Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q - Page 2

Griff · 08-13-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

We have created and are continuing to create a universal enemy. Yey, aren't we clever?

We found something we're good at, why not stick with it?

tw · 08-13-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

We've stepped through the looking glass, right is wrong and wrong is right and the villains are running the show. We step up our actions and treat the whole of Islam as an enemy then point fingers when they 'aid and abett' each other in the fight. Wouldn't we help each other when attacked? Didn't we help each other when attacked? Do we provide each other with military equipment and assistance when needed? Does this relationship of mutual aid and assistance permeate the whole of the 'civilised' world?

Welcome to mid and late 1960s Vietnam. It will get much worse and more depressing because all the same arguments are being spun with different words.

Domino Theory or 'we must attack then in Iraq so that don't come after us here'. Same myths. Same conclusions based in a 'big dic' attitude. Even violating basic Military Science principles to justify a political agenda. Thirty years later: things tend to repeat only because a new generation does not learn why a 'big dic' attitude only makes things worse. The new generation always thinks a bigger kid with a bigger stick will always make things better. The new generation is so untempered by reality as to still think in terms of what they were taught in nursery rhymes : 'good verses evil'.

The world is chock for of conflicting and justified perspectives. An adult child becomes an adult adult when he learns about perspective and discovers the lie about ‘good verses evil’. Deja Vue Vietnam. Therefore we know from history that it will get more depressing. We even know that we will elect a president after George Jr who makes things even worse - because the 'big dic' attitude subverts intelligent thought and promoted childhood 'good verses evil' myths.

richlevy · 08-13-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Bush is saying that any nation who is waging war against a terrorist organization seeking its destruction is fighting the same battle we are, and it's true. Just substitute the word 'America' for 'Israel' and it's the same rhetoric.

This is of course why the US has had allies like Stalin, Pinochet, Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and of course, Osama bin Laden.

So, if Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Queda (Sunni) hate each other, which one is our ally?

DanaC · 08-13-2006, 12:29 PM

aheh. Good question Rich.

Undertoad · 08-13-2006, 12:43 PM

Although it wasn't before, it is now a generally understood principle of US foreign policy that the enemy of our enemies is not necessarily our friend. I've heard that stated many times since 9/11 from all sides of the aisle.

9th Engineer · 08-13-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

So, if Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Queda (Sunni) hate each other, which one is our ally?

Neither, the question doesn't even make sense. I never said 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', rather, 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. My point was that it's pointless for an organization to feign friendship with someone, and then help another one try to kill them. Hezbollah seeks the complete destruction of Israel in direct violation of the U.N., they intentionally kill civilians and then hide among their own people to guarentee innocent deaths on their side for use as justification (this is defined as a war crime).

richlevy · 08-13-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Neither, the question doesn't even make sense. I never said 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', rather, 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. My point was that it's pointless for an organization to feign friendship with someone, and then help another one try to kill them. Hezbollah seeks the complete destruction of Israel in direct violation of the U.N., they intentionally kill civilians and then hide among their own people to guarentee innocent deaths on their side for use as justification (this is defined as a war crime).

Actually, you were repeating Bush's statement of 'he who attacks my enemy is my friend', which is very similar to 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I do not support the deliberate targeting of civilians.
I do not support the indiscrimnate bombing of civilians.

I expect insurgents to hide among civilian populations because this is what insurgents do, including insurgents who were our founding fathers and our current allies. If the Revolutionary War had occurred in the 1940's I would not have supported the British using Lancasters to bomb Philadelphia to get at George Washington.

Of course GW himself burned out entire Indian villages to get at 'insurgents'.

9th Engineer · 08-13-2006, 01:25 PM

Read my original post again! #7. For the last time I said 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. How are you turning that into 'he who attacks my enemy is my friend', or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' over and over again!? Yeesh!

tw · 08-13-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

For the last time I said 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'.

... which is exactly what the British were saying about the principle IRA supporter - America? That concept – no matter how it is rephrased - still remains a simplistic attitude of those who learned only from nursery rhymes. Welcome, instead, to a real world chock full of perspectives.

So if Iran's most despised enemy in 2000 was the Taliban, then Iran was our ally? But again, you remember that history? How then did a nation that could have been a friend instead become a despised enemy? Same question also applies to Vietnam. Simplist logic also got how many Americans killed in that "A Bright Shining Lie:"?

"he who aids my enemy, is my enemy" is for those whose knowledge comes from the Daily News or Rush Limbaugh. The world is far more interesting.

Aliantha · 08-13-2006, 06:55 PM

Well said DanaC. My thoughts exactly although I doubt you'll get much support from anyone who can't see clearly.

Hippikos · 08-14-2006, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4787207.stm

I really can't believe you guys voted for this dick-head.

Knowing Juniors habit to divide the world in good and bad and his limited alcohol damaged grey cell capacities, I'm not at all surprised.

I read that Condi Rice has great problems with her boss's approach to the Lebanon crises. She wants direct talks with Syria, but these are the bad guys so we won't talk to them. In the past heavy weights like Kissinger, Holbrooke, Baker, Shultz, Albright talked to them, but these times diplomacy is not an option, only pre-emptive wars. Just see what this has lead to...

DanaC · 08-14-2006, 08:17 AM

Would now be a good time to launch into a rousing chorus of "Always look on the bright si-i-de of life. Ta da. ta da ta da ta da."

Makes you long for the simple days of mad hatters and tea parties and late, late rabbits.

I saw in a different post, Bri lamenting the fact that the worlds press apparently hates Americans and sees them as the 'bad guys'. This led to a discussion in which one of the conclusions drawn was that the world hated America when she was acting as policeman of the world.....and equally hates America when she refuses to do so. Therefore America cannot win.

I think that's wrong. I think this thread here shows pretty adequately why it is that so much of the world hates America's actions. If you simplify the world too much lo and behold your actions within that world do not have the simple effects expected.

Undertoad · 08-14-2006, 08:23 AM

And since the UK has been on all these misadventures, it would seem the rest of the world also hates the UK, and equally as harshly, no?

No?

Well then it must be a little more... complex than that.

DanaC · 08-14-2006, 08:42 AM

Actually, Undertoad, you arent far wrong. Many groups who previously held the UK in some esteem now have something approaching contempt for us. Why? Because, as you say, we have been with the States on many of these misadventures. We have burned up most of our global credibility in Burning Bush's Shock and Awe Show. Now we're intent on jettisoning what's left of the goodwill we're afforded whilst we scrabble along besides the States providing a verbal echo to everythin Bush says.

DanaC · 08-14-2006, 08:46 AM

Next time you see Blair and Bush together on a newsfeed, listen carefully. You'll hear a high pitched keening noise. That's us, the Great British public, weeping in shame.
"Yo Blair!" *cringe*

08-13-2006, 01:25 PM	#23
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Read my original post again! #7. For the last time I said 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. How are you turning that into 'he who attacks my enemy is my friend', or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' over and over again!? Yeesh! __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

08-13-2006, 06:55 PM	#25
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Well said DanaC. My thoughts exactly although I doubt you'll get much support from anyone who can't see clearly. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

08-13-2006, 12:29 PM	#19
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	aheh. Good question Rich.

08-13-2006, 12:43 PM	#20
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Although it wasn't before, it is now a generally understood principle of US foreign policy that the enemy of our enemies is not necessarily our friend. I've heard that stated many times since 9/11 from all sides of the aisle.

08-14-2006, 08:17 AM	#27
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Would now be a good time to launch into a rousing chorus of "Always look on the bright si-i-de of life. Ta da. ta da ta da ta da." Makes you long for the simple days of mad hatters and tea parties and late, late rabbits. I saw in a different post, Bri lamenting the fact that the worlds press apparently hates Americans and sees them as the 'bad guys'. This led to a discussion in which one of the conclusions drawn was that the world hated America when she was acting as policeman of the world.....and equally hates America when she refuses to do so. Therefore America cannot win. I think that's wrong. I think this thread here shows pretty adequately why it is that so much of the world hates America's actions. If you simplify the world too much lo and behold your actions within that world do not have the simple effects expected.

08-14-2006, 08:23 AM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	And since the UK has been on all these misadventures, it would seem the rest of the world also hates the UK, and equally as harshly, no? No? Well then it must be a little more... complex than that.

08-14-2006, 08:42 AM	#29
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Actually, Undertoad, you arent far wrong. Many groups who previously held the UK in some esteem now have something approaching contempt for us. Why? Because, as you say, we have been with the States on many of these misadventures. We have burned up most of our global credibility in Burning Bush's Shock and Awe Show. Now we're intent on jettisoning what's left of the goodwill we're afforded whilst we scrabble along besides the States providing a verbal echo to everythin Bush says.

08-14-2006, 08:46 AM	#30
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Next time you see Blair and Bush together on a newsfeed, listen carefully. You'll hear a high pitched keening noise. That's us, the Great British public, weeping in shame. "Yo Blair!" cringe

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)