Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The end of the Dictator

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    Hudson, you know what I meant. I meant everything said or any action taken in politics is politically calculated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    IP, if you are using a very basic, broad interpretation, then politics has always been at the forefront of civilization when making decisions to go to war, economic trades, decisions on who, what, when, where, how, and to what extent in proclamations, orders, directives, and other decisions. It has always existed and always will, even if you leave out the emotional dogma.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

    Comment


    • #17
      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
      And may I know what an emotional dogma means?
      You mean the "National Security Alert has been raised to Orange" after 9/11?
      </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
      Fanaticism.

      Now before you go off, let me say that fanaticism is using emotion for political purposes. Fanatacism has not only been associated with the McCarhtyism, Cultural Rebolution, and Nazism, but it involves appealing to the emotions and fears for direct poltiical purpose. Examples would include the President of Iran calling the student protesting, "agents of the US," Chavez calling President Bush "the devil" and someone calling all Muslims "terrorists."
      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

      Comment


      • #18
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:




        It always happens when men get involved in politics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
        Mary Queen of Scots and Joan of Arc ring a bell!
        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

        Comment


        • #19
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
          What about Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Bush (sorry), Bin Laden, Igor the Evil, King Henry the IIIX, Hussein, Castro, Pinochet...
          Should I go on?

          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
          Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Bin Laden, Hussein and Castro are finantics. You could include Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as well. Marx was a very dull orator and his book has been misiterpreted, rerepresented, for more than 120 years. Pinochet was also not a good orator. Keep in mind that fanaticism does not equate from a particular moral or political viewpoint. It is the ability to communicate effectively to the general populace with an uncanny ability to use emotion, fear, belief, and extreme national pride.
          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

          Comment


          • #20
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
            What about Dubya Bush and his orange and red alerts?
            The "emotional dogma" as you call it, not always equals fanatism. It is a tool used widely by all the media today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
            I actually agree, in principle, with the Homeland Security Advisory System although I think it should be more regional. It is a revamp of the old emergency broadcast system although now the system is now used for Amber alerts and with the National Weather Broadcast. But it was designed as a preparation tool in case of a nuclear attack from the USSR and its
            Warsaw Pact allies.

            The thing is that President Clinton was contemplating such a system after he was criticized warning Americans of a terrorist alert in 1999 before Y2k. No one listened, cared, or thought about the attempted terrorist attack on LA.
            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

            Comment


            • #21
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing is that President Clinton was contemplating such a system after he was criticized warning Americans of a terrorist alert in 1999 before Y2k. No one listened, cared, or thought about the attempted terrorist attack on LA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              We all know why, don't we?
              The world was immerced in the Lewinsky affair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
              The media ended their love affair with Monica by Summer of 1999. When Clinton went on TV to warn Americans, it was Mid December and no one cared, not even the DNC Leadership.
              "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

              Comment


              • #22
                Since the unilateral US invasion in March 2003, more than a hundred thousand Iraqis, mostly innocent civilians, have been butchered by US President Bush's campaign to impose democracy in that country. Thus, for every Iraqi who has to fight for his survival, the momentum of the fighting has slowly been gaining ground in the Iraqi favor. One cannot exactly say victory is at hand, but the condition of prolonged guerrilla warfare is something the US, for all its sophisticated weapons and technology, cannot stomach.

                The almost 3,000 GIs that have been killed there is remolding American public opinion at home. Many politicians in Washington question their involvement believing Bush has mired US troops in a war the US won't win. They see a prolonged bloody war that will drain much of their manpower and taxpayers' money which is costing them over $1 billion a month with no way out, except under a situation of humiliating defeat. Hence, when Saddam saw the tenacity of his countrymen in repelling the invaders, he probably already felt vindicated, and his death now has become their rallying point to translate that to final victory.

                Beyond the criminal mentality of Bush and of the puppet government he created there, many believe the execution of the former Iraqi leader was part of the grand design to deepen the wounds of enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites, and invariably ease the burden of fighting with one faction serving as collaborator. The US President knows the trial of Saddam was like throwing a defenseless man into the lions' den while praying that it triggers a fratricidal war. It was like a dagger stabbed deep into the heart of every Sunni and nationalist Iraqi with an ominous message of erasing all hopes to ever unite their country. It is on this score that many say the US is back to its old vice of propping up a puppet government just as it did with the defunct South Vietnamese government.

                A dismembered Iraq is no longer an envisioned policy, but one that already exists. In the north, the autonomous Kurdish region could become an independent pro-Western Kurdish state. Although Barzan Talabani, the puppet titular President of Iraq, is a Kurd, US military personnel are arming the Pesh Merga to prepare them for the eventuality of becoming a separate state. For that matter, the autonomous Kurdish government has directly been signing contracts with US firms to extract oil in the northern region without referring the matter to the puppet government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The remaining portion would be split up further into two with the larger part in the western region to be allocated to the Shiites being more dominant in population, and a reduced portion in the east given to the stubbornly tenacious Sunnis.

                Even with that grand strategy, there is great possibility fighting could escalate beyond the Iraqi borders. One, the granting of a Kurdish state could redraw the strategic political landscape in the Middle East. Turkey, which has been battling for decades separatist Kurdish guerrillas in its southern provinces, would not welcome the idea. It could also heighten tensions with Iran and Syria which also have their own Kurdish minority population. The birth of a Kurdish state could be used as a springboard to intensify guerrilla activities, and surely Turkey, Iran and Syria would be pointing at the US as the one brokering this new dimension of fighting. That also can douse cold water on US efforts to convince Syria to seal off its border to Sunni insurgents crossing the porous border with Iraq.

                On a broader scale, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt and other Sunni-predominantly states would never concede the idea of creating a small Sunni state out of old Iraq. Saudi Arabia has already sounded the alarm which means that neighboring Sunni-dominated states would be giving support to the beleaguered Sunni insurgents in Iraq. By then, the specter of a no win situation for the US would come faster than expected.

                First, without US support, the puppet Maliki government would not last a week against the determined Sunni insurgents. Second, among the Iraqi Shiites, they too have little or no respect for the Americans seeing them merely as ally for convenience; fighting not for the puppet government, but for their religion which validates now the role of Iran in war-torn Iraq. Third, the US cannot afford to open a new front by quelling the local militias headed by a bloodthirsty Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr for that could spell the complete isolation of their puppet government. The murderous militias of al Sadr would easily melt under the searing heat of Sunni and Baathist Party attacks which look at Saddam as their hero and martyr. Fourth, should the US pull out, it loses everything including its investments, and its engagement listed as a lost cause for the war-freak US President.

                In other words, the execution of Saddam has exacerbated the problem. His death in the hands of the war criminals has generated traumatic political ripples such that the fanaticism of al-Qaeda that forced them to engage in an asymmetrical war called terrorism has now sipped into the sub consciousness of every Arab and Islam as a necessary war in defense of their religion and national sovereignty. Even the surrogate pro-American Arab monarchs and sheiks now grudgingly concede that Saddam's death has created a towering shadow that now haunts every ruler in the Middle East to unite or face a war of extinction waged by ravenous neoconservatives in Washington.

                Comment


                • #23
                  No response to the above post? Silence means to concur.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Bush apologizing for his error in Iraq will not bring back the 650,000 or more innocent Iraqis killed by US bombs, etc. He should be tried and punished as a war criminal as a matter of fact.

                    I watched his state of the nation address in full. I was not impressed. Every word he said was full of politics, inuendoes and hypocrisy. It was not even his own speech because it must have been written for him that was why he stammered on parts that he possibly did not feel like saying but had to in order to appease his fellow Americans who wanted answers to what he had done so far.

                    I don't see how this war on Iraq can stop with the deployment of more troops there, plus the fighting in nearby Africa (Somalia, etc. that the Americans are now bombing as well). The Iraqis will continue to fight them because they must. Iraq is their country and the Americans, the invaders not their friends, whom they should kick out even at the risk of being wiped out.

                    Sad to say, we Americans have become uglier with Bush as president as a matter of fact.

                    Comment

                    Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                    Home Page

                    Immigration Daily

                    Archives

                    Processing times

                    Immigration forms

                    Discussion board

                    Resources

                    Blogs

                    Twitter feed

                    Immigrant Nation

                    Attorney2Attorney

                    CLE Workshops

                    Immigration books

                    Advertise on ILW

                    EB-5

                    移民日报

                    About ILW.COM

                    Connect to us

                    Questions/Comments

                    SUBSCRIBE

                    Immigration Daily



                    Working...
                    X