In How Many countries will President Obama Apologize On his Next Overseas Trip?

Maybe this question should read:

In How Many Countries Will President Obama Mend Fences For His Predecessor?

Thanks, RB- you see clearly and say truly what I feel is the far better way to feel.

How can "in the past we..., but I will..." be considered an apology? The wording of so-called "apologies" will keep me from wagering here.

Sadly, there is a lot for which he needs to apologize on behalf of his predecessor...

Never before has any President apologized for the actions of the country, whether they were present or past actions. This clearly sends a signal of weakness to our enemies. It will not be viewed through the prism of liberalism, where apologies make everything feel all right. Rather, it borders on reckless foreign policy that will encourage our enemies to commit further actions of violence.

Some would like to blame America first - I am not among them.
Flame away. . .

That for your views on what constitutes 'reckless foreign policy' chat. I have some too.

Disbanding the Iraqi army when all intel said to do so what be to risk (you guessed it) an insurgency? 'Debathication' policy that left Iraq with no experianced or skilled public servants that killed off amenities? Having the kind of careful policy planning and oversight that saw 19 year old marines kicking down doors at midnight, abu graib? An almost wilful resistance to carry forward the lessons from Vietnam re occupation of a foreign country?

Dont you feel iraq needs an apology for a country invading it and having no backup post military plan, that lead directly to a civil war/hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children dead? - or should iraq be thankful for Messr Bush's total incompetance?

C'mon chatarra, if the US cant see why an apology is in order to Iraq, it will only chyrstalise the overseas view (held in Canada, UK and Australia too BTW) that the US does what it wants, when it wants, how it wants and takes the view that if that happens to be a tragedy for you and your family, "hey screw you, we aint here to apoligise - yeehaw!".

Thats the view that will encourage 'further actions of violence'.

apology equals insight, insight does not equal weakness

BTW - anyone know if Kennedy gave an apology for the Bay of Pigs, or did he distance himself from that succesfully enough?

From The Wall Street Journal:

All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development.

More at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html

Success does not call for an apology!

The most Merciful Messiah, the Lord Barack Hussein Obama, the Global Apologizer-in-Chief, is so sorry, so very, very sorry that "America has shown arrogance". Barry will pre-empt criticism of the United States and rebuild our image into one of peace and love and tolerance.

@ buck,
Disbanding the Iraqi army when all intel said to do so what be to risk (you guessed it) an insurgency?
WOW - a genius in our midst. If you wanted to go into Iraq would you prefer to fight an organized army or a ragtag band of misfits, (whoops - call that an Insurgency)

Debathication' policy = bad?- Make this man a General.
First you get rid of Sadam, but then consider keeping the ruling party ?!?!?!

Whether you like it or not, now Iraq has free and open elections. I view that as a good thing. I guess you would prefer totalitarian rule under Sadam, although I hear he did pretty well in the elections that were held during his reign.

Apology equals insight, insight does not equal weakness - really!
Perhaps Obama should apologize for the following:

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans

December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.

August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.

June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.

June 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.

April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.

November 1984 - A bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Colombia kills a passer-by. The attack was preceded by death threats against U.S. officials by drug traffickers.

October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.

April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

May 05, 2009
The President hasn't apologized enough
By Edward Bernard Glick
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_president_hasnt_apologized.html

President Barack Obama has made abject apologies for the actions of his predecessors a cornerstone of his foreign policy."

In his recent trips to Europe and the Caribbean, he apologized for the arrogance of President George W. Bush, and he sought forgiveness for the latter's treatment of terrorists captured after 9/11. But Mr. Obama should go further.

He should apologize to the French, the British, and the Russians because we entered the First World War three years after they did. "The War to end all Wars" started in 1914; yet we didn't come into it until 1917.

Mr. Obama should apologize because the United States failed to join the League of Nations, the predecessor organization to the United Nations. Our absence was a compelling reason why the League stood by and did nothing, in the 1930s, when Imperial Japan invaded China, Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia, and Nazi Germany took the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, annexed Austria, and remilitarized the Rhineland.

. . .

I'm still waiting for him to apologize for hanging out with Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright, spending our grandchildren's money, and forging his birth certificate!

And all that British tea we wasted in Boston... will Barry apologize?

As it stands, I don't think this question can be settled, simply because we don't agree on what constitutes "an apology".

In my book, the word "apologize" must be used: "I apologize for...", "we apologize for...", "the American people apologize for...", etc. That's an apology.

Hocus pocus phrases like "I take responsibility", "America's failure or arrogance", "in the past we..., but I will...", are not apologies at all. Stating current political posture does NOT constitute an apology, UNLESS he directly uses the world "apologize"...

Also, isn't it fascinating that the graph on this question looks like "troubled waters"?

wow chatarra, you dont read many books huh. Where do I begin :

1. Some of the very little US pre invasion planning advised that keeping the Iraq army together was essential for the future of Iraq as it was a pre existing symbol of law and order. It was crucial to keeping the country togther until a democractic elections could be realistically organised. The US (Brenner)ignored this advice and told 500,000 men with families to feed : "Guess what? You dont have a job anymore. Just take your ak-47, yr training and go home". About a month later insurgent strikes began to spiral upwards. 6000 marines and countless iraq's dead.

Im talking about reckless foreign policy.

2. the Ba'aath party was a party that, if you wanted to be, like, fucking anyone, you had to join. Its been around since the 1930's, capiche? So, the pre planning intel advocated only knocking off the top brass in the Baath party and keeping all the architechs, teachers, planners, councilmen, public servants and officials that knew how to run the country in place. The US ignored this advice and declared almost all levels of the baath party unlawful. The country collapsed. It didnt have to.

Reckless foreign policy.

3. Im glad there are elections. I like democracy. Im just a little pissed that so many people had to get killed and fucked up because of

say it with me

reckless foreign policy.

4. thankyou for that extensive cut and paste of terroists attacks from around the world. Ummm, your point? Listen, its really simple : "TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 AND THE ATTACKS YOU LISTED DID NOT COME FROM IRAQ. Apologies for the caps but you really need to appreciate this point. Saddam has no time for extremists. They threatened to undermine his regime. Terroists practically didnt exist in Iraq until after the US's incompetent invasion. Iraq became like a flame to a moth for extermists after the US invasion. Because it was done soo badly. RFP.

BTW re the 'surge' - all the US were doing with the surge was to implement policy first suggested (and ignored) pre invasion that said that the job could be done with about 500,000 troops. The US initial invasion was with about 40,000.

Obama apologising? It will come as a sign that the USA is not a unrelenting, unthinking pyscopath. thats good right?

Please chat, do your homework, dont quote yr WWI and WWII history book to me

xoxo

@buckojo:

These look like a bunch of ad hoc arguments to save a failing hypothesis. Where did you get the notion that we have lost 6000 marines in Iraq? You can't just make up numbers like that and expect people to take what you say seriously...

(Also, your use of language is distasteful. Watch the four letter words - posts have been deleted because of this.)

You make it sound like the attacks on September 11 are the only reason any action should ever be taken. That is simply a red herring. I keep wishing that they would call off the "war on poverty" because poor people were not involved in those attacks.

Saddam was trying to appear as if he was approaching nuclear capability. He ordered the UN inspectors out - as if he had something to hide. He defied UN resolutions. He defied no-fly zones. He had already used WMD against Iran and even his own people. He was threatening to use it against the rest of the world.

He supported terrorism - many of the terror attacks could be traced directly to Iraq, the Ba'ath party, and even directly to Saddam. They were supported through funding, coordination, training and so forth. He simply had to go & the world is a better place without him and his Ba'ath party.

No apology needed for taking out the trash. Iraq is now a much better place itself, and a better neighbor in the region and the world.

Ad hoc arguements? - no, they are examples of appalling US foreign policy. Something worthy of apologising for. My point was that to apologise for previous actions is nothing to be piloried for. The US post invasion strategy was non existent, for years.

The arguement used vis-a-vis attacking saddam as an imminent threat is one considered and rejected by the UN as too susceptible to cyncial explotation to form a basis for good international law. no WDM's was a disgrace considering the rhetoric. And do you honestly beleive that the invasion took place soley for the humanitarian reasons? Why not invade one of the many suffering african dictatorships?



Saddam supported terroists attacks? souce?

(BTW 'the trash' includes 10's of thousands of children)

@bukojo
"Saddam supported terroists attacks? souce? "

There's no question that Saddam supported terrorist attacks. Does paying bonuses & financial support to families of terrorists/ suicide bombers qualify as supporting terrorist attacks? Common knowledge, but you can find sources on the internet.
Here's a site with more:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

@randburg Valid concern. If we look at the definition of apologize, I see phrases like express regret for, make excuse for, acknowledge perceived faults or shortcomings. I think the "hocus pocus phrases" I included take this definition into account. This isn't a typical question that fits into an easy box, but I believe if apologies continue on this trip, they will be evident. If I'm wrong, I apologize :-)

No, not quite: The problem is that the question -- as it is presented -- is "slanted" to suit one political agenda. We have many different political opinions on hubdub -- which is fine, as long as an author does not require you to accept their viewpoint to participate in a question. LIKE THIS ONE. We need to "keep it objective"...

The presumption here is that Obama is failing America by apologizing for past actions, and "in how many countries" will he fail America this time? This is a slanted political question, that is unfortunately not objective. We don't mind that this is your viewpoint, because you are entitled to your viewpoint.

But do you see a similar SLANTED VIEWPOINT question on hubdub asking in how many countries OBAMA WILL SAVE AMERICA by improving diplomatic relations on ths upcoming trip? That would also require hubdubbers to accept a slanted viewpoint, wouldn't it? And would that be fair? You seem to think this type of question is acceptable...

@ Randburg

It's hard to hit a moving target. I answer one of your objections, and we get to the real one. See below:

"But this question was INTENDED to show obvious bias, to point out a ludicrous result of the recent political circus..."
"This question is like grafitti on a wall: it's intended to be a statement. NOT ART. "

Above is a quote by someone who praised the slanted viewpoint on another question, titled, "Will 'Joe the New Jew' piss his pants while in Israel?", a question that besides not being a legitimate news based question, was out and out bigoted.

Do you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to defend the bigoted slanted question, which didn't fit the criteria of a news based question, but was in line with your political ideology, while condemning one that is a legitimate news based question, just a different point of view than yours?

If you want a list of terrorists that the Iraqi government, (including Saddam Hussein) supported, start with Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ramzi Yousef

These were terrorists that were given safe harbor in Iraq, traveled on an Iraqi passport or (Iraqi diplomatic passport), received salaries and living expenses or otherwise were supported directly by the Iraqi government.

The point is whether it is appropriate for Obama to apolgise to any nation, and, if it is, whether there is any overiding reason not to apologise.

chat maintained that there was nothing to apoligise for, and in any event, apologising would be seen as an act of weakness that would invite further violence.

My point is that the US post invasion stategy was incompetent and resulted in unnecessary deaths and instability, and that by apologising, Obama would show a humane face to the middle east in the face of an ill thought out invasion.

Does terrorist activity justify a botch job? Do we set our standards by that of our enemies?

BTW apologies - 6000 dead is the number of US troops, coalition troops and contractors (4,300, 350, and 1800 respectivley), not just US troops.

And that doesn't include the 104,366 US troops that are buried in europe.
We do not apologise for supporting our european allies, ever.

@Buckojo
Noticing the contradictory start and end to your post
wow chatarra, you dont read many books huh. Where do I begin :
. . . dont quote yr WWI and WWII history book to me

Either I read or don't read. Maybe next time I will become an author.
Truth is that I do read a lot, but I do not read a lot about history or war.
More important than reading is thinking. A skill that is not well taught in our public school system today.

Rebuking your points where I can:

Re: 1)
I think it would be disastrous (to U.S.) to have keep the Iraqi army intact. This boils down to personal opinion as we cannot roll the time machine back and try it any other way now.
"About a month later insurgent strikes began to spiral upwards. 6000 marines and countless iraq's dead."
Interestingly and correctly, you note "countless Iraqi's dead". Yes, they are a tough people who have a long storied history of violence.
I agree that our expectations of universal acceptance after taking out Saddam was flawed.

2)
My opinion again. Leaving Ba'ath members in charge would have probably led to another dictatorship undermining our success at taking out Saddam. Leaving the Ba'ath party in charge would have made free and democratic elections almost impossible.

3)
Here, we agree.

4)
"TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 AND THE ATTACKS YOU LISTED DID NOT COME FROM IRAQ. Apologies for the caps but ..."
I never said or believed that they did. Last I heard, it was Osama Bin Laden that organized these particular attacks. My point was to show that America has come under attack many times overseas, from many different sources. Is America supposed to just accept that fact and turn the other cheek? Our brave men and women serving in the armed forces deserve a better answer than that.

"BTW re the 'surge' . . . "
I find it admirable to accept a change in tactics when it is deemed necessary. Obama was steadfastly against the surge, as were many of our bleeding heart leftists. As it turns out, implementing the surge was the right choice and reduced the number of deaths in Iraq dramatically. Basic point is that the surge worked.

"Obama apologising? It will come as a sign that the USA is not a unrelenting, unthinking pyscopath. thats good right?"
To me, it is like a cigarette salesman, starting out an important sales meeting by declaring that he is sorry for the countless number of cancer deaths attributed to his product, but then asking for people to believe him when he says he hopes for a better outcome next time. By apologizing suddenly our enemies will see the light and become our friends - doubtful at best, dangerous at worst.

Opinions are hard to change. My chances of changing your opinion is probably .00001% and our enemies are no different. The culture of apology does show weakness and that will invite further attacks.

It looks to me like we have apologies #1 below:

"Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron."

"And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."

where?

I believe below fits the guidelines from the background description related to, '"in the past we..., but I will...",'

"The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. (IN THE PAST WE- acted contrary to our ideals.)
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year." (BUT I WILL- close the prisons and stop torture)

ah, ok, in the sense of this question.

I thought you were talking about how every one else understands "apology" (I didn't see any flowers or sweets)

chat - I agree that it is now impossible to know what post invasion iraq would have been like if the iraqi army had not been disbanded. The facts and timing involved however do seem to draw a direct relationship from the disbanding of the army and the insurgency. my point here is that the little pre invasion intelligence there was advocated keeping the army together for the reasons outlined above. If Governer Bremmer had a good reason for disbanding the army and breaking with the pre invasion advice, Id like to know what it was. I fear, however, that there was little process involved, which is not surprising because post invasion planning was so incredibly light on. where a country takes it upon itself to invade another country, topple the regime and try and set up a workable future with as little blood-shed as possible, it must accpet the responsibility of carefully planning and thinking about how it will achieve what is sets out to achieve. The US failed to do this and endangered both its own troops and the iraqis.

(Ill give you a good example. the first 50,000 or so troops who went to iraq in 2003 had almost no training on important cultural nuances in Iraq - for example, in the West, in order to get a truck or vehicle to stop from a distance, you would hold up your hand, palm out, with fingers extended. In Iraq that means 'hello'. So here we have a situation where tjhousands of US troops were trying to get vehicles to stop driving towards them by repeatedly signalling 'hello' over and over again to the driver).

thats when US troops and iraq civilains start having their safety compromised. Because of a lack of post invasion thought and planning.

the 'De-Bathication' that was advised in pre invasion planning refers to abolishing the party, getting rid of the top brass in that party, but leaving in place the public infractructure (ie the 100,000 of thousands of teachers, garbage men, town planners ect who had a good knowledge of how the Iraqi infrastructure worked. That was crucial to having basic services upheld in post invasion Iraq.

When you get rid of those basic servcies you start to have a very unhappy population (alot of people cared more about the ability of the toilet to flush, and the garbage being collected, than Saddam). Unhappy civilians again puts both US troops and Iraqis in danger.

This is the kind of responsible planning that 'our brave men and woman' should be entitled to.

Instead they got a botch invasion, an insuregncy that didnt have to happen, faulty equipment and armour, and a long long long line of Cheney associated KRB and Halliburton profit makers.

I dont really get the cigarette analogy.

As for future attacks, surely you would agree that fundamentalists Islamists are going to want to destroy the West no matter what Obama does. Forget them. Its the moderate middle eastern people who are the battle ground. If they think that the US just doesn't care about what it does in the middle east, they'll be far more likely to accept the violent jihad peddled to them by the fundamentalists. That WILL be an 'invitation' for further attakcs.

I think you and I want the same thing Chat - we just disagree on the best way to get there

Out of interest, does anyone think that a question like : Will Iraq experiance a civil war after complete coalition withdrawal' would offend the death market policy?

@buckojo:

I don't think there would be any problem with a question like that (but of course an admin would know for sure)

You would probably need to define a civil war clearly (like perhaps the secretary of state calling it that, or something) and give a suspend date & all of the normal question stuff, but I am guessing there wouldn't be a problem - as long as you define civil war in a way that does not say "N people die"

Speaking In Cairo, Obama Tells Muslim World That America Sometimes Acted Contrary to ‘Our Traditions and Our Ideals’ after 9/11
Thursday, June 04, 2009
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49138

Looks like "1" is correct

American Legion Critical of Obama for Apologizing to Muslim World for U.S. Actions in Aftermath of 9/11
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49232

“When the president pronounces, as he did in his conciliatory address in Egypt, that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in his words, ‘led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals’, he must, in our opinion, demand equally public admission from the Muslim world,” David K. Rehbein, national commander of the American Legion said in a news release.

November 4, 2008
WASHINGTON DC - In an historic election, 53% of the voters in the Unites States of America cast their ballot or ballots for the "sorriest President in history". Empowered by his slim margin of victory, the self-proclaimed citizen of the world immediately started apologizing on behalf of the US to victims of non-abortions wherever they might be found.

Eager to show how sorry a President he really is, he took bold steps to undo the policies of the past. This he showed by selecting international scandal-laden Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, in spite of violating Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution. He also chose celebrated tax evader Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary, and saved noted open-borders supporter Governor Janet Napolitano from the fiscal crises she created in her home state by making her Director of Homeland Security.

Continuing his sorry record, he nominated Sonia Sotomayor, an affirmative action appointee, to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, who has a pattern of boldly displaying her biases making sexist and racist comments at speeches she has given. Arne Duncan, Mr Obama's sorry choice for Secretary of Education, comes to Washington DC from Chicago, where, under his “leadership”, Chicago’s public schools failed to meet federal No Child Left Behind standard five years in a row. (He is, however, highly praised by Chicago based terrorist Bill Ayers and Michael Klonsky.)

Jeff Moss, the hacker known as "Dark Tangent", was sworn in to the Homeland Security Advisory Council of Barack Obama sorry administration, while abroad Mr Obama has systematically snubbed and offended our allies in England, Germany, France, and Brazil, but apologized and reached out to Hamas, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and even several South American rebel groups in countries such as Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Colombia.

Kenya believe it?

"offended our allies in England, Germany, France, and Brazil"

did I miss something?

Obama plans fence-mending speech to atheists
6/8/09 5:14 PM

Riding the wave of Muslim approval after his historic speech from Cairo last week, President Barack Obama will reportedly travel to a major secular capital next week in an effort to "hit the reset button on relations with the Atheist World."

"The president knows how it feels to be marginalized," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, "So he won't be going there to lecture the Atheist World on morality or to try to impose American values on them, like the U.S. has done so often in the past."...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/scottott/Obama-plans-fence-mending-speech-to-atheists.html

Yeah, the last thing you want is a US president 'reaching out' to middle east countries - far better to have a US president arranging an ad hoc botched invasion of a middle eastern country, with his replacement refusing to apologise for the unmitigated loss of life, money and policitcal instability that resulted.

Notable, terroists everywhere must be rubbing their hands with glee when they read posts like that.

You really are making it easy for them to convince their country men that the USA, doesnt care about the middle east and has absolutley no regard for the men woman and children in middle eastern countries.

Can you say 9 /11 take 2?

@buckojo:

That is not a convincing argument. So these terrorists in Peshawar, Pakistan just blew up a Hotel, killing and injuring many people. Are you saying that if this man would have apologized less, there would have been several hotels blown up instead of only one? ( http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/200969232327135361.html )

So, maybe if I keep posting, terrorists everywhere will be so busy rubbing their hands when they read my comments that they can't pull off another attack. Maybe, to use Mr Obama's logic, I am saving millions of lives by typing - the same way he can watch unemployment rise to 9.4 percent and underemployment reaches 16 percent, but he tells us he "saved millions of jobs".

This has nothing to do with September 11 2001, unless I missed something. Why are you bringing that up? Did I post something to cause that? HubDub wasn't even around back then!

Will Gordon Brown apologize for imposing a spending cap on British troops in Afghanistan, limiting to only one major operation per month?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191885/Treasury-imposed-cap-meant-British-Army-afford-fight-Taliban-month.html

As to whether Obama should apologise, my point is as follows:

1.Terroists typically seek to obtain recruits by reaching out to young men who are susceptible to fundamentalist religious arguments.

2. Susceptability to fundamentalist religious arguments goes hand in hand with disenchantment, marginalisation, a sense of powerlessness and poor day to day amenities (the Palestinian experiance is a classic example).

3. By not apologising (and assuming that there is a perception on the part of young iraqi men that the occupation by the US was poorly planned, poorly executed, and did not result in any significant improvement in day to day life), Obama would be signalling to those you men :

A. The USA couldnt care less about you, and refuses to even acknowledge that it screwed up the occupation of yoru land, resulting i the needless deaths of countless iraqis.
B. There will be no justice in the form of recognition of wrongs coming voluntarily from the USA.
C. Your disenchantment with the west is well founded and justified.

It really dosent matter if you think that iraqi men are justified in thinking this way or not. It only matters that they do.

I am, of course, not suggesting that terroists actually read this post. I am suggesting that the continued view point that the USA has nothing to apologise for, and thus, should not apologise, is a view point that plays directly into the hands of fundamentalists. It helps them to recruit men who might otherwise be dissauded from joining if they beleived that the USA was not the merciless, uncritical, uncaring devil that they are told it is.

This has everything to do with 9/11 in that the terrosists who attacked the USA were by and large not masterminds. They were young disenchanted men who were suscpetible to fundamentalist argument.

NN - as long as the USA dances all over world, invading this muslim country and that muslim country, making a botch of it, and refusing to acknowledge that they screwed up in very substantial ways (see my previous posts) the USA is virtually inviting further terroist attacks.

By reaching out to muslim countries and showing a human face, Obama may well be preventing further attacks on the USA. You really ought to thank him.

@buckojo:

Ok, this is kind of interesting. Let's take this farther:

Should Osama apologize? Here are your points:

1. Many civilians became soldiers after September 11, 2001 - after seeing what muslim fundamentalists do

2. Playing to muslim fundamentalist tendencies endangers the life that we all cherish so much here in the West.

3. By not apologizing, (and understanding the fact that the brilliant and awe-inspiring action in Iraq and Afghanistan was mainly necessitated because of the actions of muslim fundamentalists), Osama would be signaling to our young people:

a) Muslim fundamentalists couldn't care less about you, and refuses to acknowledge that they are bellicose, obnoxious, and cause needless suffering and death.
b) There will be no justice in the form of recognition of wrongs coming from the fundamentalist muslim world, voluntarily or otherwise
c) They are well founded and justified in their disillusionment with fundamental islam.

Ok, so which argument rings true? Yours or mine? I don't believe I had to distort the facts to make my point, and I don't fault you for distorting your facts, since the american hating media does report disinformation like you put in your point. Just remember - there has never been an operation similar to the war on terror. It has been an amazing success by any historical standard. Look at any "war" that has lasted as long as this, and the number of casualties (especially on the winning side). Look at any war where the country is being rebuilt and given to its citizens while it is still going on. Look for any war where the religion and culture is still largely intact when it is done. Tell me that this wasn't a resounding success. God bless America, and the coalition forces!

buckojo - This has everything to do with 9/11 in that the terrosists who attacked the USA were by and large not masterminds. They were young disenchanted men who were suscpetible to fundamentalist argument -

DISCLAIMER: these are taken from the article at random. the link is below if you think i'm posting them out of context.

We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering.

As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.

The 9/11 pilots, as well as the secondary planners identified by the 9/11 commission, all attended Western universities, a prestigious and elite endeavor for anyone from the Middle East. Indeed, the lead 9/11 pilot, Mohamed Atta, had a degree from a German university in, of all things, urban preservation, while the operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, studied engineering in North Carolina. We also found that two-thirds of the 25 hijackers and planners involved in 9/11 had attended college.

Like the view that poverty drives terrorism - a notion that countless studies have debunked - the idea that madrassas are incubating the next generation of terrorists offers the soothing illusion that desperate, ignorant automatons are attacking us rather than college graduates, as is often the case. In fact, two of the terrorists in our study had doctorates from Western universities, and two others were working toward their Ph.D.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14bergen.html?ei=5090&en=b6badbe6f72adb9b&ex=1276401600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1244656819-Kh5Ysdhva1WpqRSAeh9hkw

Diesel - you seem to have confused my statement that :

1.the people who are susceptiable to religious arguments tend to be people who are disenchanted with the west and who have a sense of powelessness and marginalisation

with the notion that

2. terroists tend to be poorly educated.

I never said that the terroists are poorly educated.

Accordingly the study that shows that the 9/11 terroists studied engeening really has no application to my argument.

I am talking about the perception that people in the middle east have of the USA, and how the perception that the USA is uncaring will only be excerbated by a blank refusal to acknowledge appalling foreign policy.

Show me studies that show that the 9/11 hijackers were not disenchanted if you can.

NN - that really is ludicrous - Please read my above posts - i am not talking about fundamntalist extemists - I have already said that you will never change these peope so forget them. the important thing is the moderate middle easterners. the point is that by not apologising obama will further disenfranchise an already disenchanted population (irrespective of how many engineering degrees they have).

'which argument rings true'? - Im not sure - what is your arguement? That Obama should no apologise becuase the citizens who became soldiers might not like it? How self important can you be?

whether the war in iraq was a 'resounding' success depends on many things.

If you are a KRB CEO it was clearly a massive success.

If you are one of the many men, woman and children who were needlessly killed due to 6 years of instability brought about largely by the appalling decisions and lack of planning by the USA with respect to post invasion, it might be a little difficult to categorise the invasion of Iraw as a 'resounding success'.

'God bless Amercia'? dude - one reason why americans simply cant see the folly of their ways is that from the age of 3 they join in with chants of USA! USA! and are told that amercia is the greatest country in the world. It really isnt.

try distancing yourself and looking at the facts obejctively.

(I dont mind you areguing that the USA is the greatest country in teh world BTW, just please justify it with actual data, and not just a belief that the USA is Gods chosen land.

As for "brilliant and awe inspiring action in iraq and Afghansitan". Did you actually beleive that when you typed it? seriously?

Read 'Fiasco' by Thomas Ricks for a very well researched insight into the 'brilliant campaign'


Why would we compare the 'War on terror' to any other war. I think if you want to compare the 'War on terror' in any real sense to previous conventional 'nation on nation' wars you need to be really careful. In any event, I'm not talking about the war on terror. Im talking about the USA post invasion occupation of Iraq and what a botch job it was, and how that botch job resulted in many needless deaths? Is this a difficult concept?

BTW - love for you to detail what aspects of the the occupation of Iraq from say 03 - to 07 were brilliant?

@notable

some thoughts....

"there has never been an operation similar to the war on terror. It has been an amazing success by any historical standard."
how do you measure success by historical standards if it hasn't been done before?

"Look for any war where the religion and culture is still largely intact when it is done"
wasn't the aim of the war actually to chance the culture?

"Look at any war where the country is being rebuilt and given to its citizens while it is still going on"
War? the war is over (mission accomplished, remember?). the US is still there to prevent the country from going into a civil war amongst different religious and culture groups.

@buckojo
haven't they played the "it's none of your business" card on you yet?

@kruijs:

You keep trying to re-interpret that into what you want it to mean. Remember, that sign was on a carrier that was heading home - in fact it was almost to the coast of California when you saw it on TV. It was "mission accomplished" for that carrier. They had done their job - it was the end of major hostilities in Iraq.

Go look up every other time I have explained this to you. You keep trying to waste our time with your revision of the facts!

It was the end of major hostilities - that is why you didn't see them talking about a "shock and awe" campaign after that - they were not pushing deeper into Iraq, encountering the Republican guard, and all that went along with the major hostilities faze of the campaign.

The war is not over - it is a war on terrorism, not a war on any country.

Think about it. The coalition could have decided to turn Iraq into glass. That would have solved the problem, and in centuries passed, the conquering side has historically won by any means they chose. Look at what Japan did to China, for instance. Even look at what Germany did to the people of Holland, Poland, France, and even Mussolini - even after they had nominal control of their countries!

In this instance, while there were were search and destroy missions going on in one part of the country, infrastructure was being built in other areas. Electricity was being provided to homes that never had it before. Water and sewer projects were going on. Schools were being opened. Businesses were encouraged to open again. The coalition didn't take Iraqi oil - they protected it and allowed Iraq to once again start selling their oil on the international market. People were allowed to vote and take part in the process of deciding their own destiny as the country emerged from a dictatorship and became a fledgling democracy.

And some people look all over the place for any sign of failure to report. To them, the glass is half empty.

just some thoughts...

"The war is not over - it is a war on terrorism, not a war on any country. " so, when will this "war" against terrorism be over? which exact conditions must be met, how to verify it and who will do so? I just can't get it together. I must admit that a "war" against a movement is a phrase with nothing behind it. some slogan to sell any possible military (and political) issue and move. IMO, it's quite arbitrary. therefor, I can't take it serious.

This is an old Republican thing Kruijs. They like to declare unending wars, like the war on drugs, so they can control and dole out unending amounts of money to their cronies in the arms industry. Regarding the Child President on the ship, I think it's pretty obvious that the message was that the mission in Iraq had been accomplished, not the mission to navigate an aircraft carrier to California. And in fact, Bush was so dumb he didn't realize the other shoe hadn't even started to drop when he pulled that stupid, photo op.

From the May 1, 2008 Washington Post.
Thursday, May 1, 2008; 12:56 PM

Much has happened in the five years since President Bush flew aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in "Top Gun" style, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" and proudly declared: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Five years ago, 139 American troops had died in Iraq. Now that number is 4,064. Five years ago, 542 American troops had been wounded in Iraq. Now that number is 29,395.

Richard Sisk and James Gordon Meek write in the New York Daily News: "Five years after President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech about Iraq, America's twin wars are looking more like 'Mission: Impossible.'

"On May 1, 2003, Bush flew on a Navy jet to the carrier Lincoln, where he announced 'major combat operations in Iraq have ended' and the U.S. had 'prevailed.'

"Today, that same ship is sailing back to the Persian Gulf and 4,370 coalition troops and thousands more Iraqis are dead.

"The U.S. is no closer to Bush's pledge that 'we will leave.'"

And as Sisk and Meek point out, it wasn't just victory in Iraq that Bush was celebrating prematurely: "In his Lincoln speech, the President also boasted: 'In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained.'

buckojo - 1.Terroists typically seek to obtain recruits by reaching out to young men who are susceptible to fundamentalist religious arguments. - so college educated people are easily persuaded to believe things that aren't true?

2. Susceptability to fundamentalist religious arguments goes hand in hand with disenchantment, marginalisation, a sense of powerlessness and poor day to day amenities (the Palestinian experiance is a classic example). - yes i misunderstood that to mean poor/uneducated people. if your attending college in the evil US, how is that poor day to day amenities/powerlessness? so if the POTUS says the US is sorry and everything we've did in the past was wrong will the radical muslims stop trying to kill us?

By reaching out to muslim countries and showing a human face, Obama may well be preventing further attacks on the USA. - no offense thats absurd. they will stop when 1) the US stops supporting israel. 2) the US converts to their version of the muslim religion. did the tape osama just released say how happy he is with obama? the osama's of the world could care less about apologies or gitmo. (another boogie man from the MSM and liberals) its either their way or death period!



kru - the US is still there to prevent the country from going into a civil war amongst different religious and culture groups. glad to see you finally got it right after over a year. your making progress. :)

comment 2 - you say there is a civil war. after the invasion there was never a civil war. the MSM/liberals tried to sell it as such. as NN pointed out the US didn't take the oil from the iraq people.

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Who_will_go_first__will_the_USA_leave_Iraq_before_Mugabe_steps_down_as_president_5912/view

DD "so college educated people are easily persuaded to beleive things that arent true'

2 points :

1.

@dieseldog
"glad to see you finally got it right"
glad to see you actually read my comment. I guess you know as I do, that the situation I mentioned is caused by a military action which wasn't fully thought through.

"you say there is a civil war." where?

"NN pointed out the US didn't take the oil from the iraq people." the comment you refer to which I made 1 year ago tells you my opinion is that the US took control of the oil industry.

I'll give you some substance to that opinion:

"In subsequent days, looting and unrest became a serious issue. Iraqis totally plundered the majority of government and public buildings, to the point of there being nothing of any value left. At the important Yarmuk Hospital, not only all beds, but absolutely all its medical equipment, both large and small, was stolen. One other hospital managed to keep on functioning in a manner by organizing local civilians as armed guards.

At the National Museum of Iraq, which had been a virtual repository of treasures from the ancient Mesopotamian cultures as well as early Islamic culture, many of the 170,000 irreplaceable artifacts were either stolen or broken (partially found safe and well later). On April 14, Iraq's National Library and National Archives were burned down, destroying thousands of manuscripts from civilizations dating back as far as 7,000 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(2003)

"Eventually, the widespread looting turned into an organized destruction of Baghdad. The destruction of libraries and records, in combination with the "De-Ba'athification" had ruined the bureaucracy that existed prior to the U.S. invasion. ORHA staff reported that they had to start from scratch to rebuilt the government infrastructure. Rumsfeld initially dismissed the widespread looting as no worse than rioting in a major American city."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_End_in_Sight

I guess, if the US had high priority in preserving the culture, and the infrastructure of the country, the military forces could have defended some other buildings than the oil ministry. No?

'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' (Alan Greenspan)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

"The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.
(...)
This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.
(...)
Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed." To convenient you: The law has passed after all (in February 2007).

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-juhasz8dec08,0,4717508.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

"Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

Now read again what you wrote:
"Electricity was being provided to homes that never had it before. Water and sewer projects were going on. Schools were being opened. Businesses were encouraged to open again.".
Still, it might be true what you say here. But, against this background that seems a rather meager investment, at least. And quite cynical.

Woops

"DD so college educated people are easily persuaded to beleive things that arnt true'

2 points :

1. Well, yes. Many people are persuaded to believe things that are not true even if they have a college degree. Look at the amount of college educated people who reject the notion of evolution for example. Bush has a degree - he thought that Iraq had WMD's - go figure.

2. Define 'arent true' for me - these people are told that the USA is evil, that it doesnt care about middle eastern people, that it is decedant and that its people are brutes who give in to their base urges. What aspect of the photographs from Abu Graib doesnt bear that out? What about a US leader who refuses to acknolwedge appling failures in foreign policy planning? Doesnt that bear out the truth as it appears to these people? 'Truth' is a pretty subjective thing.

People attending college in 'evil' America didnt forget where they came from. They were still aware that the USA backed Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians and they knew that conventional warfare couldnt stand up to the USA - So, in an effort borne out of a perception of powerlessness, they used unconventional methods, and the twin towers fell.

No, POTUS apologising will not stop radical muslims from wanting to attack the USA (but it might stem the amount of people who become 'radical muslims' in the first place - this is my repeated point). Forget about Osama - people like him are NOT the norm in the middle east, concentrate on the 'man in the street' in Iraq and how showing a human face might make him less likely to beleive the people who tell him that the USA is evil.

What is your definition of 'major hostilities'? - I would have thought that it refers to a state of hostility, which is at the greater end of the scale rather than the lesser end of the scale.

My understanding is that far from 'electricity being prrovided to homes that had never had it before', the reality was that homes who had had electricity and sewerage for years lost it. Im really not trying to demonise the USA. I think it does some goods things. But its caused is not helped by a blanket refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing. The USA has a reputation for belligerence and being egocentric. Is it warranted?

This is some of the exact text from the speech that President Bush gave while on the carrier:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

...

The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan - and Iraqi theaters of war - after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time - 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.

@dieseldog,

PS glad to see you finally got to know how to use the html properly (thanks f_o_f for showing it to him).
:-)

Now look how virtuosic notable uses the html ... just great!

@buckojo:

"Im really not trying to demonise the USA." - yes you are. No need to try to deny it. You make unfounded allegations that "the reality was that homes who had had electricity and sewerage for years lost it" and then try to hide behind a gratuitous statement like that!

Since you haven't been following the news all along, check out these links for a sample of what has been happening since the early days:

Reconstruction efforts continue across Iraq
http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/07/07/10661-reconstruction-efforts-continue-across-iraq/
Jul 07, 2008
BY Marine Cpl. Frances L. Goch

The Iraqi security forces have become more successful at improving the quality of life for the Iraqi people by making the country safe enough to start the reconstruction of essential services.

A year ago, reconstruction efforts as extensive as they are today would not have been possible because of the terrorist threat said Lt. Col. James Mc-Donald, reconstruction operations chief, Multi-National Corps - Iraq.

Today, through coordination of MNC-I, the Government of Iraq, Multi-National Forces - Iraq and the United States Mission - Iraq, schools, hospitals, electrical generation substations and sewer lift stations continue to be reconstructed and rehabilitated.

"Iraq has produced more electricity over the last 12 months than it ever has," McDonald said. "This exceeds the pre-war generation of power."

...


While reconstruction efforts are gaining momentum, Iraq still has a long journey to travel until its people can live at a standard that the people of a developed country would expect.

We can't expect the same progress from an undeveloped country that has been at war or suffered the consequences of war for nearly 30 years that you could expect from a developed country that has been at peace for more than 50 years, said Pope.

"You can't repair 30 years of damage and destruction quickly or easily while still trying to stabilize a country," said McDonald.
[More at the link...]

From "Rebuilding Iraq - Council of Foreign Relations" http://www.cfr.org/publication/15019/ :
Author:
Greg Bruno, Staff Writer

Updated: January 17, 2008

Frequent power outages and poor water quality defined Iraqi daily life during the country’s eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s, the economic sanctions of the 1990s, and the current war with the United States. But today, while improvements to basic services are marked by regular setbacks, there are signs of gradual progress. One basic measure of stability—power production—reached its highest level since the U.S.-led invasion in October 2007. Local government officials are making efforts to collect garbage and clean up long-neglected parks in places like Baghdad. And oil production—the lifeblood of Iraq—rebounded in early 2007 and is hovering at prewar levels.

* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, is helping to build a sewage-treatment plant in Fallujah, that city’s first ever.
* Army engineers are building roads in Dhi Qar province, post offices in Diwaniyah, and a host of other civil-society projects around the country.
* Overall, 19.6 million people had access to potable water in October 2007, a 52 percent increase over prewar levels
* A total of eighty-five primary healthcare centers have been built since 2003; roughly half are providing care.

Of course they present the challenges and need for further improvement too, along with background information which you can read at the link.

Another place you can look is http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/project.html where it lists links to descriptions of projects the US Army was working on all the way back to 2004, including water, electricity, sewers, medical facilities, and so forth.

More facts:
* According to a UNICEF report at the end of 2003, more than 3 1/2 million children had been immunized
* According to an April, 2004 report from UNICEF, school attendance in Iraq increased by 60 percent shortly after the war to more than 95 percent during the recent national exam week.
* UNICEF says that as of April, 2004, more than 2,500 schools have been renovated with the goal of 4,000 being completed by the end of the year, but 10,000 more need repair.
* In a November, 2003 interview on National Public Radio, Andrew Natsios of the U.S. Agency for International Development said that the port at Umm Qasar, Iraq's largest, is modern and functioning for the first time in 20 years.
* According to James Haverman, the Coalition Provisional Authority Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics were operating as of December, 2003

This has to be a mistake. I listened to the entire speech at no time did he offer anything even close to reseembling an apology.Please show me when and what he said that was even close to an apoligy. He acknowledged facts, but at no time said i'm sorry etc.

What a joke. I guess hubdub simply tries to please the masses.

Zanate, in the background, it stated, "Language such as "I take responsibility", "America's failure or arrogance", "in the past we..., but I will...", etc. will constitute apologies."

Sqlman referred to this as implied apologies, which I think fits. I think comment #28 details this:

"I believe below fits the guidelines from the background description related to, '"in the past we..., but I will...",'

"The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. (IN THE PAST WE- acted contrary to our ideals.)
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year." (BUT I WILL- close the prisons and stop torture)"

@zanate, you are right. no news media reported an apology. actually the german Spiegel reported explicitly that the speech did not contain an apology.

but, regarding the background text of this question, the settlement is correct, just like drzinternet posts. the question here is, whether or not the creator of the question just wanted to stretch the definition of the word "apology" so far that Obama just couldn't but apologize - a situation which was needed to keep up the criticism of the POTUS. but that's just speculation - I can be wrong in this. either way: It's not Hubdub who tries to please the masses. Hubdub simple tries to settle along with the question and its details rather than on interpretations of it. If you find the question ambiguous, you should use the "flag" function to notify the category editor so a clarification can be made.

therefor: please closely read the background text before placing your prediction as the may give the question a different swing.

@Kruijs
"the question here is, whether or not the creator of the question just wanted to stretch the definition of the word "apology" so far that Obama just couldn't but apologize - a situation which was needed to keep up the criticism of the POTUS."

Good to know that we have a psychologist here who can tell us what is going on in the mind of the creator. Where did you get your degree?

Actually, my intent was to make the answer as objective as possible, so there would be no questions at settlement. I did some research on the last apology tour, and came up with examples of phrases and statements that were considered apologies. After all the criticism from the last trip, I don't think anyone would expect him to say "I'm sorry" or "please forgive us." I tried to create an objective way to settle the question, and I think it worked, though some may be unhappy with the outcome.

From : http://skeptically.org/polrec/id24.html

More than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts for post-war work totaling more than $50 billion. The American companies were hired, even though Iraqi companies had successfully rebuilt the country after the previous U.S. invasion. And, because the American companies did not have to hire Iraqis, many imported foreign workers instead. The Iraqis were, of course, well aware that American firms had received billions of dollars for reconstruction, that Iraqi companies and workers had been rejected and that the country was still without basic services. The result: increasing hostility, acts of sabotage targeted directly at foreign contractors and their work, and a rising insurgency.

Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity.

And there is alot more.

I repeat that i am not trying to demonise the US. I am pointing out well documented failures in foreign policy that resulted in unncessary destruction and death.

I note that no-one has challenged me on the big failures:
1. Disbanding the army
2. Debathecation
3. No cultural training for 19 year old troops who were expected to kill Iraq's one week and then work with them the next - which resulted in many needless US/Iraq relations disasters, of which Abu Graib is the mos prominent.

You would rather point out that 4 years after invasion the US government gave US corporations big fat contracts to restore basic services.

Woop-de-doo.

NN @ the USA has nothing to apologise for?

None so blind as they who will not see.

And :

While there has been greater success in finishing water and sewage projects, the fact that 80 percent of potable water projects are reported complete does little good if there is no electricity to pump the water into homes, hospitals or businesses. Meanwhile, the health care sector is truly a tragedy. Just 36 percent of planned projects are reported as complete. Of 20 planned hospitals, 12 are finished and only six of 150 planned public health centers are serving patients today.

Overall, the economy is languishing, with high inflation, low growth, and unemployment rates estimated at 30 to 50 percent {being part of a militia is providing employment} for the nation and as high as 70 percent in some areas. The International Monetary Fund has enforced a structural adjustment program on Iraq that mirrors much of Bush’s corporate globalization agenda, and the administration continues to push for Iraq’s admission into the World Trade Organization.

Iraq has not, therefore, emerged as the wealthy free market haven that Bush & Co. had hoped for. Several U.S. companies are now preparing to pack up, head home and take their billions of dollars with them, their work in Iraq left undone. The Bush administration is likely to follow a dual strategy: continuing to pursue a corporate free-trade haven in Iraq, while helping U.S. corporations extricate themselves without consequence.

NN - is it easier for you to view these criticism as some sort of Anti American conspiracy, than to admit that the US was far far less than a 'glorious operation'. The issues are complex, and not black and white. The good things the USA did should be acknowledge. So should the deficient aspects of teh operation.

Out of interest, do you acknowledge that ANY aspect of the US invasion was poor, and if so, what?

@buckojo:

So, what example would you give of a better, more successful operation?

kru - "you say there is a civil war." where? read comment 2 (its your comment) from the link i provided in comment 51. i like how you and others play armchair quarterback with hindsight. there was more than 1 plan for over throwing saddam. where were you and buckojo before the invasion took place saying they chose the wrong plan? its easy to say after the fact it didn't work out. what was your opinon on the surge?

made 1 year ago tells you my opinion is that the US took control of the oil industry. - you can paste 500 articles if you wanna. who sells the oil in iraq? who gets the money from selling the oil? whoever does that controls iraq's oil..correct?

I guess, if the US had high priority in preserving the culture, and the infrastructure of the country, the military forces could have defended some other buildings than the oil ministry. No? - so the military only defended the oil minisrty...is that what your saying?

Now read again what you wrote: - uhm i didn't write that.

buckojo - Bush has a degree - he thought that Iraq had WMD's - go figure. - bush, bill & hillary clinton, tony blair and others had faulty intel.

these people are told that the USA is evil, that it doesnt care about middle eastern people, that it is decedant and that its people are brutes who give in to their base urges. What aspect of the photographs from Abu Graib doesnt bear that out? - these people are taught that from birth. its part of their up bringing, taught in some schools, what they see on tv..etc abu graib was a very small number of people committing the wrongs. should americans judge all muslims by the actions of osama and his gang? we had 3,000 people killed in one day by some radical muslims. are their loved ones out killing innocent muslim civilians?

People attending college in 'evil' America didnt forget where they came from. They were still aware that the USA backed Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians - you would think after attending college here they would see things aren't they way they was told. yes the USA backs israel's right to self defense. we've had the israel vs palestinian debate on HD already. as i said no matter how many times obama says sorry that won't stop their aggression towards us. they want to wipe israel off the map and anybody who befriends them.

What is your definition of 'major hostilities' - uhm i think you and kru get so worked up you lose sight of things..like i'm not the one who wrote what your referring to.

@buckojo

Then there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOVjXOBJBT8

@drzinternet,
yes I appreciate your efforts in making this question as objective as possible. but I'm sorry I have to say, you failed. you failed again in your plea now. why?
first: If you actually were objective on this, you would not use the highly suggestive term "apology tour" in the context of the question.
second: please explain how "objectiveness" goes together with "I don't think anyone would expect him to say "I'm sorry" or "please forgive us."" and you defined some other, quite subjective phrases (see discussion with randburg), to count as apology in addition. as you correctly foretold that "After all the criticism from the last trip", he did refrain from using direct apologies. this is why only few people recognised an apology in the cited speech.
third: will the next "overseas trip" of Obama be accompanigned by a question of yours asking for apologies, in which shaking hands would interpreted as some subtle way to "apologize"? would be consistant.

BTW: "This isn't a typical question that fits into an easy box, but I believe if apologies continue on this trip, they will be evident. If I'm wrong, I apologize :-)"
I, like many, haven't "evidently" seen an apology from Obama. And none from you by now...

@dieseldog,
"where were you and buckojo before the invasion took place saying they chose the wrong plan?"
if Hubdub would've been here at that time, I would have said it would be a risky operation, but not avertible knowing the US ideology in office at that time. I opposed against Golf war I and II. And I opposed against this war in Iraq because the evidence for the reasons to intervene were poor and the obviousness was overwelming that it was not "democracy" and "freedom" which were the actual goals. Simple question: Why do the US not intervene in other countries with lack of "democracy" and "freedom"? There are many other countries with far larger humanitarian problems than Iraq. So it was because of the WMD? Which ones? Those which were destroyed in the early 90's? What makes the Iran different?

"you can paste 500 articles if you wanna."
that's terrific. aren't you afraid of a fraud with obama's BC? don't you urge for clarification because there is a possibility that something is quite wrong behind the scenes? now here is a blatant obvious problem and you dismiss it because it just doesn't fit in your political position.
Simple question: Who makes a darn good profit in the oil industry of Iraq? How was this made possible? Shouldn't you also question this?

"only defended the oil minisrty"
as the looting took place in Bagdad, the military defended the oil ministry amongst other "strategic" sites. they should have prevented any looting in the first place. this was a systematic failure of laying the main focus on issues who only were of own interest. it has been repeated several times afterwards.

"The events described in this report began at least two days after the 8 April entry of US troops into Baghdad and continued for several days -- until international media attention appears to have forced a policy change. Although insufficient US forces were committed to control the entire city, the forces at hand were capable of providing security to any facility they were ordered to protect -- demonstrated by the protection afforded to the: Ministry of Oil, Palestine Hotel, Sheraton Hotel, airport, Republican Palace, and other strategic locations.

(...)

Considering that the US Defense Department was publicly warned of the potential for looting of cultural treasures by Prof. McGuire Gibson and several other experts, those in command of US forces appear to have knowingly neglected their legal duty under the "international law of belligerent occupation" to "restore and maintain law and order" -- which includes preventing the looting and burning of public facilities [see: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140892003]. For that reason, a case can be made that the US Government should be held legally responsible for the events described below, and should be obliged to compensate these facilities for their losses."

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IRAQ/docs/nat.html

"bush, bill & hillary clinton, tony blair and others had faulty intel."
this is correct. "A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong.""

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

kru - Why do the US not intervene in other countries with lack of "democracy" and "freedom"? - panama, kosovo, somalia, cuba, (yes it was a botched attempt) hati. the US has used military force to help those countries.

There are many other countries with far larger humanitarian problems than Iraq. - there are many other countries that could help them as well. whens the last time the swiss intervened [military] to help another country?

Who makes a darn good profit in the oil industry of Iraq? How was this made possible? Shouldn't you also question this? - the iraqi people make a profit. it was made possible by the over throw of saddam. if your referring to civilian companies that help modernize the oil system..should they have done that for free?

demonstrated by the protection afforded to the: Ministry of Oil, Palestine Hotel, Sheraton Hotel, airport, Republican Palace, and other strategic locations. - the key being insufficient forces and <Bstrategicstrategic location is, i trust the men/women on the ground doing the fighting to decide that.

warned of the potential for looting of cultural treasures by Prof. McGuire Gibson and several other experts - again there was differnt views as to how to carry out the invasion. if the plan chosen worked fine would we be here critizing those who offered the other plans? i say no.

*demonstrated by the protection afforded to the: Ministry of Oil, Palestine Hotel, Sheraton Hotel, airport, Republican Palace, and other strategic locations. - the key being insufficient forces and strategic locations. if you wanna win with as little life lost as possible imo its key to secure strategic locations. you may differ on what a strategic location is, i trust the men/women on the ground doing the fighting to decide that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

"there was differnt views as to how to carry out the invasion."
so we must commit that the wrong decisions were taken (a clear decision of the military staff): from which "only insufficient forces available" is the result. they could have decided otherwise - they knew about the potential danger. but the lay a focus on the strategic locations.
thanks that you admit.

"countries that could help them as well"
this is were the UN comes into play.

"swiss intervened [military]"
in case you didn't know: Because of neutrality, the army can not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but is part of some peacekeeping missions around the world.

"the iraqi people make a profit. it was made possible by the over throw of saddam"
this is wrong. by overthrowing saddam it was made possible to open the market to foreign (US) companies. this wasn't possible before. the US urges to have mostly US companies in place. they earn much of the money in the oil business. so, much of what is earned is not going to the iraqi people. I admit, if saddam was in place, he would run his palaces with the money - but in both cases it surely aren't the iraqi people who profit from it in such a way as you put it here.

kru - but the lay a focus on the strategic locations. thanks that you admit. - don't know what you mean/what your point is.

this is were the UN comes into play - where is your critism of the UN for not doing more to help those other countries?

Because of neutrality, the army can not take part in armed conflicts in other countries - if their netural they shouldn't say anything for or againest armed conflicts...correct?

overthrowing saddam it was made possible to open the market to foreign (US) companies. - again i ask you should their work be done for free?

but in both cases it surely aren't the iraqi people who profit from it in such a way as you put it here - do you think their getting more now or was they getting more before saddam was removed? you make it sound like they get next to nothing..only the foreign (US) companies get anything.

now here is a blatant obvious problem and you dismiss it because it just doesn't fit in your political position. - if its so blatant obvious why doesn't obama or anybody else prosecute them? could it be no laws were broken? are trying to say laws were broken to fit your political position?

Good point Kru -

Its hard to see a logical reason why people would get so worked up over Obama's BC where there is no ostensible evidence pointing to any fraud or wrongdoing, but can breeze over post invasion Iraq as though it was and is simply beyond reproach, despite all the evidence to contrary.

DD I think your arguements are disintergrating. By consistently insisting that the US post invasion of Iraq was a problem free wonderland you are showing yourself to be either unaquainted with the facts, or unwilling to recognise them.

Youve had many opportunities to point out how :

1. disbanding the army,
2. debathication policy,
3. expecting 19 year olds to fight one week and then act as cultural attaches the next (with NO training),

were not appalling foreign policy diasters.

But you havent taken those opportunities.

@buckojo:

And you appear to be avoiding the opportunities to give an example from history of a better, more successful operation!

"where is your critism of the UN for not doing more to help those other countries?"
where is the context in which it would fit?

"say anything for or againest armed conflicts"
if you mean me: I'm not a swiss. but to decide not to participate, but still allowing themselves to discuss (and criticize) is quite valid I guess. About this ideals of what to say and what to do ... weren't the US Reps who defended the idea that own ideals may be put aside defend them? so, who is the one with the antagonism?

"again i ask you should their work be done for free?"
no. but that's not the point. (1) the companies would be able to make money at all over there without the invasion (2) US companies do the work now because US consultants brought them into the position, pushing other companies (iraqi as well as other foreign) aside.

"do you think their getting more now or was they getting more before saddam was removed?"
please read my post again. maybe you will find the answer there if you read it a second time

"could it be no laws were broken?"
could be.

"if its so blatant obvious why doesn't obama or anybody else prosecute them?"
seems you have your own, very personal, restricted view on reality.
http://www.google.com/search?q="george+w.+bush"+prosecution

where is the context in which it would fit - rotflol! start with some of the members on the UN human rights council. then you can go to somila, parts of africa, palenstine, iran. when they get those solved let me know.

if you mean me: I'm not a swiss - did i say you?

no. but that's not the point. - yes thats the point. they worked they deserved to be paid.

seems you have your own, very personal, restricted view on reality - maybe you should look in the mirror. when they go on trial come back and give me a holler. i didn't see one thing on google saying bush nor anybody else was in court for the blatant obvious laws they broke.

buck - insisting that the US post invasion of Iraq was a problem free wonderland you are showing yourself to be either unaquainted with the facts, or unwilling to recognise them - show me where i said that.

"where is the context in which it would fit" I meant the criticism. if you didn't notice by now, I mainly just respond to comments of others. I haven't seen much comments in which the UN would've been mentioned in an excessively positive way. so, I've not had the feeling to say something against it.

"yes thats the point. they worked they deserved to be paid. "
no, that's simply not the point. who said that they should not be payed for work? I said, they should eventually not be the ones to work there in the first place. please, read what I write and don't get stuck on a subordinate clause taken out of context. It just doesn't make sense. and in the end, it prevents a reasonable discussion.

about the rest: maybe you should take the time to read at least one or two of the articles I quoted. it could be that these answer your questions already.

Sorry, DD i must be wrong. If you are not saying that the invasion was problem free :

1. specifically what problems with the invasion do you acknowledge?
2. why are those problems not worth apologising for?

(and dont skip over question #1)

Interestingly, on the issue of whether any laws were broken :

British PM announces Iraq war inquiry
By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM



Posted 7 hours 11 minutes ago
Updated 3 hours 5 minutes ago


Mr Brown says the inquiry will be the most extensive and wide-ranging of its kind. (AFP: Kirsty Wigglesworth/Pool, file photo)

Video: Britain to launch Iraq war probe (ABC News) The British Government has announced the terms of reference for a long-awaited inquiry into the decisions that led the UK to go to war in Iraq.

A committee of independent diplomats and non-partisan public figures will conduct the inquiry which will be held entirely in private and is expected to take a year to complete.

There has been widespread disappointment about the terms of the inquiry and the fact that there will be no scope for the committee to apportion blame or to question the legality of the invasion.

Still trying to recover from the political wars waged against him at Westminster, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought forward the announcement of the inquiry.

Mr Brown said this independent inquiry, covering the eight-year period from July 2001 until July 2009, would be the most extensive and wide-ranging of its kind.

"The committee of inquiry will have access to the fullest range of information, including secret information," he said.

"In other words their investigation can range across all papers, all documents and all material. So the inquiry can ask for any British document to come before it and any British citizen to appear.

"No British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry."

Opposition parties led by the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the probe since shortly after the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.


Closed door concerns

But Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg says it is unacceptable that all evidence will be heard in private.

"[Mr Brown] says the inquiry has to be held in private to protect national security. It looks to me suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor instead," he said.

"Why else would he want it to report after the general election when we could have at least interim reports before the next general election?"

Rose Gentle, who lost her 19-year-old son when he was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra, has also been pushing for an Iraq inquiry.

Gordon Gentle had only had 24 weeks of training before he was dispatched to Iraq on what was described to he and his family as a peacekeeping mission.

"We were happy that the inquiry's going to go ahead, but the families are not happy it's going to be behind closed doors," Ms Gentle said.

"Because we'll never find out the truth, and that's what the families had wanted.

"We've been lied to for the many years that they've been in Iraq, and all the families are asking of the Government was the truth."

Mr Brown says the objective of the inquiry will be to establish the lessons that should be learnt from the Iraq War.

The committee will not apportion blame nor will it consider any civil or criminal liability around the events leading up to, during or after the war.

There have already been two official inquiries into the events surrounding the Iraq war, both reported in 2004.

The Hutton inquiry looked at the suicide of David Kelly, a government scientist who killed himself after being named as the possible source of a BBC report claiming that the government "sexed up a dossier on Iraq's military capability".

The Butler inquiry highlighted failings in intelligence over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Tags: world-politics

LOL - here is your apology!
http://www.top20fun.com/images/pictures/0429.jpg

Seriously though, Mr Obama should apologize to Great Britain for the underhanded way he "failed to consult" with them before turning loose Guantanamo prisoners on them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5517458/David-Miliband-calls-Hillary-Clinton-to-voice-anger-over-Guantanamo-inmates-transfer-to-Bermuda.html

Kenya is feeling snubbed by Mr Obama; maybe he should apologize to them.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-kenya-obama10-2009jun10,0,2255957.story

Mr Obama made several moves interpreted as snubs by the Brazilian media.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44987

Maybe he should be apologizing to them...

Netanyahu believes that Obama is picking a fight with Israel to make Arabs happy ...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091428.html

He could apologize for that too...

Rift With Germany Is Next on Diplomatic Agenda
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world/europe/05germany.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Looks like he might need to keep his apology skills in working order for Germany pretty soon too

@nn - if the POTUS hired you to program the TOTUS he'd have enough material for monthly World Wide Apology Tours!

NN - Do you genuinely not understand the difference between :

1. a range of diplomatic tensions (ranging from a mispelled name, to a feeling of misplaced US foreign attention under Obama - as shown in your above links), on the one hand, and
2. abysmal and avoidable policy failures in the context of an overseas invasion and post invasion occupation on the other?

Or are you deliberately confusing the two?

@buckojo:

No, I am saying he has a lot to apologize for in order to clean his own slate, without apologizing for a brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer despite the efforts of nay-sayers at home and abroad who are aiding and abetting the enemy when they verbally defend the "innocent terrorists" from the side that is doing it's level best to bring law and order to the region.

Is Letterman's apology enough?

NN How many troops do you know that consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq a 'brilliant and succesful' campaign?

My understanding was that most of them were really pissed off of at perceived deficiencies in the campaign, rather then lauding its 'brilliant and succesful' status.

Maybe the troops just dont get it....

Remember how warmly President George W Bush was received by the troops on Thanksgiving day, that first trip out to Iraq, and again each subsequent trip? Have you read the stories of the servicemen in Walter Reed hospital (and other facilities) - how so many of them believe in their mission and wished they could still be out there serving and sacrificing?

Consider this: every US serviceman in Iraq today volunteered to serve. They volunteered after the war started and knew what they were signing up for. They did it understanding the mission and the risks. They also knew there would be people who would not understand and throw mud from afar, from the safety of the homes these troops are striving to protect.

Finally, remember this?
Mass Reenlistment Marks July 4th Celebration in Baghdad (2003)
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2003/a070703b.html

God bless America, and protect her servicemen!

What a effin joke....I sincerely doubt the people signing up in 2003 had clue ONE regarding what they were in for with the shock and awe of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

These folks have served multiple tours, been inocculated with God knows what, been exposed to depleted uranium, have taken literal shit showers and operate without basic equipment.....their 'dear leader' screwed them and no, they didn't see it coming for a variety of reasons I'm sure. They have a soaring suicide rate, are suffering mental illnesses we will be sorting out for years to come and far too many are dead or missing limbs.

So can your hoopla over how terrific the war on terror has been. It was a COSTLY, DEADLY 'mistake' and people who either had no other job options, people who 'believed' in the integrity of the US and it's then commander in chief and people who are just as bloody evil as the extremists they intended to do battle with learned a costly lesson.

By the way, if you're so freakin keen on this action why don't you get your ass over there and give your Bush loving buddy's a hand?

You are too funny notable.

You seem to have groomed your idea of what America is into a utopia interupted by the Obama's election.

Are you aware of the questionable recruiting techniques used? Or do you think all these young adults should be grateful for being harassed and targeted?

Do you wonder how many of the "volunteers" you mention felt like they really had few other options? Perhaps we should be grateful for this war because it gave some kids a chance to contribute to something that they would not have otherwise had?

I suppose you categorize anybody critical of the war as someone who "throws mud from afar"?

Ahhh, but it is now the Chosen One’s war:

WASHINGTON, June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. House Tuesday passed a $106 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq...

The Washington Post reported House Democrats approved President Barack Obama's supplemental funding request...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/16/House-passes-war-funding-bill/UPI-13821245198354/


Hope n’ Change

If Bush were an honest man this is how he would have started the war.

Bush: Saddam Hussen has been a thorn in the side of the UN for too long. When we accuse him of having WMD he never gives us a straight answer, so he must have them. Even though our inteligence is telling us that he has abandoned his WMD we can find other people who are willing to say that they exist.

Although we have been threatening Saddam Hussein for showing no respect for UN resolutions, we (Rumsfeld Cheney and I) have now decided to ignore the UN as well.

The truth is Saddam is just a real bad-ass. I have a personal vendetta against him. Although there are many other tumultuous places in the world run by ruthless dictators this Saddam guy is special for reasons I cannot really explain. Some might say it has something to do with all the oil they have and my family's connections with the oil industry and many other relationships in the middle-east (no comment).

So we've decided to go get him on the pretense of WMD. If it turns out he had no WMD, no big deal. Most people don't like this guy anyway. We will go in and create anarchy in the first few days. "We will break you down and then rebuild you"; it works for the marines.

OH Ya! I almost forgot. This thing is going to cost a few Trill. The economy might tank. I know Rumsfeld is talking 6weeks or 6months but he's a glass half full kinda guy. Soldiers are going to die but that's so very honorable thing to do. Their parents will have something to be proud about.

This may seem like we stretching a little thin here considering we just started going after Osama and that looks like it's going to last a Loooong Time! but I am outta here in 7 or 8 years anyway. The Dems will likely win after this debocal. They will have so many problems going on by then this whole thing won't even be newsworthy anymore.

@ Erik

Change cannot happen overnight.

Obama will not abandon the Iraqi people now because America has a responsibility there now.

Your suggestion that his decision to not create a massive humanitarian crisis is contrary to his slogan of "change" is absurd and childish. It was a campaign slogan. Not their promised policy of dealing with EVERY governmental issue.

If you honestly thought Obama was going to change EVERYTHING, irregardless of concerns for humanity then I hope you did not vote for him.

The CHANGE is that the mongers are gone. The realists are in.

@notablenotices (comment #90)

alright, here we go again. let's see how much of that comment can stand a critical view on it.

"... that has kept us all safer ..."
oh, own soil. yes, maybe: no muslim terrorists attacks in the US since 8 years. great.
but, wait, how many muslim terrorists attacks in the US were there in 8 years before 9/11? exactly the same number, no?

oh, no, the world is safer. since the number of muslim terrorist attacks worldwide decreased since the Iraq invasion. wait, did it decrease, really?

ohw, wait, safer because of the WMD Saddam had. well, errr, he had not, and wouldn't have had soon. I guess you mixed up Iraq and Iran.

"... for a brilliant and successful operation ..."
did you ask some of your buddies who are in Iraq before writing these lines? I guess they are very happy that their personal suffering is kept away from the public awareness as manifested in these lines.
http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+%22attack+on+US+military%22

"innocent terrorists"
nobody says terrorists are innocent. but the Bush Administration declared innocent to be terrorists.

"nay-sayers"
you're labeling. who said this was a bad behavior?


@notablenotices (comment #93)

I'm just wondering: If it was such a glorious trip, simply un-dangerous, brilliant, successful, to which so many, patriotic people took a decision and went voluntary, for such an ideal, for world peace, and - even more importantly - the safety of the US citizens ...

this seems to be a personal duty to any patriotic American to participate - voluntary, of course ... such a patriot as you pretend to be, notablenotices, did you take part in this glorious, brilliant, successful operation?

Cheney's only credit for preventing an attack on US soil is that he provided US targets in the extremists land. They no longer had to plot to go to America. America came to them.

Cheneys claims of preventing attack would not seem so outlandish if he would acknowledge his roll in not preventing the first one. That administration looked at intelligence as a smorgasbord to pick and choose from. If what they wanted wasn't there they would inquire about ingredients to make it. They were more interested on influencing the intelligence than being influenced by it.

I have asked that question before, C2R. The Raging R's on Hubdub are too busy complaining about your sex toy questions, and otherwise goofing off on the Internet, to have time to participate in what they see as a war for peace, freedom and democracy. Like Cheney in Vietnam, they have "other priorities."

@Candelario
They gotta fill their time somehow. http://thejoshuablogs.blogspot.com/2009/06/rabid-letterman-protesters-call-daves-5_17.html

paraphrased:
"We all gonna stand here and tell the father of that bastard infant (born to slut) to not joke about other peoples adult children. I am illogical and proud of it."

The one guy actually said he doesn't watch TV other than Fox news. Now There is a guy who can pride himself in keeping up with current events!

@kruijs:

The years before 2001 were not exactly free from violent terror from these extremists. Here is an example of what they have delivered since 1970:

Date	Country	City/State	Killed	Injured	Description
4/14/1972	USA	New York, NY	1	3	Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.
1/19/1973	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	1	Muslim extremists rob a sporting goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the alarm.
7/18/1973	USA	Washington, DC	8	2	Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.
10/19/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.
10/29/1973	USA	Berkeley, CA	1	0	A woman is shot repeatedly in the face by Nation of Islam terrorists.
11/25/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A grocer is killed in his store by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/11/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is killed by Nation of Islam terrorists while using a phone booth.
12/13/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A woman is shot to deah on the sidewalk by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/20/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	Nation of Islam terrorists gun down an 81-year-old janitor.
12/22/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	2	0	Nation of Islam terrorist kills two people in separate attacks on the same day.
12/24/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is kidnapped, tortured and decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.
1/24/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	4	1	Five vicious shooting attacks by Nation of Islam terrorists leave three people dead and one paralyzed for life. Three of the victims were women.
4/1/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.
4/16/1974	USA	Ingleside, CA	1	0	A man is killed while helping a friend move by Nation of Islam terrorists.
3/9/1977	USA	Washington, DC	1	1	Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B'nai B'rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.
7/22/1980	USA	Bethesda, MD	1	0	A political dissident is shot and killed in front of his home by an Iranian agent who was an American convert to Islam.
8/31/1980	USA	Savou, IL	2	0	An Iranian student guns down his next-door neighbors, a husband and wife.
1/31/1990	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A Sunni cleric is assassinated in front of a Tuscon mosque after declaring that two verses of the Qur'an were invalid.
11/5/1990	USA	New York City, NY	1	0	An Israeli rabbi is shot to death by a Muslim attacker at a hotel.
1/25/1993	USA	Langley, VA	2	3	A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.
2/26/1993	USA	New York, NY	6	1040	Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.
3/1/1994	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	0	A Muslim fires on a vanload of Jewish boys, killing one.
3/23/1997	USA	New York, NY	1	6	A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State building where he shoot seven people in a Fedayeen attack.
4/3/1997	USA	Lompoc, CA	1	0	A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim.
10/31/1999	USA	Near Nantucket	217	0	An Egyptian airline pilot runs a planeload of 217 passengers into the water after uttering a Qur'anic prayer.
3/17/2000	USA	Atlanta, GA	1	1	A local imam and Muslim spiritual leader guns down a deputy sheriff and injures his partner.

Also, it may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone who "took part in this operation" wore a uniform.

@notablenotices,

correct. nice table. I guess you took it from this website: http://www.TheReligionofPeace.com * but you forgot to append the years starting in 2000 from the table you quoted.

I'll post the rest of the table, just for the sake of completeness

Date	Country	City/State	Killed	Injured	Description
9/11/2001	USA	New York, NY	2772	251	Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.
9/11/2001	USA	Shanksville, PA	40	0	Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.
9/11/2001	USA	Washington, DC	184	53	Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.
3/19/2002	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002	USA	Denton, TX	1	0	Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002	USA	Los Angeles, CA	2	0	Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002	USA	Clinton, MD	1	0	A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002	USA	Montgomery, AL	1	1	Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002	USA	Baton Rouge, LA	1	0	A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002	USA	Wheaton, MD	1	0	Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002	USA	Montgomery County, MD	5	0	Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002	USA	Manassas, VA	1	1	A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002	USA	Fredericksburg, VA	1	0	Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002	USA	Arlington, VA	1	0	A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002	USA	Aspen Hill, MD	1	0	A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003	USA	Houston, TX	1	0	After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
12/2/2003	USA	Chicago, IL	1	0	A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.
4/13/2004	USA	Raleigh, NC	1	4	A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.
4/15/2004	USA	Scottsville, NY	1	2	In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
6/16/2006	USA	Baltimore, MD	1	0	A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006	USA	Denver, CO	1	5	Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006	USA	Seattle, WA	1	5	An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
10/6/2006	USA	Louisville, KY	4	1	In an 'honor' attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
2/13/2007	USA	Salt Lake City, UT	5	4	A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
1/1/2008	USA	Irving, TX	2	0	A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.
7/6/2008	USA	Jonesboro, GA	1	0	A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2/12/2009	USA	Buffalo, NY	1	0	The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.
6/1/2009	USA	Little Rock, AR	1	1	A Muslim with 'religious motives' shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center.

and, wow, to my surprise: it didn't stop in 2003!

this is where your "we brought peace" argument dies.

but! is it confirmed that all remarked incidents have a religious background? or, uhm, what's this: "An Egyptian airline pilot runs a planeload of 217 passengers into the water after uttering a Qur'anic prayer." is this a muslim attack to innocent - or maybe just an accident? "A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim." how many prison guards are killed by people of another religion? maybe take a look here: http://www.google.com/search?q="prison+guard"+killed+-muslim

so I tend to doubt the relevance of the data in the table as such to backup the religious argument. I do not doubt that there were religious motivated attacks in the meantime, though. but this table pretends to show religious motivated attacks, but packs together quite as anything where a muslim is involved.
this is dubious - at least.

* "The Religion of peace is a political neologism used as a description of Islam. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, some politicians described Islam as a "religion of peace" in an effort to differentiate between Islamic terrorists and non-violent Muslims. Subsequently, some critics of Islam have adopted the phrase, using the term "Religion of Peace" in a sarcastic manner as a pejorative synonym for Islam."

"not everyone who "took part in this operation" wore a uniform. "
so, did you take part in the military operation or not? wearing a uniform or not, being in Iraq?

@kruijs:

Please: you used to be more sensible, but lately you have changed. You were the one you said about peace after 2001, not me. I was simply answering you're assertion in #100 that there were no attacks before the year 2001. That is why the table I created stopped at 2001.

The comment about flight 990 being "maybe just an accident" in interesting. I believe the U.S. investigators, who concluded the aircraft was deliberately crashed. Are you taking the other side? Please explain.

Another point: the "Religion of Peace" is a misquote of Sir Winston Churchill, as far as I can tell. He was not talking about Islam either, but I believe it was one of President Bush's mistakes to misquote Churchill (probably by accident) and give Islam this label. (I could be wrong, perhaps someone else is responsible for this!)

@notablenotices

You were the one to claim the world (especially the US) became safer: you said about peace after 2001. I used that phrase, sorry if not recognizable for you, in a sarcastic way.

isn't it your argument to justify the Iraq invasion? didn't you say "a brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer", hu?

please, try to be a little more sensible yourself.

"Peace: a word from a Merciful Lord." The Koran, Yasin 36:58

"And Allah invites to the abode of peace and guides whom He pleases into the right path." Jonah, 10:25

"So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them." Old Testament, Numbers 31:2

May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron
Psalm 149

"Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle." Psalm 144

Interesting. For some reason, we have quotes from the bible that are war mongering, and a quote from the koran that is peaceful. What does this show, other than that the author wishes to show his bias? OK, he wishes to show the bible is violent, and the koran is peaceful.

All one has to do is search "peaceful quotes bible" to find an abundance of peaceful quotes Then search "violent quotes koran" to find an abundance of these. Or one can search the opposite "violent quotes bible" and "peaceful quotes koran". Whatever one is looking for, they can find.

It doesn't seem to add much to the conversation.

@kruijs:

OK, I see what you were thinking. However, I believe you set up a straw-man argument (probably unintentionally). There is a difference between "peace" and "safer".

We have people like Michael Hayden, Michael Mukasey, George Tenet, Mike McConnell, and Dennis Blair on record saying that they know Al Qeada and other similar groups have had operations they planned be thwarted that would otherwise have been very destructive.

To me, these are knowledgeable people who give serious testimony. That is why I feel, along with many others, that we are safer now. Of course there is work left to do, but progress has been made and I am thankful for that.

"It doesn't seem to add much to the conversation."
I've been thinking that very often, lately ...

"straw-man argument"
yes, I wrongly said this is where your "we brought peace" argument dies.
I guess I meant this is where your "it made the world safer" argument dies.
but that doesn't change too much. your argument dies both ways. the US didn't do either (see table).

"operations they planned be thwarted that would otherwise have been very destructive"
I'll leave this one uncommented - this time

"Of course there is work left to do"
I'm glad that you show some understanding for my feelings.

"progress has been made"
how much and at what cost?

(this is a question which should be answered by anyone for himself. don't post answers, as I already know them - I only wanted to urge anyone to rethink it once again.)

Actually, I'm not the author. God is normally credited with authoring both the Koran and the two testaments. The point was to show that if Christians have historically been as violent as Muslims, it's because the have the Word of God to back up their actions, just as Christians do. No religion has a monopoly on peace or violence. As far as I'm concerned we can burn the Bible and the Koran in the same bonfire. But that's just my opinion, and of course, I am tolerant of the beliefs of all people except for Diesel.

You know what I find interesting, Candelario, is you'd think at least the Christians might KNOW their religious texts. For example, nowhere in Daniel or Revelation does either author (OR JESUS ANYWHERE FOR THAT MATTER)remotely suggest that one resists evil by using force or violence.
Another little gem brought to us by the author of the Good Book is " LOVE YOUR ENEMY ". Now, it seems to me dropping bombs on the innocent people in your enemies neighborhood (over and over and over) is really a far cry from that command. So yeah, seems like maybe an APOLOGY would be the LEAST the President of the guilty Gov't could cough up.

i think its hilarious that somebody who interpurts the bible as saying its ok for men to have gay sex as long as its not in a woman's bed, to lecture the rest of us what the bible says about war.

Romans 13:1-2

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Many centurions mentioned in the New Testament are praised as Christians, God-fearers, and men of good character (Matthew 8:5; 27:54; Mark 15:39-45; Luke 7:2; 23:47; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 28:16).

i guess them centurions were shoemakers not men in the military. they prolly had sex with each other, just not in a women's bed. ROTFLOL

Dear oh Dear

How did we get into this theological debate?

I leave you alone for a couple of days and we end up here...

Lets not have an 'I (kinda) know my religious text more than you (kinda) know yoru religious text' argument.

At least without first deciding why we should care on the muddled content of either text.

don't you all understand that religion is only the facade, an excuse for quite anything? used to cover, to justify the strive for power, or the pursuit for domination of people?

can we all leave those fairytale books behind and get back on the topic?

Well, one distinct advantage for a large number of people who follow the Quran is that the sky is always blue...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Y-sw89qTY

seems we have a non-believer amongst us. i also find it disrespectful for anybody to tell me my religious beliefs are a facade. if one can't see/understand that the radical muslims are attacking america in part do to religion then they have no concept on whats going on imo.

That's exactly right. It is a religious war. They have this pattern - you can see it where ever you look in the world. They start out innocuously enough, just a few muslims, emphasize "peace" and right to worship. The sponsor more muslims to join them. Soon they want a concession or two. They discover it is "against their religion" to have pork in the school lunches - they could pack their own lunch, but never mind, they lobby to get the school to change. They try a few more times - maybe they can't afford to take their veil off for a drivers license photo or some other concession. That's how it starts. It's not too long before they want Sharia law ("only for themselves, of course") and etc, until they are defending their "right" to commit "honor killings" (it is a religous/cultural thing).

Of course they will object to any Christian or Jewish displays, slowly turning their sights on dress codes in schools (kids that wear crosses as a necklace are offending the muslim religion). They exert pressure on the newspapers every time they print a story showing the truth about this religion, until the newspapers hardly even mention what is going on, or will report it in such a way as to disguise the motivation.

Meanwhile they will always test new limits. They try to take strange stuff passed security at the airport, just to see what will happen. A muslim nurse will try to go without washing her hands properly because she wants her sleeves covering her arms at all times ("for modesty"). A muslim doctor will refuse to see a Jewish patient, or make him wait till last. Crimes against non-muslims will be defended ("look at how she was dressed" etc)

Look at Sweden, Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt for a progressive example of their agenda.

@dieseldog
"non-believer"
are you labeling? again? who said we should not label? I assume you refer to me as an atheist.

but ... why?

I just told you about religions. Not about theisms. So, why would you call me atheist? At least I haven't said anything negative about your "religious beliefs".

And even if I did so -- who cares that you find this disrespectful? what happened to the "free speech" thing? oww, I see, it ends were your personal interests begin.

If what I said is disrespectful, what do you call what notablenotices just wrote about a "pattern", as if "they" had a mission, a common goal, as if this were the only reason to go into foreign countries? IMO, this is so wrong, at many stages. and this is so typically racist and nazi-rhetoric.

I give you two clues:
first: within his text he talks about "they" and "the muslims". it is wrong to talk about "them" as if they were all the same. what would you say if I'd say "all Americans love Obama", albeit some doubtlessly do, would this be true for you?
second: you cannot expel groups of people based on their religion or culture. if this is what you try to achieve, you make one mistake: you're reacting on symptoms rather than the causes. you cannot stop people from migrating.

Do you have experienced migration personally? If not, I'll give you a private lesson:
If people migrate to a foreign country, they often do so because they hope to find a better life (speaking materially). They give up a big part of their own ancestry. Arriving in the foreign country, they often face rejection by residents (see comment of notablenotices) - but hey, there are others from their country there already, having similar problems. So, they form a society within the society (aka parallel society), and they re-gain a piece of their ancestry. This happens because of the lack of willingness to integrate the foreigners in the residential society - and it happens because of the fact that the foreigners take the decision to simply stick together. In Germany, there is a sub-culture of Muslims formed by immigrants from Turkey. But in Switzerland you can see a sub-culture of Germans ... both sub-cultures have problems to integrate seamlessly.

so, to prevent people from turning radical, you must integrate them in your society, be open to them and give them a reason to not turn radical. yes: it is the duty of the residential societies. if you behave towards immigrants this way, they will be open to you and adopt your values.

has these considerations been part of your "concept on whats going on"?

who said we should not label - not me.

I just told you about religions. Not about theisms - split hairs all you want, your statement along with the bible is a fairytale speaks for its-self.

So, why would you call me atheist - i did no such thing. again your trying to cause trouble.

who cares that you find this disrespectful? what happened to the "free speech" thing - free speech has its limits as do all rights. your SU read up on the terms of use for the site. read comment 2 on link below.

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Topic/Abusive_behavior_on_site_346?page=1

Do you have experienced migration personally? If not, I'll give you a private lesson - i'll give you one as well. when migrating to the US started there was no special treatment for anybody. you learned to speak english, follow the laws, and work to pull your own weight. the US thrived for many decades doing things that way. if you don't wanna adapt to the american way go migrate else where. nobody is forcing them to come here. why should the mexicans, muslims, arabs, etc get benefits the germans, italians, polish, etc didn't? when you give one group special rights over others that causes trouble. why should my kid be denied pork in his school lunch because it offends another kid? nobody is forcing any kids to eat pork in american schools. i hate mac & cheese, but i don't want it removed from school lunches.

so, to prevent people from turning radical, you must integrate them in your society, be open to them and give them a reason to not turn radical - NO!!!! they must intergrate into society on their own just like my fore fathers did. they have a reason not to turn radical...its called not going to jail and wanting to stay in the US to make a better life for themselves.

Immigration was far easier back when Lewis W. Hine was documenting it. You got off a boat, the government changed your name, and you were welcome in the United States. Today it's a whole different ballgame. Me, I'm happy there are so many new US citizens, residents and immigrants, legal and illegal. The vast majority of them work harder than Americans.

David was the primary author of the Psalms, which may explain a few things. What I'd like, if you want to find human symbols of knowledge in the bible, is someone like King Solomon, far more enlightened than Jesus.

DD and NN - You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.

You are also free to 'find it disrespectful' that kruijs thinks your religion is a facade. If you do find it 'disrespectful' however, that is, of course, your problem. Kruisj is entitled to his view point too.

As am I - I like the idea of loving everyone and being good to people, but notwithstanding there is no God, and people who think that a 2000 year old text is a good starting point on which to base your life are misguided to a greater or lesser extent (stay away from that Crustacian!!).

Im tempted to not even comment on comment 121, arguing these points gives a hint of credibility to the ignorant xenophobic comments therein ("'They try to take strange stuff passed security at the airport, just to see what will happen'" -who is 'they' NN? - 1.6 billion muslim people from Britain to Indoneasia? - please...)

But I do have to query one thing: "maybe they can't afford to take their veil off for a drivers license photo or some other concession. That's how it starts".

The 'refusal' to take off a veil for a drivers licence story is one that has passed the rounds on various interent sites. I saw an Australian one recently that had the basic facts changed to fit the Australian setting (ie, the 'location' was changed to the State of South Australia. On investigation, it appears that the story (which originally 'took place' in Alabama) is a racist myth touted on the internet as an example of of why we should be anti-immigration.

Of course, no one ever got a drivers licence without showing their face in America OR Australia.

NN - are you thinking critically about this?

Can you fill us in on the 'details' of this story - Or will you argue that your use of the word 'maybe' means that you arent saying that it actually ever happened, just that it might one day?

Kruisj - It seems that having lost any credibility in the debate over whether the US invasion and post invasion occupation of Iraq was a brilliant and glorious thing, DD and NN are moving to more comfortable settings :)

But thats fine.

Hey NN and DD, im curious, what do you think 'Jihad' means? (not a rhetorical question)

Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society.

The Qu’ran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah; qital is used to mean “fighting.”

* Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue.
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Very good Candelario.

There are two main groups that want people to belive that Jihad means 'holy war' it its literal and belligerent sense. Those groups are :

1.

Muslim Extremists and ,

2 Western Media

Saying that terrosist attacks are 'religious' because of 'Jihad' is like saying that bomb attacks on abortion clinics are also religious.

But of course, the perversion of the religion, rather than the religion itself, is the essential player.

"its a shame they can only resort to name calling when they can't argue the facts." (dieseldog)
"I have a feeling that name-calling generally happens when the offender is fresh out of substance for a rational argument but feels no need to stop commenting" (notablenotices)

"split hairs all you want"
well, if you want to discuss with people, it is important to understand what they are saying. if you do not put effort into understanding of what the other says, why discuss anyway?

"your statement along with the bible is a fairytale speaks for its-self."
the bible is comparable to a book of fairytales, just like the Qur'an (please notify the wide range of congruence amongst the stories in them). maybe you think fairytales are bad - I don't. but I don't think that these stories are worth killing people - not in a Jihad, not in a crusade. you should see fairytales as stories which tell you what to do, and what better not to do - some guidelines for life.

"i did no such thing. again your trying to cause trouble."
so, then explain to me what "non-believer" means to you. I explained to you how I came to this assumption. why should this be "trying to cause trouble"?

"free speech has its limits as do all rights"
what an insight! I'm glad we agree on this one. you know my opinion that the integrity of people comes before the right on free speech.

"when migrating to the US started ..."
yes, around 500 years ago

"they must intergrate into society on their own just like my fore fathers did."
ah, you mean "melting pot". have you heard about the term "salad bowl"?

"its called not going to jail and wanting to stay in the US to make a better life for themselves"
yes, of couse. just to make sure that you understand: if you live along the lines of Muslim traditions (I'm not talking about Taliban), you won't have to go to jail in the US. the radicalization comes with the misuse of the religion - as I mentioned earlier.

PS: Why didn't you take position on the remark I made referring to notablenotices comment?

PS: I fear you will be campaigning for this in every occasion, so I want to make it clear: I don't see a reason to "resign as SU" myself. Maybe you should open up a forum so we can discuss this issue further if it means that much to you. if you want to urge for me to resign as SU, consider to simply contact the HD chiefs too. either way please, just refrain from bringing that up over and over in the comments as we are discussing something completely different.

For ACTUAL information on how both Australia and the US have managed to maintain a common sense approach to public policy in the face of the Muslim faith, see below :

US Muslim ordered to lift veil

A Florida judge has told a Muslim woman that she must remove her veil for an identification photograph if she wants to be issued with a driver's licence.

Sultaana Freeman, a United States citizen who converted to Islam six years ago, had her licence revoked after she refused to remove the veil, called a niqab, for the picture.

She filed a lawsuit in January 2002 claiming that forcing her to remove the niqab, which leaves only her eyes uncovered, violated her constitutional right to religious freedom.

However, Judge Janet Thorpe found that "the momentary raising of her veil for the purpose of the ID photo does not constitute a substantial burden on her right to exercise her religion".

The requirement that all potential drivers have their driver's licence photos taken unveiled, uncloaked, and unmasked does not unconstitutionally burden the free exercise of religion

Judge Thorpe said it was essential that drivers could be identified from their licence photographs in order the ensure that the public were kept safe from "criminal activities and security threats".

AND FROM the Australia Government Department for Planning and Infrastructure (licencing) website FAQ's:

4. My religion requires me to wear a veil covering my head and face. How does this affect my photo on my driver's licence?

The portrait taken for the driver's licence must include full facial features however; it may cover the hair.

A photo will be taken in a private area at a Licensing Centre or Agency site. Unfortunately, Australia Post outlets cannot provide this service.

5. My religion requires me to wear head-dress which does not cover my face. How does this affect my photo on my driver's licence?

Head gear worn for religious purposes does not have to be removed for the photo capture provided it does not cover the face.

NN - not quite the social upheaval you were warning of?

"Saying that terrorist attacks are 'religious' because of 'Jihad' is like saying that bomb attacks on abortion clinics are also religious.
But of course, the perversion of the religion, rather than the religion itself, is the essential player. "

This is the same false talking point we hear over and over. The problem is, it ignores reality. The bombing of abortion clinics is overwhelmingly condemned by Christians and people of religion. This isn't the case with Islamic terrorist attacks, where martyrdom is preached from the pulpits. According to Pew Research, in some Muslim countries, there is overwhelming support for terrorist attacks against civilians as justifiable. In other Islamic countries, the support is not overwhelming, but is there.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

There is no dancing in the streets, and praising God when an abortion clinic is bombed. Not the case after an Islamic terror attack. Taking 9/11 as an example, here Muslims are dancing in the street and celebrating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

To compare the two and by that comparison say that Islamic Jihadi terrorist attacks have nothing to do with religion is nothing but fanciful wishful thinking.

buckojo - It seems that having lost any credibility in the debate over whether the US invasion and post invasion occupation of Iraq was a brilliant and glorious thing -

the invasion was done very well. the time following that wasn't the best and brightest time. we didn't cut and run, and things improved. you have found one mistake and rode it into the ground. all with hindsight i might add. where was you when the surge was announced? let me guess you was all for that? i guess if you wanna keep saying the wrong plan was choosen to invade and occupy iraq your free to do so. what would you be doing if it worked? would you be here saying all the other plans was wrong and i told you so? go on the record here today and tell me how to win in afghanistan?

Hey NN and DD, im curious, what do you think 'Jihad' means - if i say it means the sky is blue what does that accomplish? let me guess your defintion of jihad is the same as osama's/radical muslims. jihad means differnt things to differnt people. after you talk to osama let me know what his meaning is. :O)

to whom it may concern -

its a shame they can only resort to name calling when they can't argue the facts - show me where i called you a name.

if you want to urge for me to resign as SU, consider to simply contact the HD chiefs too. either way please, just refrain from bringing that up over and over in the comments as we are discussing something completely different - show me where i brought that up over and over. i said it ONE time. it wasn't in the comments either...it was in the forums.

so, then explain to me what "non-believer" means to you - a person who don't believe in GOD.

"they must intergrate into society on their own just like my fore fathers did."
ah, you mean "melting pot". - no i mean they must learn to speak and read english, obey the laws, and work to carry their own weight.

the radicalization comes with the misuse of the religion - as I mentioned earlier. - and what does that have to do with their responseabilty to intergrate in the proper way? its not the govts job to keep them from miss using religion.

Why didn't you take position on the remark I made referring to notablenotices comment - no offense i got a hard enough time trying to understand what your saying to me let alone anybody else. i know english is not your first language so i understand. the best idea you've had is to start a forum. i started the last one. either you or buckyojo start this one. you can post the link here and i'll continue to discuss this subject their.

"show me where i brought that up over and over"
please just read what I write: "I fear you will be campaigning for this in every occasion".

"they must intergrate into society on their own just like my fore fathers did."
vs "learn to speak and read english, obey the laws, and work to carry their own weight"
IMO, that's quite a difference. since what your "fore fathers did" was building the nation actively, fighting a civil war and setting up a constitution. maybe you have problems to understand what I write - but you do not even write what you think.

"a person who don't believe in GOD."
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism*, or the assertion that deities** do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
* Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity**
** A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.
which means "a person who don't believe in GOD." = Atheist

"and what does that have to do with their responseabilty to intergrate in the proper way?"
you're starting to run in circles. I've said before that both parties have a responsibility to integrate.

"i got a hard enough time trying to understand what your saying to me"
feel free to ask if you're in doubt.

@buckojo:

So you just make stuff up about how life must be in the USA and try to tell me about it? I have lived here for many years now and know a few things... I just looked it up to be sure and here is the list I found:

Kansas, Pennsylvania and Indiana allow veiled women a no-photo driver’s license.
Montana exempts religious veils from the requirement of a full-faced picture.
Washington allows pictures of veiled women, but stipulates that such driver’s licenses are not valid for identification purposes.

@ Ok NN I'm man enough to admit when Im wrong - No-one ever got a driver licence without showing their face in 49 of 52 American states or Australia.

Of course, the rules in place in Kansas, Indiana and Pennsylvania (and other states), are for the benefit of Pentacostal Christians, Indian Sikhs and Jewish men as well - not just muslim people.

Further, you were implying that such changes to laws was the thin end of the wedge which ends up in the imposition of shriah law :

"That's how it starts. It's not too long before they want Sharia law ("only for themselves, of course") and etc, until they are defending their "right" to commit "honor killings" (it is a religous/cultural thing)"

with respect NN - you still have a very long way to go to mount a persuasive argument that the presence of muslim people in America will lead to Sahriah law and legally justified "honour killings".

Frankly, I think you are scare mongering and appealing to the worst racists elements in people by use of fear.

Youre attempts to generalise about 1.6 billion people (ie, your repeated use of the terms 'they' to describe anyone of the muslim faith) is a good demonstration of just how unsophistacted your logic is, and just how ready you are to roll a huge amount of people into a single stereotype.

@ DD - "the invasion was done very well. the time following that wasn't the best and brightest time. we didn't cut and run, and things improved. you have found one mistake and rode it into the ground"

One mistake DD? - scroll through my previous comments. I repeat :

1. Disbanding the army
2. Debathecation
3. Using very young troops with no cultural training as simultaneous warriors and peace keeps
4. Abandonment of lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation.
5. Little to no oversight resulting in incidents like Abu Graib
6. Private profit making to the expense of faster and better improvement in Iraq day to day life.
7. A Vice president who also stands to profit massively from a long drawn out invasion.

You wish it was "one" mistake.

BTW - I was all for the surge. Not that it was a new idea. Generals who were asked pre invasion what they thought would be necessary to occupy Iraq safely gave numbers similar to the surge. Their advice was ignored in 2003. It took 4 years for the administration to catch up and do it right. Thats mistake number 8 (but who's counting? its only "one" little tiny mistake right?)

Tell you how to win in Afghanistan? whats yr point? Im saying the US has alot to apologise for in its lack of post invasion Iraq occupation.

I note yr pretty defensive when I ask for your definition on a pivotal term in Islam (Jihad). Why is that?

@ Drnet - Actually the vast majority of Muslim people condemn terrosit attacks. 'Preaching from the Pulpit" - you need to undertsand that Islam does not have the same structured heirachy, and overarching control of ministers that Christianity does. Yes, in some places, people stand up and say that terroist attacks are mandated by Allah. But, again, the vast majority of Islamic people condemn those people. Making a statement that Islam is in large part in favour of terror attacks is simply misleading.

I looked at that utube video. Including children under ten I spotted about 30-40 people on the street. 1.6 billion muslims in the world and you show me a group representing .000000025% in order to make a sweeping generalisation about the rest?

BTW - im pretty sure that a few US citizens would have agreed with bombing abortion clinics. the fact that they dont go onto the streets and yell it is testamount to the social stigma that would come from such fundmentalism.

The USA has some of the most fundemantalist religious folk in the world.

Again, terrosim 'in the name of Allah' is less to do with the religion's true teachings, and more to do with subversion of religious vehicles, texts and structures for ulterior purposes.

I would have thought that was obvious.

@buckojo:

52 states now? You have been influenced by your friend B.O.!

Seriously though, the comment you are talking about (#121) was one I made without referring specifically to the United States, Australia, or any other country. It is a pattern repeated world-wide. I am not scare-mongering when I am just repeating news stories!

@notablenotices

is that scare-mongering text taken from a "news story"?
can you show me a reference where you got it from?

Of course, I will be glad to show you where I got the news from. However I said "news stories" - there were several of them. Which point in particular were you interested in?

I'm glad you ask.

To start with: I'd like to know who reported a detected "pattern" which one can see "where ever you look in the world" in which all Muslims are involved.

Ok, that one is easy. Here is a start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6avCybQjg

Thanks "Notable" this is potent stuff. It is defiantly time for people who care what the world will look like in the near and distant future to wake up and smell the coffee. Great point @2:03 into the video.

@NN - 52 states including Iraq and denial

Kruisj, NN and excavator - In the interest of open and useful debate here is the link the legislation in question :

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/2184e627479f8392ca256da50082bf3e/33085D72B93EB338CA2573E2000BA4EB/$FILE/01-47a005.pdf

Here is the preamble to the act :

Version No. 005
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
No. 47 of 2001
Version incorporating amendments as at 8 February 2008
Preamble

1 The Parliament recognises that freedom of expression is an essential component of a democratic society and that this freedom should be limited only to the extent that can be justified by an open and democratic society. The right of all citizens to participate equally in society is also an important value of a democratic society.

2 The people of Victoria come from diverse ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds and observe many different religious beliefs and practices. The majority of Victorians embrace the benefits provided by this cultural diversity and are proud that people of these diverse ethnic, Indigenous and religious backgrounds live together harmoniously in Victoria.

3 However, some Victorians are vilified on the ground of their race or their religious belief or activity. Vilifying conduct is contrary to democratic values because of its effect on people of diverse ethnic, Indigenous and religious backgrounds. It diminishes their dignity, sense of self-worth and belonging to the community. It also reduces their ability to contribute to, or fully participate in, all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as equals, thus reducing the benefit that diversity brings to the community.

4 It is therefore desirable that the Parliament enact law for the people of Victoria that supports racial and religious tolerance.

Here is the relevant section (section 8) :

8 Religious vilification unlawful

(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note
Engage in conduct includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

And here are some of the built in exceptions (sections 11 & 12) :

11 Exceptions—public conduct

(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

12 Exceptions—private conduct
(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person engaged in the conduct in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to the conduct desire it to be heard or seen only by themselves.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to conduct in any circumstances in which the parties to the conduct ought reasonably to expect that it may be heard or seen by someone else.

I dont know much about the court case that is referred to, but I suggest that anyone who wants to comment on it should try and read the judge first.

As for the Act itself, NN - is this your evidence of a 'world wide' pattern.

Really?

If the pattern is as broad and clear as you seem to think it is, surely you can do better than this?

@buckojo:

This is a classic case of comprehension deficit. Go over it again - Australia was only one of the many countries mentioned. That law, while misguided, is not the point of the discussion. It was to illustrate recurring patterns in the muslim population where they shelter and aid extremism in part of an effort to displace other cultures.

and case should be evidence for a pattern - if it is one at all?
I'd like to use your comment #121 to create a hubdub market. Something along the lines:

<table>
<tr><td>

Global WarmIslamisation-mongering- Will ANY of these countries introduce Sharia law?

</td></tr>
<tr><td>

Australia: Christian Pastors Taken to Court to Silence Criticism of Islam

That's exactly right. It is a religious war. They have this pattern - you can see it where ever you look in the world. They start out innocuously enough, just a few muslims, emphasize "peace" and right to worship. The sponsor more muslims to join them. Soon they want a concession or two. They discover it is "against their religion" to have pork in the school lunches - they could pack their own lunch, but never mind, they lobby to get the school to change. They try a few more times - maybe they can't afford to take their veil off for a drivers license photo or some other concession. That's how it starts. It's not too long before they want Sharia law ("only for themselves, of course") and etc, until they are defending their "right" to commit "honor killings" (it is a religous/cultural thing).

(omitted part of the comment)

Look at Sweden, Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt for a progressive example of their agenda.

Here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6avCybQjg

</td></tr><table>

Would settle "Yes" if any of those countries introduces Sharia Law within the next 50 years or so. Starting percentage: 5.

hm, table seems not to work here. pity.

here is Ahmadinejad talking about his global plans for islam: http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperShangool
from http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197977.php
Garduneh Mehr : Yes I can understand it completely. I'm itemizing the main points below.

1. This meeting [according to AhmadiNezhad] was held in the city of Qom which is the "Vatican of the Mullahs".
2. He fawns upon the cleric sitting to his left saying that he's grateful to Allah for being able to visit this cleric. [The identity of this cleric can be significant. I suspect he maybe AhmadiNezhad's mentor Mesbah Yazdi; but I can not tell for sure.]
3. Then he says "That the Islamic revolution must not be limited in time or space."
4. Throughout he makes intentionally ambiguous references to their "Goals and fondest wishes". [This can only mean one of two things: (a) the subjugation of the planet under the mullahs (b) the coming of their Shiah Messiah "Qa'im" whom they think will conquer the world.]
5. He says: "Fighting corruption and meting out justice is the source of much joy; but the greater joy is when our Primary Goal is achieved. [The same thing highlighted above.]
6. He continues: "All our efforts must be directed towards that Fundamental and Primary objective".
7. "Revolution has found its own way and a new phase has begun."
8. "A difficult period has ended; yet an even more difficult period has begun."
9. He says that he hopes that "this more difficult period will result in that very thing for which we are all anxiously waiting. [This could only mean the coming of their Shiah Messiah. In other words, he sees his plans, his actions, and his goals as being directed solely towards hastening the coming of "Qa'im".]
10. He claims: "A great energy has been released inside and outside Iran which seeks to server the Islamic revolution."
11. "This energy", he continues: "is in need of guidance and administration".
12. "The conditions for everything that we had said and had hoped for, I [AhamdiNezhad] believe are materializing.
13. "This movement needs strong support and strong leadership." [Probably talking about himself.]
14. "The first and best place and time to provide this support is right here in our mutual understanding.. amongst those who have devoted and continue to devote their lives to the materialization of the Islamic rule."
15. "The conditions are perfect; and I for my part ask for your assistance while being your servant as one who was not originally part of this movement. This movement is a gift from Allah."
16. "This movement", he continues "is hopefully the ignition point of great global changes." [At this point there's no doubt in my mind that he is talking about bringing about a global upheaval, perhaps with WMD's, for the purpose of hastening the coming of their Qa'im.]
17. He says that he sees himself as having been given the responsibility

so, you guess, Ahmadinejad has the master plan to "the Islamic revolution" which each and every Muslim will follow?
have you watched the news from Iran recently?

You failed to answer my question - although "that one is easy" - with both posts.

What Ahmadinejad does is using the Islam "to cover, to justify the strive for power, or the pursuit for domination of people" - as I said before. The Islam does not say he must do so - it's his personal interpretation. And thus, it is not a goal of a "common" Muslim.


I'll give you a second try. In case you forgot what I'm asking for, I'll repeat:

I'd like to know who reported a detected "pattern" which one can see "where ever you look in the world" in which all Muslims are involved.

@kruijs:

You will have to try better than that! Those are your words - I never said anything about "in which all Muslims are involved" - and I am not talking about the obvious weak grammatical construct either!

The first video that I linked amply supports my statement. Many countries are referenced. A pattern is referenced, and your tortured response in #146 did not merit a comment.

Here is a similar "plan", this time from PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's fertile imagination:
http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm
1. Through the "armed struggle" (i.e., terrorism), to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2)
2. To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)
3. To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory"). (Article 8)



But wait - they have one for the USA too (a 20 step plan this time):
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0905/77.html

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with hate crime bills state-wide and nation-wide. [ Only here do I feel the author overstates. A democracy must be free to defend itself. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote that 'you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.]

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities to promote Islam as the original African-American's religion while Christianity is for the whites! Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, "Abed."

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office for favorable legislation to Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America - the black gold. America's economy depends on oil, (1000 products are derived from oil), so does its personal and industrial transportation and manufacturing -41% comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell, "foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran" anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
a. Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
b. No birth control whatsoever - every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
c. Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years - since one cannot have the Muslim legal permission to marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
d. Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2000 released inmates have joined Al Qaida world-wide). Only a few have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil. So far - sleeping cells!

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are 300 exclusively Muslim schools with loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish "Centers for Islamic studies" with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher education institutions. [See Israel Lives articles recounting incitement and pro-palestinian events on college campuses including Columbia University, U/C Berkeley, San Francisco State College, Ohio State College, Concordia, Duke University, CUNY Buffalo etcetc ]

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, not the truth, which is Islam hijacked the terrorists. Furthermore in January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4500 packets of the Quran, videos, promoting Islam to America's high schools--free. They would never allow us to reciprocate.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards the Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls. (We have experienced this too often since 9-11.)

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not American's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting that freshman take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the writer is a bonafide American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran and express the peaceful, spiritual and religious aspect only.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media of their visibility. [ Editors note: CAIR is the leading Islamic public relations organization in the USA. It operates like Hamas, doing some good and a lot bad. All the while it represents itself as the public relations arm of Muslims and has access to the President of the United States, Governors, Mayors etc nation wide.]

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook. [Editors note: The recent demotion of radio talk show host Michael Graham occurred because CAIR pressured Disney Corp. http://jewishworldreview.com/templates/graham.php3?sent=false]

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US [or the UK or Australia etc] by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America, thereby making their vote indispensable for the unfortunate politician looking for any and all votes.

NN - I note that the author of that supposed 20 year plan writes :

"The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020! Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11"

Pretty sensational huh? - only 11 years to go until 'Islamists' take over America, According to the author anyway...

You have to wonder just how well 'researched' this guy is. For example, point 20 :

"20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US [or the UK or Australia etc] by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America, thereby making their vote indispensable for the unfortunate politician looking for any and all votes".

Umm, how could this author have missed the fact that voting in Australia is compulsory???

'Spotlighting' 'their' voting record seems a bit silly when everyone votes, doesnt it?

NN - this guy is not credible, and neither is any argument based on his uninformed ramblings.

@buckojo:

You obviously missed the fact that the comments in the square brackets were supplied by the editor, not the original author.

ahh the editor. Presumbaly someone who works for Kroenig News.

Here is Kroenig's mission statement :

"Provide readers, by means of a 365-day, year-round news service, with "front lines" information from the White House relevant to Israel and its role in the unfolding global drama.

Educate readers, through truthful, discerning, and frequent commentary, about the significance of current events affecting Israel and our world either directly or indirectly."

So not only is the editor ignorant of easily obtainable facts about other countries (such as his mistake the voting in Australia is not compulsory) he/she also seems to have a pretty strong vested interest in creating a fear of Muslims in the USA.

As for the author, He/She appears to have been makign a living by demonising Islam for over 20 years.

Credibility and Competancy issues are alive and well.

@buckojo:

Kind of like your misstatement about drivers licenses?
And speaking of Credibility and Competency {that is the correct spelling}, you are good at jumping to conclusions - is there any chance the editor could have worked for HVK?
The content of the article stands uncontested, regardless of what the unknown editor added in clearly marked square brackets.

NN @ "Kind of like your mistatement about drivers licence?" Yes and No

Im writing on a recreational website, not getting paid to be an editor (which job involves thorough fact checking). Further, No-one is relying on my previous posts to mount an argument about what 1.6 billion people are planning to do (ie take over the USA).

On the other hand, the link you posted is supposedly your 'evidence' that there are reports of a world wide pattern of what Islamic people are up to around the world.

And its pretty shaky evidence given the forum it appears in. The content btw is most ceratinly not 'uncontested'.

If you dont have any concerns about vested interests in the author and the host publisher, NN, perhaps I can 'prove' to you that the USA is one of the worlds leading state terroists by posting 'news articles' (which in reality are opinion pieces) to that effect that appear on al Jazera?

Lets be clear, Kruiks has asked you repeatdly for clarification of who reports that there is a 'world wide pattern'.

what you have managed to come up with is an opinion piece on a pro-Israel website, and posted a link to do with the thoughts of now dead Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Im really not surprised you'd prefer to take cheap shots on spelling rather than try and justify your position.

@notablenotices,
you are the first to say that you have problems in understanding my written English. I'm sorry if it is not clear to you what I'm aiming at. But, as I said before, feel free to ask. If you don't ask for clarification I must assume you understand what I'm saying.

all others understand it. quite funny that you're the only one to make a point out of it. couldn't you simply refrain to name-calling when you're running out of arguments?

buckojo, at least, understood what I'm asking for:

your post #121 is a hate speech text. it uses Nazi rhetorics and xenophobic elements. I tried to make that more visible in comment #146 that it simply is a kind of Islamic thread mongering.

Fact is: The radical fundamentalist Muslims are far away from achieving a Sharia Law state in any western country. Especially Turkey, which fought on the Allies side in WWII, is a NATO member, has a very strongly secularized democracy. Did you know that in Turkey headscarf's are banned in state institutions and education? If you want to read further http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey (it's English).

@kruijs:

You are the one running out of arguments. #121 is not hate speech. That is the canard that the left run to when they run out of arguments. I never said what you claim about being close to achieving Sharia Law - you are always misunderstanding or twisting what I say in order to make a cheap "point".

The fact is that Sharia Law has arrived in England: see Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

[More at the link...]

There was a billboard campaign in parts of the US to warn about this http://bobmccarty.com/2008/11/21/billboard-sharia-law-threatens-america/

kruijs: you and I both know that nazis were far-left radicals who wanted to use eugenics enforced through big government to remove whole societies from the gene pool. You and I both know that is not what I am talking about. It is the farthest thing from it. I am commenting that there is a group out there that systematically threatens other people's way of life - not just westerners. I am not offering "solutions" - just comments directly out of the news. I hope you can keep your discourse civil, because I am finding some of your comments borderline inflammatory.

@notablenotices

Well, let me explain to you why comment #121 actually is "hate" speech:

1) You use the term "war" which is far from appropriate to describe a social problem (at least in my, European eyes)

2) You constantly say "they" which refers (suggestively) to the whole group, ie. all Muslims

3) You talk of a pattern which "they" allegedly have, as if they all would follow one master plan

4) You explain this pattern by building a cascade of situations, suggestively harmless to society-threatening. you descibe it as if, once started, the point of no return has passed.

5) You mark religious habits as odd by using quoted sentences like "against their religion". you show disrespect while using dismissive sentences like "but never mind" or "they discover", "it is a religion/cultural thing", "strange stuff".

6) You use individual cases to back up your allegation regarding the whole group

7) You propose a separation of cultures rather than accepting different preferences (pork free lunch and vegi menu go well together actually).

8) You use the phrase "That's how it starts." as if this were the point to act, eg. eleminate.

9) You leave the conclusion open - but the reader knows what the consequenses ought to be (see point 8)

This is my personal interpretation of what you wrote. Let's see how well you text matches with the definition of Islamophobia:

1) The British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims"

2) "It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion."

IMO, two perfect matches.

notablenotices, I showed you why I consider the comment to be "hate speech".

can you explain why I should not do so?

@NN - I dont have a problem with the statemet per se, its just that yr evidenec appears cherry picked and weak. For example :

"I am commenting that there is a group out there that systematically threatens other people's way of life - not just westerners. I am not offering "solutions" - just comments directly out of the news"

Fine. But you are attempting to demostrate that news reports on the 'imposition' of Sharia law are a basis for this so called 'threat'. The balance of the news link you posted states, amongst other things :

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

AND

"Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So :

1. there is no 'imposition' - no-one is bound by these laws unless the agree to it, and
2. other religions do the same thing, and have done so for decades without any suggestion that they are a threat to general society.

Again, sensationalism dressed up as legitimacy.

nn - you are always misunderstanding or twisting what I say in order to make a cheap "point". - i couldn't have said it better myself. he always assumes then decides thats what was ment. he loves to nit-pic and twist things to cause trouble where there is none. he post things out of fear then claims he knew it would happen thats why he did it. now he's post a word that isn't in a dictionary that i could find to try and make a point. FWIW i knew he wouldn't start a forum. as we all can see he didn't! i personally don't like waiting for 150+ comments to load to have a discussion. since i did this time might was well post what i had typed in the slim chance that he did start a forum. i'm not saying theres any rule saying anybody has to start a forum. imo after 50 comments it should be made into a forum subject to keep it out of the area where people are playing the game.

either way please, just refrain from bringing that up over and over in the comments as we are discussing something completely different - you brought the subject up (out of fear) not me. where did i or anybody else bring it up on this subject? again your trying to make something out of nothing.

since what your "fore fathers did" was building the nation actively, fighting a civil war and setting up a constitution. - after all that was done there still wasn't nothing special done for any one group of people to intergrate. the US still thrived, and continued to welcome people to come. the people coming didn't ask that we change anything for them either. its worked for 200+ years, don't see no reason to fix something that ain't broke.

which means "a person who don't believe in GOD." = Atheist - thats your interpation not mine.

but you do not even write what you think. - so who thoughts am i writing?

and what does that have to do with their responseabilty to intergrate in the proper way?"
you're starting to run in circles. I've said before that both parties have a responsibility to integrate - see thats where your wrong. the US doesn't have to nor should it have to change anything to intergrate anybody. you come here its your responseabilty to intergrate to the way the US is run. if you don't like that then to bad..don't come here.

"i got a hard enough time trying to understand what your saying to me"
feel free to ask if you're in doubt - thats all i would get done. i don't login to HD to answer your ramblings.

bucko - if you wanna list things and count each one as a mistake made thats your right. after the invasion was complete there was good and bad.

1. Disbanding the army - if they left the army intact who's to say the wouldn't have been more of a problem? they would have to watch them like a hawk. one rogue general coulda took control, and caused all kinds of problems.
2. Debathecation - get rid of the dictator, but leave his henchmen in place. that makes alot of sense.
3. Using very young troops with no cultural training as simultaneous warriors and peace keeps - so the military should be only old people with cultural training in every society on earth. that makes alot of sense.
4. Abandonment of lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation. - don't know what your saying? does vietnam represent all countries? every re occupation should be done in the same way?
5. Little to no oversight resulting in incidents like Abu Graib - again one incident in iraq and you try to say it represents the whole kit and kaboodle. that coulda happen if we had a millon troops there.
6. Private profit making to the expense of faster and better improvement in Iraq day to day life. - so the iraqi's would be better off today if they was the only people to rebuild their infrastructure? you really think it would be this far along if only the iraqi people rebuilt it?
7. A Vice president who also stands to profit massively from a long drawn out invasion. - you have his financial portfolio? after you show us that how bout showing us obama's orginal BC.

Tell you how to win in Afghanistan? whats yr point? - you can't be an armchair quater back using hindsight. is the war in Afghanistan being run right? in other words put yourself on the record now so 3 months from now you ain't saying it was done wrong. are they using the lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation or what they learned in iraq?

i'll ask you again..if the plan chosen worked fine would you be here complaining about the other plans?

I note yr pretty defensive when I ask for your definition on a pivotal term in Islam (Jihad). - not defensive. just not gonna fall for that. i say it means XYZ, you come back and say it means ABC. its a islamic/muslim word and not all muslims agree on what it means. so who's definition is correct..let me guess the one you say?

we're now over 160 comments on this. both sides have made their points and counter points. guess i'll wait another 5 days to respond...if deemed necessary. :O)

@kruijs:

We know from statements you have made in other forums that you hate americans, you hate conservatives, you hate catholics, and now you have shown step by step how you have read my simple statements through your prism of hatred and contorted it into a very different meaning. If we are to have a reasonable discussion, it should be over statements as they are actually presented, and not over some "hidden meaning" that you claim to have found "between the lines".

I agree with DD that 160+ comments provides more than generous space for discussion - and the points I have made here are clear enough for people who care for content over controversy. We can all see what you contributed too.

DD -

"if you wanna list things and count each one as a mistake made, thats your right"

No - I am listing each mistake that was made and then adding them up - thats mathematics. You obviously dont accept that any one of the 7 points has any legitiamcy as a criticism of the inavsion and post invasion occupation as you sacastically commnent :' that makes alot of sense'

Actually DD - They DO make alot of sense - any research into the botch job that was the invasion and occupation of Iraq would make that clear. Ill try and help you :

"if they left the army intact who's to say the wouldn't have been more of a problem? they would have to watch them like a hawk. one rogue general coulda took control, and caused all kinds of problems".

Post invasion the army was shattered, and the generals dead, arrested or in hiding. Yes, potentially a rogue general could have opposed the US, but its doubtful that he could have 'taken control' over an army which was shattered with any real force.

More to the point, insurgent attacks began to sky rocket in frequency after the army was disbanded. It does not take a genuis to work out why DD - but ill explain anyway. By disbanding the army the US was effectively saying to hundreds of thousands of members of the iraqi army "You have no job, you will not be paid any money so you cannot support your family, take your weapons and go home'.

I have to laugh when you suggest that the army 'could have caused all kinds of problesm'. Dude the army disbanded and large portions of them became part of the insurgency. Does that constitute 'all kinds of probelms' to you?

This is not my idea BTW, and this is also the point i am making. The US was ADVISED prior, yes, prior, to invasion that they should keep the army intact. Bremmer ignored that advice and disbanded the army. It made 'alot of sense' to keep the symbol of power in iraq in place - but the US was incompetent and ignored that path.

2. Debathecation - get rid of the dictator, but leave his henchmen in place. that makes alot of sense.

Actually DD it DOES make alot of sense if you understand what i am saying. The US was advised prior, yes, prio to invasion that it should implement debathithacation so as to get rid of saddam AND his top 'henchmen'. If you had read my earlier posts you would be aware that the criticism is that the US (Bremmer again), went beyond that initial advise and made most levels of the ba'ath party unlawful. As I said in earlier posts, the Ba'ath party has been around since the 30's. Anyone who wanted to advance in Iraq HAD to become a member. By outlawing most levels of the Ba'ath party, council men, city workers, sewarage treatment workers, tax collectors (I could go on - basically all the people in Iraq who knew how to run the country), lost their jobs and could not bring their knowledge to help Iraq. the country collpased and people got angry. Bingo the insurgency. Get it?

"3. Using very young troops with no cultural training as simultaneous warriors and peace keeps - so the military should be only old people with cultural training in every society on earth. that makes alot of sense."

DD this one is so inane im sure a reasonably intelligent 12 year old would be embarrased. No. I am not suggesting that the army should be comprised only of old people who can converse in Inuit, Appache and Cambodian. Im suggesting that if a country takes it upon itself to attack another country so as to topple the leader of that country and then set up a new leadership it needs to take that role seriously. Part of that includes basic training of the culture of Iraq (not "every country on earth" - why on earth would you suggest 'every country on earth?' - thats almost wilfully stupid.

The US should have had the forseight to provide basic cultural training for the protection of its own troops and the Iraqi people.

(Ill give you a good example. the first 50,000 or so troops who went to iraq in 2003 had almost no training on important cultural nuances in Iraq - for example, in the West, in order to get a truck or vehicle to stop from a distance, you would hold up your hand, palm out, with fingers extended. In Iraq that means 'hello'. So here we have a situation where tjhousands of US troops were trying to get vehicles to stop driving towards them by repeatedly signalling 'hello' over and over again to the driver).

so, its not important that troops have social training on every society in the world, just the society they happen to be invading. Do I really need to explain this?

"4. Abandonment of lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation. - don't know what your saying? does vietnam represent all countries? every re occupation should be done in the same way? "

DD - Ill explain what im saying. Many texts were written by US officers who were in Vietnam about how to go about occupying a foreign country in such a way that minimises the tension between the occupying force and the ocuupied people, and to maximise the levels of trust and co-operation between the two. Almost all of these texts advocated detailed and comprehensive cultural training as a starting point. The US was, of course, aware of these texts and the lessons that were PAINFUILLY learnt in Vietnam.

Did they implement them? - No - see above.

"5. Little to no oversight resulting in incidents like Abu Graib - again one incident in iraq and you try to say it represents the whole kit and kaboodle. that coulda happen if we had a millon troops there."

DD My use of the words 'incidents like' should tip you off that im talking about many incidents, not just one and that Abu Graib was but one glaring example of what happens when there is little oversight and little training. Other examples involve 'drag netting' young Iraqi men and kicking down family homes' doors in the middle of the night in the name of intelligence gathering (A grave mistake that yeilded little intellignce but which created great animosity between the Iraqi people and the US troops).

Yes, it 'coulda happened with a million troops' - But it shouldnt have happened at all.

"6. Private profit making to the expense of faster and better improvement in Iraq day to day life. - so the iraqi's would be better off today if they was the only people to rebuild their infrastructure? you really think it would be this far along if only the iraqi people rebuilt it?"

Read the words i have written DD - I am not saying that the Iraqi's would be better of if they were left to rebuild without assistence. Your criticism is a simplification of a complex problem. I am asserting that the unchecked profiteering hampered the rebuilding process. It is typical of your simple logic to try and use the 'Hey how far along would they be if we offered no assistence whatsoever' argument. Firstly, it would be of course morally objectionable for any country to invade another, topple the regime, and then offer no assistnce. Secondly, and more to the point, the emphasise was on PRIVATE corporate profit and not GOVERNMENT REGULATED (I know how much Americans seem to hate that concept), transaparent, and accountable rebuilding.

"7. A Vice president who also stands to profit massively from a long drawn out invasion. - you have his financial portfolio? after you show us that how bout showing us obama's orginal BC."

No, i havent seen Cheney's financial portfolio. Cheney retired from his position with Halliburton in 2000, and got close to $40 million as a 'golden handshake'. He then went on to be instrumental in the decision to go to war in Iraq, and guess who got the defence contract?

DD - do you need me to explain what a conflict of interest is?

"You can't be an armchair quater back using hindsight. is the war in Afghanistan being run right? in other words put yourself on the record now so 3 months from now you ain't saying it was done wrong. are they using the lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation or what they learned in iraq?"

Hopefully by now DD you'll see that my critism is NOT based in hindsight. Most of my criticsim comes from the fact that the US was aware of the way that post invasion Iraq should have been handled BEFORE they invaded - but simply ignored them.

Again, the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan are related, but seperate, invasions. My guess is that the US is beginning to use the lessons learnt in Vietnamn and Iraq. whether that is enough to 'win' in Iraq is unclear. What by the way, do you consider to be a win? Is it the destruction of the Taliban, or destruction of all terroists?, or something else? You need to define 'win' if you want my comment on that notion.

I think however, that you need to prepare yourself for the fact that the US invasion in Afghanistan will be as unpleasent for them as it was for the Russians. The question may not be 'how does the US win in Afghhanistan' but rather, "what is the best way for the US to leave Afghnaistan without totally destablising the region"

In any event, I am proposing that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was such a botch job, which resulted in so much unncesary death and destruction that an apology is warranted. Try and keep to the subject.

"I note yr pretty defensive when I ask for your definition on a pivotal term in Islam (Jihad). - not defensive. just not gonna fall for that. i say it means XYZ, you come back and say it means ABC"

DD - if your not going to dip your toe into the debate (and most debates are meaningless without definitions) just stay on the sidelines and dont waste my time.

DD -

"if you wanna list things and count each one as a mistake made, thats your right"

No - I am listing each mistake that was made and then adding them up - thats mathematics. You obviously dont accept that any one of the 7 points has any legitiamcy as a criticism of the inavsion and post invasion occupation as you sacastically commnent :' that makes alot of sense'

Actually DD - They DO make alot of sense - any research into the botch job that was the invasion and occupation of Iraq would make that clear. Ill try and help you :

"if they left the army intact who's to say the wouldn't have been more of a problem? they would have to watch them like a hawk. one rogue general coulda took control, and caused all kinds of problems".

Post invasion the army was shattered, and the generals dead, arrested or in hiding. Yes, potentially a rogue general could have opposed the US, but its doubtful that he could have 'taken control' over an army which was shattered with any real force.

More to the point, insurgent attacks began to sky rocket in frequency after the army was disbanded. It does not take a genuis to work out why DD - but ill explain anyway. By disbanding the army the US was effectively saying to hundreds of thousands of members of the iraqi army "You have no job, you will not be paid any money so you cannot support your family, take your weapons and go home'.

I have to laugh when you suggest that the army 'could have caused all kinds of problesm'. Dude the army disbanded and large portions of them became part of the insurgency. Does that constitute 'all kinds of probelms' to you?

This is not my idea BTW, and this is also the point i am making. The US was ADVISED prior, yes, prior, to invasion that they should keep the army intact. Bremmer ignored that advice and disbanded the army. It made 'alot of sense' to keep the symbol of power in iraq in place - but the US was incompetent and ignored that path.

2. Debathecation - get rid of the dictator, but leave his henchmen in place. that makes alot of sense.

Actually DD it DOES make alot of sense if you understand what i am saying. The US was advised prior, yes, prio to invasion that it should implement debathithacation so as to get rid of saddam AND his top 'henchmen'. If you had read my earlier posts you would be aware that the criticism is that the US (Bremmer again), went beyond that initial advise and made most levels of the ba'ath party unlawful. As I said in earlier posts, the Ba'ath party has been around since the 30's. Anyone who wanted to advance in Iraq HAD to become a member. By outlawing most levels of the Ba'ath party, council men, city workers, sewarage treatment workers, tax collectors (I could go on - basically all the people in Iraq who knew how to run the country), lost their jobs and could not bring their knowledge to help Iraq. the country collpased and people got angry. Bingo the insurgency. Get it?

"3. Using very young troops with no cultural training as simultaneous warriors and peace keeps - so the military should be only old people with cultural training in every society on earth. that makes alot of sense."

DD this one is so inane im sure a reasonably intelligent 12 year old would be embarrased. No. I am not suggesting that the army should be comprised only of old people who can converse in Inuit, Appache and Cambodian. Im suggesting that if a country takes it upon itself to attack another country so as to topple the leader of that country and then set up a new leadership it needs to take that role seriously. Part of that includes basic training of the culture of Iraq (not "every country on earth" - why on earth would you suggest 'every country on earth?' - thats almost wilfully stupid.

The US should have had the forseight to provide basic cultural training for the protection of its own troops and the Iraqi people.

(Ill give you a good example. the first 50,000 or so troops who went to iraq in 2003 had almost no training on important cultural nuances in Iraq - for example, in the West, in order to get a truck or vehicle to stop from a distance, you would hold up your hand, palm out, with fingers extended. In Iraq that means 'hello'. So here we have a situation where tjhousands of US troops were trying to get vehicles to stop driving towards them by repeatedly signalling 'hello' over and over again to the driver).

so, its not important that troops have social training on every society in the world, just the society they happen to be invading. Do I really need to explain this?

"4. Abandonment of lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation. - don't know what your saying? does vietnam represent all countries? every re occupation should be done in the same way? "

DD - Ill explain what im saying. Many texts were written by US officers who were in Vietnam about how to go about occupying a foreign country in such a way that minimises the tension between the occupying force and the ocuupied people, and to maximise the levels of trust and co-operation between the two. Almost all of these texts advocated detailed and comprehensive cultural training as a starting point. The US was, of course, aware of these texts and the lessons that were PAINFUILLY learnt in Vietnam.

Did they implement them? - No - see above.

"5. Little to no oversight resulting in incidents like Abu Graib - again one incident in iraq and you try to say it represents the whole kit and kaboodle. that coulda happen if we had a millon troops there."

DD My use of the words 'incidents like' should tip you off that im talking about many incidents, not just one and that Abu Graib was but one glaring example of what happens when there is little oversight and little training. Other examples involve 'drag netting' young Iraqi men and kicking down family homes' doors in the middle of the night in the name of intelligence gathering (A grave mistake that yeilded little intellignce but which created great animosity between the Iraqi people and the US troops).

Yes, it 'coulda happened with a million troops' - But it shouldnt have happened at all.

"6. Private profit making to the expense of faster and better improvement in Iraq day to day life. - so the iraqi's would be better off today if they was the only people to rebuild their infrastructure? you really think it would be this far along if only the iraqi people rebuilt it?"

Read the words i have written DD - I am not saying that the Iraqi's would be better of if they were left to rebuild without assistence. Your criticism is a simplification of a complex problem. I am asserting that the unchecked profiteering hampered the rebuilding process. It is typical of your simple logic to try and use the 'Hey how far along would they be if we offered no assistence whatsoever' argument. Firstly, it would be of course morally objectionable for any country to invade another, topple the regime, and then offer no assistnce. Secondly, and more to the point, the emphasise was on PRIVATE corporate profit and not GOVERNMENT REGULATED (I know how much Americans seem to hate that concept), transaparent, and accountable rebuilding.

"7. A Vice president who also stands to profit massively from a long drawn out invasion. - you have his financial portfolio? after you show us that how bout showing us obama's orginal BC."

No, i havent seen Cheney's financial portfolio. Cheney retired from his position with Halliburton in 2000, and got close to $40 million as a 'golden handshake'. He then went on to be instrumental in the decision to go to war in Iraq, and guess who got the defence contract?

DD - do you need me to explain what a conflict of interest is?

"You can't be an armchair quater back using hindsight. is the war in Afghanistan being run right? in other words put yourself on the record now so 3 months from now you ain't saying it was done wrong. are they using the lessens learnt in Vietnam re occupation or what they learned in iraq?"

Hopefully by now DD you'll see that my critism is NOT based in hindsight. Most of my criticsim comes from the fact that the US was aware of the way that post invasion Iraq should have been handled BEFORE they invaded - but simply ignored them.

Again, the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan are related, but seperate, invasions. My guess is that the US is beginning to use the lessons learnt in Vietnamn and Iraq. whether that is enough to 'win' in Iraq is unclear. What by the way, do you consider to be a win? Is it the destruction of the Taliban, or destruction of all terroists?, or something else? You need to define 'win' if you want my comment on that notion.

I think however, that you need to prepare yourself for the fact that the US invasion in Afghanistan will be as unpleasent for them as it was for the Russians. The question may not be 'how does the US win in Afghhanistan' but rather, "what is the best way for the US to leave Afghnaistan without totally destablising the region"

In any event, I am proposing that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was such a botch job, which resulted in so much unncesary death and destruction that an apology is warranted. Try and keep to the subject.

"I note yr pretty defensive when I ask for your definition on a pivotal term in Islam (Jihad). - not defensive. just not gonna fall for that. i say it means XYZ, you come back and say it means ABC"

DD - if your not going to dip your toe into the debate (and most debates are meaningless without definitions) just stay on the sidelines and dont waste my time.

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html
At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday.

The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.

The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.

However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals.

The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October.

Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts.

But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques.

Mr MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.'

Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.

The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.

'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.'

[More at the link...]

Muslims and religious Americans, share common moral ground.

Muslims are often stereotypically portrayed as condoning honor killings, but the Gallup Poll findings show that Europeans surveyed and Muslim respondents in three European cities have similar views on this issue.

Just 1% of Germans and Britons and 4% of the French say honor killings (murders committed by a man against a female relative who is perceived as having "dishonored" the family) are morally acceptable, compared with 3% of Berlin and London Muslims and 5% of Paris Muslims.

Crimes of passion also elicit low levels of moral acceptability: just 2% of Britons, 1% of Germans, and equally low percentages of Muslims in all three European capitals believe such crimes are morally acceptable. The French public (8%), however, is slightly more likely than the other populations polled to say crimes of passion are morally acceptable.

On the issue of the death penalty, Europeans' and Muslim respondents' views vary; however, both groups are far less likely than the U.S. public or religious Americans are to believe it is morally acceptable. Forty-three percent of the British, 39% of the French, and 22% of the Germans, compared with 62% of Americans and 59% of religious Americans say the death penalty is morally acceptable. As a point of comparison, about 3 in 10 London Muslims (31%) and fewer than 2 in 10 Paris (19%) and Berlin Muslims (19%) say the same.

Taken together, the Gallup Poll findings show that far from speaking with one voice, residents of Western nations polled express a wide spectrum of attitudes on moral issues. Across the Muslim populations in the three European capital cities, opinions also vary, but Muslims and Westerners, especially religious Americans, share some common moral ground.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107521/Common-Ground-Europeans-Muslims-Among-Them.aspx

Will Mr Obama Apologize to Honduras? Or only to thugs and dictators?

Never forget: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1088742/Museum-scours-world-for-new-videos-of-9/11

No need to apologize

Barack Obama snubs Gordon Brown over private talks
White House spurned five requests from PM's aides for bilateral meeting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/23/barack-obama-gordon-brown-talks
Gordon Brown lurched from being hailed as a global statesman to intense embarrassment tonight, after it emerged US President Barack Obama had turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street to hold a bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York or at the G20 summit starting in Pittsburgh today.

...

But Obama has held bilateral meetings in New York with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama.

Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100011208/barack-obamas-churlishness-is-unforgivable/
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact.
[More at the link...]