The US Constitution - A Suicide Pact?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]476863[/snapback]</div>

Considering that the Bush crime cabal has been his single biggest recruiting tool (meaning he's been able to recruit far more people since Bush took office), I'd say he'd vote Republican.

Bin Laden WANTED the US to invade a Middle East nation, he used that very threat as a recruiting tool. If you missed that, YOU should be paying more attention.

One of the primary causes for his fatwa against the US was US occupation of Muslim holy land (i.e. Saudi Arabia vis a vis our airbase there). Guess what, Bush has given in to that demand and removed our airbases there.

So, with a Republican in office, he gets his wished and demands met, gets a recruiting tool, and enhances his standing in the radical muslim world by saying "see I TOLD you Bush would do this."

You really don't pay any attention to what's actually going on or what's actually being said outside of your Fox News, Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly world do you?

Should we discuss Bush pulling troops away from the hunt for bin Laden in Tora Bora so as to redeploy those troops to Iraq (a nation which was hated by bin Laden and who had never attacked the US and which posed no threat to the US or her allies given the outright fabrications regarding WMD capability)?

Would Osama vote Republican or Democrat? You be the judge. Who has given him the greatest recruiting tool he's had since the formation of his organization? Who let him slip away by redeploying troops away from the hunt for him? Who has longstanding business ties with the bin Laden family? Who acquiesced to his demand to remove US bases from Saudi Arabia?

Do you actually believe the things you post? Do you actually research them? Or, do you, like most so-called conservatives, simply get your talking points from the Rush Limbaughs of the world, devoid of any basis in reality?

Have you read Richard Clarke's book? Do you know what Clinton's team actually did? Do you know of the plans to get bin Laden that were prepared in response to the Cole? Or do you believe the false talking points that he did nothing in response? Contrary to what you heard from Bill O'Reilly, Osama wasn't quaking in his boots when Bush became president, he was dancing for joy. The Bush presidency gave bin Laden exactly what he wanted. Someone willing to fulfill the dire warnings that Osama had been throwing around for years, someone willing to fit the profile of the swaggering cowboy American with no respect for anyone or anything, and someone who would serve his needs to a T.

You may not quite understand it, but terrorism has INCREASED since Bush took office. That is a fact. Worldwide, terrorism is on the rise. A Bush presidence was a bin Laden wet dream.

As to your not serving. How did the draft being gone stop you from serving? I volunteered. There was no draft, somehow that didn't stop me from volunteering. Why is it that those most in favor of war are never the ones willing to volunteer for it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]476910[/snapback]</div>

We would need a million Jack Bauers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]476896[/snapback]</div>

There are several discussed here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=13iAVXvu6...f+god&psp=1

"For four years, Jessica Stern interviewed extremist members of three religions around the world: Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Traveling extensively -- to refugee camps in Lebanon, to religious schools in Pakistan, to prisons in Amman, Asqelon, and Pensacola -- she discovered that the Islamic jihadi in the mountains of Pakistan and the Christian fundamentalist bomber in Oklahoma have much in common.Based on her vast research, Stern lucidly explains how terrorist organizations are formed by opportunistic leaders who -- using religion as both motivation and justification -- recruit the disenfranchised. She depicts how moral fervor is transformed into sophisticated organizations that strive for money, power, and attention.Jessica Stern’s extensive interaction with the faces behind the terror provide unprecedented insight into acts of inexplicable horror, and enable her to suggest how terrorism can most effectively be countered.A crucial book on terrorism, Terror in the Name of God is a brilliant and thought-provoking work."



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]476910[/snapback]</div>

You finally said something I agree with, let's assume he is 100% correct.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]476910[/snapback]</div>

Here's a little hint for you -

Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iraq. They never have been. Al Qaeda is made up primarily of Saudi Wahhabist Sunnis. They operate out of MANY places, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the UAE (note: Iran is NOT one of those places. Why? Because Sunnis and Shia do not like each other at all).

BTW, what does pulling out of Iraq have to do with the discussion at hand? In fact, until your post, the Iraq war was was not the topic of discussion.

In any event, phased redeployment to other locations is the best route to go.

The typical neocon perception that "we gotta fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here" is ludicrous at best.

They weren't "there" until we went there. There were no car bombings in Baghdad before our arrival.

The fact is that with or without our presence, Iraq is going to descend into all out civil war. The rampant sectarian killings that continue despite the "surge" are sufficient proof of that.

"They" are not going to "follow us home." That's a pile of tripe manufactured in order to garner compliance amongst those unwilling to question what's being shoved down their throats by Fox News and its ilk.

If you want to stop Islamic terrorism, you don't do it by giving them a recruiting tool.

You do it by addressing the root cause, which, contrary to the common perception is not because "they hate us for our freedoms."

The fact is, terrorists have time and time again explained where their hatred comes from. It simply takes someone willing to pay attention to what's being said. It has nothing to do with "freedoms."

The fact is that you are addressing an enmity that has existed for over a thousand years. The back and forth in the so-called holy land between Jews, Muslims and Christians has continued for centuries and it won't end. When the Israelites first moved into the holy land, they killed its occupants or forced them to convert. This happened centuries before Christ. When the Romans came, they forced the Israelites into subjugation. Then came the Christians, who did the same, then the Muslims, then Christians again, then the Muslims again, then after a few centuries, the Israelites returned. An over simplification? Perhaps, but it follows the general history.

You are not going to stop terrorism by fighting in Iraq. You are not going to stop terrorism by killing muslims (especially when you kill innocent muslims as is the case with untold thousands in Iraq). What you are going to do is make it easier for them to recruit (for every person you kill in Iraq, how many of his relatives are going to want revenge?)

If you want to end terrorism, you have to do several things.

First, find a REAL lasting solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Illegal settlements by Israel do not aid this, nor to suicide bombings by Palestinians. One key to stopping terrorism is to either work with both sides equally (not meaning work with terrorist groups, but with a legitimate Palestinian government). This also entails stopping the billions of dollars of financial support to Israel which displays an anti-Palestine bias as far as the rest of the Islamic world is concerned.

Second, quit treating the Middle East like children. Quit telling them that they must live how the west does. Do NOT try to force it on them. You will never want to live in their culture, they will never want to adopt yours. To pretend that your culture is the best way for them is to tell them that their history and tradition means nothing to you and you believe it should mean nothing to them.

Third, halt the planning of and implementation of permanent US bases in the Middle East. It's their land, they don't want us there.

Fourth, quit pretending like the US has a god-given right to Middle East oil. It's their oil.

Fifth, quit putting out public statements from people high up in the US government stating that the US should secure the resources of the Middle East for its own use (ever heard of the Project for a New American Century?).

There are dozens of things that can be done, but to think that killing Iraqis is going to stop terrorism is the height of ignorance. Killing Iraqis didn't stop the London Subway bombings, it didn't stop the Bali Nightclub bombing, it didn't stop the bombings in Morocco, it didn't stop trains in Spain from being bombed. If you truly believe that killing Iraqis stops terrorism, then you haven't been paying any attention at all.

Before you start spouting that "there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11" garbage, consider something, the last foreign terror attack on US soil resulted in its perpetrators being captured, tried and convicted. It took place less than a month after the former president took office. During that presidents entire term, not one single attack took place on American soil. So, nobody attacked us while we weren't killing Iraqis either.

The fact is that no terrorist who has ever killed an American came from Iraq. That is a fact. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Iraq. That is a fact. Not one perpetrator of the embassy bombings in Africa was from Iraq. Not one perpetrator of the bombing of the USS Cole was from Iraq. No Iraqi national has ever killed a US national on US soil in a terrorist attack.

So tell us how exactly killing Iraqis stops terrorism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mick @ Jul 11 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]476927[/snapback]</div>

We could discuss Evangelical priests who urge their followers to let hate flow through them while supporting abortion clinic bombers.

Or we could talk about white-supremacist groups that want to wage a "racial holy war".

We could talk about the only real WMD's found since the invasion of Iraq: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1175

Yup, that's right, right-wing extremists in TEXAS has WMD's. I'd say that's cause for concern.





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]476945[/snapback]</div>

Tim McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
William Krar
Ikuo Hayashi
Kenichi Hirose
Toru Toyoda
Masato Yokoyama
Yasuo Hayashi
Robert Hulme
Aiden Hulme
Noel Maguire
John Hannan
James McCormack
James Kopp
James Ford Seale
Edgar Ray Killen
Inaki de Juana Chaos
Victor Tejedor Bilbao
Arnaldo Otegi
Menachem Begin (yup, him too, he ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel)


The list goes on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 11 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]476944[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely nothing... however, he was clearly "losing" the discussion at hand, and switching topics is the best tool he has to prevent people from seeing the error in his thinking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]476957[/snapback]</div>

You are aware that more Palestinian civilians have died in the conflict than Israeli civilians right?

Are you also aware that Israel is in defiance of dozens of UN resolutions in their own right?

Your solution presents one major problem. By engaging in such a tactic you reduce yourself to the level of the terrorists by targeting innocent civilians. How do you propose to accomplish your strategy without becoming that which you condemn.

 

Wow.
post #66 is the 2nd time in 24 hours that you have absolutely bit** slapped and owned Dr. B.

That was about the best summary of the ME situation I've ever read.

I have a question for you though.
Can we really get by in the US without the energy imports?
If we just get out completely from the ME situation, it seems likely we will lose access to those imports. How can we even produce alternatives/renewables/nuclear/etc. without our existing infrastructure (which runs about half on ME oil)?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 11 2007, 01:51 PM) [snapback]476951[/snapback]</div>

Yup. As is his usual fashion, berman assumed that the one example given in a brief summary about the book was the sum of its argument. The book ties the common threads of terrorism together, whether they be Islamic, White supremacists, anti-abortion bombers or the names you've provided above.

Thanks for the backup, etawful. And your post #66 is dead on.

"As far as agreeing with me - it was an assumption - nice work." - berman

What? No room for sarcasm in your black or white world?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 11 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]476989[/snapback]</div>

currently, i don't think we can get by without energy imports. However, having a "presence" in the ME vie the war in Iraq isn't doing anything for those imports. if we get out of the entire situation, we would still get those imports - the money we're giving them is the only way those people are in power, the only source of their livelihood. They'd have to be crazy to throw all that away.

As for producing alternatives, imagine what the billions of dollars spent in Iraq could produce here at home. It could be used to create an entirely new energy infrastructure, one based on renewable energy with hydrogen pumps for cars on every corner instead of gasoline pumps. It would take a number of years to implement, but it would be a start. We wouldn't have to worry about the ME "cutting us off" or anything like that, because they're greedy (just like US corporations and the people who run them) and want our money for themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 11 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]476944[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for expressing --more eloquently and more logically-- that which I was unable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 11 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]476989[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: red face but not from being owned or bit** slapped

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 11 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]477011[/snapback]</div>

Truthfully, the US could probably get by without Middle East oil. ME oil isn't that high a percentage of our usage. If it weren't for the overt hostility the Bush administration has shown towards Venezuela, imports from Venezuela and other such sources, along with a very robust alternative energy program could supplant the need for Middle East oil.

Only 16% (approximately) of US oil imports comes from the Persian Gulf as of April of this year:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move..._im0_mbbl_m.htm

The percentage is higher when you count all of OPEC, (43%) But OPEC is comprised of not only ME countries, but Venezuela, Algeria, Angola and Nigeria. The largest exporter to the US among OPEC countries is Saudi Arabia, followed by Venezuela.

If you eliminate Saudia Arabia from the equation and increase the imports from non-OPEC countries, you could wean the US off ME oil in a relatively short period of time.

However, it doesn't benefit US oil companies to do so, since their interests lie in ME Oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 11 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]477011[/snapback]</div>

You, me, and most everyone here already understands that.
It was a missed opportunity. But here we are having invested hundreds of billions in Iraq (which is more about regional stability and oil access accross the ME than just Iraqi stability and access).
If we walk, we risk Iran taking over that access. Saudi Arabia is an instability risk too. If we don't have some military presence somewhere, in that block of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, we could see an Islamic monopoly of oil worse than OPEC. Losing control over the straights of Hormuz, (the main spigot of oil exporting) is a serious risk to our economy. If this happens, the bulk of remaining exportable oil could be sent exclusively to China due to anti American sentiment, paid for by our Wal-mart purchases.

We better have the alternatives up and running FIRST. Then we can let things happen as they may and it won't matter to us. (and "islamofacists" will attack Beijing instead).

From etawful
"The percentage is higher when you count all of OPEC, (43%) But OPEC is comprised of not only ME countries, but Venezuela, Algeria, Angola and Nigeria. The largest exporter to the US among OPEC countries is Saudi Arabia, followed by Venezuela."

What about ME oil that is imported in Canada, allowing Canada to export more of their oil to the US? What is the % of worlwide oil production that comes from the Islamic ME? (It's a global commodity). Better yet, what % of remaining recoverable reserves are in the islamic ME? (That's the scary bit of info).