Home, Archive, Stuff, Random thoughts, London, My Rigs, Pictures, Dreams, Links, About, Contact, Search
 

spikegifted - Random thoughts

 

Iraq Votes

January 30, 2005

[Originally posted by diehrd]

I wonder how many people in the free world would brave bombings and gun fire to fill out a form ? A form that will in the end will bring a government to IRAQ. Not a dictator, not repression, not rule by intimidation and torture, but a government elected by the people it will serve.

---

January 31, 2005

Many congratulations to the Iraqi nation. After several decades of dictatorship and nearly two years of foreign occupation, the Iraqis went to the polls for the first time in half a century. I am encouraged by the turn out of the election and was pleasantly surprised by the relative lack of violence accompanying the polls. While I personally do not believe these elections will yield the result that the US and UK governments want, I am nevertheless pleased to see democratic rights being exercised, given the opportunity, only to prove to the two occupiers of the country that they may be wrong.

Now, what happens if the Iraqis votes themselves some of form of Islamic fundamentalist government?

---

February 6, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave and Spike I enjoy your intelegent posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, whether it is actually intelligent or not is not for me to decide. However, I certainly have thought about it long and hard. This I think is more important and merely absorbing state-sponsored media (or propaganda) that so many people around the world are subjected.

---

February 7, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then the question is how are you NOT subjected to state sponsered media?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might be, I try not to be. As my main news source is the BBC, which I think is about as fair a news source as I can obtain on a readily available format, I hope so.

But are you?

---

February 7, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. That was my point. All news is subject to the views of those who have the means to get the news out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I must be misunderstanding something... What is your 'no' referring to? Do you mean you're not influenced by news media that have a story with a point to tell or are you telling me that you don't do BBC News?

---

February 8, 2005

Believe it or not, I think Americans will swallow a lot more, for a lot longer, if they have to. The reason? The US administration is giving the American people the idea that Muslims around the world hate America because of its freedom, liberty and democratic ideals; and those Muslims want to destroy America because of these things.

However, at least for bin Laden and al Qaeda, they don't actually hate America for what it is. They hate America for what it does. In other words, it's foreign policies: - supporting Israel, - occupying Islam's holy lands, - supporting corrupt, repressive and democratic states in the Middle East (for the sake of oil national interests), - supporting other countries' (Russia, China, India, etc...) actions against Muslims and - military strikes against Muslim countries.

Until the American government changes it foreign policies, America will always be under threat. Simple. However, the administration can't/won't admit what it's doing is actually hurting America's interest in the long run (and costing more money and lives than otherwise) - so it continues where it left off... Until the American people collectively recognize what the government is actually hurting their interest, they'll continue to believe the world is against them and will continue to 'swallow'.

---

February 8, 2005

DaveAtFraud:

I think you're suffering from the 'broad paint brush' that your president just love... If you ever have the time to take a look at what al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamist are doing, you'd recognize that they're merely deploying terroristic methods for something a lot more strategic - namely uprising/insurgence. I don't know that was the Libyans' motivation in blowing up Pan Am 103. They never told anyone. However bin Laden has told the world repeatedly why he attacks the US. There's no ambiguity in his stance - if only if you bother to take notice of it. And I think you should, for he will not stop until either he gets killed or he succeed. And judging by how 'successful' the mightiest army on the planet is doing against him and his band of 'terrorists', you'd be fighting him and his sympathizers for many years to come.

---

February 9, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Libya has become one of the success stories in the US war with the Islamic terrorists... Khadafi could see what was unfolding in Iraq and he quickly threw open the doors to British and American weapons experts in January 2004 inviting them to destroy tons of Mustard agent that he had stockpiled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry to disappoint the one major diplomatic 'score' you mentioned above. I'll let the Washington Post (which is a newspaper no less ‘patriotic’ than others) to do the talking:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain, which broke off diplomatic relations with Libya in 1984 after the police officer was killed, has led the campaign to bring Libya back into the fold. Britain resumed relations in 1999, and the MI6 intelligence service established close contacts with its Libyan counterparts, leading to an approach last March by the head of Libyan intelligence, Musa Kusa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless my recent memory is really letting me down, I think it would be accurate to state that what has happened to Saddam and what is happening to Iraq happened way after 1999.

---

February 9, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the very article you quoted:

“Britain and the United States have hailed Gaddafi's turnaround as a positive consequence of the Iraq war because, officials asserted, Gaddafi decided to avoid the fate of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who lost power and is in U.S. custody.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can’t you guys just look, for once, beyond that stupid ‘axis of evil’ bullsh!t that your administration sold you? One of the reasons, and I’m sure there’re many, is that by the late 1990s Libya was facing an Islamic insurgency within its borders. These folks are along the same line as bin Laden and al Qaeda. Yes, Libya has been fighting against terrorism since the mid-1990s!! Of course, you won't know that, because no-one in the US will dare to report any positive about the Libyan leader...

You spend all your time wallowing in the bullsh!t that your government sells you and you don’t even know it – swallowing the whole thing: hook, line and sinker. You're not the only victim here - it's the whole world. Get real!

---

February 9, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize you’re a bit upset about being made to look…let’s see, what’s a useful diplomatic term?…ah, careless. I easily demonstrated that you hadn’t even thoroughly read or understood, the one article that you offered as ‘proof’ of your position.

It appears as though “you guys” must include a large percentage of people in your own government. You’ll get over your snit… or not.

By the way, you two guys have to get on the same page: “Libya has been fighting against terrorism since the mid 1990’s,” and “dictatorships that did and still do support terrorism (like Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.).”

“…because no-one in the US will dare to report any positive about the Libyan leader...,” sure we do: he’s positively in our pocket now. This is fun. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, the one article that I used was, as you rightly pointed out, careless in that there were contents in there completely contradicts my point. However, I chose that article to demonstrate the fact that the UK has been talking, 'behind the scene', to the Libyans for nearly 5 years to get to the point where the article was written. Libyans didn't just sh!t bricks when they saw what happened to Saddam.

Libya is a military dictatorship and a 'socialist' one - hence secular, despite having some of its laws based on Islamic laws. Bin Laden, al Qaeda and groups related to al Qaeda don't like dictatorships and certainly don't like secular states and are no friends of the Libyan dictatorship.

Aren't you a little close-minded to think that states that supported terrorists of one sort doesn't suffer from terrorism from another source? As I have mentioned in another thread, the world isn't just black 'n white, it's a whole spectrum of grays... And there're different tones of gray, and some tones don't like others.

I can't stand the present government of the UK. I can't stand the current prime minister and his cronies. That is not suggesting that there is any politician in this country can be described as 'better'. I live in a liberal democratic society and it is my right and my obligation as a member of this society to express my thoughts on those who have been elected to act on mine and my fellow citizens' behalf. I'm very patriotic - which means that I exercise my right of freedoms of speech and thought to support actions and policies that I think are right for this country and criticize those that I feel are harmful to it. This is called 'loyal opposition'. Moreover, this does not mean I shut down my own thought process (however meager it is) and follow the 'party line'.

---

February 11, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick answer before I call it a night. You seem to believe, for who knows what reason, that we are all the equivalent of "Bush ditto heads" (reference is to followers of Rush Limbaugh if it doesn't make sense). Consider the possibility that Bush was re-elected because what he had to say about terrorism and what to do about it was what most Americans believe (or at least those of us who vote). THAT'S WHY WE VOTED FOR HIM. It's really that simple. It isn't a case of mass brain washing by the Administration.

As to believing bin Laden... I rarely (if ever) believe what mass murders or criminals say in order to justify their actions. It may prove useful to listen to what they say with regard to predicting their actions but, like Hitler, megalomaniacs say whatever they need to say at the moment and have no compunctions about repudiating it at a later date if doing so fits their needs. Whether bin Laden himself even believes what he says is irrelevant other than the extent to which his public spewage constrains his future actions by risking alienating his followers and supporters if he contradicts it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m sure that national security was high up on the list of important things considered by American voters during last year’s Presidential Election. However, I’m certain (and I hope) that it was not the only issue. I know that national security dominated the headlines, but I sincerely hope that people didn’t vote for Bush simply on the basis of his defense policy. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are single-issue parties. So, on the balance of things, I guess that 51% of the people who bother to vote endorse Bush’s package of policies. This I think can be substantially different from simply endorsing one single policy.

Referring to your cross referencing bin Laden/al Qaeda with Adolf Hitler/Nazis/WWII/Holocaust, I really don’t see where you find the link. If you choose not to bother with what bin Laden has to say, at least you should know the reason why. IMHO, *Anonymous* has written one of the best, if not the best, book on Islamic terrorism in Imperial Hubris. He is a patriot. He is a professional intelligence analyst working for the CIA. He understands the threat post by Islamic insurgents. He knows the reason why bin Laden doesn’t like US foreign policy. You’d do well to read and take in his words.

---

February 11, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has a vital interest in Iraq having a stable and independent government. Note that I didn't include the words democratic or representative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, can you contrast what you've written above with Saddam's regime?

---

February 11, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow I doubt the CIA can verify his credentials by cross-referencing their agent list against the name "anonymous". 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And somehow I doubt your doctorate school can verify your credentials by cross-referencing the enrolment list against 'okamsrazor'.

---

February 12, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it stands anyone writing a book and backing their "evidence" given to show its truth is a claimed credential, not a documented one, is subject to being discredited. Everything he/she claims in the book may be 100% true, but using a credential that is not verifiable as a reason to believe you is pointless. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is so easy to be dismissive. I have to agree with you that you probably have caught me out. This is a classic "the chicken and the egg" situation and I have to say that since the guy doesn't give his name, there's no way of checking his credential, so I guess you're saying that we can't believe anything he says.

On the other hand, would you care to compare and contrast the following two statements?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

No, actually it means Doctorate schools are small and this is a message board where I choose to remain anonymous. If I listed my school it would be a small step to figure out who I am. This is the same reason I do not link to articles I have written or my dissertations.

okamsrazor, contributing to 2CPU.com Forums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anonymous" is a senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security related to Afghanistan and South Asia... As in [his previous book], the author remains anonymous as the condition for securing his employer's permission to publish Imperial Hubris

*Anonymous*, Imperial Hubris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These two statements are substantially and materially the same, except one is you giving your reason for being anonymous and the other the author of two fine books. One is the excuse given by you to remain anonymous in these forums, while the other is a condition imposed by his employers. Now, I have to admit that *Anonymous* may not be an intelligence office, we just don't know. Yet his action, if it is true, is force on by his employers, while you choose yours.

Anyway, *Anonymous* may or may not be the "Real McCoy", but there're people sticking their necks out for him. There's a guy called Bruce Hoffman who "[i]s an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and insurgency who has been studying terrorism and terrorists and insurgency and guerrillas for nearly 30 years" and "[i]s a Senior Fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY and an Adjunct Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C."

Now, I don't know who's Dr. Bruce Hoffman and I don't know anything about RAND, but he seems to know a thing or two about something and he's singing high praises written by *Anonymous*... Well, this is not exactly credentials, but it seems like a good place to start.

---

February 12, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is quite a difference between choosing to remain anonymous in a format where EVERYONE remains so and in a format where you offer your word as proof, but deny the readers a way to view your credentials. I have yet to see you post your address, phone number, etc in the general forum. My choice is very obvious, since posting my field of study and school would be the equivalent to me giving you that information. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the difference is between you choosing to remain anonymous in a place where you can be as visible as you choose to be and *Anonymous* being forced to remain so by his employers or he'll either lose his job or have his book banned.

---

February 12, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually my money is on Iran being invaded next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you've hit the nail on the head there...

I remember prior to invading Iraq, President Bush repeatedly said there's no plan on his desk for an invasion, but we know Rumsfeld and Gen. Frank were working on an invasion plan. How? Bob Woodward told all of us in Bush at War and Woodward had exclusive access and cooperation from everyone, fron the President down...

So a few months later, fine young Americans were being sent to their deaths. Well, I guess there was no plans on Bush's desk but one was being worked out as he spoke...

---

February 13, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Iran, Syria. The Israelis have wanted to wipe out the Syrian influence in Lebanon and the Hezbollah group for many years. The US Army actually has a manual stating that it is not feasible to attack Iran as the geography is not conducive to a war since the mountains limit aircraft support. This is before the US had a chuck of real estate in Iraq, but crossing a heavily mined border with your Aircraft facing severe difficulties is not appealing. Expect an "incident" between Israel and Syria and a quick set of US "aid" on the side of Israel. With Syria injured Iran will settle down and give in to all US/European demands to give up its nuke program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Behold, the vision of a world living in peace with the US leading the way: "You can do whatever you want with your country, as long as you do what we, the US, tell you."

---

February 13, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, his book BANNED? Sounds like we better start heating up the ovens to 451. He CHOSE to remain unknown, his employer can not force him to NOT reveal himself (they can fire him, but if he has the "truth" to reveal its worth it, right?). It is always a choice to remain anonymous, the question is did he remain that way because the credentials were fake or because of fear of retaliation? Since we do not know who it you we do not know who wrote the book. Therefore, caution tells you they are likely fake unless proven otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quit his job... That's the kind of action a bone-headed a$$hole would do. Certainly not someone who's an intelligent person, who is above all a patriot who knows how he can best serve his country.

What is he going to do? Become an overpaid 'consultant'? He hates people like that. Become a peace activist? He's no dove! He actually felt the US didn't go into Afghanistan hard enough. Staying where he is and doing the job that he's good at - protect his country by analyzing the intelligence information gathered by others - is the only thing to do, other than alerting others the wrongs of the 'system'.


Link to 2CPU.com Forum