We went to Iraq in the first place to topple the Govt. of well-known international bad-boy Saddam, because he didn't live up to the surrender agreements made after his failed invasion of Kuwait. That was a strong mission accomplished.

What?!? You mean we didn't go there because we thought he had WMDs?!? ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

:(

Just wanted to make the point that 'peace' and 'religion' seldom, if ever, ride in the same handcart (or air liner).
Christian, Moslem, whatever. They're all the same.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

:(

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Peace.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

... or, a 'nice dodge' ?


Don't mind me, the author of the thread... By all means, carry on... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I see that we are at least keeping things civil, (aside from the usual 'drive by' posts), but what about the topic, which for the most part, was America...


Is this what some would call, 'a successful thread hijacking' ? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Ummm ... no, I don't think it was from within, since it was the so-called "satellite" countries that experienced the problems. I'm thinking of Kosovo, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. ... .

Then I don't understand your point.

The Czechs and Slovaks did not begin slaughtering each other as a response to either the Warsaw Pact entering the country in 1969 or the failure of the Pact to keep control. The so-called Velvet Revolution didn't result in them slaughtering their own countrymen either. They split the country up, but hey, that's what they wanted.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Eh, I don't think those situations are much of a parallel, as you are talking about gov't control that, in essence, collapsed from within of its own weight. In Iraq, or here, or Germany, there was clearly an outside invader that had dismantled the gov't in question.

Ummm ... no, I don't think it was from within, since it was the so-called "satellite" countries that experienced the problems. I'm thinking of Kosovo, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. ... .

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Can we please take the long winded 'at a boys' and 'pat on the butts' to another thread... Thank you... ;)

Just for you...

Staying up late fixing my friends brother in laws computer...late sleep in...NN.

---

Account frozen...

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Eh, I don't think those situations are much of a parallel, as you are talking about gov't control that, in essence, collapsed from within of its own weight. In Iraq, or here, or Germany, there was clearly an outside invader that had dismantled the gov't in question.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Now extending my previous question with a comment:
Did not the USSR force together peoples into a single country where those people had ancient problems with another?
I recently read that Iraq had not even been a country before the 20th century. There are at least three separate groups there. They were lumped together into a single country by treaty agreements. (Is this correct?) Then, add to that, being ruled by a cruel leader with an iron fist, which could also be considered somewhat parallel to the USSR. Correct or not?

You are correct. The land that is present-day Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries prior to WWI. Since the Ottoman Empire was on the losing side of that war, the winning side divested them of their 'empire', leaving only modern day Turkey. In late 1920, the British, under a League of Nations mandate, drew some lines on a map totally without regard for the ethnic situtation there, and the Kingdom of Iraq was born. Britain favored the Sunni power elites in Iraq, and this began decades of Sunni repression of both Shi'a and Kurds.

Iraq is not the only country in that region where the League mandate powers (Britain and France) made mistakes in the aftermath of WWI, thereby sowing the seeds of future (to them, present-day to us)... problems. And all of this was WELL before the rest of the world threw a lit match onto that powder-keg by, because of world sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WWII and Hitler's genocide, 'mandating' a Jewish state in Palestine.

As to your 'cruel leader with an iron fist' comment... Sadly, most of the governments in that area, even though some may be democratic in name, are ruled by despotic, dictatorial men. The people over there in the middle east do not have the rich 'Democratic Tradition' that is frequently taken for granted here in the developed West. Some of the nations over there are absolute monarchies. Others are theocratic oligarchies (Iran). Others may have democratic forms, but tend towards one-party, one-person rule. Saddam's title was, indeed, President, but it was understood by most that he was 'President for Life' and elections were merely rubber-stamping formalities.

Can we please take the long winded 'at a boys' and 'pat on the butts' to another thread... Thank you... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Now extending my previous question with a comment:
Did not the USSR force together peoples into a single country where those people had ancient problems with another?
I recently read that Iraq had not even been a country before the 20th century. There are at least three separate groups there. They were lumped together into a single country by treaty agreements. (Is this correct?) Then, add to that, being ruled by a cruel leader with an iron fist, which could also be considered somewhat parallel to the USSR. Correct or not?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

A very informative and impressive post as usual. WOW!

You have a very rare talent for gathering facts and writing them in a clear, unbiased, intelligent work of art.

You should write for the news media. That's if you already don't. If not, your depriving the world of a great talent!

Hope I didn't embarrass you. I had to say it. :)

What? Me write for the news media? BLARGH! I would rather not prostitute the talent you claim that I possess by writing for them. Like I said in the post you replied to, I don't like them very much... No, not at all.

Two reasons:

1. Much of what passes for news in the USA these days isn't. It is entertainment and fluff.

2. Most of the news media in the USA these days actively try to influence (if not out and out control) public discourse by deciding what is 'newsworthy' (and therefore makes their print/web edition or TV broadcast), and by biased reporting. Both sides of the 'asile' in this country do it. Fox (on the right) does it. Most of the rest are on the left, and they do it. And then, to make matters worse, they bring on the talking head/op-ed people. These days, the line between 'news' and 'opinion' is very thin indeed. Journalistic integrity in the USA is, by and large, dead.

What do I want from the news? Just give me the news... ALL of it, don't filter it. What do I not want? To be told what to think about it. I am intelligent and well educated enough to be able to form my own opinion about what to think about it. As are almost all of the rest of the people in the world (intelligence), at least potentially (education).

So, with all of that said, do you really want me to 'join the dark side'?

I don't think that Muslims are the problem. I believe that most of the followers of Islam are indeed decent people who have nothing to do with those small amount of crazy ones who use certain sayings in the Koran as a motivation to commit extreme acts of violence. I've met Muslims before, and not one of them tried to kill me.

Remember David Koresh? Well, this is an example of how many of the religious leaders of Islam lead their people. And that is where the problem is.

---

So, it seems that some Moslems (in the Middle East) are eager to kill each other, let alone people of other faiths from other areas.

Do you honestly believe that this wouldn't happen between the different factions in America if the Government were to be completely dismantled as it was in Iraq?

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

So, it seems that some Moslems (in the Middle East) are eager to kill each other, let alone people of other faiths from other areas.

Do you honestly believe that this wouldn't happen between the different factions in America if the Government were to be completely dismantled as it was in Iraq?

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Most of the terrorist violence in Iraq now is not directed towards the USA.

Then why is most of the USA 'verbal violence' directed at Muslims?[/quote]

Jeff, if all goes according to my plan, I will engage you less and less in this discussion. To this one quoted point, sorry, you are probably not right. There is indeed bigotry. But, most of our "verbal violence" is directed towards ourselves and our fellow Americans. It's easier to be down on one's self, feeling guilt and shame, or to lash out at somebody nearby ... a family member, a former friend, a "faceless" fellow US citizen on the Internet ... . Ignore the boards and the news for a while. When you hear people within EARSHOT throwing around insults or anything of the sort, I'll bet you more often it is towards someone else nearby or the person is berating himself or herself.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The term 'Islam' does not mean 'peace'. The term Islam means "submission," or the total surrender of one's self to God.

And what is Gods agenda for those who surrender to his will?

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). ~ Quran 8:61

The term 'Terrorist' is applied to people (both US citizens and foreign nationals) who use violence and/or the threat of violence against innocent civilians in order to inspire terror for the purpose of advancing some sort of political goal.

Does harassing American citizens and demonizing a peaceful religion to support the 'war on terror' fit the bill?

The ONLY reason Islam is associated with Terrorism in the Middle East is that those terror groups make heavy use of Islam in their rhetoric, attempting to justify their actions to their fellows.

And we Americans don't make the same association with our rhetoric for the same reason?

Most of the terrorist violence in Iraq now is not directed towards the USA.

Then why is most of the USA 'verbal violence' still directed toward Muslims?

So, it seems that some Moslems (in the Middle East) are eager to kill each other, let alone people of other faiths from other areas.

Do you honestly believe that this wouldn't happen between the different factions in America if the Government were to be completely dismantled as it was in Iraq?

Religion of Peace?

Do we still not understand the religion? The sad part is: All these comparisons I just made were actually between bad Muslims (terrorists) and good Americans (elitists)... What is wrong with that picture? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Criticism of that post Jeffrey found:

1. The term 'Islam' does not mean 'peace'. The term Islam means "submission," or the total surrender of one's self to God.

2. The term 'Terrorist' is not applied to everyone in the world that disagrees with US policy. It is not even applied to everyone in a country or region where anti-US sentiment runs rampant. The term 'Terrorist' is applied to people (both US citizens and foreign nationals) who use violence and/or the threat of violence against innocent civilians in order to inspire terror for the purpose of advancing some sort of political goal. The people that bombed the Oklahoma City federal building were terrorists. The people that hi-jacked those airliners on 9/11/2001 were terrorists. Suicide bombers who blow themselves up in crowded markets or cafes are terrorists. We have a few terrorists in this country, for instance some of the more zealous members of the KKK in years gone by. I also remember other groups such as the SLA (remember them?).

Other countries have some terrorists. For instance, Northern Ireland has its share, from the IRA and the like. Spain also has a few, the Basque Separatists. And, yes, the Middle East has some. This does not make everyone in the USA, Northern Ireland, Spain, and the Middle East a terrorist. It only means there are some terrorists in those countries.

The ONLY reason Islam is associated with Terrorism in the Middle East is that those terror groups make heavy use of Islam in their rhetoric, attempting to justify their actions to their fellows.

Not all US citizens trust the US news media. I myself can barely stand them. I get most of my news from other sources (outside the USA).

Most of the terrorist violence in Iraq now is not directed towards the USA. It is a civil war. It isn't even Islam vs. <insert other religion here>. It is a civil war in Iraq between followers of the two major sects of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a. The schism between those two sects began in the late 7th century (CE), over matters of religious and political leadership, and they have been fighting each other off and on for well over 1000 years. US troops are getting shot and blown up because, right now, we are in the way. We don't want to let them just kill each other, and we are trying to get them to make nice (at least long enough for us to get out). We went to Iraq in the first place to topple the Govt. of well-known international bad-boy Saddam, because he didn't live up to the surrender agreements made after his failed invasion of Kuwait. That was a strong mission accomplished. Saddam's ruling party (Baath) was Sunni, and the Shi'a were pretty much oppressed, tortured, and killed (as were the ethnic Kurds in the north) under Sunni rule.

We didn't think we could just leave then, leaving the Iraqi people without a government and a military, or even basic infrastructure such as water and electricity. So we (unwisely, it seems in hindsight) stayed in Iraq to try a little 'nation building'. The Sunni want back in power, and the Shi'a don't want the Sunni to do so. So, its been a long struggle to get the water and power back on. Every time, it seems, we made progress, some Sunni or Shi'a crazy went and blew it up. Also, its been a long struggle training a new police force and military. Recruits over there have a way of winding up dead at the hands of, again, some crazy Sunni or Shi'a. They don't want us over there helping them, because we won't let them to have any fun. Add to the mix a bunch of foreign terrorists of the Al Qaida organization (remember ole' Osama been Forgotten?) are playing both sides trying to make us look bad. We really are tired of getting shot and blown up over there, but we know that if we just up and leave right now its just gonna turn into a very messy bloodbath.

Also, consider events of the past several days in Palestine. Again, what we have is violence from followers of Islam against other followers of Islam. Its Hammas vs. the remains of Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO. In other words, it is terrorist vs. terrorist. The only way Israel (and therefore, by extention the USA in many people's minds) is involved is that Israel and Fatah were on their way to making peace, and Hammas didn't like it.

So, it seems that some Moslems (in the Middle East) are eager to kill each other, let alone people of other faiths from other areas. Religion of Peace?