The FYM Archive is an interesting place.

[A_Wanderer]

I think it's fair to say that I have a lot less respect for any religion now than I did five or so years ago.

 

[maycocksean]

Well I wasn't on Interference back in the day but I can tell you that I opposed the war from the beginning. I didn't buy the WMD urgency, I didn't believe the Iraq-terrorism-9/11 connection. I just remember feeling helpless that something that to me was so obviously wrong was going to happen anyway.

I can't say I knew it would be this bad, or that it would drag on this long.

But I was always against the war.

You'll just have to take my word for it.

And good points about democracy in Iraq. The U.S. is not and has never been strictly a friend of democracy per se. We are friends with those who are friendly with us, regardless of their type of government.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I still think that is a cause of a lot of problems; it's why there was no urgency to stop the Gulf States or Pakistan backing Islamists in Afghanistan, why Egypt is payed off with big money and the Muslim Brotherhood attracts popular support and it's plain to see the House of Saud has it's enemies.

In the absence of political avenues terrorists thrive; maybe it was a vain hope that Arab states can ever have moderate political systems, maybe it was too little far too late. It seems clear by the lack of support given to pro-democracy activists that this administration was not serious in it's support; and if that is the case then taking halfway actions that will be undone seems like utter madness.

My opinion of the Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link has changed, I thought it was laughable in 2002 - 2003 but since then the evidence of Saddam wooing some groups like MILF and paying off bombers in Palestine shows that there was a pattern of support; perhaps not out of religious conviction as much as cynical pandering to keep internal Islamist movements from gathering power but there nontheless.

 

[najeena]

My husband told me that the prez was full of shit, lying through his teeth about the WMD. Still shocked by 9/11, I couldn't believe an American president would lie so blatantly. Thanks Mr. Bush! All the money in the world can't buy what you threw away so you could have your war.

 

[maycocksean]

And I still think that is a cause of a lot of problems; it's why there was no urgency to stop the Gulf States or Pakistan backing Islamists in Afghanistan, why Egypt is payed off with big money and the Muslim Brotherhood attracts popular support and it's plain to see the House of Saud has it's enemies.

It seems clear by the lack of support given to pro-democracy activists that this administration was not serious in it's support; and if that is the case then taking halfway actions that will be undone seems like utter madness.

Yep.

My opinion of the Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link has changed, I thought it was laughable in 2002 - 2003 but since then the evidence of Saddam wooing some groups like MILF and paying off bombers in Palestine shows that there was a pattern of support; perhaps not out of religious conviction as much as cynical pandering to keep internal Islamist movements from gathering power but there nontheless.

I do think his support was populist pandering but I don't think it was anything serious. Saddam Hussein had one goal, and one goal only. To keep himself in power. Making a show of supporting terrorism would do that. Actively participating in terror activities against the U.S. and it's interests would not.

 

[financeguy]

On another forum, a poster made this comment:

"Those of us who got things so wrong on Iraq should think long and hard before pontificating on other things."

A sentiment sadly lacking on FYM.

 

[Ormus]

Comparing myself now to then, I've become more center-right on economic issues, and I'm not entirely sure how to classify my social stances, because support for "gay anything" gets you painted with an "extreme leftist" brush, unfortunately (just as I'm sure that opponents of racial segregation had been labelled prior to the 1960s).

And how to label my political stances these days is completely in upheaval, because I find myself disagreeing with large portions of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Party mindsets.

As for prior to the Iraq War here, I do remember myself stating how I felt that the sanctions did not work, and that it would be best to either end them or to take Saddam out completely. In some ways, that's still the only choices that we had, like it or not. However, I was greatly disappointed with how Bush sold this war and carried it out. It makes me wonder if we would have had more global support for this conflict, if we didn't have such a bumbling idiot for a leader. The whole "I don't care what the world thinks" attitude, I believe, has contributed to the failure in Iraq, not to mention emboldening populist autocrats in Iran and (an increasingly autocratic) Venezuela.

On the other hand, that same brazen attitude has cultivated a different attitude in the UN, I think. The Security Council nations seem to be more hawkish than they were in the past.

I guess I'll end up deferring to history to figure out what all of this means.

 

[financeguy]

My opinion of the Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link has changed, I thought it was laughable in 2002 - 2003 but since then the evidence of Saddam wooing some groups like MILF and paying off bombers in Palestine shows that there was a pattern of support; perhaps not out of religious conviction as much as cynical pandering to keep internal Islamist movements from gathering power but there nontheless.

I fail to see how Saddam (allegedly) paying off 'bombers in Palestine' in way substantiates a 'Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link',
given that the Palestinian cause has nothing to do with terrorism and is a legitimate campaign for freedom and statehood - just like, for example, the US War of Independence or the Irish War of Independence in 1919-21.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I fail to see how Saddam (allegedly) paying off 'bombers in Palestine' in way substantiates a 'Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link',
given that the Palestinian cause has nothing to do with terrorism

You don't see how targeting and blowing up innocent men and women is terrorism?

and is in fact a legitimate campaign for freedom and statehood - just like, for example, the US War of Independence or the Irish War of Independence in 1919-21.

How many times have we been through the whole "American Revolutionary War compared to the Palestinian/Israel conflict"? And yet, no one has come up with any examples of American Revolutionaries targeting and murdering innocent men, women and children.

 

[Ormus]

There's an easy, rather objective response to your debate, and it generally holds true:

A "revolution" is a successful campaign, whereas a "revolt" is a failed campaign. As such, those involved are "Founding Fathers" in a "revolution" and "terrorists" in a "revolt." It gets ambiguous, obviously, in instances where the conflict is currently ongoing.

I should note that none of this is meant to imply support for rather unsavory groups like Hamas, whom I have nothing but disgust for.

 

[financeguy]

Has there ever been a war where innocents haven't been killed?

 

[deep]

Giving $25,000. to a family after the Israelis have blown up or bull dozed their home, and made 15-25 people homeless, is something Americans should have been doing instead of leaving it for Saddam

Was the family even aware that their son was going blow himself up?

most likely not


Calling this supporting terror is just bull shit, there is a lot of Israeli behavior that the U S supports that is more questionable.

 

[deep]

And yet, no one has come up with any examples of American Revolutionaries targeting and murdering innocent men, women and children.

Tell that to the so-called Indians.

And there are plenty of examples of Zionists doing this in the 1940s

 

[A_Wanderer]

But there is not the support granted to the terrorist gangs by the mainstream zionist organisations, nor the genoicidal nutjob zionists having their goals written as a goal for the nation of Israel.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I fail to see how Saddam (allegedly) paying off 'bombers in Palestine' in way substantiates a 'Saddam - Islamist Terrorist link',
given that the Palestinian cause has nothing to do with terrorism and is a legitimate campaign for freedom and statehood - just like, for example, the US War of Independence or the Irish War of Independence in 1919-21.

Freedom is more than sovereignty and self-determination; the state model built into the Hamas charter is despotic and theocratic, and would have gross impositions on the freedoms of Palestinian Christians and Muslims alike. It is also very honest about it's goals

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

From a zionist news organisation, surely.

One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

link

 

[financeguy]

But there is not the support granted to the terrorist gangs by the mainstream zionist organisations, nor the genoicidal nutjob zionists having their goals written as a goal for the nation of Israel.

Yisrael_Beiteinu is part of the current coalition government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu


From reading their own website they appear to want a theocracy, essentially, albeit admittedly a milder form than found in Islamic theocracies.

http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/

 

[maycocksean]

Tell that to the so-called Indians.

Damn straight!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Tell that to the so-called Indians.

I'm not condoning what the US did do in driving the Native Americans from their land, but I really don't recall an organized movement to murder innocent Native American men, women and children.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yisrael_Beiteinu is part of the current coalition government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu


From reading their own website they appear to want a theocracy, essentially, albeit admittedly a milder form than found in Islamic theocracies.

http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/

But Hamas is the Palestinian government and Yisrael Beytenu supports a two state (not a one state) solution.

 

[yolland]

I'm puzzled as to what in the cursory platform summary provided on Yisrael Beytenu's English site would suggest a "theocratic" agenda. Shas or perhaps UTJ would be the obvious choices if you want to make a case for groups with those tendencies having attained the validation of Knesset seats. Yisrael Beytenu, I think, would be better described as an ultra-nationalist party (with the racist and authoritarian leanings that label typically implies) whose support base is almost wholly comprised of secular Russian-speaking immigrant Jews from the former USSR (in potential a huge constituency). As A_W noted, they do very much support a two-state solution--what makes their vision of that ugly is that it's clearly driven by a desire to get ethnic Arabs out of Israel rather than any sense of justice concerning the territorial issues.

Which, between the Hamas charter and the seemingly more contradictory statements by various Hamas officals concerning Israel's right to exist, better reflects their "true" goals and plans for the future is an open question and probably one that only history can resolve.

As far as Native Americans' relevance(?) to any of this goes, 'Manifest Destiny' was most definitely a pillar of US government policy during the nineteenth century (Indian Removal Act, Dawes Act etc.). Although none of these policies openly advocated violent coercion per se, it would be more than a little disingenuous to suggest that any violence, flagrant abuse of due process in treaty negotiations, drastically reduced quality of life for both tribes and individuals, forced acculturation programs, mass death and so on which resulted from them was just random bad luck and not in any sense "organized." It's not, however, something I would pin on the American Revolution, as most of the atrocities committed on both sides during that time period (Gnadenhutten, Wyoming Valley etc.) grew out of tensions stoked by some Native Americans having sided with the colonists and others with the British, rather than any formalized 'agenda' of either side toward the other at that point in time.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not condoning what the US did do in driving the Native Americans from their land, but I really don't recall an organized movement to murder innocent Native American men, women and children.

Well, in some cases they poisoned the wells Indians used for drinking water with cholera.

Later they put them into reservates that hardly provided enough food to feed all the people since they got the poorest pieces of land.

So there wasn't a general movement like later with the Nazi's that tried to kill all Jews, gays, communists, disabled, gypsy and so on.
But single movements were carried out.

Also in Ireland it wasn't really tried to kill all the Irish. It was only tried to get them converted from the Catholic believe to the Protestantism.

Then, the Great Famine was "exploited" to bring the Catholics into a situation where they didn't have much choice. Either dying, or leaving the country, or joining the Anglican church.

 

[yolland]

Well, in some cases they poisoned the wells Indians used for drinking water with cholera.

Do you have a source for this? The only documented instance of attempted deliberate infection of Native Americans I've ever heard of was in 1763 when a British captain named Simeon Ecuyer gave some of the Delaware Indians, who were besieging the British at Fort Pitt, two blankets which had been exposed to smallpox in the Fort's hospital (it's not known if this worked). Cholera was believed until the mid-1850s to be caused by "bad air." It is thought by historians to be the case that the Japanese poisoned some water supplies with cholera during the Sino-Japanese War, but I've never heard of anyone else doing this.

 

[martha]

I'm not condoning what the US did do in driving the Native Americans from their land, but I really don't recall an organized movement to murder innocent Native American men, women and children.

The Indian Removal Act was a federal law.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The Indian Removal Act was a federal law.

But there is nothing in the Indian Removal Act that orders or even condones killing any Native Americans.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do you have a source for this? The only documented instance of attempted deliberate infection of Native Americans I've ever heard of was in 1763 when a British captain named Simeon Ecuyer gave some of the Delaware Indians, who were besieging the British at Fort Pitt, two blankets which had been exposed to smallpox in the Fort's hospital (it's not known if this worked). Cholera was believed until the mid-1850s to be caused by "bad air." It is thought by historians to be the case that the Japanese poisoned some water supplies with cholera during the Sino-Japanese War, but I've never heard of anyone else doing this.

Hm, I have to admit that the source is my mother who was very interested in the Indian culture and history when she was younger.
She is not an well-known expert, so of course it's hardly a source.
And I can't say where exactly she read it.

 

[yolland]

But there is nothing in the Indian Removal Act that orders or even condones killing any Native Americans.

Well, I kind of tried to address this a few posts above...it is true that laws like that, Dawes Act etc. didn't explicitly advocate violence but in light of how their implementation unfolded, it's pretty darn hard to make a case that they didn't effectively cause it.

 

[martha]

But there is nothing in the Indian Removal Act that orders or even condones killing any Native Americans.

No, just forcibly removing them from their ancestral homes, that's all. If they die in the process, well, that's too bad, but certainly not the intent.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Of course they would never write something like "Erase the Indian population".
Like the Nazis didn't call it "Kill all Jews", but Final Solution (Endlösung der Judenfrage).
In the Wannsee protocols there is the only written evidence that they planned on killing all European Jews, and you can read it from figures of the concentration camps and the production of Zyklon B.

I don't want to compare the Nazis with the settlers in America.
But there you can see that the intention behind something can be somewhat hidden in what you write.

 

[CTU2fan]

I think what my American ancestors did to the Native Americans is very comparable to the Nazis. Biggest difference is, history is usually kind(er) to the winners in any conflict, so what white America did is somehow acceptable. This was also a society that permitted slavery, let's not forget.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think what my American ancestors did to the Native Americans is very comparable to the Nazis. Biggest difference is, history is usually kind(er) to the winners in any conflict, so what white America did is somehow acceptable. This was also a society that permitted slavery, let's not forget.

For the record, I have said that I don't condone what they did to the American Indians. That was a very ugly and cruel part of our history. However, driving people from their lands and forcing them to live on reservations is not comparable to mass gassings.