Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: Edwin Hurwitz <edwin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:39:27 -0700
In article <fj47gt$799$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
kludge@xxxxxxxxx (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Bill <trash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was thinking of the propaganda value of the Moslems dancing in the
streets after 9/11. It might have been true. It might also have been
irrelevant-- think about an Islamic reporter coming to America looking
for some juicy bigotted comments with which to inflame the Moslem
world-- it wouldn't be hard at all. Would it be a fair representation
of America? Of course not. Was the clip of the Moslems dancing in the
streets a fair representation of the Moslem world? But I heard many
people cite that clip as justification for a harsh response.
The famous clip shown was of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Now, this
doesn't suprise me much; America is not very popular in Palestine. But the
Palestinians of course had nothing to do with 9-11 or with Iraq either for
that matter. The rest of the Moslem world isn't so well-liked in Palestine
either.
Now "60 Minutes" aired a segment in which an Anglican priest described
how things are immeasurably worse for Christians in Iraq now than they
ever were under Saddam. How can a thoughtful person not think seriously
about what that means for what we have been led to believe about Iraq?
Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good intentions
but without any strategy or any concept of what they were doing, and that
the end result was disasterous for everybody involved in the conflict and a
lot of folks who weren't.
The question that folks can't agree on is what to do about it now.
--scott
I agree with your concluding question, but I disagree that everyone
agree we went in with the best of intentions. I knew before it happened
(along with the other millions of people worldwide who also marched)
that it was a bad idea with no good intentions behind it whatsoever. It
was clearly part of the PNAC plan that had nothing to do with the best
interest of 99% of the Americans or Iraqis. It was done for a few
reasons:
1) oil
2) perhaps to settle a Freudian score vis a vis GHW Bush
3) to set up a free market economic wet dream
4) to set up huge military bases and a monster embassy from which to
control middle east exploits.
5) to make military contractor and civilian contractor friends of Cheney
and Bush fantastically wealthy.
There are probably a few I've missed, but I don't really see any good
intentions in there. The above were all incredibly obvious to me before
the war started. Bush wanted a war in Iraq and he got it. What W wants,
W gets was how the paradigm was going. Another spoiled rich kid.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: David Morgan \(MAMS\)
- Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- References:
- O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: gmin9th
- Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: Richard Crowley
- OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: David Morgan \(MAMS\)
- Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: Bill
- Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- From: Scott Dorsey
- O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- Prev by Date: Re: Monster Cables
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Re: Re: O.T. I've got to take a Sudan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading