- comment
Mike - body
- There is no doubt that we are on the threshold of World War III. What one has to wonder, however, is whether it is really radical Islam that brought us into the fight, or whether it was America's interventionist foreign policy that brought us into it. Given the volatile nature of the region and the fact that the Middle East hasn't seen a period of peace on 2,000 years, it seems rather obvious that it isn't "jealousy" over American prosperity nor is it "hatred" of American ways of life that brought the fight to us. In fact, they don't really give a rats ass what we do over here. It is the fact that we snatched a strip of their land (which was promised to them by the Brits) and handed it to their enemies (the Jews in the Nation of Israel) that launched us into 60 years of Middle Eastern interventionism. The Arabs over in the Middle East hate us because we forced into existence a nation they hate on soil that was in their possession for a very long time, and ever since, we have been coddling Israel and admonishing the Arabs. It really isn't that complex a situation.
How e'er it be, we're in the middle of it now, and our invasion of Iraq has only made matters worse. Are we at war with Iran? Probably, but we definitely should not be posturing as though Iran started it with us ... it is the other way around.
Bottom line ... George Washington was right about warning us about getting involved in foreign entanglements. We are MUCH better off minding our own business and keeping to ourselves.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Mike -- you can't possibly be serious that Iran has not started this confrontation with the United States.
There's a few hundred people associated with the American Embassy in Teheran that would love to dispute this... and when the destruction of America is discussed, it isn't discussed in the context of Pax Americana, but rather in the language of the crusades.
They haven't forgotten. It's not a part of the world that easily forgets.
- comment Charles
- body
- Just to throw in a cautious note: IN almost every war fought on this planet, there could be weapons from the United States being used by one side against the other.
That would not equate to us being involved in that war with the opposition.
That is probably why we don't claim that Iranian weapons, and even Iranian advisors, give us the authority to attack Iran. Otherwise, many countries would have been within their rights to attack us over the years.
- comment Mike
- body
- If I recall my history, the Crusades were primarily fought by France, Britain, and Rome ... not America. Does America represent "christianity"? Perhaps nominally, but certainly not morally (2nd highest abortion rate in the world, largest producer of contraceptives, largest pornography industry in the world ... need I go on?) and definitely not in the theological beliefs and structure of the Christians who fought in the crusades. To allude to American representation of the Crusading Christians of 700-900 years ago is a slap in the face to those who died in the crusades. America no more represents the Crusading Christians than Russia represents Capitalism and Democracy.
Has Iran been attacking us? Sure. Have they been supplying IEDs, guns, and ammo in Iraq? I have no doubt. Are they doing it because they think that America represents the Christians of the Crusades? THAT is a massive leap of logic. All one has to do is examine American relations in the Middle East over the last 60 years, and it will become rather obvious that Arab resentment of Americans stems directly from our interventionist foreign policy and NOT because we are Christians. If they wanted to voice their hatred of Christianity, they would have flown planes into the Vatican, not the WTC. Though, I find the target rather interesting, considering the WTC doesn't represent Christianity, but American money, which is used to fund interventionist efforts in the Middle East.
I find it difficult to blame the Arabs for resenting American interventionism. Hell I resent Federal interventionism in my own life.
Do the Arabs hate Christians? That much is obvious. Do the Arabs hate those who help their enemies? Absolutly. Have we helped the enemies of the Arabs? Absolutly ... in fact, we've directly funded and supplied both sides of every Arab conflict in the last 60 years. Follow the money, and you'll understand what this war is really all about.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- America no more represents the Crusading Christians than Russia represents Capitalism and Democracy.
That's something you'll have to explain to the mullahs in Iran.
Are they doing it because they think that America represents the Christians of the Crusades? THAT is a massive leap of logic.
Not if you've been keeping an eye on the rhetoric from fundamentalist Islam for the last five to thirty years.
If they wanted to voice their hatred of Christianity, they would have flown planes into the Vatican, not the WTC.
You mean like this plot to do precisely that?
Do the Arabs hate Christians? That much is obvious.
I hate myself. Yes.
in fact, we've directly funded and supplied both sides of every Arab conflict in the last 60 years
Now that's a heady claim... the Americans supplied Syria with tanks in '73? Egypt in '67? Lebanon in '82? Hezbollah today?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Hey Charles,
That is probably why we don't claim that Iranian weapons, and even Iranian advisors, give us the authority to attack Iran. Otherwise, many countries would have been within their rights to attack us over the years.
That much may be true... though I would assert that Iranian involvement is a clear indicator of their unwillingness to broker peace in Iraq (and all the more reason why Webb's proposal to actually involve Syria and Iran is ludicrous to the extreme).
- comment Mike
- body
- I find it interesting that this plan was created before we were attacked by arabs.
Project for a New American Century
Seems to cover Iraq, Iran, and Syria, in that order. Is that a coincidence?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Number of times Iran is mentioned in this 90-page document?
Eight. Mostly on the topic of nuclear non-proliferation.
- comment Citizen Tom
- body
- I pretty much agree with the thrust of this post. Unfortunately, many Americans believe only what they see on the TV. They "see" IEDs killing Americans and our helicopters being shot down, but they do not see any Iranians, just Iraqi "insurgents."
Before we invaded Iraq, we were at war with the Hussein government for over a decade. Containment was not working; we were just helping to starve people, but these starving souls did not die in the camera's eye.
Since no new WMD's were found after our invasion of Iraq, what the war's opponents now offer us is "Bush lied and people died." What would it take to convince them the invasion was just? I do not know.
Before it gets better, I fear the situation will worsen. Here is my take at this post.
- comment Faith Stuart
- body
- We should pity anyone who dares to touch God's chosen people.
I like to figure out why someone is "hot" about a topic. It really cuts down on the length of an argument (debate, whatever). Have you read Passionate Attachment by Goerge and Douglas Ball? I recommend the review of it at Amazon by Jeffrey Ehrenreich.
10 Comments:
How e'er it be, we're in the middle of it now, and our invasion of Iraq has only made matters worse. Are we at war with Iran? Probably, but we definitely should not be posturing as though Iran started it with us ... it is the other way around.
Bottom line ... George Washington was right about warning us about getting involved in foreign entanglements. We are MUCH better off minding our own business and keeping to ourselves.
There's a few hundred people associated with the American Embassy in Teheran that would love to dispute this... and when the destruction of America is discussed, it isn't discussed in the context of Pax Americana, but rather in the language of the crusades.
They haven't forgotten. It's not a part of the world that easily forgets.
That would not equate to us being involved in that war with the opposition.
That is probably why we don't claim that Iranian weapons, and even Iranian advisors, give us the authority to attack Iran. Otherwise, many countries would have been within their rights to attack us over the years.
Has Iran been attacking us? Sure. Have they been supplying IEDs, guns, and ammo in Iraq? I have no doubt. Are they doing it because they think that America represents the Christians of the Crusades? THAT is a massive leap of logic. All one has to do is examine American relations in the Middle East over the last 60 years, and it will become rather obvious that Arab resentment of Americans stems directly from our interventionist foreign policy and NOT because we are Christians. If they wanted to voice their hatred of Christianity, they would have flown planes into the Vatican, not the WTC. Though, I find the target rather interesting, considering the WTC doesn't represent Christianity, but American money, which is used to fund interventionist efforts in the Middle East.
I find it difficult to blame the Arabs for resenting American interventionism. Hell I resent Federal interventionism in my own life.
Do the Arabs hate Christians? That much is obvious. Do the Arabs hate those who help their enemies? Absolutly. Have we helped the enemies of the Arabs? Absolutly ... in fact, we've directly funded and supplied both sides of every Arab conflict in the last 60 years. Follow the money, and you'll understand what this war is really all about.
That's something you'll have to explain to the mullahs in Iran.
Are they doing it because they think that America represents the Christians of the Crusades? THAT is a massive leap of logic.
Not if you've been keeping an eye on the rhetoric from fundamentalist Islam for the last five to thirty years.
If they wanted to voice their hatred of Christianity, they would have flown planes into the Vatican, not the WTC.
You mean like this plot to do precisely that?
Do the Arabs hate Christians? That much is obvious.
I hate myself. Yes.
in fact, we've directly funded and supplied both sides of every Arab conflict in the last 60 years
Now that's a heady claim... the Americans supplied Syria with tanks in '73? Egypt in '67? Lebanon in '82? Hezbollah today?
That is probably why we don't claim that Iranian weapons, and even Iranian advisors, give us the authority to attack Iran. Otherwise, many countries would have been within their rights to attack us over the years.
That much may be true... though I would assert that Iranian involvement is a clear indicator of their unwillingness to broker peace in Iraq (and all the more reason why Webb's proposal to actually involve Syria and Iran is ludicrous to the extreme).
Project for a New American Century
Seems to cover Iraq, Iran, and Syria, in that order. Is that a coincidence?
Eight. Mostly on the topic of nuclear non-proliferation.
Before we invaded Iraq, we were at war with the Hussein government for over a decade. Containment was not working; we were just helping to starve people, but these starving souls did not die in the camera's eye.
Since no new WMD's were found after our invasion of Iraq, what the war's opponents now offer us is "Bush lied and people died." What would it take to convince them the invasion was just? I do not know.
Before it gets better, I fear the situation will worsen. Here is my take at this post.
I like to figure out why someone is "hot" about a topic. It really cuts down on the length of an argument (debate, whatever). Have you read Passionate Attachment by Goerge and Douglas Ball? I recommend the review of it at Amazon by Jeffrey Ehrenreich.
Post a Comment
Home