|
3 members (Fr. Al, 2 invisible),
103
guests, and
15
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
Last edited by Subdeacon Borislav; 05/18/07 04:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
And I yours Michael.
I just feel that we will never agree on the subject, thus further argument is pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
尼古拉前执事 Member
|
|
尼古拉前执事 Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347 |
Here is another good article on it from the initial topic from http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html , except that they mistakenly think Giuliani won the debates. ;-) I may not agree with everything he says, but think he brings up some good points to consider. Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated
By Roland S. Martin, CNN contributor
Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.
(CNN) � Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.
Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.
That set Giuliani off.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.
Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.
After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.
First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.
Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.
Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.
At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.
Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Father Deacon Nikolai,
I am glad that you posted this. I think that one reason so many Americans believe what this current administration tells them is that they do not know history. Anyone who does serious research into our middle eastern foreign policy will find out a number of disconcerting facts:
1) All of the issues with Israel and Palestine that I won't repeat
2) We created Sadaam Hussein. We built him up in order to put a check on Iran and we gave him the funding and support to build chemical weapons.
3) We only turned on Hussein because he went a little too far and instead of simply reclaiming the oil fields that the Kuwaities were unjustly thieving from, he invaded Kuwait. George Bush Sr. stopped at the border of Iraq because he knew that going in would be a quagmire and a disaster.
4) We built up the Taliban and armed them to get the soviets out of Afghanistan. And by the way, it seems that we don't learn anything from history. The French occupied Viet Nam before we did and it was a disaster. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan and it was a disaster. One would think that it was just common sense that going into Iraq and trying to occupy it for the long term would be a disaster.
4) Again, you can go back and read reports from the neo-con think tanks of the 1990s and you will see that all of the steps for a planned invasion of some middle eastern country were already in place. The neocons, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rumsfeld, Kristol, and others were already arguing that we need to gain control of the economic and natural resources of the middle east and they publicly advocated nation building.
5) A close study of the accounts of what occured in the administration prior to the decision to invade Iraq will show that administration officials cherry-picked intelligence information, they had already determined to go into Iraq, and they were hoping that by fortuitous circumstances, that evidence of an Al Queda link and weapons of mass destruction would show up. I personally think that the administration did lie knowingly and that 9-11 was just a pretense to engage in nation building (something that George W. Bush said he would not do in his 2000 campaign for office).
I think that there is just grounds to impeach both Cheney and Bush and that this is one of the worst administrations in U.S. history. Just my opinion. I'm sure I've made enough people angry, I won't say anything more. But if conservatives are allowed on this forum to vent their rage at Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and others, then I don't think it is wrong for us Bush-critics to do the same, respectfully of course.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Joe,
If we knew as much as we think we know we would probably proclaim that there is just cause for impeaching not only every president but every public official in the country from as far back as the nation began and forever into the future. But then, I'm an ever more convinced moarchist.
CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Carson, I'm going to have to give serious consideration to this monarchist idea myself.  Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
I agree with both of you, but who should ascend to the throne in the US:
Mexico, France, Russia, England/Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, one branch of the Mormons, various Native American tribes, the Norse/Scandinavians, and others can all lay claim at one time or another...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
I agree with both of you, but who should ascend to the throne in the US:
Mexico, France, Russia, England/Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, one branch of the Mormons, various Native American tribes, the Norse/Scandinavians, and others can all lay claim at one time or another... Me of course! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said. Dear Deacon Nikolai, I believe that according to the treaty after the First Gulf War, we were allowed to fly over certain area's. We were being shot at every day. I also believe that you use the word 'occupation' rather incorrectly.
Israel is not under Jewish occupation, Israel is in fact a Jewish state. Dear Borislav, Israel is a Jewish state in the same way that Russia is a Russian state, Germany is a German state, France is a French state, etc., etc., etc. Every people had at one time defeated other people that lived on the same land. People were ethnically cleansed throughout history. So whoever says that Israel is not today a Jewish state, is certainly unaware and accepting of Islamic propaganda. The same propaganda that is now saying the Iberian peninsula is not a Spanish state. Do you think that there is any country in the middle east where an event like the yearly Holy Fire could take place in realetive safety except for Israel? Do you think Saudi Police would guard the Christians as they attend the yearly event? Actually it did take place under the Turks. A Turk, believe it or not, actually holds the key to the Church because of the infighting between the different Christian denominations... especially the Catholics and Orthodox. As for buldosering over houses in Palestinian villages.
If you place a rocket launcher on the top of your house and lob rockets into my back yard your house is getting buldousered my friend. The Palestinians deliberately launch their rockets from the homes of Christians. This way the Christians will be attacked and the Jews will be blamed. It's far easier to side with the Palestinians, who will kill you without remorse if you don't, than to side with the Jews. If they feel you are their enemy, you will suffer economic hardship...but at least you will be alive. Subdeacon, I suggest you speak with those Christians who reside under Israeli occupation. Archbishop Elias Chacour is in the US as we speak, witnessing to the atrocities committed. I recently posted a newclip from 2006 regarding a Jewish man's attempt to blow up the Church of the Nativity, while filled with worshipers. Dear Michael Thoma, There was a Palestinian Christian writer, that continuously fostered anti-Israeli propaganda here in this country in support of the Muslim Palestinians...that was until the day the Christians were brutally attacked because of some incident involving a Christian man and Muslim girl. I believe the writing ceased after that. Disgusting Socialists like Rosy O'Donell who say that Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as Radical Islam and many of her compatriots are ENABLING Islam to hide its true colors. Ultimately they are enabling Islamists to carry out their acts unpunished. Dear Borislav, Rosy O'Donell is a lesbian. In her mind, anyone that condemns homosexuality in any way, is a fascist and therefore evil. She lacks discernment. Hasn't Turkey been a democratic republic since after WWI? Dear Dr. Eric, Turkey has been a democracy, albeit one with limited human rights...due of course to it's Islamic heritage. What is refreshing and encouraging, is that the Prince of Dubaii is creating a billions of dollars trust fund for the education of Arabs. The Arabs are not educated, nor do they have a business class. The man is a marvel. He realized that the West has progressed because of democracy, and is trying to foster it in his country. Hopefully it will spread to the rest of the Middle East. I think this is what President Bush tried to do with Iraq, and it might have been successful had the UN supported his actions. If we leave Iraq, the Shia's who are in the majority might invite the Iranians in. The slightest move on the Iranians part in Iraq will immediately cause a war with Saudi Arabia. Our hands are tied, unless we are willing to have that part of the world go up in flames. As for the Kurds, the unfortunate thing with them is that they were not given a country with the break up of Turkey after WW I. Their population is enormous and spreads into Iran and Syria as well as Turkey. I know that Lawrence of Arabia loved the Arabs and wanted them to have the oil fields. Today those fields lie within Kurdish territory in Iraq. This is why our presence is so strong in Northern Iraq. We are protecting the Kurds from Turkey that wants to grab the oil, and the Kurds of course, look at us as their saviour, getting whatever they can out of it. The problem I think is mainly the Shia's in the south, who do not want to share the oil revenue's with the Sunni's. The Sunni's have no oil, and we are continuously footing the bill for the intransigence of the Shia's. Of course the Shia's want a Caliphate under them, and the Sunni's want a Caliphate under them. The Turks want to revive the Ottoman empire by expanding to the Adriatic, and the propaganda, with the united help of the Jewish lobby, helped them by having us free Kosovo from Serbia....giving it the chance to unite with Albania. The Turks are now 300,000 in Greek Thrace, and are waiting for the opportune time to start propaganda about being persecuted, and FYROM, (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia), is claiming the name Macedonia in order to eventually expand into Northern Greece, That will come about when the Muslims become the majority in that country. So that whole part of the world is a mess. The only hope is Dubaii and that it's prosperity and progress will spread. God Bless, Zenovia
Last edited by Zenovia; 05/24/07 05:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
If we knew as much as we think we know we would probably proclaim that there is just cause for impeaching not only every president but every public official in the country from as far back as the nation began and forever into the future. But then, I'm an ever more convinced moarchist. Dear CDL, One has only to watch King Henry the VIII to realize how well we have it under democracy. You know that Queen Elizabeth II could have had Princess Diana beheaded? I noticed one thing though, that from the time of the Roman Empire onwards, the people were always the important thing. Princess Diana certainly knew how to sway them on her behalf...it might have saved her head.   God Bless, Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
Thank you for your wonderful posts Zenovia, it is always a pleasure to read your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
