Printable View
Guys,
Please wake up!
Muslims have a long history of building mosques on conquered lands, and when built, that's exactly what this mosque will represent to the radical Muslim world.
We cannot let them have such a perfect propaganda and recruitment tool.
They can build their proposed mosque anywhere else, but not in south Manhattan.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]Guys,
Please wake up!
Muslims have a long history of building mosques on conquered lands, and when built, that's exactly what this mosque will represent to the radical Muslim world.
We cannot let them have such a perfect propaganda and recruitment tool.
They can build their proposed mosque anywhere else, but not in south Manhattan.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]There is already another mosque / islamic cultural center two blocks away that has been there for 40 years. Should that one be torn down?
I stated that of course the Islamic group has every right UNDER US LAWS to put up a mosque near Ground Zero. We can't do anything about it if they choose to go forward because they are not doing anyhting against the law - I fully understand that. But that was not the point I was trying to make.
In fact, I did err by even mentioning Obama's and the mayor's stand on this - they really should not be making a comment against this because there isn't anything they can do no matter how they feel - it is not against the law and rightfully they should not offend others standing against something that is not against the law.
I simply think it says a lot of the Islamic religion (or perhaps only this particular groups, and groups like them) that they won't even consider listening to the uproar and the serious feelings of being so close to a place where muslims killed thousands of non-combatant people and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of property in one fell swoop.
A question - how many Islamic countries under Sharia Law would allow a christian organization to build a church, or even practice their religion - ANYWHERE? Here is one article among many I found when I did a search on the topic:
[url]http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/07/survey-how-easy-to-build-a-christian-church-in-a-muslim-country/[/url]
Yes, these particular muslims want to build bridges (their own words, stated many times in this debate by themselves) by ignoring the outcry and arrogantly proceeding with theor plans. Sure.
I think we have a right to be intolerant of something like the proposed mosque. Hell, if we had a country similar to those who practiced Sharia law, these guys might be put to death. I think just protesting their plans is pretty damned civilized. I think it shows a lack of civilization and understanding that they are not thinking about moving to another site less sensitive.
As far as Stan's examples - well, first of all, although the Klan has a right to peaceful assembly - how do you think a church who is primarily made up of black members would feel about the clan renting space next door, or a couple of doors down? You think there wouldn't be a pretty big uproar about that, legal or not? How many Democratic or liberal activists would get involved to have them move it as an affront to race relations?
Second of all, the Catholic Church actually listened to the people who went up in arms against the church when the church wanted to put some kind of church edifice (I don't remember what it was) near one of the concentration camps in Germany or Poland (don't remember which camp it was) from World War II and the church backed down and apologized for upsetting sensiblities and did not try to go forward with their plans. WWII is a scar quite a bit older than 9/11/2001, but the Catholic Church seems to be able to learn and change over time (except when it comes to pedophile priests, it seems!
Third of all, the Catholic Church committed a whole slew of violent idiocies in the past, not only in Latin America. As did the Protestant churches. The history of Europe during and after the Reformation in particular is filled with incredible religious idiocies that caused the deaths of countless people over a couple of hundred years.
However, yes, the distance of time makes a pretty big difference. Ask the people of Latin America now, descended mostly from a mix of the original natives and Europeans (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) how they feel about the Catholic Church. I think they will not have a problem having a church right next to, say, Chichen-Itza which was an old Mayan temple.
The funny thing is, the examples you picked, Stan, seem to be examples from things that happened in the past, and which most people now acknowledge were atrocities or at least bad things that happened, well in the past, and most agree that things that bother the sensibilities of others should definitely be taken into account.
Maybe in a couple of decades many people would not be so sensitive about this particular site. Depending on how many more acts of terrorism are committed on US soil by Islamic extremists in those intervening decades, of course.
The comedian I mentioned tried to contact the organization behind the mosque proposal via email regarding his proposal for a gay bar next door. When he received no reply, he Tweeted them and they answered something to the effect of "of course you are free to place whatever you would like next to the proposed building, but such an act would not help to contribute to communication, understanding and building bridges."
Huh. But of course, what that Islamic organization is proposing wouldn't really do that either would it? Is that really what they are about, as they say - communication and building bridges? They sure have a strange way of going about it.
I am a complete non-religionist. I hate to use the word "atheist" because it may have anti-religion connotations, and that is not what I'm about. What people want to do on their own time in their own places, I'm happy with as long as they don't push it on me. That goes for anything, not just religions.
However, I think religion in general has done so much damage in this world. In this day and age, all religions should be doing everything they can to not not impinge on the sensibilities of those of other religions and those who don't even want to be involved in religion, or shoulod take into account a public outcry when they plan something.
Sounds good Toymann. The wager itself was actually secondary to me, I was more interested to test your confidence in a Republican sweep. But since we are both good with the defined terms, the bet is on and the mid-terms will now be even more interesting. With a majority as you defined it. We may have to define some more terms on the evening down the road... I don't want you ordering bottles of champagne and taking out 2 dancers TLN! As I'm sure you don't want me doing either.
I won't be down until November after the elections. Not sure about first half 2011. If you win I'll try to find someway to leave the Madahos funds with someone / somewhere when I am down in November (I don't suppose Madahos has "gift certificates" haha...). And if I win you should plan on trying to get the funds for me to use on my November trip. If possible. We'll figure it all out when we get there...
As far as the mosque, I'm with El Queso on this. Although I will qualify that it depends on the exact layout, which I'm not clear on. If the mosque is going to be in clear view of Ground Zero visitors, I don't agree with it. If not then I'm OK with it.
Just because something is legal (and should remain legal) doesn't mean it is right or appropriate in all instances.
Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Esten]
Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.[/QUOTE]You guys realize they aren't "building" a mosque, right? They are installing an "islamic culture center" in a site formerly occupied by a Burlington Coat Factory. It's two blocks away from the WTC site. There is currently another "islamic culture center" another two blocks away that predates the WTC. Should that be torn down also?
I agree with El Alamo about the detrimental aspects of all religions. And I agree about sensitivity regarding Ground Zero. But give me a fucking break. Are you all so sensitive that installing a mosque two blocks away is so threatening?
If it's two blocks away out of sight I'm OK with it. I tried searching articles to find out the exact location but couldn't find the info, a lot of articles are discussing this without mentioning this detail.
Toymann,
I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.
It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann]It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]They need to pick up all of the eight seats that are currently considered "toss ups." However, there are five other seats considered to be Dem shoo-ins that could also come into play. I could see Boxer losing and I think that with the recent immigration, gay marriage (not the issue but the judge going against 7 million Californians) and a host of other issues she is likely to lose (in my opinion) If Obama shows up to campaign for any of those five, the GOP's chances improve, measurably.
The latest polls I looked at did not show enough Democratic Senate candidates in the toss-up category, but it is a long time until the election. Even a 51-49 Rep Senate, would not guarantee control. The two Rep Senators from Maine often vote with the Dems. 55-45 Dem-Rep is a very possible scenario and that should definitely be enough Rep votes to stop the evasion of Senate rules. But does it really matter what happens in the Senate? Even if the Reps take control of the Senate, they would not have enough support to override a Presidential veto.
For me, a large changeover in the House and a solid Rep majority could lead to stalemate. I am very comfortable with that outcome, especially if the new House members are Tea Party people with a Libertarian philosophy. I would expect they will give Dems a lot of hell and Reps some hell too. Then in 2012, Americans can decide in which direction they want the country to go.
There are currently 37 seats in the Senate up for reelection in the 2010 cycle and of those 13 seats are considered to be in "battleground states". Recent polling by Public Opinion Strategies in the 13 battleground states, not generic polling do you prefer Dem or Repub but polling with the Dem and Repub candidate's names, show a 47% to 39% preference for the Repub candidate. Among independents the numbers really start to spread with Repub candidates holding a 47% to 25% lead over the Dem candidate.
More telling is in one or two states with primaries this week, the LOSING Repub candidate received more votes than the WINNING Dem candidate. As I recall and I could be wrong but in most or all of the primary races the Repub turnout was significantly greater than the Dem turnout. As stated earlier mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs. If these trends continue the Dems are going to be in a peck of trouble with low turnout of their base and the disaffection of the independent voting bloc. The Repub base by contrast is highly motivated.
[QUOTE=Schmoj]There is already another mosque / islamic cultural center two blocks away that has been there for 40 years. Should that one be torn down?[/QUOTE]Schmoj,
That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.
The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built [u]BEFORE[/u] 9/11.
The new proposed mosque will be built [u]AFTER[/u] 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.
Get it?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Toymann]It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Here is a pretty thorough article discussing how Republicans could re-take the Senate, including each of the races that are up for grabs. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875004575375122374132154.html?KEYWORDS=republicans++eye++toss-up++51-49++senate[/url]
The article is three weeks old, which is ancient where politics are concerned, but that should also give you some idea of how much things could change before the election. Two months ago, about half the "in play" Democrat seats were considered "safe," but they no longer are.
The print edition of the WSJ also had a discussion of the 4 seats currently held by Republicans that could be up for grabs. To re-take the Senate, Republicans would have to hold onto all of their own "in-play" seats and take all but one of the Democrat seats that are considered "in play."
In terms of your bet, Republicans taking control of the Senate is easily the longest shot. It's theoretically possible, but not likely. When Esten was trying to get you to agree that a split would result in a loss for you, he was just baiting you. Or, he doesn't know much about it, either. Anyone who's been following it knows that retaking the Senate is a very long shot and, therefore, it would be a longshot to bet on a Republican sweep of both houses.
That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.
[QUOTE=Jackson]
That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.
The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built [u]BEFORE[/u] 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn't necessarily comparing, just curious what you thought.
[QUOTE=Jackson]
The new proposed mosque will be built [u]AFTER[/u] 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.[/QUOTE]That's how YOU may choose to interpret it, but what are you basing that conclusion on? My guess is not much other than the hysteria surrounding it.
[QUOTE=Jackson]
Get it?[/QUOTE]Oh, I get it. But, the it I get is probably not what you intend.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.[/QUOTE]Stan, you are the Man!
Very informative information from you and the preceeding posts. I thought that it was possible if the GOP swept the close races. I also am counting on more crazy legistlation from the democrats as THEY JUST can't HELP THEMSELVES! Obomanation will continue to inflict his crazy social agenda on america without even the slightest concern for the real issues that are on americans minds these days (economy, immigration, etc. His newest brainchild, the great arizona lawsuit, should keep the heat up quite nicely with 80% of americans that solidly believe this is just a crazy frivolous lawsuit designed by the new dictator forcing his minions to see things HIS way. For whatever reason Obomination continues his hell-bent rush to eclipse Carter as Americas WORST President. Sadly, from my perspective, gridlock can't come soon enough so we can halt the socializing of america. I still am holding out optomistic hope that Esten will be funding a little Toymann madahos pussy in 2011. The democrats these days are overachieving at historic levels and thats what I am counting on to carry Toymann to a huge upset pussy victory in November. Happy Mongering All.
Toymann
There is a little too much noise flying around on this one.
The funny thing is to hear the left crying "freedom of religion" on behalf of the people that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 while at the same time they are tearing down Nativity Scenes, erected on public property, trying to get "In God We Trust" removed from our currency and eliminating all mentions of God from US History.
If you want to say that we are not at war with Islam and that it is a "fringe element" that has "hijacked" (such irony in that choice of words) the religion then you are saying that we must either: pre-judge muslims and their organizations and separate them into good and bad lots (maybe we could use the golden egg machines from Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory) or wait for the bad ones to attack us in order to classify them as bad (although you also want to set the bad ones in Camp-Gitmo free (anywhere but your hometown)
The facts are clear for those willing to look for them. We have been in a war with radical islamacists for more than 30 years, although we have only "engaged" intermittently. These attacks are by in large supported by Islamic nationalities and do not represent a "lunatic fringe."
1979: US Embassy in Tehran
1982: hostages in Lebanon
1983: US Embassy in Beirut (63 dead, 17 Americans (several CIA) military barracks (241 Marines KIA) US Embassy Kuwait City.
1984: East Beirut US Embassy Annex (24 dead, 2 Marines)
1985: Madrid resto, Beirut TWA Flight 847, Med Sea Achille Lauro, Rome airport bombins, Vienna airport bombing.
1986: Athens TWA flight 840, West Berlin disco bombing.
1988: Lockerbie: Pan-Am 103 (270 dead)
1993: WTC attack #1 (6 dead, 1,040 injured)
1995: Riyadh US Military HQ (5 dead)
1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Kobar Towers bombing (19 American servicemen dead, hundreds of wounded)
1998: US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
2000: Yemen Cole bombing (17 USN dead)
2001: NYC, Arlington, VA, Shanksville, PA (2,992 dead)
2002: Karachi Pakistan American Consulate bombing (12 dead)
2003: Riyadh housing compound bombing.
2004: Kohbar, Saudi Arabia oil company attack; Riyadh Paul Johnson Jr execution; Jeddah US consulate.
2005: Amman, Jordan hotel attacks.
2006: Damascus, Syria American Embassy attack (foiled)
2007: Athens embassy attack,.
There are at least a dozen other examples but I got tired of listing them.
When Muslims defeat an enemy, they build a Mosque at one of the key sites of the vanquished society or the site of an epic battle. Feisal's Cordoba House is intended to be just such a symbol of victory over the infidels. Allowing this project to go forward is not an act of religious tolerance, it is an act of political weakness. The Catholic church has tried to curry favor and tolerance with Islam for 250 years (mosque in Rome) but has seen no benefit for its efforts. Why should we expect a different result?
Feisal is an anti-American demagogue who has the right to say what he wants (he and his ilk get more latitude on this than we do) however, that does not mean that we should roll over on every issue that gets cloaked in religious cloth. Zoning is a local issue. I am sure that if a Catholic group wanted to build a cathedral on that site, it would be blocked by the left. If Wal-mart wanted to locate a store there, the left would stop that too. Why is this American-hating Imam getting special treatment?
There is an interesting wrinkle may have arisen regarding the ownership of one half of the site. It seems that while the group behind Cordoba House owns one of the two buildings, it only leases (very long-term lease) the other from Con Ed (local power company) While the group is trying to exercise its purchase option on that part of the property (Con Ed has to value the property and Soho Properties has to agree to pay the amount) any deal will have to go through the Public Service Commission. While Con Ed must abide by its contract, it doesn't have to make things any easier for Soho Properties. I would expect that the pressure on both Con Ed and the PSC will be quite extreme. I am not sure if the decision by the PSC will come before the Nov. Elections (doubt it) The PSC is controlled by the Gov of NY.
A further thought, while Ground Zero is often described as the WTC, the entire area was engulfed in the battle and the aftermath. Go watch the videos of people running up the avenues while the South Tower was collapsing. Do you really think that two blocks makes it OK? Would two blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima be a good location for a US Air and Space museum? Why not give Feisal a prime location 2 blocks from the power station in Chernobyl? He can have it rent free and we (US taxpayers) can foot the bill to fly in all of his Islamascist buddies.
Hate to say it but this thread has improved since Papa Sidney retired. I couldn't agree more with your post WW. Anyone who doesn't understand what the world-wide muslim agenda is JUST DOESN'T GET IT! I really never understand why we can't just go ahead and say these things out loud in america. The mormon church supposedly does not support polygomy but toleration isn't any different than quiet support. Just read the recent book "Under the banner of God" and you'll get the idea.
Wise words WW. Keep up the good work.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Mongers,
Before this thread morphs completely into an anti-Muslim hate group, how about we examine this interesting list that WW posted here. The 1979 Tehran Embassy incident? The Iranians were more or less justified in this action as a result of US support for the Shah and his repressive and tortuous actions (remember the CIA ousted a somewhat democratic government in the 50's in favor of the Shah because the Shah was anti-communist) The other incidents are almost all directly associated with the unconditional US support of Israel against the Palestinians. Some of the latter incidents could also be associated with the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90's (which helped starve about 2 million children to death) The Muslims have legitimate gripes in terms of their feelings toward US Foreign Policy. If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off, and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished. As I stated in an earlier post, I have no respect for the Muslim religion and I think those people live like animals in general, but the fact is unless you are going to slaughter them all (not an option) the US needs to accept the fact that they can't change or control these nation / states and stop wasting its money and resources on these unwinnable wars. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is ever going to be a real, governable country.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
HR we did not go into either Afghanistan or Iraqi until AFTER 9/11, by the way they killed more people on 9/11 than died 1n the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and all of the 9/11 victims were civilians not military combatants. The war between the Muslim religion and Christians has been going on for a lot longer than the dates listed by WW.
After Obama's grand Muslim apology tour under your premise they should have gone WOW and ceased all hostilities. You seem to think that if we just make nice they will leave us to go our own way, study history right up to today my friend that is not the way they work. They have not changed in centuries – they are still stuck in the 5th Century while the rest of the world has moved on. Hell they are killing more fellow Muslims in the name of Allah than Christians but they are equal opportunity murders and will get around to us in the end.
As far as giving the poor Palestinians a homeland, again check history. When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1949 the Jews and the Palestinians had separate self governed homelands from what was originally Palestine (Note Jordan and Lebanon got sizeable chunks of what was Palestine under British rule per the partition agreement) The Arabs wanted none of that, they wanted it all and to destroy Israel in the bargain. What they got after the 1949 war was less than what they started with under the partition agreement.
In every war since when the Arabs try to destroy Israel they only lose more land with each military defeat. While you are reading you might come across the little fact Arafat walked away from a peace deal which established a self ruled Palestinian homeland because he didn't want half he wanted it all including Israel. Don't you remember the "land for peace" deals – the Israelis gave up the land but they didn't get the promised peace.
Get a grip Big Guy - it's still the jungle out there under the thin veneer of "civilization"
[QUOTE=Rock Harders] If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off, and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished. [/QUOTE]I am a big fan of many of your posts Rock but you are in outer space on this one dude. It's not about US foriegn policy that makes these folks crazy buddy. It has absolutley nothing to do with this. THEY HATE DEMOCRACY! Thats the end of the story and the US is the poster child for an affluent democratic society.
You must have forgotten just a few years back when Al Queda published their world-wide hit list. It included just to name a few Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. Etc. Etc. Guesse that horrible Canadian foreign policy must have just sent them over the edge! IALOTFLMAO. It has never been about just american politics Rock! Ever! This shit has been going on for hundreds of years dude. It has always been about lifestyle and society values that differ from the "Muslim Way".
Suggest you do a bit of history review before you start talking about Iraq and Afganastan. This battle was taking place long before America even had a foreign policy. I think you are mixing your personal feelings about historical US policy decisions (which I agree have not always been great) with an issue that has been around long before the US began playing the role of world-wide policeman.
Happy Mongering All.
Toymann
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,
Before this thread morphs completely into an anti-Muslim hate group,[/QUOTE]I'd be willing to bet that I have more Muslim friends (from Lebanon, Eqypt, Tanzania, UAE, Saudi, Qatar, NYC, etc) than most AP members. My post was not "hate" language or anything of the sort. It was a statement of fact. Facts I discuss / debate freely with my Muslim friends. Sometimes the facts are messy. While the percentage of Muslims committed to Islamic Revolution is relatively small, their numbers are large and they represent a real threat. How do you propose going forward?
[quote=] how about we examine this interesting list that WW posted here.[/QUOTE]Please do, that was the purpose for making the quote.
[quote=] The 1979 Tehran Embassy incident? The Iranians were more or less justified in this action as a result of US support for the Shah and his repressive and tortuous actions[/QUOTE]The "incident" to which you refer was an armed invasion of US sovereign territory, which is clearly an act of war (unless your president is a dickless pussy) If that was "more or less justified" than we would have been more or less justified in delivering an asymmetrical response freeing our sovereign territory and vanquishing our attacker (sort of the object of "justified" war)
[quote=] (remember the CIA ousted a somewhat democratic government in the 50's in favor of the Shah because the Shah was anti-communist)[/QUOTE]Pahlavi (the Shah) was also Pro-American, something we used to look for in our friends. He was the Emperor of Iran from 1941 until 1979 when he was deposed by the Islamic Revolution. In the early '50s, Mosaddaq (Prime Minister) was committed to nationalizing the Iranian oil industry (and with it US and UK interests in the form of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and had in fact led Parliament to vote to nationalize the industry. Additionally, the US and UK were concerned that a Mosaddaq administration would be controlled by the communists. "Operation Ajax" was a CIA-executed effort to force Mosaddaq from office and prevent him being elected President. The first coup attempt failed and the Shah, briefly, went into exile. He returned in '53, when the second coup was successful. We helped the "lesser of two evils" achieve power. Mosaddaq was quite popular but he was no fan of human rights or democracy. Between '53 and '79 our embassy staff grew to about 1,000 personnel (that's a big embassy) Eleven months before the Embassy was taken over, it was attacked with rocks and bullets. In the wake of that attack, the staff was reduced to 60. The US and the Shah were steadfast in their opposition to the Islamic Revolution and Communism, which traveled hand in hand.
[quote=]The other incidents are almost all directly associated with the unconditional US support of Israel against the Palestinians.[/QUOTE]Since at least '79, Iran has unconditionally supported Russia, would that have justified the US in attacking Iran, prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain?
[quote=] Some of the latter incidents could also be associated with the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90's (which helped starve about 2 million children to death) [/QUOTE]Then Cuba should also be free to attack us. US sanctions didn't kill anyone in Iraq. If anyone starved, it was due to Saddam diverting humanitarian aid not any perceived lack of international aid, of which there was not shortage despite the US sanctions.
[quote]The Muslims have legitimate gripes in terms of their feelings toward US Foreign Policy.[/QUOTE]Add the Jews to the list as this Administration has thrown them out.
[quote]If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off,[/QUOTE]How is the US going to ensure that Israel won't be attacked if they drop their pants?
[quote] and pulled out of Iraq[/QUOTE]Why, is this in the best interest of US national security? But BHO says he has already brought 90K soldiers home from Iraq (didn't bother to mention that he was counting those rotated home and replaced with other soldiers)
[quote]and Afghanistan[/QUOTE]Why, is this in the best interest of US national security? I thought BHO said that this was the "good" war?
[quote] I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished.[/QUOTE]I'll take that bet. 250 years of Vatican efforts toward this end returned bupkiss.
[quote]As I stated in an earlier post, I have no respect for the Muslim religion and I think those people live like animals in general, [/QUOTE]Err, me be confused. Me thought you no want Muslim hate group here.
[quote]but the fact is unless you are going to slaughter them all (not an option) the US needs to accept the fact that they can't change or control these nation / states and stop wasting its money and resources on these unwinnable wars.[/QUOTE]We need not accept anything that materially degrades our national security or undermines our sovereignty. We need to reestablish the understanding that if you take up arms against the USA, you will be dead. Find enough bad guys, dispatch them with extreme prejudice and the threat will decline. Contrary to liberal babble, this will make recruitment for terror more difficult.
We as a country need to grow a pair!
[quote] Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is ever going to be a real, governable country. [/QUOTE]Conventional wisdom may be on your side. If we cut and run on both, the human toll on innocents will be enormous.
Barrack Obama seems to be a nice enough guy. Unfortuneately he is sadled with his wife Michele. Vacations in Spain, the Florida Panhandle and Nantucket, all in a 2 week period.
Ronald Reagon had Nancy, Bill Clinton had Hillary and Obama has Michele.
God help Obama, especially if he is forced to perform his husbandry duties with Michele.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]Barrack Obama seems to be a nice enough guy. Unfortuneately he is sadled with his wife Michele. Vacations in Spain, the Florida Panhandle and Nantucket, all in a 2 week period.
Ronald Reagon had Nancy, Bill Clinton had Hillary and Obama has Michele.
God help Obama, especially if he is forced to perform his husbandry duties with Michele.[/QUOTE]She's certainly "Not" doable for Me.
Exon
Yo Rock,
Right on man for telling like it is. I worked in the middle east for a year and heard incredible stories of how the Israelies mistreated and abused the Palestinians. Its still going on today! And the USA supports it and seems to think that Islam will bend to the yoke of "our democracy".
One of my best Jewish friends went to Israel for a year in 1981. Upon his return, when asked what he thought of the whole Palestinian / Israeli. Shiteree, he replied, "they deserve each other".
We've backed loser dictators before and paid the price dearly. Netanyahu is just another, using our big stick to the disadvantage of our country and Obbie seems to be in his pocket ala Clinton and the bush baby.
We reap what we sow.
I DO agree though, there should be no mosque within 5 miles of the 9/11 site.
Jackpot
Mongers,
It would be nice if the Wild Walleyes, Toyman's, Jackson's and similar Fox News Robots of the forum would actually step outside the upper-middle age American right wing box they dwell in and view world history and events objectively from an international perspective. If they did, they would see what the rest of the world sees: that the US often engages in short-sighted, counterproductive Foreign Policy that has come back to haunt it again and again. One of these such policies is the United States' unlimited support of Israel; the US backs a small country of several million in their heinous actions against essentially the will of the entire world (the UN General Assembly votes about 180-3 to condemn Israeli behavior) This is the single most important factor that generates Muslim hatred toward the US. Instead of forcing a solution to the Palestinian situation, the US does nothing (except block action against Israel) and spits in the face of 100 million Muslims in the Middle East. Why does the US unconditionally support Israel? They have no natural resources, produce nothing the US wants or needs (they trade in diamonds) and cause the US far more problems than their friendship is worth. The primary reason for this is that the some upper echelons of the US government and financial system (which are deeply intertwined) are controlled and influenced by Jews. It is in THEIR interests, but not those of the USA, to keep supporting Israel. The less important factor, but one sold to the Jesus Sheep who inhabit the South and Midwest of the USA, is that in order for the Christ to return, Israel must be alive and well in control of the "Holy Land".
WW, do a little light research and you will in fact see that two million Iraqi children DID in fact starve to death as a result of the US sanctions during the 90's. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated the Oil for Food Program to bolster their personal wealth; the US knew about that, and the children starving to death, and decided the political gains from maintaining the sanctions outweighed two million children starving to death. WW, in your opinion, is keeping Saddam Hussein "corralled" worth two million children starving to death? The Muslim world also knew about this (what do you think Al-Jazeera was broadcasting every night? And were disgusted that the US (who claim to be such great humanitarians) would allow this to happen.
The US government should know by now that any sanctions they implement always crush the poorest and most helpless citizens of the "enemy" country they are trying to punish. The despots who control the regime always find a way to keep their bellies full and their Ferraris full of 100 Octane gasoline (see any current or past dictatorship the US has levied sanctions against)
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]It would be nice if the Wild Walleyes, Toyman's, Jackson's and similar Fox News Robots of the forum would actually step outside the upper-middle age American right wing box they dwell in and view world history and events objectively from an international perspective. If they did, they would see what the rest of the world sees:support Israel? [/QUOTE]Your obsession with Israel is obvious Rock. What you have totally missed here is that we were discussing Muslim terrorism. Unless you live under a rock (LOL) this is a world issue that effects all democratic countries. The acts of muslim terrorism have been felt worldwide recently, as well as for hundreds of years. Not sure what your education level is Rock but from were I stand it appears obvious to me that high school must have been a stretch for you as your ignorance to the issues here are now apparent for everyone to see.
"Better you keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
For the record Rock, I was raised and educated in Canada and have a pretty good grasp on the non-american perspective. Stop mixing your obsession with Isreal into a discussion on muslim extremist world-wide terrorism. Just because you don't like my spin on the current president doesn't mean I am some Fox news clone. Stop being so shallow and attempt to expand your views outside of your limited world-wide perspective.
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann
Toyman,
You are 100% right. I grew up in a trailer park in Arkansas, my daddy was a failed NASCAR driver, and I failed out of vocational school where I was learning how to retread tires. I only speak English and even that is a stretch. Currently I subside on my $8 AR per hour job at a car wash in La Boca. I am only in Argentina because I am running from the Country Sheriff back in Arkansas for cooking up Crank.
Or, maybe the reality is I have a degree in International Relations, administer a multinational corporation, speak three languages, and have more relevant international travel and contacts than you ever will at less than half your age.
Yes, we are talking about Muslim hatred and terrorism toward the USA; it is impossible to have an intelligent debate about this without examining its primary source: the US government's uncompromising support of Israel's disgraceful behavior and treatment of the Palestinians. The secondary sources of this, of course, are the US government's support of despotic governments in the Middle East and the current US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US government will never be able to convince the Muslim world that they are not enemies while the Israel-Palestine situation remains unresolved and the US wages war and occupies two Muslim countries.
No, I am not anti-Semite. The Holocaust certainly happened, millions were slaughtered, and it was among the great human tragedies. I am not a fan of the Israeli government, which has refused to give the Palestinians an independent state and has treated them like chattel. What I want to see is the US government to stop fucking its own citizens over via its counterproductive foreign policy that results in a nearly permanent state of war that keeps the makers of bombs, bullets, and bodybags (and all war material) rolling in taxpayer dollars.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Toyman-
Or, maybe the reality is I have a degree in International Relations, administer a multinational corporation, speak three languages, and have more relevant international travel and contacts than you ever will at less than half your age. [/QUOTE]It must be so cool to be so successful, educated and worldly at the tender age of 24 years. I am glad you have not let your limited education (international relations degree) or your limited life experiences (24 years) hinder your position on world affairs or acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to america's role in the muslim extremist position. You are truely enlightened at such a young age. Who ever said "experience is the great teacher" must have been an idiot such as myself.
I will close our discussion with only two questions for you.
First, is afganastan an american or NATO sanctioned action?
Second, did muslim terrorism exist before 1776?
No need to respond, as us old fools already know the answer to both. Please don't sell yourself short, as having lived 10 years in the southern US states both your presentation and current academic arguements would be very well recieved in arkansaw. You might want to take a visit there as I am guessing you would be treated like family. I will leave you with one of my favourite non-american quotes.
" If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO heart. If you are STILL a liberal in your thirties you have No brain"
Monger On Dude. Toymann.
P. S. I only speak two languages fluently but my spanish is getting better every year. You don't want to compare passports or educational background with me brother. Not even for a skinny second, but I will forgive your ignorance as just the normal problems associated with youth and lack of life experiences.
P.P.S Those US 90's Iraq sanctions you speak of (that killed all those children!) were again Nato sanctions Rock. As you have been quoting NATO votes when it suits your agenda, I just thought I'd let a few facts get in the way of your emotional liberal arguement. Oops, forgive me as you were only a young child in the 90's. Don't let the details ever disuade your cause dude. It's all good!
Rock, I am guessing the truth is somewhere in between what you posted. But it definitely sounds like you are from the Fort Smith area of Arkansas. As far as international corporations, anyone can hire someone off of oDesk and claim to be an international corporation.
His support for the Mosque shows he is truly out of touch with mainstream America. I had no doubts that Obama supported the Mosque, but I did not think he was foolish enough to make the support public. I suspect he is trying to look Presidential in order to boost his sagging poll numbers. But what he has done is finish off Democrats in the fall. I still think the Senate is not winnable for the Reps, but Obama is trying his best to give it to the them. Now every Rep candidate can protest against the Mosque and use the issue to paint Dems as the extremist party. As Jackson or someone else stated, due to it proximity to the WTC site the Mosque is the height of insensitivity to most Americans.
Barring anything greatly positive for Dems in the next 3 months, they are now headed for massive losses this fall.
I have to admit I am struggling with the Mosque topic. My gut reaction is that this is a huge slap in the face and I dislike it greatly. That said, one of the things that makes America great, and is despised in the extreme Islamic community, is the incredible freedom we give people in this country. If we start selectively restricting those freedoms it's an example of hipocracy they can point to. There is nothing more frustrating then watching people who have disdain for personal freedoms use our own laws against us but then nobody said equality and freedom was easy. Personally, I think the most insulting thing we could do is to just ignore the whole thing.
Sysco
Concise and clear perspective brother. I feel exactly the same way on this issue. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. Free speech and religious expression is truely at the heart of democracy. It appears you may not be from arkansaw.
Monger on dude,
Toymann
[QUOTE=Sysco234]I have to admit I am struggling with the Mosque topic. My gut reaction is that this is a huge slap in the face and I dislike it greatly. That said, one of the things that makes America great, and is despised in the extreme Islamic community, is the incredible freedom we give people in this country. If we start selectively restricting those freedoms it's an example of hipocracy they can point to. There is nothing more frustrating then watching people who have disdain for personal freedoms use our own laws against us but then nobody said equality and freedom was easy. Personally, I think the most insulting thing we could do is to just ignore the whole thing.
Sysco[/QUOTE]
Not being either a US or Canadian citizen but following the discussion with interest, Rock Harder appears to me to reduce the Israel argument down to 'what do they offer to the US?' The world decided on the establishment of the modern state of Israel, not the US. However without the support of the US it would have ceased to exist. Obviously Rock Harder's study of International Relations puts little emphasis on principles and the policies that naturally follow those principles and instead would only support the existence of countries that can offer material succour to the US.
How sad is that?
Argento
Mongers,
Nowhere have I ever made the argument that Israel should not exist. What I have repeatedly argued here is that Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians a workable state, and the Palestinians lack of a state and their poor treatment at the hands of the Israelis is the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US (for unconditionally supporting Israel's actions and non-actions)
Principles and US foreign policy? Surely you must be joking. The US has supported some of the most vile, murderous regimes the world has ever seen. The US doesn't not care how despotic a particular leader or regime is as long as his policies don't conflict with US economic interests. US foreign policy is driven almost entirely with the goal of maintaining and furthering the US economic empire (or what is left of it) The fact of the matter is that foreign policy the world over (not just the US) is entirely about pragmatism and not principles.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Hello Rock Harder,
You know I'm a great fan of your posts and reports about Cocodrillo and night life in B.A. But I have some problems in following you here.
IMHO this "wrong and vile" foreign policies US had been leading, according to you, in my opinion are the main responsibles of us all staying here, enjoying the life we lead and in fact I don't think they are wrong at all.
So like the sayings says don't spit to heaven because.
Ha, ha!
Hope you don't get this words wrong and am always a great fan of your reports about night life in B. A.
If you eliminate US foreign policy, then you eliminate the need for the State Department and the Defense Department. Maybe then the reasoning and requirements for declaring war or establishing sanctions against another governing body goes away. An actual semblance of World Peace anyone?
But what would that cost? Our National Security? Why are we so wrapped up in prioritizing our National Security and ensuring that it is on the tip of our tongues to discuss, report on or even debate in the first place? Why is the National Security of the United States of America SO important? It's an incredible forethought for any US citizen and rightfully so.
It's important, because we are constantly under attack in some way shape or form. We are constantly a target. The peace, prosperity and SAFETY is Priority #1 of any US public servant that he / she has been elected to represent. They know that and us as responsible voting citizens know it and demand it. As long as this world has crazed dictating lunatics, extremist religious factions and selfish and corrupt foreign governments, then we absolutely MUST defend our homeland at all costs, even if that includes being pre-emptive in our actions.
But then again, WHY are they ATTACKING US? Could it be our FUCKING FOREIGN POLICY! This administration's, the last one's. How many administrations do you want to go back to place adequate blame? In my humble opinion, I can find fault going back at least 50 years. It's not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a "the US is obligated to butt in in everyone else's business because we have taken the role of the World Police Officer and refuse to give that role up in any way shape or form" type of an issue. If you let the world go rogue, then you have no World Peace, right?
It's an endless hopeless circle. If you eliminated the need for either US foreign policy or the need to maintain US National Security, then we might actually stop some of the senselessness by breaking the cycle. But, that would never make any common sense, would it? At least not in my lifetime.
Wonderful.
I don't fight for "respect" or impose will. I don't NEED somebody else's respect. I don't NEED somebody else to agree with my idealogy. That's the mentality of a bully. I ensure I protect my right to think and say and do whatever the fuck I want, and if threatened, I'll kill an opposing soldier for that right. That's the mentality of a free, proud and liberated man. The US Constitution bleeds this at its core. In my opinion, that mentality has been tainted, twisted and murdered by countless political, socialogical and religious factors. Oh, and of course, greed.
To me, its unfortunate that the bully mentality has a firm grasp in government today (and not just in the US) and its not letting go anytime soon.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-
Nowhere have I ever made the argument that Israel should not exist. What I have repeatedly argued here is that Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians a workable state, and the Palestinians lack of a state and their poor treatment at the hands of the Israelis is the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US (for unconditionally supporting Israel's actions and non-actions)
Principles and US foreign policy? Surely you must be joking. The US has supported some of the most vile, murderous regimes the world has ever seen. The US doesn't not care how despotic a particular leader or regime is as long as his policies don't conflict with US economic interests. US foreign policy is driven almost entirely with the goal of maintaining and furthering the US economic empire (or what is left of it) The fact of the matter is that foreign policy the world over (not just the US) is entirely about pragmatism and not principles.
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]There, clear as crystal, is the US foreign policy in it's historical basic core. We don't have to apologizie for that, but we do have to accept the consequences of our policies. We are still the world's richest and powerful country, but at the present time, we are stuck in the mud, and we are responsible for our own quagmire.
Really nothing to be bickering on the board, at least to the level of personal insults.
One thought, had Germany been forced to give up a portion of it's territory for the Jews, the world landscape would not be as harsh as it is right now.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]WW, do a little light research and you will in fact see that two million Iraqi children DID in fact starve to death as a result of the US sanctions during the 90's. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated the Oil for Food Program to bolster their personal wealth; the US knew about that, and the children starving to death, and decided the political gains from maintaining the sanctions outweighed two million children starving to death. WW, in your opinion, is keeping Saddam Hussein "corralled" worth two million children starving to death? The Muslim world also knew about this (what do you think Al-Jazeera was broadcasting every night? And were disgusted that the US (who claim to be such great humanitarians) would allow this to happen.
The US government should know by now that any sanctions they implement always crush the poorest and most helpless citizens of the "enemy" country they are trying to punish. The despots who control the regime always find a way to keep their bellies full and their Ferraris full of 100 Octane gasoline (see any current or past dictatorship the US has levied sanctions against) [/QUOTE]The issue isn't so simple or one sided. And I don't think the considerations were primarily political. Clinton thought he was doing the right thing, trying to force Saddam Hussein out and keep him corralled with sanctions. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al also thought (incorrectly) that they were doing the right thing, bringing democracy to the Middle East and ending the suffering of the Iraqi people, by invading Iraq.
My problem at the time was that they were trying to do it with my tax dollars. In the group I hang out and work with, I'm the only white male that thought going into Iraq was a stupid idea at the time of the invasion. But I did think there was one justification and only one justification -- based exactly on what you describe above. A lot of people were dying because of sanctions. And the western powers did have a strong case that sanctions were preventing Saddam from starting another war or developing weapons of mass destruction. So what do you do? Allow hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's (your estimate of 2 million is way overstated) to die through sanctions? Or put people in other countries at risk by allowing the Hitler of the Middle East to accumulate the resources to rearm? Or the third option, invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein?
I also disagree strongly with your statement that it's economics that drives American foreign policy. I wish you were right, but you're not. Think about it, how can you believe that and also believe what you write about Israel? Aren't those two positions contradictory?
Reading Wikipedia is not doing light research, it is looking at the opinion of someone with an extremely liberal slant.
Starvation of Iraqi children assuredly happened during the 1990s and it was assuredly the fault of Sadam Hussein. Do not take this post as support for the war, because I believe it was a huge mistake and waste of lives and money. However, Sadam was able to sell oil, including illegally through UN personnel, and the money was there to feed the people. He chose to spend the money on other things. Sadam also killed many Kurds just for pleasure. A friend of mine worked in the "no fly" zone and he told me of some of Sadam's tricks. One trick was to fly in helicopters conveying supposed stores of foods in containers. As the Kurds gathered, the containers would open and acid would pour out. Many were killed and others were maimed. Yet you don't hear about this as it does not fit the agenda of the Wikipedia posters.
Did the light research show how many Shia and Kurd children died under Sadam Hussein before the sanctions? It was lot. Maim, torture and kill was SOP for the Sunni under Sadam.