Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-19-2004, 06:07 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Iraq: failure for UN, US foreign policy, but victory for national sec?

Before I begin this thread, let me say that I am a steadfast liberal and having lived in africa and seen the US screwups there from the coldwar take a generally cool view to US intervention, but...

I'd say that now we're in Iraq we're fighting a winning battle because Al Qaeda is using up their continually dwindling resources (albeit rising manpower) to send their operatives to attack us in Iraq. Why? because it is in their doctrine to get us out of the middle east and they think they can publicly emberass us by making us fail. Why are we winning? well because we have a full military in for the long haul and they are running out of space to train. I highly doubt they can force us out of Iraq, this isn't another vietnam. None of this is to say that Iraq is a great american victory at all, I just think that many liberals say NO WAR without actually thinking about both sides and a broader picture. The fact is, security is important. Anyway, I'd like to hear other points on how we're doing because my only source of this information is that I tend to read lots of State Dept. literature back home. As for going into Iraq, I think it showed more than anything a failure by the UN to fulfill any usefullness it had as a world power. otherwise its a mostly bloated organisation that send more money to buy jeeps in sudan than feed starving children or any such noble goal. Anyway, UN reform is another topic, but, all this bein said, I'm ready for attack, go at it...
bullzam is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 08:23 PM   #2 (permalink)
Insane
 
madp's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
I am a moderate libertarian who believes in fiscal conservativism and small government, and social liberty/liberalism. I broke from the national Liberatarian Party over the Iraqi war because I believed very strongly that good things for the US, the Middle East as a whole, and the entire world would flow from getting rid of Hussein.

Having said that, I appreciate your post, and I think you are right on the money.
__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Last edited by madp; 01-19-2004 at 08:27 PM..
madp is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 09:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
I don't see how Iraq was a failure for US foreign policy. The lines were drawn long before Bush was in office about us going there, its all a matter of Wolfowitz. I think it was an important move of politics bigger then WMD's and Saddam, and for all you "no blood for oil" people get serious. This was a show of strength. Japan awoke the sleeping giant in 1941. Now we aren't afraid to flex to show our muscles. Long story short Iraq was a brillant move for current US policies, doctrines, and interests. By going to Iraq we sent a clear message to all the asshats of the world, don't fuck with us in anyway shape or form, don't question our shit, we are top dog. I think the message worked, looking at the message sent by Iraq and "the war on terror" places like Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Libya have all gotten spooked and have showed many signs of improvement (maybe not so much N. Korea as far as improvement but they are definently scared).
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 09:59 PM   #4 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally posted by madp
I am a moderate libertarian who believes in fiscal conservativism and small government, and social liberty/liberalism. I broke from the national Liberatarian Party over the Iraqi war because I believed very strongly that good things for the US, the Middle East as a whole, and the entire world would flow from getting rid of Hussein.

Having said that, I appreciate your post, and I think you are right on the money.
Replace Libertarian with Independant and you've basically got me.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 10:36 PM   #5 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
I'm an extreme liberal/libertarian and conscientious objector who believes in compromise between extremes, and I was pissed off about being fed bullshit about why we went into Iraq. I realize that something had to be done, and I think the thing that bothered me most about the war is that we couldn't avoid it. I wish that we could have had more diplomacy first in order to build our case for war to full legitimacy and preserve the alliances between us and the countries that we have worked with for so long.

I think that the post-Saddam military occupation is going as well as we could expect it to, wiht a few minor problems here and there, and I think that those who are calling for immediate withdrawal are failing to see the bigger picture and not considering how much worse things will get if we just disappear overnight. I think the most productive thing to do is to quiet down about being anti-war, try to help the Iraqi people, and show disapproval of the president's policies at the polls in November.

You made an interesting point about draining Al-Quaeda's resources. I hadn't considered that, and I think you're right about it. This will never be another Vietnam because it isn't the same fight, the opposition doesn't have the same resources in a desert that they did in a jungle-covered country, and most of all, because the majority of the people there are pleased that someone came in and did something about the evil dictator.
MSD is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 05:04 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
I pretty much agree with everyone so far in this thread. The only modification I would have is that I do think the war, rather than a failure of policy in itself, was a result of previous failed policy. Since the first major terrorist attacks on the US (maybe the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hostage taking in Iran) we've followed a losing policy. Every attack since then resulted in minor consequences for those perpetrating the attack. This fact isn't lost on anyone in terrorist organizations. The US has been seen as weak because we had no stomach for any type of prolonged conflict. That perception has certainly changed since Bush layed out his plans for the war on terror. Those governments who openly supported terrorism just months ago are, at the least, being forced to hide their support or stop it completely for fear of losing the power they've worked for years, decades, or lifetimes to achieve. This shift in itself is a worthwhile reason for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Throw in the possibility that Iraq could become a viable democracy in the center of the middle east and there's even more reason to think it was the right move.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 05:11 AM   #7 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Sydney - Australia
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Throw in the possibility that Iraq could become a viable democracy in the center of the middle east and there's even more reason to think it was the right move.
Just curious, what government party are the US forces showing their support for currently?
Heard somewhere that they are throwing their weight behind a hardliner muslim group, just hoping that isn't the case.
__________________
Viva La Muerte
HunterDevourer is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 06:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by HunterDevourer
Just curious, what government party are the US forces showing their support for currently?
Heard somewhere that they are throwing their weight behind a hardliner muslim group, just hoping that isn't the case.
IMO, they are not really showing support for any one party. The goal is to create a government that gives all a voice in the country's affairs. Direct elections would likely put the Shiites in power since they have the greatest share of the population. The current plan is to have caucuses pick governmental leaders so there is more wide spread representation and so the US can hand control over to the Iraqis. The Shiites are calling for direct elections so they can get the most control. The UN has just today said they will look into the situation and determine what they think is the best course.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 09:06 AM   #9 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
It would be really swell if they partitioned the country and gave the Kurds a homeland, Turkey be damned.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 09:49 AM   #10 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Well, now we see Bush and Company going hat in hand to the UN, asking for their "unnecessary, irrelevant" imprimatur. Irony, how I love you-let me count the ways...

link

Quote:
U.N. to Consider Request to Study Earlier Elections in Iraq

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 20, 2004; Page A15


At talks yesterday with the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council, the United Nations took its first step toward reengaging in Iraq and helping the United States rescue its troubled plan to hand over political power to the Iraqis, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

Secretary General Kofi Annan promised to look at how the United Nations can help, after a request from L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and Governing Council President Adnan Pachachi.

Bremer and Pachachi asked the United Nations to begin by dispatching a team to help decide whether elections can be held for a new provisional government before the U.S.-led occupation is scheduled to end on June 30.

The fate of the political transition hinges largely on how a provisional government is selected. The U.S. plan calls for a complex system of caucuses in 18 regional provinces; it has been rejected by Iraq's leading cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and a growing number of Iraqis. Tens of thousands took to the streets of Baghdad yesterday to support Sistani's call for direct elections.

"We have asked the secretary general to send a team to Iraq to investigate the possibility of having such elections and, in case that is not possible, to explain why so, and also to discuss alternatives to that," Pachachi said at one of three news briefings after the talks.

In private communications with Iraqis, Annan has signaled that elections seem impractical. But he tipped his hand publicly after the morning talks.

"I don't believe there may be enough time between now and May to hold elections, but the team will go down and look into that further and then report to me," he said at a news conference.

Intervention by the United Nations could defuse the mounting tension over elections, said Abdul Aziz Hakim, a member of the Governing Council and a Shiite Muslim cleric who has dealt with Sistani.

"We would like a technical committee to be sent to look into and consider the matter of elections in Iraq," said Hakim, who was also on the Governing Council delegation. "Then this conclusion will be respected by Mr. Sistani."

Despite rancorous relations between the Bush administration and the United Nations for more than a year, Annan stressed the importance of pooling resources, skills and leverage to help Iraq make the difficult transition.

"The stability of Iraq should be everyone's business. I think we have an opportunity to work together to try and move forward in a process that the council and all of us have believed in," Annan told reporters.

The United Nations had expected to play a prominent role in Iraq once the United States leaves at the end of June. The issue is what role the United Nations will play -- and how it will participate in decision-making -- between now and then.

"If we get it wrong at this stage, it will be even more difficult and we may not even get to the next stage. So I think it is extremely important that we do whatever we can to assist. And I'm looking at this issue and holding these discussions in that spirit," the secretary general said.

The talks were frank but cordial, according to Iraqi, U.S. and U.N. officials. The U.N. delegation was especially struck by what it perceived as a new U.S. attitude about working with other nations through the world body. U.N. envoys said they hope this will be the beginning of an enduring pattern of international cooperation.

The major obstacle could be security. Annan drilled delegations from Iraq and the occupation authority on the spate of recent attacks and the ability of U.S. or new Iraqi forces to protect the United Nations if it returns.

Annan pulled out the U.N. staff in October, after two suicide bombings at Baghdad headquarters in less than three months killed about two dozen people, including chief U.N. representative Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Yet Iraqi and U.S. officials came away convinced that the United Nations will agree in the next two weeks to send a U.N. team to Iraq as a harbinger of its return in some form -- first operating from offices in Cyprus and Amman, Jordan, and later inside Iraq.

"Certainly it is our hope that the United Nations can play an active role, and soon. This has been our hope all along. I am optimistic. I think this will be done," Pachachi said.

In a sign of U.N. interest in helping facilitate the return of Iraqi sovereignty, U.N. officials are already talking about possible options to adapt the caucus system and refine the U.S. plan to make it more acceptable to Sistani and other challengers.

Although the United Nations might not be able to provide enough personnel to provide independent monitoring of the caucus or indirect elections, it could advise on how to recruit such monitors and how to conduct the process, well-placed sources said.

Bremer and the Iraqi delegation are due to hold talks at the White House, Pentagon and State Department today.

On another front, the White House announced yesterday that former secretary of state James A. Baker III will travel to oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf to hold further discussions on relief of Iraq's $120 billion foreign debt. Baker already toured Europe and Asia to appeal for debt relief; he will visit Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia this week.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 09:59 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
UN participation may be helpful or it may be a complete catastrophe. As soon as the UN team gets attacked again, will they scatter back to the countries from which they came or will they actually stick it out?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 10:31 AM   #12 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
The UN has just today said they will look into the situation and determine what they think is the best course.
And then we should do just the opposite
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 11:37 AM   #13 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I don't see how Iraq was a failure for US foreign policy. The lines were drawn long before Bush was in office about us going there, its all a matter of Wolfowitz. I think it was an important move of politics bigger then WMD's and Saddam, and for all you "no blood for oil" people get serious. This was a show of strength. Japan awoke the sleeping giant in 1941. Now we aren't afraid to flex to show our muscles. Long story short Iraq was a brillant move for current US policies, doctrines, and interests. By going to Iraq we sent a clear message to all the asshats of the world, don't fuck with us in anyway shape or form, don't question our shit, we are top dog. I think the message worked, looking at the message sent by Iraq and "the war on terror" places like Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Libya have all gotten spooked and have showed many signs of improvement (maybe not so much N. Korea as far as improvement but they are definently scared).
If this is indeed the case..which I would not have a problem with because I enjoy the luxuries of living in the uS...why not put that on the front page instead of all this fake terrorism flag waving stuff.
If we are zipping up our boots, talk that language instead of breeding a nation full of ignorant Aaron Brown-Wolf Blitzer immitators.

Secondly...where does Wolfwitz' real allegiance lie? Here in the US or elsewhwere?
Bookman is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 12:25 PM   #14 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Bookman
Secondly...where does Wolfwitz' real allegiance lie? Here in the US or elsewhwere?
Why not just come out and say Wolfwitz is a Jew and he is doing it for Israel.

Its ok, you can say it, anti-Semitism is getting popular in Europe again.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 12:32 PM   #15 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Why not just come out and say Wolfwitz is a Jew and he is doing it for Israel.

Its ok, you can say it, anti-Semitism is getting popular in Europe again.
<img src=http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/fish/images/fish2060.jpg>

There ya go.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Last edited by Sparhawk; 01-20-2004 at 02:07 PM..
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 12:50 PM   #16 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
#1 My trolling picture, find your own.

#2 Not a troll at all, he impiled something, I clarified. No point in innuendo. Some people think that the 'neo-cons' are nothing but pro-Israel Jews using America for the benifit of Israel.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 01:35 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
I see the point (and importance) of the US flexing its muscles and teaching a lesson to those who would wish it harm. But take over a country? As the current world 'superpower' (for now), its just human nature for lunatics around the world to want to challenge the champion.

So now theyre all going to want a piece of the US. They've set a target. A rallying cry for the enemy. Bush has made it crystal clear to all the malcontents, the radicals, the fundamentalists, the dictators, foreign armies, clandestine bomb makers, hostile scientists, resentful professors, scheming foreign politicians, made it clear to these and all the others lurking in the shadows, who to focus their anger upon. The US, our interests worldwide, and our Allies worldwide. Not saying that the US can't handle this, can't infiltrate it or otherwise de-fuse it, but thats what were going to find out in the coming years.

I also have concerns that the US (CIA, FBI, Government contractors, the Military, whoever) might be laying down a hidden infrastructure in Iraq. A police system or culture, or a spy network of some kind to guard their interests after the armed forces leave and the Iraqis return to power. After all the trouble they went to in ousting Hussein, and rebuilding the infrastructure of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, will the US risk handing over control of their own handiwork to a hostile enemy?

And where does it go from here? Do we invade, take over by force, and rebuild from the ground up other countries hostile to us?
powerclown is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 01:55 PM   #18 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
We do what suits our national interests and best protects our people, like every other nation out there.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 02:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Some people think that the 'neo-cons' are nothing but pro-Israel Jews using America for the benifit of Israel.
There's a very real, very powerful contingent in the Christian Coalition(tm) that wants Israel to succeed at the expense of Palestine, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of their belief in the second coming of Christ. A lot of the support for Israel by the Bush Administration comes from the insistence of this group. Take that for what you will (and don't put words in my mouth like you did to Bookman )
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 02:42 PM   #20 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
There's a very real, very powerful contingent in the Christian Coalition(tm) that wants Israel to succeed at the expense of Palestine, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of their belief in the second coming of Christ. A lot of the support for Israel by the Bush Administration comes from the insistence of this group. Take that for what you will (and don't put words in my mouth like you did to Bookman )
Who are these people, because personally I think this is the kind of idea from the tinfoil hat crowd.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 03:11 PM   #21 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
There are about 70 million of them, and they actually do have alot of sway.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 03:36 PM   #22 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
There are about 70 million of them, and they actually do have alot of sway.
Just because you are a US Christian doesn't mean you you are waiting for the second comming and think a Jewish Israel is the key.

Good friend of mine is a Jewish female from the NE who married a southern Baptist (now there is a sitcom waiting to happen). She says at times she feels like an exhibit because there are so few Jews in the bible belt, not that she makes a point to tell them. I find it rather amusing to think that there are 70 million of these people who would think something quite so nutty. If anything the true bible thumpers are still of the Jews killed Jesus mentality.

Sorry but this is just a buggaboo of the left. No substance.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 03:42 PM   #23 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Just because you are a US Christian doesn't mean you you are waiting for the second comming and think a Jewish Israel is the key.

Good friend of mine is a Jewish female from the NE who married a southern Baptist (now there is a sitcom waiting to happen). She says at times she feels like an exhibit because there are so few Jews in the bible belt, not that she makes a point to tell them. I find it rather amusing to think that there are 70 million of these people who would think something quite so nutty. If anything the true bible thumpers are still of the Jews killed Jesus mentality.

Sorry but this is just a buggaboo of the left. No substance.
Yes, thanks for trying to twist my argument against the Christian Coalition(tm) into an attack on Christianity. Just more of what I've come to expect from you.

Here's a link, educate yourself:

http://www.cc.org/
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 03:56 PM   #24 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Yes, thanks for trying to twist my argument against the Christian Coalition(tm) into an attack on Christianity. Just more of what I've come to expect from you.

Here's a link, educate yourself:

http://www.cc.org/
Yes they are opposed to a Palistinian state, for the same reason I am, I never said the CC doesn't exsist, I said you offered a theory with no proof.

Its what I expect from you, a claim with no proof.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-20-2004, 04:13 PM   #25 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes they are opposed to a Palistinian state, for the same reason I am, I never said the CC doesn't exsist, I said you offered a theory with no proof.

Its what I expect from you, a claim with no proof.


A quick google search for "christian coalition" israel "second coming" gives me quite a few articles to choose from. Here's a sample:

Quote:
The second element of concern with the Christian Right has less to do with its proselytization efforts (which Jews find offensive) than with the strongly fatalistic messianic philosophy that underlies its political support for Israel.

That is, evangelicals read the Bible as though it was a huge jigsaw puzzle of prophecies, with Israel in the center. They believe that human history is following a predetermined divine script, and that they, the Jewish people and Israel are simply playing out their assigned roles "to the End of Days." They interpret the Bible literally, and believe that the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland is a precondition to the Second Coming of Christ.

To the evangelical Christian world, David Ben-Gurion's proclamation of Israeli statehood marked the imminent return of Jesus, who, after Israel expels the Palestinians from Judea and Sumeria ("as enemies of the modern State of Israel, they are enemies of God and servants of Satan") and rebuilds God's Temple in Jerusalem will descend from heaven during the apocalyptic Battle of Armageddon and subdue all Israel's enemies.

After his return (or "Second Coming"), according to their interpretation of Christian scriptures, a thousand year reign of peace will dawn, centered in Jerusalem. But, before that happens, two-thirds of Israeli Jewry (world Jewry, by then, having made aliyah to Israel) will have died in the final conflict, and the remaining third will convert to Christianity in the aftermath of Armageddon.

Viewed from this perspective, many Jews look with cynicism upon the motives behind evangelical efforts to finance Jewish aliyah from Eastern Europe, Ethiopia, Argentina, and from the four corners of the earth given that the ultimate goal is to facilitate "the ingathering of the exiles" as a pre-condition to Armageddon and subsequent conversion.
Here's more:

Quote:
But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States. Correspondent Bob Simon first reported this story on October 6, 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the number one item on the agenda of the Christian Right? Abortion? School Prayer? No and No. Believe it or not, what's most important to a lot of conservative Christians is the Jewish State. Israel: Its size, its strength, and its survival. Why?

There is the alliance between America and Israel in the war on Islamic terror. But it goes deeper. For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

At one congregation in Colorado, it’s Israel Awareness Day. But this is not a Jewish congregation. They are all Christians. Not only are they holding these pep rallies all across America, they’re also streaming here to Israel, to the dangerous streets of Jerusalem to express their undying devotion.

American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby.

“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now,” says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.

“There are 70 million of us,” he says. “And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.”

Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

“There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he says, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.

“I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time,” says Falwell.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Last edited by Sparhawk; 01-20-2004 at 05:14 PM..
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:32 AM   #26 (permalink)
Insane
 
A classic tactic is calling someone an antisemite.
You failed to answer my question "What are Wolfie's Motives"?
"Who does he act for...who benefits"?

Instead you try to bash me....this behavior is a display of defeat and any further debate on this subject w/ YOU is futile.

Later
Bookman is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:02 AM   #27 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Wolfowitz really answers to nobody, so you could never actually say what his motives are. He is not appointed, so basically he gets to do what ever he thinks needs to be done, not a pollster situation.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:09 AM   #28 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Wolfowitz really answers to nobody, so you could never actually say what his motives are. He is not appointed, so basically he gets to do what ever he thinks needs to be done, not a pollster situation.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a political appointee, and must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:21 AM   #29 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Bookman
A classic tactic is calling someone an antisemite.
You failed to answer my question "What are Wolfie's Motives"?
"Who does he act for...who benefits"?

Instead you try to bash me....this behavior is a display of defeat and any further debate on this subject w/ YOU is futile.

Later
Sorry buddy, but if you are going to insinuate something, just say it. Whats YOUR opinion on it? I think the USA benefits, who do YOU think benefits? If you are unwilling to answer this question, then you deserve nothing less then a bashing.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:26 AM   #30 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
CORECTION:

NO ONE on this forum DESERVES a bashing.

And I think some people around here are forgetting this.

Less bashing,

More facts.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:28 AM   #31 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a political appointee, and must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
True, my bad. But unlike cabinet members he is in there for a long time hence Wolfowitz serving under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:37 AM   #32 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
CORECTION:

NO ONE on this forum DESERVES a bashing.

And I think some people around here are forgetting this.

Less bashing,

More facts.
I'm asking for facts, but if he thinks its a bashing I'll call it that. I think its a clarification of his point he was unwilling to make himself
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:38 AM   #33 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
True, my bad. But unlike cabinet members he is in there for a long time hence Wolfowitz serving under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya.
Okay, here's the "feeling lucky" hit on google (wolfowitz, biography):

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

Quote:
On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.

For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University.

...

From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War.

[blah blah blah etc]
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:59 AM   #34 (permalink)
Insane
 
My point is this...
Wolfwitz and his decisions cost America $$$, in the form of taxes which are paid by many of us. The idea that Iraq was a move to make us safe has over the last year been PROVEN HIDEOUS. So I ask again..who or what do people like Wolf and his policy writing crew serve? It is not to clear to me. What is clear are the problems here at home. The Economy, Poverety etc etc. People like Wolf write, W goes to the puppet Senate and requests money..and the tax payers receive less as usual.

So before you try to accuse me of insinuating something, answer the question...in this forum I see no rule against asking questions.
Bookman is offline  
 

Tags
failure, foreign, iraq, national, policy, sec, un, victory

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360