A read worth your time

Words of an alarmist shill. Proudly brought to you by the US arms merchants and sponsored by the US government.

 

NOTE: The following post is NOT an attack on conservatives, but rather the segment consisting of neoconservatives. That being said, what I'm saying may not be totally accurate (when I'm talking about the Cold War - because my knowledge is not that good in that area)... but I think my position is competely defensible.

I think the article you posted, 04, was quite hilarious. Maybe it was this one, or a similar one... which stated that Hezbollah wanted an Islamic caliphate.

-First off, Hezbollah is not the organization capable of doing this... unless a lot more Qana attacks happen in the next few weeks, and Hezbollah is able to garner more mind support.

-Secondly, the Islamic caliphate system is a form of democracy.

-Thirdly, kingdoms are forbidden in Islam.

Neocons for the decades after WWII have gone psychotic. The world's a big scary place with lots of trees for the next big threat to hide. Now don't get me wrong... nukes are potentially the greatest threat to mankind... and there should be no countries developing nuclear weapons. But there's always going to be some big threat to the neocons... in terms of peoples.

Look at the Cold War era... the USSR and our goverment were in a man's race that couldv'e eradicated life on earth. Our only planet and home.... there's no other Earth. I don't know the details of how the Cold War started and whatnot, but there is simply no excuse for it happening.

Now I may be off in my history and accusations... but I think my position is very defensible... from what I've heard, Michael Gorbachev (sp?) was the man on the Russian side of things who was basically the man who ended to the Cold War... and some regard him as the most influential person (saw an interview on the guy... the interviewer was getting his views on the war, and my information comes from the background info they gave.). He's referred to as an anti-communist communist.

He makes a very strong case for diplomacy and democracy to guide our decisions... that war is not the way to do things.

He didn't state this, but you can sorta extrapolate the information... Islam is not the greatest threat to world security... it is neocon worldviews. I don't know exactly... but based on what I do know (such as through Mccarthy)... neocons may have been largely responsible for escalating the conflict on our side of things.

Neocons are the greatest danger to world peace. They think they have free reign to control the world. But the world is not a chessboard where anyone can move people around as pawns... and history has shown this to us. (And note... unlike dberman, when I bring up history I actually back it up instead of just saying 'history says this or shows that'). Look at what happened to Iran... the governments of Brittain and the US at the time thought they could freely regime change Iran for nationalizing its oil industry... IE the crime was using their oil resources for themselves!!!!!!!!!

What was the response? Radical Shiite Islam was. Folks, this is what the media won't tell you... you have to read to find out this stuff.

Every damn time the West interferes, Islamists take notice and go further down the path of radicalism.... 'the corruption of the West on their lands,' if you will.

But the main point I am trying to make is that neocons are responsible for some of the Middle Eastern problems we face today, under the context of regime change (an aspect of neoconservative philosphy). They helped water the seeds of Islamic radicalism.

Another case in point... the Taliban... the govt took the position that the enemy of my enemy is my friend... knowing full well they were installing Islamic fundamentalists... they didn't give a damn about the citizens... what they feared was Soviet expansion. Basically, hardliners on both sides (ours being the neocons) were probably the driving force in getting the Taliban to power.

You guys talk about Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia... and I've brought it up several times that the British installed the Saud family (with solid links to Wahabbism) over a more secular family that was pro-human rights... but did not support Imperialist influence... thus the Brits gave their hand to the Saud family. (Source: "A Peace to End All Peace" - a play on words on the famous WWI quote "A War to End All Wars").

You say a caliphate system would destabilize the world? I think quite the opposite... I think the caliphate system would allow for greater communication and debate of Islamic theology... IE rather than killing each other and then spreading their faith to the non Muslims (like me)... they would ultimately advance their theology and develop their democratic portions of the religion (IE the caliphate system of the Ottoman Empire). This is what happened in the Ottoman Empire.

Yes, I know Muslims have their fair shair of conquests... but what the West has helped to create is a demon in the Middle East... and I think largely through neoconservative thinking (IE people who are for regime change for the short-term benefit and security for themselves). By this definition, war mongering by neoconservatives has been a major influence in screwing over the middle East (IE starting with British influences). And now the neoconservatives want to fix the problem they created by nuking and destroying... which, as history has shown... will only create more terrorists.

It seems that to neocons, there is always some threat to the world (translation: white man's security) that requires pre-emptive action... with their thinking, you can justify anything. IE nuking Saudi Arabia and Arab countries to atone for the sins committed by extremist groups and previously goverments (Nazis) done to the Jews over their history is not outside the realm of possibility. These neocons are psychotic... they're psychotic because they have an addiction to war.

I was watching either Fox, or CNN... and the military guy they were interviewing said that Iran, if it really tried to... would not be able to get for a good 5-10 years... I remember dberman posting an article that Iran would have nukes within a matter of days or weeks of their nuclear announcement.

Some of these same neocons like Rumsfeld want to take the decrepid history of humanity into outers space and militarize it... this is absolutely disgusting... we are recently a space-faring species and are already considering milatrizing outer space... this is not a good precedent for our future generations, and it must end!

There are more moderates in Islam than fundamentalists, and I really believe that if they're given the chance they can overcome the minority radicals. I believe that if we are able to get a comprehensive solution in the Mideast, and boost the Lebanese government beyond that of a newborn fledgling, we will see this happen (under the condition that not too many more innocents are killed).

Sooner or later we humans have to live up to our ideals of democracy and be able to solve things diplomatically. I mean... we must take care of the terrorists that actually pose a danger to us and the world... but at the same time we must move toward a collective conscience... and put a stop the habits we are continuing to support (war). This war mongering of the neoconservatives on our side, and hardline saber rattling of countries such as North Korea... must stop. However, it must not be through neoconservative racist idealogy that supports the wiping out Muslims... most of who are NOT fundamentalists... (I believe it was Bush who said that a majority of Muslims live in democratic societies?). It is a moral issue to put a stop to neoconservative influence in politics.

 

That piece by Kraft is at least two years old. I'm mildly curious (but only mildly, because these days the opinion of anyone outside the White House hardly matters) whether his opinion has been changed at all by the deepening fiasco in Iraq or the reversals in Afghanistan since then. They were bad situations, and Bush's blundering has made them worse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 31 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]295188[/snapback]</div>

Oops, you're quite right. I knew something didn't sound right about the name.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 31 2006 4:44 PM)</div>

Thanks. Not all of those parts aren't the official Democrat line, but then I'm not officially a Democrat. I just can't bring myself to vote for most Republicans. Personally I really like McCain, I think we and the world would have been much better if the Republican party nominated him in 2000.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Aug 1 2006, 09:52 AM) [snapback]295710[/snapback]</div>

Do you think that Al Queda cared who was the American President on 11 September 2001?