (demography, economics, history and historiography, and sociology).

Originally Posted by Frank777

Poor Saddam, so unjustly treated in this whole affair. I feel so sorry for him.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh goodie. Another anti-Iraq war thread.

<yawn>

Originally Posted by Mystic

NO it was about violating the cease fire.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh this travisty of bloodshed is boring to you. How sad!

Originally Posted by segovius

Shouldn't you be loving your enemies?

Originally Posted by jimmac

You really haven't been paying much attention to the discussions about this have you?

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

No. Believe me, when a new leader enters the White House there will be even more discussion on when, how and who will be in charge to clean up the radioactive cesspool that this administration has left behind. Look at any election from any part of the world and you will see that when the parties shift in power there are many who will oppose and criticize their actions.

If we have a Democrat in office, we'll probably never hear the end of it from you anyway.

Originally Posted by Mystic

NO it was about violating the cease fire.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You really haven't been paying much attention to the discussions about this have you?

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What I'm saying is the hatred of this administration has filled a lot of people's minds for a long time. I just wonder where that energy is going to go at the end of the admin.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Obviously to whomever governs next!

Let's see now, I remember a lot of hatred of the Johnson administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Nixon administration, not much hatred of the Ford administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Carter administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Reagan administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Bush (41) administration, a WHOLE LOT of hatred of the Clinton administration, and a WHOLE LOT MORE hatred of the Bush (43) administration.

All I can tell you is that the near term postmortem of BushCo, Inc. (circa 2010) is going to make for one extremely funny Mockumentary! With the byline of "A comedy of vast government neocon artists errors."

Do you think that, in part, the number of media outlets, the internet, and particularly the blog-o-smear have anything to do with the relative amount of "hatred" we see today?

Originally Posted by segovius

Spoken like a true (insert personal assessment of choice here)!

Originally Posted by Fellowship

This thread is for the purpose of thinking...

234.53 9/11's

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet look at what is going on with the invasion / occupation.

Your thoughts?

Fellows

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I don't know....I think the level of smear directed at Bush is unprecedented. The Right went after Bill Clinton certainly, but the kind of vitriolic attacks we see now? I don't think it was quite that severe.

Originally Posted by BRussell

First, that's ridiculous. Nothing compares to Clinton's presidency as to how it was villified from the moment he announced he was running and was routinely (and falsely) described as a "draft dodger," to being continuously investigated by independent counsels as president, and ultimately impeached by congress. Nothing that has happened to Bush compares to that.

Second, in the end, what's really important is whether the criticisms are valid and substantive. And on that score, again there's no comparison. Clinton was effectively a "conservative" president. He enacted policies that were widely considered to be appropriate albeit modest.

Conservatives looking back on his presidency can hardly point to anything important he did that they can criticize.

Deficit reduction? Welfare reform?

Not invading and occupying Iraq? Right.

The criticisms of him, for all the over-the-top bluster at the time, were all silly: that he had Vince Foster murdered, that he was cheating on his wife, that he did... something in Whitewater.

On the other hand, criticism of Bush focuses on the war in Iraq - almost universally considered to be a terrible mistake - and on substantive questions of civil liberties - things like Guantanamo, the detention without trial and torture of people including American citizens, eavesdropping on US citizens, etc., things that, at the very least, are legitimately controversial among legal experts.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That honestly depends on what they do. If they propose raising taxes, even more social programs, nationalized healthcare, doing away with the Patriot Act and other programs, lax immigration policies, etc...then yes, I'm going to go batshit. It really just depends on how they govern.

What I'm saying is the hatred of this administration has filled a lot of people's minds for a long time. I just wonder where that energy is going to go at the end of the admin.

Oh, and what cesspool are you referring to, specifically?



It was about much more than that too. It was about the ceasefire, UN resolutions, firing on our aircraft, and 12 years of Saddam basically giving the finger to the international community.



Patently false. That said, the admin focused on that reason way too heavily. They should have presented all the reasons. And let me tell you, there were plenty.

Originally Posted by jimmac

SDW! Wake up!

I'll say it again for you so maybe you'll understand!

It doesn't matter what they would have said or what you thought. The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

Without it the other's in government would have said " We need to see more". You know it and I know it! So without it this war wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

And do you know what else?

Bush knew it!

Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks—an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission.

Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing "numerous" anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

While Powell's oratorical skills and personal conviction were acknowledged, there was an overall rejection of the evidence Powell offered that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery. The administration is currently under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence. Reports have indicated that Powell himself was skeptical of the evidence presented to him. Powell later recounted how Vice President Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."

In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." Mr. Powell's longtime aide-de-camp Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson said that he participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Mr. Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations General Assembly.

Originally Posted by jimmac

SDW! Wake up!

I'll say it again for you so maybe you'll understand!

It doesn't matter what they would have said or what you thought. The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

Without it the other's in government would have said " We need to see more". You know it and I know it! So without it this war wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

And do you know what else?

Bush knew it!

Originally Posted by jimmac

The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell, said Zelikow.

Originally Posted by franksargent

[CENTER][/CENTER]

They're are plenty of solutions, but none that the BushCo, Inc. neocon artists would ever listen to. It will take many, Many, MANY decades to remove the stains and treadmarks these stooges will leave behind in AmeriKKa's and the Middle East's collective shorts!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh stop. Just...stop. "Things are a shit hole" is a common portrayal of good libs like yourself. Really, I don't see it that way. I see problems, don't get me wrong. And, I certainly don't agree with Bush on a host of issues. But things are not all bad. We've had a good economy, low interest rates, lower unemployment and no terror attacks in 6 years. That's no accident. Libya gave up it's nuke program. NK has calmed down a bit.
The deficit is shrinking. Taxes are low. So let's have a little perspective here, champ.

Originally Posted by Mystic

Nixon was the guy that got us out of VietNam

Originally Posted by Mystic

Bla, Bla, Bla...... So far I've heard not ONE solution...How about it? There are consequences to any action. What is YOUR solution? All I've heard is whining about the past.

Originally Posted by BRussell

You're right I haven't heard a solution either. All I've heard is "they'll greet us as liberators" and then "our strategy is to win." If you're talking Democrats' solution, it's very simple: Get out and let them sort it out.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

No kidding..... I do not understand people like Mystic...

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That false and once more, unprovable. It's an opinion you hold...nothing more. And even if the assertion was true, Congress saw what Bush saw re: WMD evidence. They made their own judgement. They were wrong, just like Bush was.



That's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that WMD was the ONLY reason for the war, which isn't true. It was the primary reason, I agree. It was the reason the Administration focused on, which as I've stated I feel was a mistake.

The fact is that we should have invaded Iraq 10 years ago when he kicked out the inspectors. If that didn't do it, the repeated violations of the ceasefire should have triggered it. But gee....we had a President in office who didn't want the political costs of a ground invasion. After 9/11, the Administration decided they weren't going to put up with Saddam anymore. And yes, once again (so you...eh...understand) the primary reason/threat was WMD. But they could have made the case without it.

In hindsight, all they really needed to do was focus on Iraq as a rogue state, violating UN mandates, making threatening statements, praising the events of 9/11, firing on our aircraft, and making the weapons inspectors' job very hard. Had the Admin. coupled that with a statement like "in the wake of 9/11, we cannot let nations like Iraq continue down this path in a critical region of the world," they would have had the support to do it, at least in my judgement.

But by focusing on WMD so intently, they set themselves up for a major problem...being wrong. Now in your mind they were lying, but I don't buy that because whether or not the UN diplomats though so or not, the world intelligence community did. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons. What the admin did was make a political calculation that this would be the easiest way to get support for taking out Saddam. They should have just leveled with us, so to speak. It would have still happened, and they wouldn't have the egg in their faces they do now.