WE know that throughout the world, the US is reviled by Muslim in Muslim nations. It is not uncommon for polls to report that over 90% of the people of a Muslim nation hate the US.
Yet some Muslim nations benefited from the invasion of Iraq and other Muslim nations are already dealing with the sequellae of the US invasion of Iraq and will suffer even more when the US departs.
Before the US does exit Iraq, it makes sense to bring these countries into the conversation and planning. That’s something the Bush administration has been embarassingly bad at doing. Since Bush keep seeking “victory” this option has not even been on the table, but it’s time to put it on the table. .
Saudi Arabia saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to get US troops out of their country.
Kuwait must be seeing billions in business from the US presence there.
Turkey must have mixed feelings. The Iraq war gave the Kurds, a fractious group seeking independence in Turkey, a place of their own in Iraq-- but also a place where operations aimed at taking the Kurdish part of Turkey.
Iran was at war with Saddam. The US eliminated Iran's biggest enemy and allowed Iran to focus all its archaic, no, make that Neanderthal psychotic religious extremism on Israel, while focusing on taking Iran by Shiite alliances.
Lebanon's Hezbollah has massively benefited from Iran's largesse, and Iran’s largesse was made possible because the Iraq war took the burden off of their war efforts with Iraq, so they could invest in war elsewhere.
Egypt and many other Muslim nations have been experiencing increased levels of Islamic Jihadist fundamentalist activity, including terrorist violence, efforts at theocratic takeovers and intimidation of secular civilians-- not unlike Taliban dictates.
I'm no Middle East expert, but that's a starting list of nations with a vested interest in getting on board when it comes to planning what to do when the US exits Iraq, because it is timeďż˝"past the time when the US should get the hell out of Iraq.
Bush was an idiot, liar and moron for getting us in there. He did it with the historically incompetent help and hubris of Rumsfeld and the lies and machinations of Cheney. But, like parents cleaning up after a sick child with diarrhea, we have to clean up the mess Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Neocons and Reublican enablers, like John McCain and Joe Lieberman perpetrated.
Actually, maybe diarrhea isn’t the right analogy. Maybe mental illness is more apropos. When a member of your family becomes profoundly mentally ill�"violent, delusional, psychotic�" it is necessary to take extreme means to protect the family. Sometimes you have to call in the help of the police, who will then use handcuffs and involuntary means of getting things under control. It’s not pretty. It is painful to make the choice to do it and sometimes, the patient gets hurt. But it’s necessary to prevent things from getting worse.
When a village discovers that it has been hurt by an idiot and a criminal, it must do all it can to make things right-- for the people who have been hurt and for itself.
The US is responsible for the tragedy of Iraq, but it cannot continue to stay there, as Bush and his incompetent, apologist generals insist.
Someone has to say-- we're sorry-- our nutcase president screwed up, and you've been hurt. But we are not helping staying as things are.
Someone has to say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and other Muslim states-- "we're pulling out and you need to get involved in fixing this mess. It's not your fault that things are like they are today, but you played a role. You either fought Saddam or you had issues in the area or you are, at this point, already a victim or soon to become one. .
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I wish I had the competence with a computer to refute you statements in the order you present them.
First I present the most accurate statement you have made here, "I'm no Middle East expert....", and I freely follow that by saying " neither am I". I have however read some history and formed opinions based on the experiences notable personages have encountered in their dealings with peoples of the region.
You say some Muslim nations benefit, others do not.
All Muslim Nations are dictatorships, dictated by the Koran. If the rulers benefit, and they may, any benefits the people of said nation enjoy are attributed to the dictator. So when you say 90% of a population hates the US, without adding the caveat of a total control of information and the official "feeling" being reinforced by religious leaders in all aspects of Muslim society, on every level of governess, in every village or city, is to grant them status of a free society, making informed choices.
Your piece calls for the various Muslim Nations to come together, (in harmony?), to form a consensus opinion to guide the region after a US exit.
Not too long ago, newspapers published an account of a white house meeting of various Iraqi Muslim leaders and president Bush, 2 months before the US invasion. The Muslims were trying to pin Bush down on his plans for the aftermath, would Iraq's power be invested in Sunni or Shia leaders, our president, the Yale history major, is quoted to say " I thought they were all Muslims in Iraq."
Bush has admitted he does not read, I know Rob Kall must read, to have to have such a high command of so many divergent topics. So I take the liberty to recommend some books that will illuminate the fractures in Islamic society that will negate the possibility of these 'affected' countries coming together in mutual fraternity.
The Saudis saw more than a way or excuse to remove the US troop presence from the Muslim holy land. They saw a way to pacify the Wahhabi leaders that are from the start of the 'house of Saud's' regime, equal partners in their legitimacy as rulers. -- read
" The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by T.E.Lawrence
learn how the house of Saud became dominate. The British agent, Lawrence chose them specifically because of the total control their Wahhabi religious clerics held over all aspects of the tribe. For Lawrence, who was looking for agents to conduct guerrilla activity against the transportation system of the Ottoman Turks that was supplying Germany with war material during WWI, a strong leader with an obedient following was an easier entity to recruit than a group of free thinkers that would need to be convinced or bribed individually. Before Faisal was allowed to lead the clan in Lawrence's' activities, he was required to swear his allegiance to the Wahhabi clerics.
The House of Saud still bends to the will of Wahhabi clerics today.
Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi ' Evangelist', To not understand the difference between a Wahhabi and another Sunni with the life style of, say Saddam Hussein, is to miss the entire ethical point of contention between Eastern and Western interests. It is all based in ignorance of the other side.
To gain an understanding of the contentions between Eastern rulers and the religious leaders their dictates must placate I recommend reading some history on the religions followed by their people. You will find that each sect is formed and reinforced by aversion to the beliefs of other, related sects. It seems they despise apostates more than any foreign enemy.
The Ismaili sect of the Shia is a small representation of the total Shia population, which is itself a 10-20% segment of the Muslim population of the world.
To believe that the Iranians and Syrians can work together to form a consensus on the Iraqi future because they are all classed as Shia is to be totally ignorant of the difference between an Alawi belief and a Ismali belief, both Shia. A good start to understanding the contentions and disparities is;
FARHAD DAFTARY
"THE ISMAILIS"
'THEIR HISTORY AND DOCTRINES'
1990
Again, I make no pretense to expertise here, but I have read extensively about the crusades, WWI, WWII, and the historical events that culminated to form the 'world' I am forced to endure.
I have read of the Mongols and their encounters with the peoples of this area in the 13Th century, and my reading into Alexander the Great's conquest describe similar duplicity that the khans saw 600 years after Mohamed died, still prevalent in the region long before he lived. It comes from the very structure of the tribal nature. The same basic adherence to one 'strong' man rule that allowed a religion of total submission to be accepted by the masses of the populace that accepted it.
A reading of the agreements made between the major powers at the conclusion of WWI will negate the Kuwaiti claims of prosperity and justify Saddam's claim that it is the 19Th province of Iraq. The oldest Biblical texts and Alexanders accounts give proof that the land now called Kuwait has always been under the umbrella of control of the city up river, now named Baghdad.
As to the Kurds, historically they are referred to with negative prose by all sources I have read. Alexander to the Mongols consider them a nuisance, but one worthy of mention I might add. The Turks, Persians, and Arabs each disavow and disenfranchise them. Now it is America's turn. The Balfour agreement took no notice of them, the UN does not recognize them, and yet they do not succumb. Someone should recognize the Kurds as a people independent of the arbitrary lines drawn on pieces of paper by Western corporatist dividing their 'booty'.
Another statement you make here and have made often in previous writings is that Bush is an idiot with a failed policy.
I do not argue in behalf of Bush's mental capacity. Therefore I assume he was picked and placed in office by an entity that wanted a malleable front man to execute their own agenda from the office of president.
I will continue holding my belief that the neo-con agenda has been a complete success until I am shown that Bush is not a moron. Until then he is a puppet acting out the speeches written for him by an entity I can not see. For me, or anyone to call the actions of a man in that situation a failure is to assume those actions were initiated with the same goal for an out come.
If, on the other hand, the entity behind the curtain that put the 'moron' Bush into the most powerful seat on the planet, directed him to use the implausible Arab attack on the Trade Towers to invade Iraq as a diversion to accomplish specific goals, such as;
To enact the patriot act, curb freedom of travel, intercept electronic communications of citizens, arrest them with out warrant or legal resource, remove Union representation of government employees, strip the country of it's manufacturing base, sell our Nation's resources to private, often foreign corporations for a pittance, run up the National debt to choke future recovery and keep our children enslaved to interest payments instead of social reform.
If all these restrictions were the goal from the outset,.....
Well then, I'm not willing to say that those actions this administration has made in the name of Us citizens has been a failure until I know who comprises the entity behind the curtain that was able to get this ' moron' into the presidency of the US,even over the popular vote of citizens that voted in corrupted poling places by getting the Supreme Court to intercede,really wanted to accomplish.
I gave up believing that Bush cared about 'The American People' when he pushed his tax cuts for the 1% while advocating a missle defence and Mars human landing.
When I know who is the real power that pulls the Bush strings and what they expected as a result that an unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the US would result in, I can not call it a failure.
If I was a guy that wanted to control the world, all by myself, I do believe I would call it a pretty good days work. and a complete success.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 190 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 2:32:25 AM
I know about the Wahabist factor in Saudi Arabia, but will have to learn more about the Shia sects.
Nonetheless,I stand by my article. The Muslim nations must get involved. I wasn't clear on it, but it's unlikely there will be high levels of cooperation. Still, this is not going to be optional. They will have to grit their teeth, hold their noses and work with each other. This job is worse than the Herculean taks of cleaning out the stables of Solomon-- there's a lot of shit to deal with. And it stinks.
Regarding the man behind the curtain-- there SHOULD be more discussion of who those players are.
by
Rob Kall (748 articles, 3834 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1613 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 8:14:27 AM
However I see a little bit of cart before horse logic that I would like to explore.
In the case of Iran, Amadinajhad (sic) campaigned on a platform of social and economic reform before the actions of the USA and Israel forced him towards a more radical platform. Iran is, after all, a European nation and, while muslim, not an Arab state.
Iraq, prior to our illegal invasion of that nation, was a bastion against radical Islamic extremists and a buffer to the control of the region by AlQaeda and the like. A more enlightened, or less agendised, US government could and should have worked to make Hussein a bit less prone to torture and murder, or worked with those within Iraq who would oppose the Ba'athist regime. The result would have been a bit better than it is now with Iraq remaining outside the sway of religious extremism and not a contributor to it.
I would not minimise the facts of Islamic radicalism but would ask that you understand that our every action there has inflamed and exacerbated that radicalism, for a purpose of course. Islam should not be viewed through the lens of extremism as that distorts and confuses. History teaches us that there have been many instances of muslim nations being quite tolerant of other religions. Iraq has the oldest synagogue and catholic church in existence you might understand and there is a history of tolerance to women and religious freedoms as well within the middle east. I must add that there certainly are occasions of the opposite of course, dependent upon the type of ruler and political exigencies.
Rather than blame Islam I would place the blame for what is occuring in that region squarely on the shoulders of those who see it as an opportunity for profit and imperialism.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 10:26:13 AM
and any perusal of my older posts here would soon uncover my support for exactly that "solution" to the Iraqi problem. I have been an advocate for a UN controlled effort in Iraq, with the troops wearing the blue helmets coming from Islamic nations.
Of course, as Powell so eloquently noted, we broke it so we own it, thus we must pay for it.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 6:21:54 PM
Ardee,
I did not get out of your response where you think I put 'the cart before the horse'
Rob Kall,
I take liberty to answer the question, "is it viable"
In 350 BC, Alexander set out with the army his father, Philip had trained and equipped to attack the Persian Empire. Alexander found tribal leaders on his campaign who offered alliances to him, in order to eliminate the local control other subjects of Darius had over their personal advancement in their local region. This was 1,000 years before Mohamed was born.
In 650 AD, when Mohamed spread the Islamic faith, he did it by taking the neighboring city/states by the sword, and offering conversion or death.
In 1200 AD, the Knights Templar created alliances with the 'assassins', fore-runners of today's Ismailis, in their contest for the Holy Lands.
The Ismaili are Shia, therefore followers of Ali, Mohamed's son-in-law, married to Fatima.All Shia believe Allah's words come from the direct genes of Ali's progeny. Some Shia sects hold that the true descendant of Allah's words come from Ali and Fatima's off-spring while other Shia sects allow the legitimacy of children of Ali and his other wives. These opposing Shia despise each other.
The Sunni are believers in the word/conduit to Allah being transferred to the companions of Mohamed, one of which is voted supreme by the other twelve to be the acknowledged voice and interpreter of Allah's words.
Mohamed left no instruction from his talks with Allah, on who was to pick up the reins of leadership he released at death, He also left no written words of his conversations with Allah. The Koran was written 50 years after his death by Ali, recording the tales of the companions.
Ali and his followers believed the 'Title' was his by genetic right, the companions voted others of their number to office three times before it was Ali's turn to be elected. the previous three having 'died' in office.
Ali made decrees in Allah's name providing for His progeny to be the only eligible pool of candidates for elevation from then on. This dis-enfranchised the companions of Mohamed and those that were elevated to fill the seats of the deceased.
The resulting assassination attempts and battles between opposing followers ended with Ali and his followers driven from the land of the holy sites. They found refuge in Egypt among the Mameluke's, Europeans sold to Egypt as slaves for centuries by Greek and Roman conquerors.
When the Sunni gained strength and advanced on Egypt, the Shia fled to the area of today's Iraq. The Golden Mosque, that was bombed last year by Sunni 'terrorist', was the site were all of Ali's blood line in line for leadership were assassinated by Sunni treachery. All bodies were recovered except that of a boy... Today referred to as the "Hidden Imam". This "Hidden Imam" is prophesied to come again in flesh to lead the Shia to the caliphate. Until then , He appears to certain clerics to relate the will of Allah.
There is not now, or historically any fraternity between Shia and Sunni. There is only conquest and retribution, revenge and duplicity.
Both branches of Islam have myriads of diverse sects, at odds with their closest relations. The one thing that binds them is protection of the Lands of Allah. This is not to say they will come together to protect it, but be assured they will ALL defend it individually.
So I have to say Rob, NO it is not viable. The only solution I see besides re-instating Saddam, is to pull out and let them fight it out 'till another 'strong man' arises from the sewer we cut and run from.
Either that , or show the people by example that all religion is a means of crowd control by exploiters in office of all the world's governments by banning all public displays and dispensations to religion in all Western nations, Tax them out of existance.Use the proceeds to educate the people. Eliminate the need of them having a stronger GOD than us by eliminating ours.
Islam was never more than a weapon in an arms race, competing with Moses and Christ.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 190 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:12:50 AM
You are aware, of course, that both Moses and Jesus are treated by Muslims as important prophets. Just as I am certain you understand that many of the worlds major religions can be seen as committing atrocities, though these are by the most extreme of its members. By far the vast majority of the worlds 1.4 billion followers of Islam are tolerant and peace loving people, just as the vast majority of the worlds christians are likewise. There certainly have been instances wherein Christian and Jew were mistreated in Islamic nations with unenlightened leaders, just as in European nations with the same sort of rulers. There are also many instances wherein all lived together in harmony and peace..
You display a command of the history of the Islamic religion, and events unfolded pretty much as you stated them, to the best of my (limited) knowledge. You also see the gulf between the Shia and the Sunni people that inflames the Iraqi situation. A great majority, long held in check by a small minority that held all the power under the Ba'athist regime, now finds itself in power and exacts its revenge. Added to the inflammatory nature of our occupation and you have quite a mess, one that very well might end in partition of an unnatural nation.
Nevertheless, given that our presence in Iraq, and Afghanistan to a lesser degree, inflames the situation, gives those like AlQaeda greater sway than they would have given our absence, one must accept that we must leave. Therefore we have but two choices. Leave and let the course of events take their chaotic and bloody course, or seek a solution in which the blood is kept minimal.
The replacement of US and British forces in Iraq with UN forces, comprised of Muslim armed forces under UN command seems the only way to achieve the minimal violence while allowing Iraq to be what it will.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 7:33:05 PM
Your obvious intellect makes your words that much more damning, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
There are, as you well know, over one billion muslims in this world. You blithely and unforgivably condemn every single one of them for the actions of a statistically tiny fragment of the most extremist among them. Shame on you.
Do you then state that Catholics can never bring peace to catholic nations because of the history of violence in those nations, because there was once something called an Inquisition? Does Torquemada sour you on all who follow the teachings of Christ? Do you condemn all christians because some murder abortion doctors or burn abortion clinics? Do you?
Your logic is couched in literate phrases and a knowledge of history, it is very sad indded that you use that fine education to preach so despicably. Perhaps you might return to freerepublic.com where you would be more at home, or some American nazi web site. You are preaching hatred and intolerance.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 23, 2006 at 10:45:56 AM
I at first intended to write a personal letter to you objecting to the hostility in your vindictive responses to posts that I made, taking them as attacks on my character, as I'm confident they were intended.
I am a member of the IBEW, and have run across one or two dues paying members in the past whom I considered a detriment to the gene pool of the species. I have determined that not all brothers are Brothers.
I decided however, to not let your erroneous interpretation of the nature of Islam's roots stand uncontested in a public forum that even you admitted was historically accurate.
The contention between you and I is based on the Nature or Nurture argument. What makes a human being's character? What provokes his base emotions and guides his responsive reactions?
The base nature of a human being has never been studied. To do so, a vacuum would be required, no education, no survival skills, no social interaction lessons. The test subject would die within a week, either from dangers he was unaware of or starvation for want of ability. Everything a human knows is taught by experience. The experience every human absorbs the most fully, is taken in during the formative years of very early childhood.
As far as the history of homo sapien-sapiens is concerned, all known religions are a new invention. Well less than 10% of our existence as a species.
Most modern nations that have a majority population that follow the teachings of Buddha, also have an even stronger respect for their ancestors.
Most of the modern nations that adhere to a Christ based religion, see free-will used in positive ways by individuals, as a noble life-span that benefits the majority of their community, and one to aspire to.
Most of the Hindu nation's people are admired for, and aspire to, purity of self.
Most Islamic nations are populated by people who are raised from birth to submit to Paternal authority. Their fathers submit to clan leaders, their clan leaders submit to tribal leaders.
I do not propose to grade the different belief systems. As an agnostic, I consider each from it's text, and find them all without merit of further consideration except as catalyst to calamity.
I will however insist that each religion is formed AROUND the very nature of the culture it took root in. The culture was and will be inherent in the way mothers raise their children. It is always her, in all cultures, that instills the accepted path to finding the purity inherent in all human's base nature. The mother teaches what she was taught, what her community accepts. It soon becomes the norm.
As the first direct written account of European civilization came from Julius Caesar, as he was marching his legions into the homeland of the Gauls, it is unfair of you to compare the 1.4 billion Muslims the world houses as the equivalent to the 1.2 billion Christians, or any of the other major religions that can compete in numbers of their adherents.
Archaeological evidence is persuasive that the people that emigrated to, or populated most of Europe, migrated or fled from, the Scandinavian countries over thousands of years. Battles were fought, whole peoples were driven off their lands, only to bring their culture to another part of Europe. No written language has ever been recovered from these peoples before Caesar's conquest.
Envision the continent of Europe at the year 0. It is a vast old growth forest, it is widely populated by villages of people from the same source of origin, carrying the same base norms of conduct their mothers passed on to them, scattered through out the continent. Consider that all we know of them for sure today is that they were an extremely warrior based society.
Therefore it can not be military conquest that brought the Gauls to Christianity. Camp followers and all, Caesar only had fifty thousand men at his strongest strength. The Gauls had to have accepted it willingly. Christianity either changed to meet the European norms or it already fit very well and provided record keeping with the introduction of writing. There by cutting the Druids out of the food chain. Either way, it was accepted willingly, not forced upon them.
The Jews claim a 2 or 3 thousand year existence. The root of Judaism is a tribal, clan, paternal hierarchy. I know of no period of Jewish recruitment to their religion. Except for the Essene, of which Jesus Christ was a teacher, I know of no revolt that Israel did not absorb.
In the long period of Israel's power the surrounding peoples were used as workers, but never entitled to be equal, they were goyim. Outside of Israel the world bred on, and multiplied their numbers. It all held together until the Essene bucked the Rabbis.
The Romans demanded order. They tried installing governors with police forces to no avail.
In 79 AD the Romans slapped a nuisance fly when they razed Jerusalem. Be assured the surrounding tribes were aware. They also watched the Roman Emperor mandate Christianity 300 years later in all of the Roman Empire. They also watched how it brought uniformity to edicts that were beyond the military's ability to enforce.
In 450 AD, Attila the Hun came off of the steppes and sacked Rome itself. By 500 AD the Roman Empire was moot. But the new Christian church still existed as a common link to the disparate peoples that were left leaderless in the wake of Rome's collapse.
In 650 AD, along comes Mohamed, with a message perfectly designed to usurp the loyalty of an individual who has been trained from birth to acquiesce allegiance to an immediate controller and to follow him where he leads.
As Mohamed's followers took control of Medina's leaders, Medina's people were already under immediate jurisdiction. By killing the head men that opposed his religion and rewarding those that swore allegiance, he soon had enough strength to take Mecca, home to the 300 plus different GODS the various tribes worshiped.
One of the stories Mohamed told his companions was about how he went to a cave above Mecca and slept. He tells how he was commanded by an angel to mount a horse that lept from Mecca to Medina and then to the rock in Jerusalem that today is enclosed by the Dome Of the Rock. From there he ascends to heaven and meets GOD himself.
For me, agnostic that I am, I say if you can credence people believing that, well the rock is theirs. But always keep in mind, the ONLY reason anyone has ever heard of this, is because someone told someone else for 50 years before the first word was written down.
Not that 50 years is not a lot more creditable than the 450 years it took to get a Bible for Christians or the thousands of years before a written Jewish text was available to BELIEVERS.
Religion is a tool of controllers, it is an effective tool. Religion allows leaders to recruit their exploited masses to war against another controller's exploited masses. Both leaders gain more control over their masses, and some even get rich in the process.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 190 comments)
on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 2:07:42 AM
I've read through these comments and wonder where my true beliefs lay. Idefinately agree with cliff assesment on this:
I will continue holding my belief that the neo-con agenda has been a complete success until I am shown that Bush is not a moron. Until then he is a puppet acting out the speeches written for him by an entity I can not see. For me, or anyone to call the actions of a man in that situation a failure is to assume those actions were initiated with the same goal for an out come.
If, on the other hand, the entity behind the curtain that put the 'moron' Bush into the most powerful seat on the planet, directed him to use the implausible Arab attack on the Trade Towers to invade Iraq as a diversion to accomplish specific goals, such as;
To enact the patriot act, curb freedom of travel, intercept electronic communications of citizens, arrest them with out warrant or legal resource, remove Union representation of government employees, strip the country of it's manufacturing base, sell our Nation's resources to private, often foreign corporations for a pittance, run up the National debt to choke future recovery and keep our children enslaved to interest payments instead of social reform.
If all these restrictions were the goal from the outset,.....
Well then, I'm not willing to say that those actions this administration has made in the name of Us citizens has been a failure until I know who comprises the entity behind the curtain that was able to get this ' moron' into the presidency of the US,even over the popular vote of citizens that voted in corrupted poling places by getting the Supreme Court to intercede,really wanted to accomplish.
I gave up believing that Bush cared about 'The American People' when he pushed his tax cuts for the 1% while advocating a missle defence and Mars human landing.
As for the religious argument I tend to agree with this:
Religion is a tool of controllers, it is an effective tool. Religion allows leaders to recruit their exploited masses to war against another controller's exploited masses. Both leaders gain more control over their masses, and some even get rich in the process.
I believe in one souce of power which encompasses both Pagan beliefs and the beliefs of Judaism. Abraham is the patriac of Judaism & Islam. Christ preached a form of Judism and is considered an enlightened teacher in both religions. Christ rebeled to the making of religion into a bussiness and yet all forms of organized Christianity have done just that.
Abraham was also Pagan prior to his discussions and bartering with GOD. Never the less all his offspring are Blessed and they have not stopped fighting since.
That leads me to believe that mans understanding of this source of power is perverted when he sees fit to try to impell others to pay homage to the bussiness of religion.
I also agree with us getting out and letting them figure out the details themselves. It will be Bloody, but it won't be the blood of our children. Let those in the neiborhood take care of their own neighborhood.
I say investigate and bring to justice the War profiteers that still want us to have a greater prescence in the Blood bath. There is evidence and a behavioral patten of action not for effect, but for profit.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 3:27:27 PM
