Bin Laden offers Americans truce

[Boetie]

Since the year 2001.

Americans lost their civil libertys via the unpatriotic act, but we're going to get you Osama

America bombed a nation called Iraq that had zero to do with 911, but we're going to get you Osama

America has dumped 2 trillion dollars in war debt alone on the future generation of Americans, a debt this future generation will certainly be angry about because this country was lied into this war by Bush Jr, but we're going to get you Osama

Illegal wiretapping along with Bush Jr telling this country he will break the law and if you have any balls bring it on and impeach him otherwise kiss his ass, but we're going to get you Osama

Republican corruption via Jack Abramoff, but we're going to get you Osama

The year is now 2006

Osama doesn't need a truce, Bush Jr and the Republican party is doing more than enough damage to America, more so than Osama could have dreamed.

[thatoneguy00]

well brien I just got done reading about the incident you speak of, man what a case of mistaken identity huh, or is it? they really don't have any proof of it being true or not. I never really remember mentioning israel in any of my posts but ok, I don't really believe they are undying allies, I don't really think they are totally enemies either though

[grandpa]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 i THINK PULLING OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD BE THE DUMBEST THING WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW. AMERICA WOULD BECOME A TARGET FOR ATTACK FROM EVERY ANGLE INCLUDING WITHIN

Where is the rationale behind this statement? The main reason any superpower gets attacked is for its expansionist efforts, both internally or externally.

Even if a country is extending influence without force it is enough to win it attacks, really.

Grandpa h.

[thatoneguy00]

but grandpa, you think if we just up and come home, theres not going to be any trouble. you think everything will just be water under the bridge. if anything theres going to be resentment for not finishing the rebuilding.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: brien Since when do you think that Israel is the undying ally of the US? Are you not familiar with the USS Liberty incident in 1967? Read up on that one, and then you may want to reconsider your writings.

Interesting - LBJ shut up the USS Liberty story!

. . . but

What did your comment have to do with the comment you quoted which says:

Quote by: thatoneguy00 i THINK PULLING OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD BE THE DUMBEST THING WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW. AMERICA WOULD BECOME A TARGET FOR ATTACK FROM EVERY ANGLE INCLUDING WITHIN

Fact Is - Someone has to stabilize the region or these tribal wars will continue for generations to come.

[brien]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 well brien I just got done reading about the incident you speak of, man what a case of mistaken identity huh, or is it? they really don't have any proof of it being true or not. I never really remember mentioning israel in any of my posts but ok, I don't really believe they are undying allies, I don't really think they are totally enemies either though

Oneguy: Just to clarify, the incident did indeed happen but Israel neither denies nor accepts responsibility. Thus the need for the lawsuits. It is a mess. I only pointed it out to illustrate that sometimes when we THINK we have allies in the Middle East, we may not be so assured when the chips are down on the table.

In any event, I also posted it to illustrate America's inconsequential status with Israel. They don't need us to protect them and they know it. Of course, Israel and America are not enemies. That said, they have all of the intel and weapons they require to blow up the entire Middle East. The US just needs ot bow out gracefully and say that 58 years is enough. It is like teaching your son or daughter to ride a bike on two wheels. You have to let go of the seat sometimes and just watch them peddle down the street by themselves.

[grandpa]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 but grandpa, you think if we just up and come home, theres not going to be any trouble. you think everything will just be water under the bridge. if anything theres going to be resentment for not finishing the rebuilding.

Of course there will be trouble. But the resentment is bound to be greater if we stay there indefinitely. Even the Iraqi government--assuming we can agree one exists, seeing as to how we'll calling the shots til we leave--ocassionally demands a timeable for us to leave. That's a sure sign we are overstaying our welcome.

Grandpa h.

[thatoneguy00]

But you don't think that once we leave its going to be rigt back in mess it was in before, quite possibly even worse now that sadaam is out of the picture. You might have a bunch of wannabe dictator types coming in trying to accomplish the same thing sadaam did.

[thatoneguy00]

brien I agree with you. I never said that incident did not happen. We will never know who was the responsible party was for the misguided intel. I don't want us there anymore than you do. But I think it does scare off a lot of terrorists from the united states.

[rmnunez]

The main reason any superpower gets attacked is for its expansionist efforts, both internally or externally. Even if a country is extending influence without force it is enough to win it attacks, really. Grandpa h.

I don't see intervention in Iraq as driven by expansionism and think the term is ambiguous. The US is often described as "imperialist" by the critical left. An "empire" is a regime that rules over different cultures or civilizations, historically by conquest. The US does apply a "regime" over different cultures or civilizations, but that "regime" is very different from what we would readily recognize as an "empire". Britain and other empires of the past imposed law, language and faith across their domains on peoples of different cultures or civilizations, the US hasn't imposed (in an imperial sense) anything. The US deploys military forces around the world, through bilateral or multilateral defence agreements with sovereign governments it recognizes, this isn't an imposition by force like when Britain or Spain had empires, rather than a negotiated arrangement, often in exchange for money. The US provides goods and services around the world and these successfully displace others who do as much, but US franchises and products are not imposed by force either.

I'll consider claims of imperialism when the movement to confer US statehood on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Iraq picks up some steam, meanwhile lets talk of influence rather than imperialism. The US once military controlled most of the EU, chunks of Asia and Latin America and huge segments of the Pacific, had the country been imperialist, wouldn't they have sprung then (instead of demobilizing after WW2)?

[RickSp]

Your view of empire is historically narrow. The Monguls and many ancient empires never maintained an occupation of their empire. They installed vassal lords who would do their bidding and send regular tribute. Their empire was maintained by the threat of force, not actual occupation.

The US empire is not so different. While the US does exact tribute in the ancient sense, it does ensure access to raw materials, such as oil, as well as guaranteeing that the modern day vassal lords will do its bidding. With at least 700 military bases in 130 countries, the US mainains the largest imperial military in the history of the world. US miltiary expenditures currently equal the military expenditures of all other countries inthe world combined.

And you see no empire?

The Arithmetic of America's Military Bases Abroad: What Does It All Add Up to?

[rmnunez]

Well your view of empire seems rather broad, lets see if this can be whittled down a bit. If the US maintains 700 military bases in 130 countries, would you say its empire spans all those countries? Would you include Germany because there are US bases there, how about Mexico where there are none? What about the countries the US imports natural resources from, are these considered part of an empire even if they also provide the same resources to others, does it depend on who gets most or what is paid? With Iran making up about 8% of US oil imports, would it count as part of the US empire or not since they sell more to the EU or maybe China? How about Venezuela which sells the US about 3 times as much oil as Iran?

[grandpa]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 But you don't think that once we leave its going to be rigt back in mess it was in before, quite possibly even worse now that sadaam is out of the picture. You might have a bunch of wannabe dictator types coming in trying to accomplish the same thing sadaam did.

We might have that now, actually. They may not be dictators in the pure sense, but the law is what people make it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't see intervention in Iraq as driven by expansionism and think the term is ambiguous. The US is often described as "imperialist" by the critical left.

im·pe·ri·al·ism Audio pronunciation of "imperialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Looks like the "critical left" has a dictionary.

Grandpa h.

[SlantedFacts]

Imperialism? It looks more like a version of Globalism.

glob·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glb-lzm) n. A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.

This link shows Norway as being part of the development of Iraq as well.

Norway to help Iraq with oil industry (22/03/05)

It is really interesting how much rhetorical anti - American jargon is flung around our nation.

A lot of Americans will always spurn this destructive anti-patriotic attitude.

It is one thing to attack the process - but one should always respect the foundations that have allowed this country to thrive and grow to this point.

BUT - Some Americans have become too pompous to RESPECT and HONOR the foundations of such a great nation.

An anti-national attitude does nothing to repair nor strengthen a failing system - it JUST continues to destroy like a cancer!
BUT . . . I am certain that those who do it - know damn well and good what their objective is!

[thatoneguy00]

I just think there is alot of people waiting for us to pull out of iraq and then its going to be a free for all for power. Unless iraq gets trained officers who well be sworn to uphold the law, then they need us. But I don't know if I would take their word anyway even they were being swoorn in.

[Matt W]

But I don't know if I would take their word anyway even they were being swoorn in.

You trust Americans, but not Iraqis? Bit of a racist attitude to take...it's their country.

[thatoneguy00]

no actually matt right now there is not many people I would trust at all. But I would trust a soldier before I would anyone else, mostly soldiers aren't there to lie cheat or steal but to get the job done and go home.

[Matt W]

Fair point. However, Iraqis don't trust American soldiers....and it's their country, so surely they should be allowed to run it their way?

[brien]

Quote by: SlantedFacts Imperialism? It looks more like a version of Globalism. This link shows Norway as being part of the development of Iraq as well. It is really interesting how much rhetorical anti - American jargon is flung around our nation. A lot of Americans will always spurn this destructive anti-patriotic attitude. It is one thing to attack the process - but one should always respect the foundations that have allowed this country to thrive and grow to this point. BUT - Some Americans have become too pompous to RESPECT and HONOR the foundations of such a great nation. An anti-national attitude does nothing to repair nor strengthen a failing system - it JUST continues to destroy like a cancer! BUT . . . I am certain that those who do it - know damn well and good what their objective is!

There you go again. Just because some people in this nation recommend that America keep its own house in order, before tramping around the globe to protect everyone from some bogeyman, they are not patriotic. This is a radical facist ploy. It was used to stifle the Patriots who slammed the door on the illegal Viet Nam war. It didn't fools us then, and it won't fool us now. We remember Hitler's Germany, Goebbels, Borman, and the entire gang who used anti-patriotism as a sword to slay its dissenters. Well you can't fool me with that Bullshit. You can cloak yourself in the flag all you want but it doesn't confer upon you a patriotic status that is yours, and yours alone.

We Americans who disagree with the current US foreign policy are every bit as patriotic as any other American with dis-similar views. Ughh, ever hear of the 1st Amendment?

You wrote:It is one thing to attack the process - but one should always respect the foundations that have allowed this country to thrive and grow to this point.

I ask: Who is attacking the foundations of this country? I think just the reverse. The LP is questioning the legality of the last 100 years of illegal incursions in foreign nations that affect the sovereignty of those nations. We base our philosophy upon the US Constitution. So where in the Constitution, and name the Article and Section please, where the President of the US has the authority to conduct war? Show me the Article of War, as declared by this nation with regard to Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Bosnia, and Iraq. And please stick to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Butif you can find it anywhere else in the Constitution, I would glady compare my copy with your copy. Remember that document?

When the LP questions authority, right wing facists immediately attack the LP for being "un-patriotic". This is utter nonsense. The LP is perhaps more patriotic because it wants to make sure our government is acting legally and according to the Constitution of the US. This is patriotism as opposed to blind allegience to unquestioned authority.

You wrote:BUT - Some Americans have become too pompous to RESPECT and HONOR the foundations of such a great nation.

Yep, you're exactly correct and they reside in government in DC. In the White House, the CIA, and in the Congress. They are elitist bastards who think they know better than the general population on how to run government and how to conduct foreign policy around the world. So, "sit down and shut up" because we don't know anything with regard to these matters, correct?

The LP honors the Contitution. Show me how some leaders in DC honor the Constitution by conducting illegal wars, wiretaps, and activity that is in direct conflict with the foundation of our governemnt. It is called the Constitution of the United States. I say they violate the Article 1, Section 8, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Eighth Amendments. For starters.

You wrote:An anti-national attitude does nothing to repair nor strengthen a failing system - it JUST continues to destroy like a cancer!
BUT . . . I am certain that those who do it - know damn well and good what their objective is

I write: There you go again. You are using that facist mentality to paint dissent with the anti american brush. You are confusing the right of dissent with your radical right mentality that has taught you dissent is anti american when it is one of the basic tenets in the Constitution. But what care you for the Constitution? You don't require it to run America. You just need some elitist Legislators, and a Executive office that knows no Constitutional limits to do whatever they deem necessary to consolidate and use their power no matter what the consquences to America.

Your ideas and statements in your post are somewhat akin to Right Wing Facist propaganda that you have every right to advocate, but please don't cloak it in patriotism, because that kind of patriotism lies back within the Third Reich. It is just an old whore in a new dress.