← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Peter Phillips
Thread ID: 13280 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2004-04-22
2004-04-22 19:34 | User Profile
The wheel has turned full circle it would seem. They might as well bring Saddam back (chuckle):
[url="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4800292/"]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4800292/[/url]
2004-04-22 19:53 | User Profile
Which brings us to the question of why they brought down Saddam in the first place. What else did they expect after Saddam's fall?
They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Neo-cons are showing the weaknesses of Roman Emperors in the dying days of the Empire. They have been making monumental mistakes ever since they acquired real power. Their time may be up finally.
I dont think option B would work for the US (i.e. Israel) in the long term. Even a secular dictator would be a loose cannon at best. And in the middle east, every one hates Israel - whether Fundamentalist or Secular. There is no guarantee that in say five years, the new secular tyrant to occupy Iraq wont start funding Palestinian suicide bombers.
2004-04-22 19:57 | User Profile
[U]Armegeddon[/U] is the End Game here, my brothers. There ain't gonna be no Iraq very soon. Same for Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. BuSharon are going for the Gold, world war stylin'.
2004-04-22 19:58 | User Profile
They are already talking about bringing back the draft. I wouldnt be surprised if they succeeded.
2004-04-22 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The point is that unlike Fundamentalist Islam (Iran under the Ayatollah, the Taliban), secular Arab nationalists had no particular hostility towards the West in general or the US in particular. Their quarrel was always with Israel (and rightfully so, given Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iraq, Syria, etc), not with the US. From the point of view of America's interest (meaning an America which has nothing to do with the Zionists), it is better to have Husseins and Assads than Khomeinis.[/QUOTE]I agree with that. Israel's squabbles initially started with men like Nasser who were pan-arabists and had nothing to do with fundamentalism. Theyve now wound up with Osama clones all over the middle east.
2004-04-22 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The Pan-Islamists don't share this view, and as I noted in a previous post if it weren't for the US-Israeli alliance (or rather, host-parasite relationship) it would never have come to this.[/QUOTE] Islamic political fundamentalism of the sort we are now witnessing is the result of 50 years of American policy in the middle east. As you correctly note, Middle Eastern nations didnt start out this way - post WWII. In fact, it wasnt until 1979 that a true fundamentalist took power in a major middle eastern country - Iran.
The secular rulers in the middle east are now on a knife's edge. Sharon's policies have radicalized the populace and Bush's pandering has made it worse. I see even less chance of men like Nasser emerging now than before. There is a pretty good chance, however, that the semi-secular rulers currently ruling most of the Arab world might soon collapse in the face of massive revolt by the radicals who are growing in phenomenal numbers.
2004-04-23 14:46 | User Profile
The secular rulers in the middle east are now on a knife's edge. Sharon's policies have radicalized the populace and Bush's pandering has made it worse.
But, this is by design. It will have the affect of further tying us to Israel when the inevitable blowback happens here in the States. Instead of the populace stepping back and wondering just why these attacks will occur, they'll be safely diverted into more flag-waving, "let's role" and "nuke them Ay-rabs" directions courtesy of all the FoxNews and FreeRepublic-type media outlets via which true conservatism has been hijacked. After all, if the public swallowed the "they hate us for our freedom and democracy" swill, they'll take just about anything, up to and including the draft, though the neocons will have to tread real careful-like on that issue. Of course, a nice big terror attack will make that pill go down easier.
As some wise statesmen said prior to U.S. entry into WWII (when Roosevelt was busy agitating to get us into it and being lobbied heavily to do so): "The Jews and the English are prepared to fight to the last American."
Funny how things never change, isn't it? :angry:
2004-04-23 22:55 | User Profile
Would Americans have a rethink if a city were to get Nuked by terrorists? (This might sound outlandish but it isnt - there a very real chance of this happening some day in the not too distant future)