Good luck in your job search!
p.s.
The jobs web site www.monster.ca shows 20+ engineering jobs in northern ontario...
"Perhaps when I settle down more firmly I can do more serious work to enlighten people about the real facts."
I wish you success but getting people to learn facts is a tough job.
I knew that would happen. It's the result of years and years and years of Liberal government and a partially state funded broadcaster (CBC) which knows that their position is more secure if Liberal ideology (ie. America bashing) is promoted non-stop. Ontario is particulary bad with that. Some year, perhaps you should move to Western Canada where we have a more balance view of the world and normally don't tune our dials to CBC.
"Iraq The Model are currently choosing to delete any posts (including all of my recent ones)"
-Foddy
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4163099/
#651362
Why would any rational person want to post comments where their views are considered idiotic?
Alaa, unfortunately very few people fully understand the situation in Iraq. It's worse in the US. Most people just want the US to withdraw, ASAP.
I don't know what specialty of engineering you're in, but there are many engineering jobs in Vancouver:
http://vancouver.craigslist.org/egr/
and if you like Toronto:
http://engineering.jobshark.com/
...Engineering.cfm
http://toronto.craigslist.org/egr/
Louise | 08.02.07 - 11:03 am > ... Western Canada where we have a more balanced view of the world
Dear Louise, do you count your views on the world among the "balanced"?
Anyway, I am sure Alaa is right: Regardless of political persuations, the majority of people (including journalists and other meadia people) in Europe and the Americas are pretty ignorant about Iraq. That also include some presidents and their vicepricks...
Alaa,
Welcome to North America! What a very pleasant surprise. I've followed your blog from the beginning.
Engineers seem to be the fair haired boys/girls these days. So,you should enjoy some success in your search.
Canadian cold...well,that will take some tolerance. But, indeed, a beautiful country & people, and well worth the effort.
My very best to you & your family!
Alaa, not sure of the area of your education, nor the location of where you are, but if applicable, check out INCO (nickel and copper mine). Huge employer of Sudbury ON, they just announced plans for a big expansion. There's also spin off specialty technology businesses that support this company as well located withing the region.
Here's a link to peruse through.
http://www.bioteq.ca/inco.html
That's a nice sentiment Roger, of Oregon.
I am not sure what part of Ontario you are living in but you should look at Research In Motion (Makers of the Blackberry) are located in Waterloo Ontario. Try http://www.rim.com/careers/index.shtml . They have literally hundreds of openings for all sorts positions. They are also a very multi-cultural employer. This means that they are used to people who have difficulty with English, as well as providing amenities such as dedicated prayer rooms an stuff.
Good Luck.
Surprise, surprise!
The Mohammedan parasite has no job and lives on the public dole.
How can this be?
Richard B
You may have missed my reply on the previous topic, where John explained that it was actually Americans not the ITM brothers who actually moderate their site, so I will repeat it here:
John,
Thanks a lot - that makes sense. The whole ITM blog is now really a case of preaching to the converted, which seems to be a pretty pointless exercise.
I had a couple of interesting discussions with some open-minded people over there - BacSI I seem to remember was one - but there are others (e.g. bg) who live in a dreamworld, believing, for example, that there were WMD in Iraq and that they were smuggled into Syria without the knowledge of George Bush.
Louise has of course (maybe deliberately?) completely missed the point, namely that Iraq was touted as the model to be followed in the installation of other democracies in the Middle East (hence, presumably, the name of the blog, Iraq The Model). Since it has turned out to be a model of exactly NOT how to instal a democracy in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter), it perhaps explains why ITM is NOT recognising free speech (which should be part of any functioning democracy).
And how ironic that Louise accuses me of posting nonsense, when I caught her out in doing exactly that a few weeks ago (remember the numbers of Iraqi refugees, Louise?). I'm still waiting for her justification and/or response.
Meantime I trust that Alaa will remain open to people of differing opinions (and living in Canada he won't be able to avoid coming across them regularly!).
And the final irony . . .
Louise says "On your own blog you can block my comments, if you wish.", without realising that it seems to be Americans who are moderating ITM, not the actual owners of the blog!!
Foddy | Homepage | 08.03.07 - 3:07 am | #
"there were WMD in Iraq and that they were smuggled into Syria"
Foddy
If you read more than left-wing crap you would know that Sodamn Insane had chemical and biological weapons and tons of uranium at various levels of enrichment. You would also know that much of his CB WMD was shipped to Syria by two methods, truck convoy and by air.
Louise says "On your own blog you can block my comments, if you wish.", without realising that it seems to be Americans who are moderating ITM, not the actual owners of the blog!!
--------------
Actually, Faux-Brain, I do know that. In fact, I even know who some of them are, or at least were. Whether they are still active or not, I couldn't say. So keep on whining. It's nice to see that I piss you off.
Louise
"Actually, Faux-Brain, I do know that. In fact, I even know who some of them are, or at least were. Whether they are still active or not, I couldn't say. So keep on whining. It's nice to see that I piss you off."
You don't piss me off in the slightest. I thoroughly enjoy pointing out the holes in your arguments, and noting the many ironies (the most recent one is even more poignant, now that it appears that you DO know that the moderators of ITM are not the ITM brothers!
Please keep on posting.
Richard B
"You would also know that much of his CB WMD was shipped to Syria by two methods, truck convoy and by air."
You should get together with bg on ITM and tell George Bush about it. He certainly doesn't seem to know. This is too funny!
Ya, right. And I suppose you assume the moderators, if they are still in business, are goverment agents, or some such thing. And by the way, I did not say that the brothers at ITM are not responsible for some, if not all, of the moderation which is currently happening. Why shouldn't they be? After all any print on paper publication has an editorial policy and has people employed to make decisions about what they will or will not publish in compliance with their policy. You're one of these fools who thinks free speech entitles you to storm some one else's gates and spew your bile where it is not welcome. And you are continually sore about it, too, like a child prone to having tantrums.
From the Patriot Post.
THE FOUNDATION
“National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” —John Adams
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
OIF: Good news is bad for surrender monkeys
In our democratic republic, we charge our elected representatives with the conduct of vigorous debate about issues both foreign and domestic. In doing so, we expect them to uphold their oaths to protect and defend our Constitution.
However, politicians often posture and pretend in order to line up constituencies that perpetuate their tenure in office, regardless of constitutional constraints.
Such political posturing is a disingenuous breach of trust at best. When this deceit extends to matters of national security, especially when we are at war and continue to face formidable threats from Jihadi terrorists, it is downright traitorous.
The Democrat Party was, in a bygone era, populated by statesmen. Until JFK (that’s J.F. Kennedy not J.F. Kerry), Democrat leaders, understood the projection of force to protect America’s security and vital interests abroad.
Now, this once-proud political party is infested with hypocritical, nescient, duplicitous, reprehensible, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent, ignominious, ungrateful, sycophantic prevaricators (did I leave anything out?), who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom as political fodder for their next campaign.
Truth be told, most Democrats know that the fate of the entire Middle East (and, by extension, much of the free world) depends on the establishment of a stable government in Iraq. They know that Fourth Generation Warfare in the Second Nuclear Age leaves us no choice but to confront Jihadistan on the Iraqi front. After all, if not Iraq now, then where and when?
They also know that much of what is reported in the American media reflects not only the propaganda machines of the Left, but also that of our Jihadi adversaries. This is because these cutthroats understand that our mainstream media is friendly terrain for undermining American will.
Unfortunately, petty party politics prevail, with little regard for the inconvenient truth that Leftist defeatism merely emboldens our enemy and further endangers our troops in Iraq.
Now, however, there is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, such news will have significant consequences for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America’s failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq.
In the New York Times this week, two noted and vocal critics of OIF, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, analysts with the Left-leaning Brookings Institution, published an op-ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”
Having just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq, their op-ed notes, “After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and Marines... feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.”
On the politics of Iraq, O’Hanlon and Pollack write, “Viewed from Iraq... the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.”
Their analysis continues: “Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”
Also this week, retired Army General Jack Keane testified before the House Armed Services Committee, telling them in no uncertain words, “Your actions here in the Congress appear to be in direct conflict with the realities on the ground where the trends are up and progress is being made. We are on the offensive and we have the momentum.”
That news was so distressing to Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) that she walked out of the committee hearings during General Keane’s testimony, lamenting later that there was “only so much [she could tolerate] after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She continued, “Those kinds of [encouraging] comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, ‘Here’s the reality of the problem’.”
Of course, reality in the alternate universe of the Left dictates that down is up, in is out, left is right, black is white, falsehood is truth, pride is humility, red is blue and, particularly in the case of Iraq, good news is bad.
Adding insult to injury, more bad news for Demos: Marine General Jim Jones conducted a congressionally mandated study of Iraq’s security forces and returned with a favorable report.
This report, combined with the continuing decline of American and Iraqi casualties, has Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid very concerned that their “defeat and retreat” political folly may backfire.
Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress during his scheduled congressional testimony in September, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, “Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”
Good news out of Iraq is “a real big problem”? Guess that depends upon whose side you’re on.
like a child prone to having tantrums.
Louise | 08.03.07 - 2:00 pm | #
That is rich. I came here to post an article talking about the left having tantrums because things are looking up in Iraq and find that Louise has labeled Foddy as having tantrums.
Louise and Richard B
You are STILL missing the point (to my complete lack of surprise). The blog we are talking about is called ITM (i.e. Iraq The Model), namely the model for a new type of democracy. For a model like that to suppress any opinon which does not agree with it is hardly a model of democratic principles. NOW do you get it?
It doesn't bother me that some of those who hold a small minority opinion worldwide want to get together and delude themselves that everything in the Iraqi garden is lovely. But if they hold themselves up as an example of how a democracy should work, then they should be prepared to defend themselves in a democratic manner, not delete opinions which they don't agree with.
And what's all this nonsense about spewing bile? What I do is point out inaccuracies, inconsistencies or ironies in some posts I see here. If you don't agree with me, then please argue my points rationally.
Louise
Here's an example of what I talked about above.
You say:
"After all any print on paper publication has an editorial policy and has people employed to make decisions about what they will or will not publish in compliance with their policy."
Are you suggesting that the ITM brothers 'employ' the people who are moderating their blog? I didn't realise it was a commercial operation.
To Faux-Brain, No, that is not what I'm suggesting. Nice try, though.
To Richard B. 
They are sooo predictable, aren't they.
Hey, Foddy! Ask us if we believe that your posts are not getting through at ITM.
After all, you credibility is absolutely stirling.
/sarcasm
Seriously, you're just a sore loser. Ba'athists are history, sweetheart. Deal with it.
Alaa:
In America I think the root of the problem is something we don't talk about much. During the Viet Nam war, when we tried to protect the south half of the country from communism, my generation marched in the streets and said no. We joined with the enemy's propaganda and avoided going to war as best we could. The most radical, anti-American went north to Canada.
I knew a "peace" nik in high school who blew a wheel off a police car with a pipe bomb. He now lives in Canada. (I've always been glad I turned away from his attempts to form a friendship).
The peaceniks turned human morals upside down to justify their existence. While all societies have to protect themself and America's calling has been to protect others when we can, these people (my people) were cowards and they needed a way of thinking that made running away heroic. The human heart is can be relentless in avoiding it's own evil. It is that rationale that justified running away, which poisons the mind of my old friends and my generation. America's sons and daughters of today put my generation to shame and we will not accept their heroism (and our own shame) without a great fight.
The worst of us went to Canada and you will find many of us trying spread these upside down morals there in Canada.
You may be able to do great good speaking up there. There are some very simple truths that puncture this bubble of falsehood: 1) Iraqis want outside help and need to be rescued. 2) Human freedom is a universal need and Iraqis appreciate it too. 3) Evil people understand the value of propaganda so they lie. 4) People living in fear are afraid to speak up and they rely on our empathy to understand their needs an help them. 5) The people in Iraq rely on the MNF to hold down what little saftey they can get. 6) Leaving evil people alone to do as they please doesn't calm them down. It makes them killers.
Good luck living among the Canadians who are basically good people, as well as the sprinkling of American draft dodgers that try to poison their minds.
Oh yeah. This one too:
7) Even though America has done badly in outsmarting the evil in Iraq, it doesn't mean the cause itself is bad. Nor does it mean that the evil is not evil.
Her, Turner, regarding # 7, it ain't over until it's over. The cause is just and justice will prevail.
Louise
"Seriously, you're just a sore loser. Ba'athists are history, sweetheart. Deal with it."
Sorry - I'm a sore loser? And what makes you think I support or supported Ba'athists?
Are you seriously suggesting that the US is somehow WINNING the war in Iraq? I wonder on what basis that might possibly be? I look forward to a good laugh.
At least you and I are not US taxpayers, so it's not our trillion dollars which has gone up in smoke and contributed to killing and wounding tens of thousands of people and ruining the lives of millions more. Perhaps you recall the number forced to leave their homes and even their country. More than your rather sad effort to show that there were a lot of refugees even before the war (fifty thousand in 2002, you said). Approximately 1.5 million (30 times as many) left the country in 2006 and more than 2 million have done so in total and a further 2 million been displaced internally.
And I'm somehow a sore loser??
Let's have some of the good news, if you can manufacture any.
The cause is just and justice will prevail.
Louise | 08.04.07 - 9:22 am |
If the entire world saw justice in allowing a nation to be free of a murderous tyrant, we would not have fools advocating a cut and run policy. Instead we would have discussions on how to achieve victory sooner. Of course instant victory may not be impossible but folks would still not give up on Iraqis because they would still want justice for Iraqis and all other people.
It is very sad that some seem to feel that they are free and tough sh*t for those who aren't. Nobody will be truly free when others are under the heal of a tyrant. If any good can come from the acts of terrorists, it will be that more people have been set free.
Let's have some of the good news, if you can manufacture any.
Foddy | Homepage | 08.04.07 - 10:39 am |
Anbar - to name just one place where the citizens have done a 180 and are taking back their cities and towns by working with our Armed Forces and those of Iraq.
There has been such a drastic change in Anbar that a Marine commander has requested that his men on patrol not be required to wear helmets and body armor. All over Iraq our military people are involved in less and less combat operations and more and more into rebuilding. All of this doesn't prove that we are winning but it does show that your people are loosing. For me, that is good news.
Alaa, best wishes in your search for a job. Contacts are very important, as many jobs that are advertised are in fact already filled.
So it pays to get around and talk to as many people as possible. One contact leads to another.
Are your qualifications recognised in Canada?
Alaa...
Try this website
http://webconnect.sendouts.net/C...roup=HCR&
Key=CN
And www.magna.com
It's an Aurora, Ontario based company that supplies parts to Chevy, Chrysler, etc. It's huge.
Dear Alaa,
I think that you should tell your readers about your qualifications. People want to help but are making wild guesses about the type of work that you should be seeking. I don't think that the information should be detailed enough to leave a trail that could be followed back to you but enough so that folks know the type of work you have been doing.
Does anybody know how hard or easy it is for someone like Alaa to get a work visa for the US. I have worked with many Canadian engineers but they were born there and had Canadian passports.
Richard B
"There has been such a drastic change in Anbar that a Marine commander has requested that his men on patrol not be required to wear helmets and body armor."
Can this be true? 4.5 years after the invasion, troops who invaded a sovereign country and expected to be welcomed with open arms are no longer required to wear helmets and body armour to protect themselves from the locals? What extraordinary progress!
Actually, you will find that the commander has requested that his troops wear LESS body armour, not none at all. But when the same thing happens in Baghdad, and the people who live cooped up in the Green Zone can leave it freely, I will start to agree with you.
But they do say that a drowning man will grasp at a straw.
How soon we forget when we have selective memory. If you go back to the videos made while the invasion was in progress you will see Iraqis waving and grinning at the advancing forces. That phase of the war ended very quickly and Iraqis were happy to beat Sodamn Insane's toppled statue with their shoes.
Phase two of the war in Iraq started with Muslims killing Muslims and will continue for a long time. In spite of all that has happened since phase 2 began, there are a lot of Iraqis that thank God that they have been liberated from the hell that they were in. On the other side are those who hate the Americans for destroying the good life they had at the expense of the majority. There are also those who want America out of Iraq because they are foolish enough to believe that they will become the new dictator or his aids. Mixed into the mess are foreign terrorists instigating Muslims to kill Muslims and they don't give a damn how many Sunnis or Shiites die as long as they are the victors and can have a country from which to launch attacks on the West.
Now we are in yet another phase of the battle to bring freedom to Iraqis. American leaders have abandoned the concept that an entire nation could suddenly go from living under the heal of a tyrant to a peace loving democracy. That an entire army could be trained in a short time and take over security without experience. I am sure that you have never served in the military but if you had you would know that regardless of the amount or length of the training, the real army depends on the years of experience of the officers and non-commissioned officers. The Iraqi Army is rapidly gaining that experience but much of it is from working side by side with experienced American troops.
Even on the civilian side new leaders are learning and old leaders are learning new ways. The days when the tribe with the most guns was in charge are slipping away. Those old leaders who rule by their intelligence and love of their subjects will probably be elected in the future. Those who ruled with trigger fingers and oppressed their subjects will be gone. They will not be gone suddenly. Only fools expect instant democracy but in time they will become part of history.
Before all the tyrants have been booted out, the majority of Iraqis will already be living in a new Iraq. An Iraq that dominates the entire Middle East. Not militarily but economically. While the average Iraqi will not be living in palaces, they will have a standard of living far above that of the citizens of neighboring countries. In fact, above that of many Western nations. Mesopotamians will become leaders in international trade and the oil wealth will become insignificant. Before all this can come to pass, old ways and old events must fade and be replaced with new ways. That will not happen rapidly but I do believe that it will happen but not before the capital of Iraq has been fought for and won. Baghdad will see violence to the end simply because Baghdad is the capital of Iraq.
Long ago Alaa knew that Baghdad would have major problems and that major steps were needed to make Baghdad secure. Urban fighting is the worst kind of combat and the enemy needs to be cut off from his supply's and reinforcement's but that would take a security ring around Baghdad to be most effective. At that time I proposed a "green zone" encircling Baghdad. Had I had the power to make it happen, thousands of Iraqis would have been gainfully employed in its building. Traffic into Baghdad would be channeled into just a few checkpoints. Terrorists attempting to bring in weapons would have to swim them across a canal.
Hindsight has shown that Alaa has had great foresight. Had his ideas been followed, Baghdad would be in a very different situation today. Alaa also said what could happen in Anbar long before it actually did happen. While I was opposed to arming untrained fighters, those untrained fighters have made a huge difference. In addition thousands of Anbar locals are being trained and equipped. As a result AQ is being removed from Anbar providence. In many cities and towns citizens are pointing out the terrorists and Iraq and American forces are killing and capturing those who have been fingered. Where Iraqis are both literally and figuratively giving the terrorists the finger, Iraqis are winning.
Lord only knows how long American forces will be needed in Iraq but this is one American who hopes and prays that we will stay for as long as we are needed. May God bless our troops, the Iraqi troops and those Iraqi civilians who risk their lives to defeat the terrorists.
Somewhere in Iraq is a young girl who knowingly placed herself in harms way to prevent American Marines from driving over a land mine. I pray that she is still well and will enter adulthood in a free Iraq. You will not read of her selflessness in the MSM or see her heroism portrayed in a Hollywood movie but I will not forget her brave act with only a teddy bear to aid her.
Richard B.
Your devotion to a rational and positive outcome to the war is,apparently, hearfelt. But,duration of wars are circumscribed by national self interest and equally by affordabilty. We can argue in to the night as to exactly what America's further interest really is in Iraq. It looks like a majority of Americans are deciding ENOUGH. Get out - it''s just not worth the blood sacrifice.
And, look at that cost - $10Billion a month! Four years and counting. Afghanistan essentialy bankrupted the Soviet Nation. Plus, Russian mothers got enough of the constant body bags.
And, they too were a super power.
So, a good as can solution must be found to this carnage ASAP.
"exactly what America's further interest really is in Iraq."
Self preservation.
Richard B
"You will not read of her selflessness in the MSM or see her heroism portrayed in a Hollywood movie."
A question for you: do you accept that the original story of Jessica Lynch as a heroine and her rescue as a daring escapade?
Richard B
"Now we are in yet another phase of the battle to bring freedom to Iraqis."
This is just so much nonsense! The invasion of Iraq was nothing whatsoever (except only as a possible incidental result) about bringing freedom to Iraqis. It was everything about securing an American presence in a politically troubling area of the Middle East and, to some extent also, oil. But not about making astronomical profits for American (and British?) oil companies, except, again, incidentally. It was about securing control of the oil, to ensure that it wasn't all sold to, for example, the Chinese or others with whom the US didn't see eye to eye.
However, if Bush had come forward with the true intent, he would have virtually no support for the invasion, so he went with WMD (as Wolfowitz said, the one reason everyone could agree on). Read Powell's famous speech to the UN and see how much there is there about bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.
Bush changed his justification for the invasion as time went on, in a desperate attempt to maintain credibility, and you bought it!
The battle now is not about bringing freedom to Iraqis, it's about saving face for Americans.
It's delightful to watch how the left squeaks and sputters and grunts trying to keep the shit-train they built moving. But it's stalled, and starting to roll backwards. The carnage will be horrific! But lovely!
Brian H
Oh dear! Here's another one who can't deal in specifics, so just makes broad unsupported generalisations.
It was hugely amusing to see some of your fellow-travellers on ITM trying to give the US credit for Iraq's recent victory in the Asian Soccer Cup.
I bet a lot of readers here believe the following:
1. Jessica Lynch was a hero, rescued in an a daring attempt under fire.
2. Bush invaded Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.
3. There WERE WMD in Iraq, but they were smuggled out into Syria.
If people believe myths like these, it's no wonder they also believe that things are getting better in Iraq. Actually, at some stage, they are BOUND to get better, but it ain't going to happen soon and it ain't going to happen before the US troops move out.
"1. Jessica Lynch was a hero"
She and most other volunteers are heroes.
"2. Bush invaded Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Iraqi people."
Bush invaded Iraq to bring an end to a tyrannical regime that was supporting terrorists.
"3. There WERE WMD in Iraq, but they were smuggled out into Syria."
You finally got something partly right.
Richard
1. I assume from the fact that you didn't deny it, you accept that the Jessica Lynch story was manufactured for the purposes of propaganda. Sadly for the volunteers, many of them have been regularly lied to by their recruiters and/or commanding officers and/or politicians. Many were told they would not have to serve more than one tour in Iraq, or were told they would be there for a limited time, only to have regulations subsequently changed. They also were provided with sub-standard equipment.
2. Supporting terrorists? Yet another Bush/Cheney lie! Please tell me you've got more than the alleged occasional payments to families of some suicide bombers? Is that it? Another of the great ironies of the Iraq War is that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the invasion (and in fact Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies); now there are a whole host of them. And, ironically again, the biggest number of them come from the US's great ally (and provider of almost all the Sept 11th terrorists) Saudi Arabia!
Read Bush and Powell's contemporary speeches again. The number one reason (and numbers two and three and four reasons) are WMD, WMD and WMD (and the danger - imminent or almost imminent - posed by them to the US). There was also an outside possibility hinted at that they might fall into the hands of terrorists.
3. Even Bush doesn't believe it (or if he does, he's keeping pretty damn quiet about it!).
Come on guys, this is so easy!
Foddy, the last word about the WMD's has not been said yet.
Apart from that, the US (and NATO in AF) are fighting the enemy, period. It doesn't matter in what frikkin country the goddam battlefield is.
Outlaw Mike
WMD's?? Well, the last people looking for them left Iraq a few months ago, so unless Bush goes over there with Barney, I don't know who's going to find them (and who's going to have any credibility if they do).
"The enemy"? An enemy very largely of your own making, especially as far as Iraq is concerned. If the conflict could have been confined to Afghanistan the whole thing would have been much less complicated. And why on earth cosy up to Pakistan, in whose border areas much of the problem arose?
"It doesn't matter in what frikkin country the goddam battlefield is."
I love that (and so would Dick Cheney, for different reasons)! Did you ever read "1984"?
A question for you: Who is "the enemy" and when are you going to be able to say that it has been defeated? For Bush it's been a fantastic opportunity to keep the people afraid and easier to govern; it also allows him to make the vicious claim that people who don't agree with him are unpatriotic and/or boosting "the enemy's" position. How sad to be an American these days (and how different to the situation in early 2001). Americans - largely - used to be looked up to and respected, but not now (and I'm sure that you, living outside the US, recognise this). Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are realising this and are deeply embarrassed by it. Hopefully it will not last so much longer, and you will be able to hold your heads up again in pride, not bow them in shame.
"Americans are realising this and are deeply embarrassed by it."
I am not the least bit embarrassed by the fact that their are idiots all around the world. There always have been and always will be. Some are so f'ing dumb that they have to ask - Who is "the enemy and when are you going to be able to say that it has been defeated?". But I will play the stupid game and give my answer. The enemy are those who kill innocent people in an attempt to terrorize others. They will be defeated when mankind understands that such tactics to gain wealth and power will always result in the death of those using such tactics.
Since fools will be born to replace present fools, there will always be someone evil enough to keep trying to oppress others just as there will be fools who aid and abet them. Thus there will be wars and rumors of wars until the end of time. Swift and sure punishment will only diminish terrorist acts, not end them.
"Americans - largely - used to be looked up to and respected, but not now (and I'm sure that you, living outside the US, recognise this). "
Recognize this??? Recognize WHAT exactly? Oh please give me a break! Euros DO think of Americans in sterotypes you know. I don't want to know all that horsedung about lost respect. There was very little to begin with, certainly prior to 9/11.
There's a lot of anti-Americanism here, which, truth to be told, is fueled to a very great extent by the media. The most important media are state funded, and since euro socialism is anti-American, and has been so dominant here, the media are anti-American.
I would say that if our media paid proper attention to the good and the bad, the view the large public has of the US would be much more favorable. But even if that were so, there would be, to some extent, anti-Americanism, for a very humane reason: jealousy.
I don't want to come over as a heel-licker to Americans though. Because on the other hand, I am sure that run-of-the-mill Americans think about Euros in terrible sterotypes too. And I am also convinced that those typical American sterotypes DO exist, even in large numbers.
But taking it all together, it's just that I am fairly content with America's lead in the world. And really, it's not that I want to suck up to Americans. Unlike many who bash the US but do everything to get and live there, I am proud to be a European and a Fleming. This is my place, and I won't swap it for the nicest spot in America. I am even proud of my country, Belgium, if I can forget for awhile the crap of the past thirt years.
But please, stop telling nonsense about the US's loss of 'respect' after 9/11.
"A question for you: Who is "the enemy" and when are you going to be able to say that it has been defeated? "
Simple. The enemy right now is Islamic Terrorism. To me, it doesn't matter whether a jihadi is blown to pieces in Waziristan or New Jersey or Gaza.
And if Islam refuses to become a decent belief system, in spite of the west offering it the right recipe, in twenty years or so Islam ITSELF will become the enemy.
Outlaw Mike | Homepage | 08.06.07 - 6:46 pm > the US (and NATO in AF) are fighting the enemy, period.
If they are, they should go and get you to an asylum for the criminally and dangerously insane asap Period Period Period
Brian H | 08.06.07 - 1:08 am > ...
Please tell us a little more about your delusions. Or are you afraid someone would come to get you to an asylum...?
"I am sure that run-of-the-mill Americans think about Euros in terrible sterotypes too."
Only the French and Italians for me.
Dear Alaa.
I strongly suggests that you turn off the comments section of your blog. The fact that you run a blog, and what you have written in it, should be a great contribution to your CV.
However, the fact that you don't moderate the kinds of comments that turn up in the comments will most likely be held against you.
Thus, again: You should turn off comments for the future, and delete all the previous ones!
Alaa, RobinH is full of it. What does he/she/it know about Canadian employers. Nothing. That's what.
Richard B
"Swift and sure punishment will only diminish terrorist acts, not end them."
In other words, the War on Terror will never be over. Hope you're hanging on to your Halliburton shares.
Outlaw Mike
"I don't want to know all that horsedung about lost respect. There was very little to begin with, certainly prior to 9/11."
Complete nonsense! Read the polls. Here's an example for you, a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA):
http://tinyurl.com/3e28gv
For example, comparing 1999/2000 with 2005/6, "Favourable Opinion of the US" in Germany went from 78% to 37%; in Indonesia it went from 75% to 30%, in Turkey from 62% to 12%. Only, strangely, in Russia did it go slightly up. But since then US/Russian relations have worsened considerably, so it could have reversed.
The average view in 18 countries of the "US's Influence" went from 40% "mainly positive" in 2005 to only 29% in 2007.
Do you want more poll evidence? There is plenty. Meantime feel free to post some contradictory evidence, if you have any. In the absence of that, it's clear that you are the one talking 'horsedung'.
You should turn off comments for the future, and delete all the previous ones!
RobinH | 08.07.07 - 8:53 pm |
Should that be before or after the book burning?
Richard B
I wonder if you're the only one who hasn't spotted your own inconsistency? Earlier on you were supporting ITM's decision not to post my comments on their site, but here you are criticising censorship! You're going to have to make up your mind which side of the fence you're on, old boy.
Foddy, Foddy, Foddy. When will you learn what the meaning of censorship is?
(heavy sigh)
Send them yo this site http://www.lonesentry.com/iraq/iraq.html
When someone FORCES themselves on someone else, like rapists, tyrantants, dictators, terrorists, etc., can't help but think they're all cut from the same psychotic cloth.
Richard B. | Homepage | 08.08.07 - 7:09 am > Should that be before or after the book burning?
It should be done asap. But I would very much like Alaa to continue his blogging.
The analogy between book burning and turning off comments is next to non-existent.
A better analogy is that commenters on Alaa's blog is like a teenage gang screeming and throwing books at each other in Louise's library. If she didn't stop that she would almost surely be fired. Even in Canada...
I love (metaphorically speaking) to throw books in Louise's library as much as anyone else around. Thus, my advice to Alaa is sincere, based on my best judgement and great respect for Alaa.
Louise
If you could possibly try to construct a logical argument, I will reply to it. At least you didn't post misleading statistics this time, like your earlier suggestion that the number of Iraqi refugees hadn't increased since the invasion, whereas it's now 30 times higher. And despite numerous requests, you STILL haven't either justified this or apologised!
I guess you'd like to 'censor' this post too, wouldn't you?
"I wonder if you're the only one who hasn't spotted your own inconsistency?"
Once something is published it has a different status than something that is not published because it is unwanted garbage.
"The analogy between book burning and turning off comments is next to non-existent.
"You should turn off comments for the future, and delete all the previous ones!"
Burning books or deleting published comments achieves the same end.
Richard B
"Once something is published it has a different status than something that is not published because it is unwanted garbage."
Stupid nonsense. Both involve A deciding that B should not read something written by C. And you know it.
Foddy, as usual you have your head firmly planted. All kinds of publishers pick and choose what will be published in their newspaper, magazine, etc. Very few of the manuscripts submitted actually become printed books. Just because the media is electronic doesn't change the fact that many do not want their space filled with crap so they don't publish everything that comes along.
My newspaper would not publish an article as a letter to the editor so I paid to have it published and even then I needed to have the editor's permission. Maybe what Alaa, ITM and others should do is require a contribution before one can post a comment. So many words per dollar. That would put a crimp in the style of those who comment in blog after blog.
(Heavy sigh, again.) What's the point, Richard? Some fools are so full of themselves they cannot conceive that others have no interest in reading their stupid diabtribes - er - opinions.
Faux-Brain, all publishers ("A"s) with an interest in a loyal readership ("B"s) will publish what they think will keep those readers coming back, whether it's a left wing rag or a right wing rag. Only in Faux Brain's world is that considered censorship.
For those that want censored one sided sites, try bbc.
Besides trolls never pay the bills.
Richard B/Louise
You STILL don't seem to get the point! But firstly, we are not talking about a print magazine or newspaper here. They have limited space available and there are laws and/or conventions as to what they can publish (profanity or personal abuse would not be allowed, for example).
On the Internet, with comparatively few limitations, it is pretty much a case of anything goes. Go and look at some of the stuff on ITM (well, not so much these days because they are deleting almost all comments which they don't like, but certainly in the old days). Personal abuse and profanity were pretty much the order of the day for some posters.
But the main point you don't get and STILL haven't answered, is that ITM is setting Iraq (and itself, by adopting the name) up as the MODEL for democratising the Middle East. They, of all people, should demonstrate that freedom of speech is alive and well.
Anyway, I have received an emailed apology from Omar of ITM, admitting that deletion of my posts was a mistake, so it's clear that he, at least, unlike you guys, realises that.
Finally, a few closing remarks:
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"; George Orwell.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"; Voltaire
And a couple more, while we're at it:
"Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God."; George Bush
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." George Bush
With few limits a publisher has full control and it doesn't matter whether s/he is running a newspaper or a blog. If I don't like a publisher's policy I go somewhere else. As with any property, the person who owns that property should be free to do whatever they like as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. If a businessman wants to hire only those of a certain race, creed, color or religion, that should be his choice. If a owner wants to ban smoking or permit smoking in his restaurant, that is his choice. If I, as an employee, don't like to work in a smoky atmosphere, I shouldn't have accepted work in a place that allows smoking. I have my rights but one of them is not to take rights away from others and that includes freedom of the press.
Within limits, all people should have the right to speak their peace but a publisher has the right not to publish crap.
"What's the point, Richard? Some fools are so full of themselves they cannot conceive that others have no interest in reading their stupid diabtribes - er - opinions."
Louise
WHAT? You mean you don't go to left-wing sites and waste your time trying to give them your opinion?
Richard B
I wonder how many times I have to repeat this until it gets through your skull!
The website I'm talking about isn't entitled "Right Wing Iraqi Gossip" or "We Love Bush and Maliki"; it's called Iraq the Model. A model for what? Of course as a model for other potential free democracies in the Middle East. And what do free democracies uphold? Among other things, free speech. NOW do you get it?
In any case, as I mentioned above, Omar (of ITM) has recognised this and apologised. Perhaps you and Louise would have the courtesy to do so too (wishful thinking, no doubt).
Well that's awfully nice of Omar, now will you quite whining on one site about another? Likely not, but it's worth a try to get you to grow up and act like an adult instead of a spoiled child.
Get your own blog and/or a life. But you're too weak to do it on your own better to cry on someone else's dime right?
Do one on how much you love that false lancet report...
And where are those title police anyhow?
leap_frog
Hurray! Another one who is afraid of free speech! Join the club.
By the way, if you had bothered to read my comments on ITM (before they started to get moderated, like - apparently those of others who offended the thin-skinned US moderators of an Iraqi blog) you would have seen that I said, on several occasions, that I remain to be convinced that the figures in the Johns Hopkins report (published in the Lancet) are correct.
By the way, I'm always amused how people on the right have the habit of making assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with them. I am regularly accused of being a Leftist, for example, when I have never voted for a left-of-centre political party in my life (in fact I voted Conservative when Maggie Thatcher was around).
I wouldn't dream of accusing you of being anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, anti gay marriage, without knowing your exact views on the topics, so I suggest you don't do so with me. It's so ignorant.
"Foddy, the last word about the WMD's has not been said yet."
Outlaw Mike | Homepage | 08.06.07 - 6:46 pm |
The last word about WMDs will never be said Mike. The faerie tale has taken root and will never be eradicated, but will live on forever in the right-wing fantasy fringes. I point you to the persistent tale of General Giap's supposed “memoirs” written circa 1986, in which he supposedly wrote that the commies had considered giving up their assault on the south but were “enheartened” by the American anti-war movement of the 70s, and so fought on and finally succeeded.
It's a total faerie tale. There was no such book. Giap didn't write his memoirs until 2002, a good 15 years after the right-winger faerie tale was born, and it said considerably different from the faerie tale. But the faerie tale will never die. (And they have several more.).
The tale of the vanishing WMDs will join the ranks with that one, and with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and the other concocted fables that make up much of the accepted history as accepted by our wingnuts and most extreme partisans.
I wonder how many times I have to repeat this until it gets through your skull!
Foddy
I had ignored that part of your rant. What I should have done is what I normally do and that is to ignore your comments entirely.
The blog "Iraq The Model" is about the country of Iraq becoming a model for the Middle East. If the blog owners pick and choose what comments will be posted, they have that right. Freedom of speech does not take away their right to limit what is said. Freedom of speech doesn't allow one to yell "FIRE" in a theater either.
I have been a reader of ITM since late 2003 but for a long time I did not bother to read the comments because they were bloated with comments from people of your ilk. Now that they have somewhat been trimmed, I read them again. If you read the current comments you will see dozens by and about "Mike". Just as I should be ignoring you, ITM posters should simply ignore Mike, Sod, Ash, Lee C., Robin H. and other trolls like you.
Heaven help me if I ever get so sick that I would go to a left-wing blog to whine and cry because another left-wind blog would not let me post my right-wing comments.
Responding to the WMD threat -- Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al-Qa'ida and cut off a source of terrorist funding, and this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. ... Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice. Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted." --George W. Bush, 1 May 2003
In 2001, President George Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Qa'ida's state sponsors in Afghanistan -- the Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces faced brutal opposition but defeated Taliban forces, which allowed for the rise of a democratic government in Kabul.
In early 2002, President Bush set his sites on Iraq's tyrant leader, Saddam Hussein. He estimated, correctly, that Iraq had, and was prepared to provide, Weapons of Mass Destruction to Jihadi terrorists like al-Qa'ida. As The Patriot reported in October 2002, our well-placed sources in the Southwest Asia theater, and intelligence sources within the NSA and NRO, estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging (with substantial help from the French and Russians) provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran prior to the launch of OIF.
At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover any WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped its nuclear WMD components -- including two 'crude nuclear devices' designed to utilize EU235 cores -- through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." We also estimate that the U.S. used the UN's delay to watch for WMD movements in Iraq -- Saddam knowing that a U.S. invasion was coming soon.
In December 2002 our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and possibly Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse.
Our sources indicate that Saddam's nuclear components in Syria and Lebanon have been removed or destroyed by Special Forces teams trained for this mission. Little has been said about this operation in order to protect sources and methods.
On 19 March 2003, the U.S. launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Saddam was quickly deposed, and Iraq has since become the frontline in the war against Jihadistan -- and has attracted Islamic insurgents from around the world in an effort to prevent the seeding of democracy in Iraq.
As estimated, there were no large stockpiles of WMD remaining but, contrary to the Democrats' doubletalk, WMD were found, including 50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles, various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles, 2 large propellant casting chambers, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, and 224.6 kg of expired growth media. Discovered remnants of Saddam's nuclear WMD program included 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, and 1000 radioactive components and elements -- all of which was ferried from Iraq to the United States.
It is not known to what extent Saddam, assuming he would return to power after OIF, hid WMD in the desert sands south and west of Baghdad.
Clearly, the concern about Iraq supplying WMD to a surrogate like al-Qa'ida was reason enough to invade -- protecting our vital national interests at home and in the Middle East. Additionally, Iraq had refused to respond to 17 UN resolutions to disarm and Saddam was in violation of the 1991 terms of surrender -- the violation of which was, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign. Of course, Iraq never stopped military action against U.S. and Allied aircraft enforcing UN-sanctioned no-fly zones.
Bush administration determined, correctly, that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible front line with Jihadistan.
Of course, a battle plan rarely stands after the first shot is fired. The DoD and CIA estimated our active combat role in Iraq to be 90 days. But the insurgency has made Iraq a frontline in our continued war with Jihadi terrorists. As The Patriot has frequently noted, the net effect has been to keep the battle on their turf and not our own.
We are still engaged in spot combat operations in Iraq, and will likely maintain a substantial military presence there for many years to come. Here we would note that at the end of WWII, the U.S. expected to have a military presence in Japan and Germany for perhaps five years -- yet we are still in both countries today.
Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and those of the free world. Ultimately, these two objectives are inextricably bound. Our ultimate objective in Iraq is to establish a forward deployed presence in the Middle East -- military personnel, yes, but primarily equipment -- now that the Saudis have pulled our lease. Our analysts estimate that once the new Iraqi government is seated, the U.S. will be invited to establish permanent military installations in southern Iraq. This presence is critical, given that it would place us in the heart of Jihadistan, with the ability to protect our national interests in the region quickly without having to respond via sea and airlift. Our sources indicate that this new forward presence will comprise part of our Cold War tactical and strategic assets currently in Germany.
In 2005, the White House issued a moratorium on any official comments about Saddam's nuclear WMD, in order to prevent undue public concern, but new information about Iraq's WMD is emerging every week.
In January 2006, Saddam's former military advisor and top general, Georges Sada, now a national-security advisor for Iraq's new government, confirmed that in June 2002, Saddam transported WMD and related technology to Syria aboard retrofitted commercial jets under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission on behalf of flood victims. It now appears that they may have done so with the help of Russian special forces.
The Patriot has corroborated evidence that there were such flights during that timeframe, though our sources would not confirm the manifest -- other than to suggest that the flights did not contain humanitarian relief.
More recently, among the 35,000 pieces of intelligence evidence that were not destroyed prior to OIF but which have yet to be analyzed due to the sheer volume of material recovered, was 12 hours of audio recordings. Translation revealed Saddam and his most trusted advisors discussing strategies to conceal his WMD assets from investigators. The tapes are estimated to have been recorded in 1997 or 1998 and were authenticated by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which has reopened its investigation into the possible location of Iraqi WMD -- particularly nuclear components.
Currently, there is mounting evidence that Saddam's government did provide significant intelligence and operational support for al-Qa'ida prior to 9/11.
The White House has been silent about Iraq's WMD of late, but those opportunistic politicos who have been insisting that Iraq had no WMD are changing their tune -- those with presidential ambitions are much more cautious in their assessment. Sen. Hillary Clinton insisted recently, "[T]here were no weapons," but cautiously conceded, "or if there were ... they were in some way disposed of or taken out of the country." These politicos know that should Saddam's nuclear WMD end up in the hands of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. (if it has not already) -- and be detonated in a major urban center -- the careers of those who used the WMD issue as political fodder would also go up in smoke.
Success in Iraq is the most critical strategic objective we must achieve to defeat Jihadistan. Once again, as noted by the current NSS, "The advance of freedom and human dignity through democracy is the long-term solution to the transnational terrorism of today."
Despite all the Leftist rhetoric to the contrary, OIF has scored many successes. Of course the faces of liberated Iraqis tell the real story.
Indeed, the democratization of Iraq is essential in order to protect our vital national interests -- both the security of our homeland and the stability of our energy providers in the Middle East. As The Patriot noted prior to the invasion of Iraq, we clearly have long-term objectives to establish one or more bases in southern Iraq as forward deployment strongholds in the region. Currently, DoD has identifies four Iraqi military installations as "enduring bases."
Iraq won't be lost on the ground. Of its 26 million citizens, 80 percent are pro-democracy Shi'a Muslims or Kurds -- and only a small fraction of the remaining 20 percent (Sunnis) are providing quarter for insurgents. The President's supplemental National Strategy For Victory In Iraq articulates a winning strategy there.
Still, Iraq can be lost in the hearts and minds of Americans -- both through a deplet
Still, Iraq can be lost in the hearts and minds of Americans -- both through a depleted national will and in the court of public opinion, where Democrats and their Leftmedia outlets wield a great deal of influence. As such, they are among Jihadistan's most effective public relations advocates.
Okay, Faux-Brain, I'm sure you have seen these or variations of them before, many times, so I know this is pointless, but anyway, here they are again.
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act, November 1, 1998
From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
Congressional Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by both houses of Congress in October, 2002.
And these:
UN Documents of Early 2003 - Part One
UN Documents of Early 2003: Part Two - Unresolved disarmament issues
UN Security Council Resolution 1441
And this. (Heavy sigh.)
Famous forgotten quotations by Democrats, all of which are in agreement with George Bush.
We all know you reject all of these facts, so surely you should understand why we play with you like a cat plays with a cold, dead, stupid mouse.
And by the way, for your information and in a vain attempt to expand your miserably tiny mind just a wee, wee bit, this: "God told me to do it" simply means Bush was following the dictates of his conscience.
Concepts of a Higher Being are many and varied and have occupied philosophers throughout the world all through the ages but you seem to have a very childish idea of what God is, which you, of course, reject.
But, (heavy sigh) it never occurs to you that other people have far more abstract and sophisticated understandings of what a Creator might be. When you grown up, perhaps we can have some interesting discussions about the idea of a God, but until then, just go back to the sandbox and try to play nicely with the other children, will you.
Morning, Richard. You have a good day.
Richard B
"We've removed an ally of al-Qa'ida and cut off a source of terrorist funding, and this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.*
Amazing! We only have to read the first sentence of your lengthy post to see the lies begin. To start with Saddam was not an ally of Al Qaeda; in fact they were enemies. No matter how often you post one of Bush's lies doesn't make it become true. However, Bush's next remark is, by mistake, actually true! No terrorist network would get WMD from the Iraqi regime, but not for the reason Bush was thinking of. The reason is because there weren't any to start with.
The only reason you can be posting this nonsense is a desperate attempt to keep believing it yourself.
"Indeed, the democratization of Iraq is essential in order to protect our vital national interests -- both the security of our homeland and the stability of our energy providers in the Middle East."
Aha! Now we are beginning to glimpse a bit of the truth. The last few words are the closest to it I have seen in a while here. What the war in Iraq is about is to control the sources of energy. Not necessarily (but incidentally) to provide profits to US/British Oil companies. The rationale was to prevent Iraq selling its oils to interests opposed to the US's. But bringing democracy to the Iraqi people as some sort of humanitarian exercise?? Not even on the radar screen.
"because another left-wind blog would not let me post my right-wing comments"
And you can be sure they wouldn't. 
Louise
How amusing that you talk about playing in sandboxes, yet persist with your childish name-calling! Yet another of the many unconscious ironies you are guilty of.
""God told me to do it" simply means Bush was following the dictates of his conscience."
Total nonsense. It means exactly what it says. Why do you find it necessary to act as his apologist?
"abstract and sophisticated"?
Well, Bush is certainly abstract in the extreme, but sophisticated? Don't make me laugh! But if YOU want to have a laugh, I can probably point you to a few websites where you can find some of Bush's more sophisticated remarks.
It's classic BDS.
Louise
You are guilty of precisely the same mistake as leap frog earlier, namely assuming that because I express certain opinions here, it means that I automatically have certain other views.
Tony Blair was a Labour Party Prime Minister, but I opposed his part in the invasion of Iraq. If Clinton had done what Bush did, I would have opposed that too (although I suspect that he probably wouldn't have acted without clear UN authorisation and international support). Therefore your comments about what Democrats might have thought about WMD are completely irrelevant!
Not even a good try, I'm afraid.
Louise
""because another left-wind blog would not let me post my right-wing comments"
And you can be sure they wouldn't."
Pure guesswork. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.
Perhaps you should find some blogs which don't have a particular left or right wing bias. Those are the ones I usually post on, and it's far more interesting and educational to see two opposing views. It's far more instructional too, to have to defend your views in a discussion rather than just agree and pat each other on the back.
It's pretty clear from the level of debate that goes on here that not many people do that. And as for the idiotic bg on ITM . . .
"…including two 'crude nuclear devices' designed to utilize
EU235 cores -- through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily
fortified Bekaa Valley."
See what I's tellin’ ya Mike. These airheads have Saddam havin’ nukes and now the nukes are in Lebanon, in the Bekaa Valley. (Which is under Lebanese control now.)
They actually believe this stuff. This stuff will be circulating on the wingnut websites forever; they'll never get tired of their faerie tales.
it never occurs to you that other people have far more abstract and sophisticated understandings of what a Creator might be.
That is actually a beautiful line Louise.
Lee, one of the things that we know for sure is that prior to the First Gulf War, the Iraqis moved Air Force squadrons to Iran, of all places, to spare them from the onslaught that was coming.
It makes perfect sense that they did the same with whatever WMD they possessed. During all its existence, the regime worked on WMD. One story among a gazillion is that of the Canadian Gerald Bull, who designed Saddams Supergun, known as "Project Babylon" in Iraq. Bull was murdered in unclear circumstances outside his Brussels apartment in 1990, very likely by the Mossad.
They continuously worked on WMD for well over twenty years. All those efforts must have resulted in a substantial inventory, of which indeed a part was discovered. The fact that Bush waited so long for that half-hearted Res. 1441 certainly gave the Iraqis an ample window to remove stuff, just as they did with their fighter planes twelve years earlier.
Btw, sorry for my violent outburst a couple of weekas ago.
But try to understand the mood I am sometimes in. Amsterdams Mayor has just apologised to muslims for some of the remarks made by the late Theo Van Gogh. A high profile ex-muslim in Holland, Ehsan Jami, has been beaten up very badly by his former co-religionists, big mosques appear to be funded by Milli Gorus and the Muslim Brotherhood, and a demonstration by the organization SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe), scheduled in Brussels on 9/11, has just been forbidden by the Brussels Mayor, "because he fears the immigrant population's reaction might be violent'.
Amsterdams Mayor has just apologised to muslims for some of the remarks made by the late Theo Van Gogh.
Outlaw Mike | 08.10.07 - 4:47 pm |
Interesting that you should mention Theo Van Gogh. I am currently reading the book "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ala. I have only read the first 11 chapters but I find it very interesting reading. Of her book Salmon Rushdie had this to say, "This is an immensely important book--passionate, challenging, and necessary. It should be read as widely as possible, because it tells the truth --the unvarnished, uncomfortable truth." I couldn't agree more with that review. Ayaan was born in Somalia and also lived in Saudi Arabia, and other African countries during her youth. In 1992 Hirsi Alaa came to the Netherlands as a refugee. She learned Dutch (she already spoke English, Arabic, Swahili, and Somalian) and worked as an interpreter in abortion clinics and shelters for battered women. She denounced Islam after the September 11 terrorist attacks and now fights for the rights of Muslim women in Europe, the enlightenment of Islam, and security in the West.
P.S.: After shooting and slashing Theo Van Gogh, the peaceful Muslim plunged a knife into Theo's chest through a five page letter. That letter was to Ayaan Hirsi Ala.
Between the Lines: A Big Problem for Democrats
by Joseph Farah
Posted 08/08/2007 ET
Updated 08/08/2007 ET
A ranking Democrat has finally admitted what we all should have realized: The worst nightmare for the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be victory for the United States in Iraq.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Democratic Whip James Clyburn was asked what his party woul