Iran or Syria next for Staged Terror excuse?

[Dexter Sinister]

It's not about terrorism James, and never was. It's not about oil either, and never was. And it's not about spreading democracy and freedom either, and never was. It's not, in fact, about anything principled at all.

It's about American hegemony. Everything else, all the rhetoric about terrorism, bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed, and all the rest of it, is just trumped up rationalization. Iraq got kicked first because it was the easiest target, and all the reasons given beforehand are now known to have been false.

Study some history James, and get this into your head: America is an imperial power, behaving in exactly the same way imperial powers have always behaved, and your leaders are lying to you about it. Compare 19th century Britain, for instance, or the colonial adventures of most western European nations in the 16th to mid-20th centuries. It's exactly the same behaviour, justified exactly the same way. And it still stinks. In fact it stinks worse, because this is supposedly a more enlightened age and America ought to know better.

So you're against state-sponsored terrorism? Wanna talk about American interventions in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Grenada...? Or is it terrorism only when non-Americans do it?

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Iran or Syria next fo

You've never provided any proof that Syria is supporting terrorists though, James.

Are you kidding me Rev? You do know that Damascus is the operational headquarters for Hamas, right? Why in blue blazes does the Syrian government not get rid of this organization? Tear down their facility.

Also, a UN report accused Syrian Intelligence in the assasination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former Prime Minister. How could you condone such actions?

 

[peapod]

Any comment on dexters post nascar...or its it just going to be the rev :roll: :roll:

 

[Nascar_James]

It's not about terrorism James, and never was. It's not about oil either, and never was. And it's not about spreading democracy and freedom either, and never was. It's not, in fact, about anything principled at all.

It's about American hegemony. Everything else, all the rhetoric about terrorism, bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed, and all the rest of it, is just trumped up rationalization. Iraq got kicked first because it was the easiest target, and all the reasons given beforehand are now known to have been false.

Study some history James, and get this into your head: America is an imperial power, behaving in exactly the same way imperial powers have always behaved, and your leaders are lying to you about it. Compare 19th century Britain, for instance, or the colonial adventures of most western European nations in the 16th to mid-20th centuries. It's exactly the same behaviour, justified exactly the same way. And it still stinks. In fact it stinks worse, because this is supposedly a more enlightened age and America ought to know better.

So you're against state-sponsored terrorism? Wanna talk about American interventions in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Grenada...? Or is it terrorism only when non-Americans do it?

I still believe we went to Iraq after Afghanistan as a result of attack on our soil on 9/11, Dexter. We were simply going after those who attacked us first. Even the Democrats were talking about Al Qaeda presence in Iraq some 3 years ago.

Here's a quote from as far left as you can get ...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

So as you can see, even the far left supported us going in to Iraq.

Persistence has paid off. We haven't had any further attacks on our soil since we seriously started going after the terrorists.

Here is a quote from Bill Clinton ...

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

So any anyone could see, we were justified in going to Iraq. We got rid of a dictator who deliberately killed his own people. This dictator was indeed involved with terrorism ... he was certainly paying off the families of Palistinian suicide bombers tens of thousands of dollars. Let us hope he gets the death penalty so Iraqis can get justice.

 

[Nascar_James]

Ooops ...double post

 

[peapod]

Jimmy that was in 2002, this is 2005. We now know different don't we.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're thinking too narrowly James.

Hillary Clinton could be viewed as far left only in America. Anywhere else in the world she'd be well to the right of center on most issues. There is no real left wing in America, your political spectrum consists of right, far right, and ultra right.

Most people outside America don't see that you were justified in going after Iraq. None of the reasons given for it at the time were true, and the people giving them knew it. It was made up, to justify the attack. That's pretty much common knowledge now. There are no demonstrated links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, it merely provided the cover and the climate of fear necessary to sell the lies about weapons of mass destruction and imaginary links between al Qaeda and Saddam.

You need to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. The whole world needs you to lose the war in Iraq. It'd be nice if Iraq didn't lose too badly too. American foreign policy consists mostly of one stupid idea: to remain the only military superpower in the world, forever. It can't be done, yet it's officially stated in a document submitted to Congress in September of 2002 called "The National Security Strategy of the United States." It says among other things, "The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against its enemies and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged."

Never? Do you know what your ignorant short-sighted leaders are doing? They're laying the groundwork for the third world war. Looked at China and India lately? By the middle of this century at the latest, on current trends, at least one of them will have exceeded the United States' share of the global economy, and that means the global balance of power will also have shifted dramatically. If you continue to think America can continue to be the world's judge and executioner, you're going to come into serious conflict with another nation that can seriously challenge you both militarily and economically. And remember, the United States has about 4% of the global population. China and India are close to 20% each. You'll lose.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Are you kidding me Rev?

Nope, but I have a friend who raises goats. We could stake you out in his yard and see what the young ones make of you.

You do know that Damascus is the operational headquarters for Hamas, right?

You know that Hamas is considered a legitimate political organisation by many, especially in the Middle East, right?

Why in blue blazes does the Syrian government not get rid of this organization?

Why doesn't George Bush have Pat Robertson arrested?

Also, a UN report accused Syrian Intelligence in the assasination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former Prime Minister. How could you condone such actions?

Can you show me where I've condoned such actions? Of course you can't.

I still believe we went to Iraq after Afghanistan as a result of attack on our soil on 9/11, Dexter.

How could you possibly believe that? Even the nut-bags in the Bush administration have quit telling that particular lie.

We were simply going after those who attacked us first.

Iraq never attacked you. Why didn't you invade Saudi Arabia instead? Their people attacked you.

Even the Democrats were talking about Al Qaeda presence in Iraq some 3 years ago.

That's because Bush was diddling the intelligence. They were lied to.

Here's a quote from as far left as you can get ...

Hillary Clinton is far, far frm being a leftist. Do you know anything about politics at all?

Persistence has paid off. We haven't had any further attacks on our soil since we seriously started going after the terrorists.

Traditionally the pattern has been that the attacks are few and far between.

So any anyone could see, we were justified in going to Iraq.

No you weren't. You became international criminals once again when invaded Iraq. you also showed beyond a doubt that your president and his administration was a nest of rotten liars.

We got rid of a dictator who deliberately killed his own people.

Not to many years ago you defended and protected him when he killed his own people. Are you now admitting that Ronald Reagan was a war criminal?

This dictator was indeed involved with terrorism ... he was certainly paying off the families of Palistinian suicide bombers tens of thousands of dollars.

That's never been proven either, but even if he was not one of those bombers attacked the United States.

Let us hope he gets the death penalty so Iraqis can get justice.

Let's hope he discloses American complicity in his crimes against humanity.

I have to aske the question, James. If you believe so much in this war, then why don't you go sign up to fight it? You like guns and seem to fancy yourself some sort of John Wayne. If the military won't take you, there are security companies who will. You aren't one of those chickenhawks, are you?

 

[Karlin]

RE: Iran or Syria next fo

Eagle? Not there? American Eagle?
I could not wait to find out if I got it right, so I looked it up. It really does say Tonkin Valley once, but Gulf of Tonkin will do too. Got to be flexable in this world Eagle. Don't dwell on pissant problems or you become pissant yourself.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Don't dwell on pissant problems or you become pissant yourself.

Good advice, but a little late for the one you are giving it to.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: Iran or Syria next for Staged Terror excuse?

You knew about the Tonkin "VALLEY" Incident did you?

I would like to hear what you know about what happened in that valley to start the Vietnam War.

Don't look it up... tells us what you know.

It ought to be interesting. <smile>

OK, so you are sceptical that I have a clue. This doesn't really prove it or not, I read about Tonkin Valley and used it for this Staged Terror post-
EagleSmack - do you believe there have been Staged Terror attacks , ever?


here we go:
Tonkin Valley, off the top of my head now, was about an American warboat being blowed up by "someone". Media reported it at the time as Commies attacking USA boats, but now we figger it to be the USA themselves, a staged Terror attack.\
I don't know why they called it Valley, it was on the oceans off Vietnam. I can show you the article if I can find it again...

-was I even close Eagle? [not that it would mean anything]

Karlin

Yes I would like to see the article about the Tonkin Valley and how a "warboat was blowed up". I am sure once you read the article you will find it was actually called the Tonkin Gulf Incident and no US Warship was hit. Maybe your sources are different from the rest of the worlds.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: Iran or Syria next fo

You've never provided any proof that Syria is supporting terrorists though, James.

Are you kidding me Rev? You do know that Damascus is the operational headquarters for Hamas, right? Why in blue blazes does the Syrian government not get rid of this organization? Tear down their facility.

Also, a UN report accused Syrian Intelligence in the assasination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former Prime Minister. How could you condone such actions?

Right on the money James. Syria has always been a state sponsor of terrorism and has offered safe haven, money, intelligence, weapons and logistical support for Hamas.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Iran or Syria next fo

Wow! An eagle in a tailspin.

We all know about Tonkin, Eagleschmuck. Your president, a Texas loudmouth, lied to start a war. Just like the Texas loudmouth who going slowly insane today lied to start a war.

The United States has always been a state sponsor of terrorism. Illegal coups, illegal wars, people being disappeared, priests being murdered. You have no legitmacy at all when it comes to accusing others of state-sponsored terrorism. Your rogue state is hated all over the world because of your illegal actions. Your president and his chief advisors are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[EagleSmack]

Okay Eagleboy, so it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, not the Tonkin Valley incident. Wrong name, but he's got the basics of it right. You did not win the War of 1812 either. America achieved none of its war aims and was badly humiliated at least twice I can recall without having to look anything up, losing an army at Detroit and Queenston Heights, thanks to bad preparation and poor leadership. By even the most optimistic view, the best anyone could say on America's behalf about the War of 1812 is that it was a stalemate. It was just a skirmish on the fringes of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe anyway, and not of much significance in the larger scheme of things. Learn some real history, not the blinkered view of the world Americans are taught.

Back to the OP: I think Syria's a better bet than Iran. Iran's difficult territory for America to invade, for a variety of geographic and logistical reasons. Iraq was easy: a nice place to land seaborne forces, and a straight run across relatively flat terrain to the capital. Iran's not like that. Iran also has a professional and apparently fairly competent military force itself.

There's a built-in staging base right next door for a Syrian invasion though. Much easier.

A little off topic but I will respond. The War of 1812 was between the US and England. At the time the now nation of Canada was just another colony of England therefore your ancestors were still English subjects. It was mainly started over the British attacks of US ships on the high seas and the pressing of US Navy sailors into the Royal Navy.

It is true that the British Army sacked Washington but that same army was defeated at the Battle of Baltimore as they tried to take that city. The same army that was defeated before Washington routed the British army before Baltimore. Also Ft. McHenry withstood an all night bombardment stopping the RN. US incursions into the English territory of what is now the nation of Canada were repulsed as was every British incursion into the US.

However with the losses of a few battles the Americans had some astounding victories such as the Battle of Lake Erie where a force of 5000 defeated a British force of 14,000!

Although we weren't able to wrest control of British Territories the British gave up their claims to the North West.

Canada become a self governing province starting in 1867 which was many decades after the War of 1812.

In all of my research I could not find a surrender document that states that the US surrendered to Canada.

But hey... if it makes you feel good.

 

[EagleSmack]

No tailspin here. Flying high as always above the rest.

We have every right to pursue our goals as we see fit and will continue to do so.

And we are loved all over the world by people who seek freedom and justice and have always been a Beacon of Hope. That is why we are called upon first when some country needs a hand.

 

[Jo Canadian]

No one's denying that the Brits were in control then eh? Just look at earlier topics about 1812. The Brits however were more or less commanding the units. The units were predominantly LOCALS, many from Halifax. (which actually means Holy Hair for some reason) So they weren't canadians then but their kids ended up being them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

We have every right to pursue our goals as we see fit and will continue to do so.

No actually, you have no such right. Only a rogue state would make such a claim.

And we are loved all over the world by people who seek freedom and justice and have always been a Beacon of Hope. That is why we are called upon first when some country needs a hand.

You have become, under the direction of George Bush, the most universally despised country on the planet. Even your friends don't like you anymore.

 

[EagleSmack]

Oh I am not saying that the ancestors of what are now known as Canadian citizens did not take part as militiamen. However the bulk of the fighting was done by British Regulars. During that time armies always augmented their regular army with militias or mercenaries.

 

[peapod]

Your not respected eaglesmack, and you are the best example so far as to why that is. You are hated because of your foreign policy. You protect your own interests at the expense of others. Your hypocrites. And your not going to be the super power for long.

Henry de Montherlant put the following statement in the mouth of one of his characters (a journalist): “One nation that manages to lower intelligence, morality, human quality on nearly all the surface of the earth, such a thing has never been seen before in the existence of the planet. I accuse the United States of being in a permanent state of crime against humankind.” America, from this point of view, is a symbol for all that is grotesque, obscene, monstrous, stultifying, stunted, leveling, deadening, deracinating, deforming, and rootless.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Canada become a self governing province

That's "country," not "province." A province is a sub-national political unit analogous to your states.

In all of my research I could not find a surrender document that states that the US surrendered to Canada.

But hey... if it makes you feel good.

Very disingenuous. There isn't one that says Canada or Britain surrendered to the U.S. either, but there is a document. It's called the Treaty of Ghent, signed in Ghent, Belgium, on Christmas Eve 1814 by Great Britain and the US to end the War of 1812. From Funk&Wagnall's Multimedia Encyclopedia (an American publication): "The military situation was so balanced that neither side had achieved its war aims. Consequently, none of the issues over which the nations fought was included in the treaty. It was simply agreed to return to the status quo ante bellum: there was nothing on neutral rights or impressment, no mention of the question of Indian lands in the Midwest, and all captured territory was returned." i.e. stalemate. Subsequent disputes between Britain and the U.S. have been resolved by negotiation and joint commissions of various sorts.

But if you want to look at it another way, it was the U.S. that declared war on Britain, achieved exactly nothing, and didn't even get the major issue that led to the declaration--British high-handedness at sea, including the searching of American ships and impressment during the Napoleonic blockade--incorporated into the treaty. i.e. you lose.

There's no honest way to look at it in which the U.S. can be considered the victor.