Falluja operation underway

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Pax

1. I agree with your first point. Still even if they are not the largest block of voters, they could still be most responsible for Bush's victory. I believe that they are. Think about it. When attacked, he reverts back to his good ol christian values. You attack him. He's just doing the work god chose him for. Why do you hate god so much?

Come on. The fact that Bush may rely on a sense of faith in order to guide his judgements is no different than r\presidents past. First off, why is this a knock? Are we to impugn Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt becuase they held strong religious convictions. A person is the composite of their experiences and religious convictions are but one facet thereof. I submit religion had little bearing on most peoples choice but moreover the perceived strength of character did. A character issue that you say is aided by religious bearing while I say is evidenced moreso by record. To those few who were swayed by the religious convictions of the President I say you are grossly overestimating.

2. Why is it self blame. I think it's a look at the facts. America is here. Iraq is overthere. America army is overthere. Should it be here? The left wants the country to go in a different direction. Apart of democracy is allowing for that freedom of speech. Why does the right try so hard to muzzle it. Also, many people on the left, like me believe that the war in Iraq goes against basic american principles. How could we not speak out?

Self blame is a fools game that serves no purpose. It does nothing to advance the resolution of the issues at hand. Crying over spilled milk as it were.

As for the effort to muzzle and or censor the hard left from espousing their view. I would be hard pressed to say that there has been any lack of voice from the hard left. I would suggest there has been plenty of effort by the right to discredit it which is a completely different matter and is part and parcel of a free speech based society that allows for give and take discussions.

3. People who voted for Bush may not be fundies. They may not be neocons. They may not be low IQ rednecks. Most of them are not any of those. I believe that whatever else they maybe, most of them are misled.

back atcha

4. Going back to the issues of values and morals. People on the left(me) would argue that kerry has more/better values than Bush. For example, Bush supports what I see as murder.

You are of course entitled to that view. A strange one considering it matches up entirely with the positions of Kerry 'cepting that he might not have the backbone to see things through. That is assuming you were voting Kerry and didn't go third party as I did.

[Sava]

Are we to impugn Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt becuase they held strong religious convictions.

Teddy felt his religious convictions should be seperate from his politics.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
Teddy felt his religious convictions should be seperate from his politics.

True but they helped define his character which was the point.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


True but they helped define his character which was the point.

BTW, did you know Teddy lobbied to have "In God We Trust" removed from coinage?

[Arrian]

Self blame is a fools game that serves no purpose. It does nothing to advance the resolution of the issues at hand.

Ditto refusing to ever admit error.

So, where does one draw the line? This is why I get pissed at both the hard left and hard right - neither is constructive. One only blames us, the other only blames the "bad guys" (who are never, ever us!). Meh.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ditto refusing to ever admit error.

So, where does one draw the line? This is why I get pissed at both the hard left and hard right - neither is constructive. One only blames us, the other only blames the "bad guys" (who are never, ever us!). Meh.

-Arrian

Agreed to an extent. The issue at hand is the preception that by not admitting publicy of error that implies privately errors are likewise not admitted. The only good reason for admitting one is wrong is to learn from mistakes. So more importantly are there lessons learned should be the real question?

There has beeen much ado and much made of the fact that the Pres has not publicy admitted errors of his administration and of himself. Given the political headwind he was facing with respect an extremely hostile press I understand he would not willingly feed his opposition ammunition to take him down. Does that mean he is not privately taking notes on what went wrong and doing lessons learned? I would expect/suspect that he and/or his admin are.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, did you know Teddy lobbied to have "In God We Trust" removed from coinage?

I honestly don't remember that. Will have to reread my Teddy biography. In any event Teddy for all his good contributions was a scatterbrain who was often too whimsical in his crusades of the day. A man of too much energy at times.

[Sava]

he's gonna give you a beat down from beyond the grave!

[lord of the mark]

back to the topic of Fallujah

from the Gulf Daily News, about an argument in the Bahrain parliament. (hat tip, winds of change)

'MPs squabble over US attack on Fallujah

By MOHAMMED AL A'ALI
MANAMA

A FURIOUS row erupted in Parliament yesterday over a statement condemning the US attack on Fallujah, Iraq.

The statement was issued in response to a written request signed by 24 out of the 40 MPs.

But Islamic Bloc president and parliament legislative and legal affairs committee vice-chairman Ali Al Samahiji objected, branding the rebels in Fallujah as merciless killers and terrorists.

"We should be focusing on backing others who are in real distress and not a bunch of criminals, who are causing chaos and destruction in Iraq," he said.

Parliament chairman Khalifa Al Dhahrani then called an end to the session, but Independent Bloc president and parliament environment and public utilities committee chairman Abdulaziz Al Moosa demanded that Mr Al Samahiji first withdraw his "insulting" remarks.

MP Shaikh Abdulla Al A'ali, who is also a member of the Islamic Bloc, then jumped from his seat saying that no-one should withdraw or apologise for anything, especially when what had been said was true.

"You want us to support a group of thugs. Be quiet and leave," he said.

Mr Al Moosa reacted angrily, telling Shaikh Al A'ali to respect him and talk to him properly.

"Shut up! What do you know about heroic acts and heroism," he said.

Shaikh Al A'ali said that the gangsters in Fallujah were threatening the peace of Iraq rather than stabilising it.

"You shut up. Why are you saying something which is irrational and childish," he said.

MP Shaikh Jassim Al Saeedi then entered the fray, saying that what Mr Al Moosa was saying was the truth and that the Americans were massacring Iraqis, who had no other choice than to defend themselves by any means necessary.

Al Menbar Bloc member MP Shaikh Mohammed Khalid Mohammed told Shaikh Al A'ali to leave.

"The fighters in Fallujah are by far better than you, they are heroes whether you like it or not," he said.

"Is resisting occupation terrorism?

"Go away, I don't want to lose my temper."

Independent Bloc co-ordinator Yousif Al Hermi said that when Shaikh Al A'ali asked that a statement be issued last September, condemning US military action in Najaf, everyone agreed with him and the statement was issued.

"Is it because those in Fallujah are Sunnis and those in Najaf are Shi'ites?" he said.

Mr Al Dhahrani ended the meeting and the MPs later shook hands to end the row. '

[Sava]

man I wish CSPAN showed that

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Agreed to an extent. The issue at hand is the preception that by not admitting publicy of error that implies privately errors are likewise not admitted. The only good reason for admitting one is wrong is to learn from mistakes. So more importantly are there lessons learned should be the real question?

There has beeen much ado and much made of the fact that the Pres has not publicy admitted errors of his administration and of himself. Given the political headwind he was facing with respect an extremely hostile press I understand he would not willingly feed his opposition ammunition to take him down. Does that mean he is not privately taking notes on what went wrong and doing lessons learned? I would expect/suspect that he and/or his admin are.

And I agree with you, to an extent.

I do not expect high-level politicians like Bush to admit mistakes all the time, and spend his time apologizing for this, that and the other thing. I'd rather he dealt with the problems at hand.

However, I do not trust that Bush & Co. are really thinking about mistakes they made. I'm not sure they acknowledge that they are wrong about anything. What you probably see as confidence, I see as foolhardiness. My level of trust in this administration is close to zero. And that's something they earned. I was ambivalent when Bush took office, neither for him nor against him. Unlike the "hard left" I did not start out anti-Bush.

Anyway, that aside, Hitchens' opinion piece is still crap, IMO.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
man I wish CSPAN showed that

Its not all that surprising Sava. Bahrain has a large Shiite minority. Apparently its not only Iraqi Shiites who have figured out that the Fallujah "freedom fighters" are really fighting for a Sunni Arab version of apartheid. Shiites around the region are figuring it out.

[Pax]

apartheid bad. american occupation good.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll explain myself.
Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article.

Actually Communism and Islam have a lot in common. For instance the islamic organisation Hizb-ut-tahir argues for state control of all resources, and end to "democracy", and a universal order. Here I speak of democracy as in protective democracy which views people as hardly anything more than animals, and uses all means at the disposal to uphold private property for the powerful, while expropriating it from others.

However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and let the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism.

The "hard" left finds many faults with the US because it is the champion of "democracy" and capitalism, not because it is simply the US.
It has never been a central critique by Communists that Bush is a fundamentalist. This criticism is promoted by "liberals", who themselves are of course Capitalists of a higher order. The central critique of Bush, if indeed any, should be that he is a Capitalist. Personally I don't think a critique of Bush serves any purpose but distracting from the real issue. Even bin Laden has never resorted to critizising Bush personally - except that he 'wonders' about his intentions.

[Pax]

islamonline,
I checked the site out. I think it speaks to the audience. Some things may not be true. Some things on fox may not be true.