Panetta: Israel May Strike Iran This Spring

[layoutshooter]

If anyone wants to really understand the basic fundamentals of the nature of the Middle East conflict, and our nation's culpability in it, (as opposed to the utterly false Neoconmunist™ rhetoric and propaganda spewed out by the Lamestream Media ..... and a few on here ....) I would suggest the following short (recently declassified) white paper of a speech given (in 1977 ?) at the Friedman Auditorium at the National Security Agency by J. Rives Childs, former ambassador to Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia entitled "Bitter Roots: The Bases of Present Conflicts in the Middle East":

http://cryptome.org/0006/Bitter_Roots.pdf

It's a fairly quick read .... and cuts to the chase .....

HEY!! The Friedman Auditorium is where I recieved my biggest award when I worked there. My entire family was there, even my parents. The place was packed. One the proudest moments in my life. I also heard Issac Asimov speak there. Need place. I will read the rest later. I have to plan some fishing for tomorrow. Fishing is FAR more important than battering in here.

 

[RLENT]

I find this post interesting. Kinda funny.

I do feel some obligation to return, if only in some small measure, the mirth that others have graciously shared with me .....

Why is it that those who do the work are always to blame but those who issue the orders are never the problem.

Well ..... of course, that's a false assertion .... and a strawman ....

What ..... are you trying to make a stealth run on our resident promoter of logical fallacies ?

More latter, something just came up, sorry.

Oh, I'm looking forward to it ....

 

[RLENT]

HEY!! The Friedman Auditorium is where I recieved my biggest award when I worked there. My entire family was there, even my parents. The place was packed. One the proudest moments in my life. I also heard Issac Asimov speak there. Need place.

..... Asimov ..... Kewl ....

I will read the rest later.

It's a good read .... and given how it flies directly in the face of what tries to pass itself off these days as "conventional wisdom" (from others who have a dog in the fight in one way or another) I'd guess that it more closely resembles the "truth" of the matter than what is being pushed by certain parties .....

I have to plan some fishing for tomorrow. Fishing is FAR more important than battering in here.

LOL .... hope ya limit out .....

 

[layoutshooter]

..... Asimov ..... Kewl ....


It's a good read .... and given how it flies directly in the face of what tries to pass itself off these days as "conventional wisdom" (from others who have a dog in the fight in one way or another) I'd guess that it more closely resembles the "truth" of the matter than what is being pushed by certain parties .....


LOL .... hope ya limit out .....

Asimov WAS cool, though difficult to follow. He spoke on orbital mechanics. I had a limited understanding of that science, he understood it just a bit more than I. LOL!! Kinda over my head a bit but I did learn a LOT that day.

GONE FISHING!! See ya'll later!! REAL life is FAR better than internet life!

Enjoy your fights! I have a feeling that the 'fights' I am about to have will be far more productive and far more fun than these are in here!

 

[witness23]

RLENT, thank you for the link to the speech, very informative and like you said, "it cuts to the chase"

There are many things I took from the speech but most importantly, in my opinion was the following(spelling errors included):

Let it be emphasized that the Arabs do not expect us to cut Isreal adrift but only that we maintain an even balance in our relations with these opposing forces.
We are not asked to abandon Israel or leave that country to its own devices. We are only asked to refrain from interposing our influence to give that power an unfair advantage vis-a-vis the Arabs.

In my opinion, I think this is the approach the United States should be taking and the one that President Obama is trying to implement.

 

[greg334]

Further, it's my guess that he was dispatched at the Administration's behest to carry the message to Bibi & Company that they are on their own, we will act to protect our troops, and they shouldn't expect us to be a White Knight .... riding to their rescue for an unnecessary conflagration that they intentionally (and unnecessarily) start.

This may be the response to the comment made by Israel on several levels that they do not need our help - they can handle Iran on their own.

But then I am reading and listening to other comments by other generals and even Majors who seem to speak for the country while they are not charged with that job which makes me wonder where our system is failing even more. I feel that Eisenhower's position in the mid/late fifties that cummulated from the threats of those in power in the military still has me worried a bit.

 

[RLENT]

RLENT, thank you for the link to the speech, very informative and like you said, "it cuts to the chase"

There are many things I took from the speech but most importantly, in my opinion was the following(spelling errors included):

Let it be emphasized that the Arabs do not expect us to cut Isreal adrift but only that we maintain an even balance in our relations with these opposing forces.
We are not asked to abandon Israel or leave that country to its own devices. We are only asked to refrain from interposing our influence to give that power an unfair advantage vis-a-vis the Arabs.

In my opinion, I think this is the approach the United States should be taking and the one that President Obama is trying to implement.

Yup, it is the approach we ought to be taking ..... that is to deal and interact with anyone with fairness and equal justice ....

As to whether it's what Obama is actually trying to do, I don't know ..... perhaps it is ..... I certainly hope that is the case ..... time will tell ....

It's the very least we could do to make up for some the damage we have caused, or have allowed to occur ....

Depending on how one looks at recent events, it could be that these actions of the Administration in recent days are a deliberate effort to head off a disaster that could very well result in a world war.

With the recent (within the last month or so) adoption of a radical single-state solution for Palestine and Israel by the Republican Party as plank in their party platform - one which would seem to implicitly endorse Israel's stance with respect to no right of return for displaced Palestinians - and the (religious) war rhetoric coming from all of the Republicans save but one, many will be pushed towards the Democratic party, in an effort keep the neocons and religious whackadoodles out of power .....

I have never voted for a Democrat for President during my entire life ..... but if my preference for President is not on the ballot during the general, I may well have to seriously consider it ..... just to keep the lunatics out of power ....

If that ends up being my decision, I'm fairly confident I'll be able to deliver at least 5 votes from immediate family alone .....

 

[RLENT]

This may be the response to the comment made by Israel on several levels that they do not need our help - they can handle Iran on their own.

Yup.

But then I am reading and listening to other comments by other generals and even Majors who seem to speak for the country while they are not charged with that job which makes me wonder where our system is failing even more. I feel that Eisenhower's position in the mid/late fifties that cummulated from the threats of those in power in the military still has me worried a bit.

I don't think that your concern (with the military) is at all misplaced, I'm very much sad to say .....

One only has to look at the repeated atrocities that have occurred over the last ten years by some in the military to get a hint of the mindset being instilled and condoned in our troops .... as well the repeated, systemic failures of those up the chain of command to hold those responsible for their misdeeds and to deliver actual justice ..... the most recent example being the subhuman psycho-loon and war criminal Frank Wuterich who's disgusting butchery included wanton, wholesale slaughter of unarmed women, children, and the elderly .... including a man confined to a wheelchair ....

Eman Waleed, a nine-year-old child who witnessed the incident, described the U.S. Marines entering their house. She said:

"I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny."

​

These scum are nothing more than current versions of Lt. William Calley and his little band of merry men ..... delivering modern-day Mai Lai's .... with little to no real consequences whatsoever, except to those they victimize ....

Further, one doesn't have to any further than this very forum for (some) former military members who, apparently possessing some divinely-installed superiority over mere mundane civilians, tend to excuse and justify such atrocities without so much as a second thought ..... as though the military is somehow above the law, or the civil authorities that they answer to ....

<spit>

 

[skyraider]

I find this post interesting. Kinda funny. Why is it that those who do the work are always to blame but those who issue the orders are never the problem. More latter, something just came up, sorry.

Good or bad, an air strike on Iran will give us all something to talk about and discuss it tell we are blue in the face. I've got my beer and chips stocked up and the TV on the news just in case Israel decides to go early. I don't want to miss the kickoff. I think Hank is gonna sing too. good day

 

[Pilgrim]

RLENT, thank you for the link to the speech, very informative and like you said, "it cuts to the chase"
There are many things I took from the speech but most importantly, in my opinion was the following(spelling errors included)
In my opinion, I think this is the approach the United States should be taking and the one that President Obama is trying to implement.

So the best way forward in our foreign policy for the Middle East is to treat Iran on the same basis as Israel? What do we have to gain giving status to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (with whom we haven't had diplomatic relations since 1979) that's equal to that of one of our closest allies? Iran's supreme leader reiterated that their position is that Israel is a cancer that should be eliminated. Only a weakling like Barack Hussein Obama would undermine Israel's position in this manner. Unlike Obama, Panetta is no rookie and his comments were deliberate and no doubt came from the White House. Their policy is to undermine Israel's efforts in public rather than sending the message through diplomatic channels that we've got Israel's back no matter what. It's no wonder that since BHO took office our allies don't trust us, our enemies don't fear us - and neither respects us.

 

[greg334]

Pilgrim
I find two separate issues with your point that should be put into a historical context, one being the fact that through our arrogance and somewhat stupidity we created what Iran is today. We tend to forget our program of state sponsored terrorism that we unleashed so not to be outdone by the soviets, so if we are to consider the problem that Iran poses to us, we still fail to understand their mindset and their postruring in the middle east.

Now the second thing that I think that the pm of israel has said a few times in the past ... 10 years or so, the US poses a problem in general with idea that the US protects Israel. We don't and to think that obama has been the only president to undermine the relationship and strength of Israel seems to be something of a talking point and nothing more.

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim
I find two separate issues with your point that should be put into a historical context, one being the fact that through our arrogance and somewhat stupidity we created what Iran is today. We tend to forget our program of state sponsored terrorism that we unleashed so not to be outdone by the soviets, so if we are to consider the problem that Iran poses to us, we still fail to understand their mindset and their postruring in the middle east.

Now the second thing that I think that the pm of israel has said a few times in the past ... 10 years or so, the US poses a problem in general with idea that the US protects Israel. We don't and to think that obama has been the only president to undermine the relationship and strength of Israel seems to be something of a talking point and nothing more.

Agreed that the hamfisted, naive foreign policy of the Carter administration allowed Iran to become what it is today - a dictatorial theocracy governed by radical islamists that are enemies to Western Civilization. OUR program of state sponsored terrorism??? That's a false premise promoted by the radical jihadists and their apologists, not to mention being just pure nonsense. That we should try to "understand their mindset" is like attempting to sympathize with the Menendez brothers because they were orphans. Regarding Israel, no other president other than Carter (and maybe Clinton) has undermined and blatantly insulted Israel like Obama has.

Lastly, we've known for years that Iran has been developing a program for nuclear weapons and neither the Bush administrations nor Obama has had the guts to do something to nip it in the early stages - same with Clinton when they had the problem with N. Korea. These politicians can't deal with tough problems of any sort - economic, foreign affairs, whatever - because they're only concerned with their reelection. On the other hand, Israel is concerned with their survival. Our pipsqueak in chief needs to step up and let the Iranians know in no uncertain terms that they do NOT rate the same status as do our Jewish allies - but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[hdxpedx]

Re: Panetta: Israel May Strike Iran This Spring


Oil speculators -- on your mark-- get set -- GO LONG!

 

[greg334]

Agreed that the hamfisted, naive foreign policy of the Carter administration allowed Iran to become what it is today - a dictatorial theocracy governed by radical islamists that are enemies to Western Civilization.

Well got to tell you that this goes way beyond Carter's administration, try Truman's. In some cases even FDR had a hand in some of the games being played in the middle east before and during the war by participating with the English and French in their territories.

We help lay the foundation for today's radical Islamic groups, we are not the only source of problems but if you look at today's Paris arab population (and other large arab populations in France) you can see what exactly went on that opened the door for the radical Muslim.

OUR program of state sponsored terrorism??? That's a false premise promoted by the radical jihadists and their apologists, not to mention being just pure nonsense.

Really??

Let's see ...

if you know history, then what was the thing with Columbia that forced the creation of Panama?

Maybe Teddy Roosevelt used a form of state sponsored terrorism in that case and in the case of the Philippines. Just saying that we used a lot of underhanded things to get our way. Even post WW2 and the newly formed CIA seemed to be using what we can consider state sponsored terrorism to get our way.

The last time I looked the history books on my shelf were not written by a Islamic Jihadist or an apologist.

That we should try to "understand their mindset" is like attempting to sympathize with the Menendez brothers because they were orphans. Regarding Israel, no other president other than Carter (and maybe Clinton) has undermined and blatantly insulted Israel like Obama has.

Well see here is the problem, we have one way of looking at things and they have another. We can't understand how we can fail when we know we are right but we do fail and in the case of Afghanistan, we can't even come to grips with the failure because we don't want to relive Vietnam. The sad thing is we are now bending over backwards for those who went to Afghanistan trying to prevent not having our collective guilt crop up again as it did in the 80's over Vietnam. I think it is not warranted.

With that said, we have to understand how people think, without that key component, we lose sight of our purpose and outcome. In the case of Iraq, the people here were all in an uproar when they didn't want to adopt our form of government but choose something else. Even the ignorant here screamed when religion was placed in their constitution. But with Afghanistan, we made strides with winning the hearts and minds of the people thinking that maybe this time around it would work and it hasn't - having a 60 minutes segment with Petraeus showing off his efforts to accomplish that when we all knew it would fail. I can't see why he is the CIA director, kind of scary when you come down to it.

So here is something else to back up my point, the FBI and CIA both are looking for people who are knowledgeable in Arab languages and lived in some parts of the middle east. The reason is partially because of the language but also because they need people to understand the people and their way of thinking.

If that makes any sense at all?

Lastly, we've known for years that Iran has been developing a program for nuclear weapons and neither the Bush administrations nor Obama has had the guts to do something to nip it in the early stages - same with Clinton when they had the problem with N. Korea.

Well first we don't know what they are doing, mainly because we took the "revenge at any costs" road for the embassy thing. The second thing that comes to mind is that if we went into Iran after the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have most of the middle east against us. Think about this for a moment, why is the Sauds and the Arab league so interested in Syria to the point they are moving to isolate Syria but they are not making any moves against Iran?

Oh maybe it is a problem with the west that they see with Iran and not with there interest or concern.

Don't you think that if Iran launched anything against Israel, they know that their interests are damaged and they will react against Iran?

Don't you think that they already warned Iran that if they p*ss on the wrong people, they will have a bigger problem than Israel or the US?

I am guessing at what I read from the posturing of Iran, that they enjoy the game of diplomatic squirming, thats the thing NK regime started with the Clinton administration and it is somewhat funny to watch the reaction to something Iran or NK does. The odd thing is that if they are developing a nuke capability, we can't just say "oh look they got a nuke" but have to actually have an NK type of proof to do something about it.

These politicians can't deal with tough problems of any sort - economic, foreign affairs, whatever - because they're only concerned with their reelection.

I understand but see from my point of view, it is the politician who has caused the problems in the first place. We no longer have the professional diplomat as we did in the past nor do we have a concern over our country by prioritizing the function of government - everything is blurred together. What makes it worse is the idea there is a difference between a liberal and a conservative and then breaking it down to see how hate drives one subset of either philosophy - as in the hatred of one president or another OR the hatred of one policy/law or another.

On the other hand, Israel is concerned with their survival. Our pipsqueak in chief needs to step up and let the Iranians know in no uncertain terms that they do NOT rate the same status as do our Jewish allies - but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

Well I got to tell you that Israel has been doing well, if they get into a war by being attacked, I will support them as I would support BUT I can't go along with a preemptive strike that causes a war without justification (meaning absolute proof that they or we are in danger). On the other hand, Bush was no friend as much as Clinton, Bush I, Reagan and most other presidents, because it isn't their job to be friends.

As for Allies, well thats relative to the subject being discussed - if it is in the mutual interest of both countries, they are just like Germany or England but if it is not, then where is the ally? So for our president to make a statement declaring what status one country is over another, seems to be something on a level of childish diplomacy which was the same thing as Clinton/Albright's visit to NK.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well got to tell you that this goes way beyond Carter's administration, try Truman's. In some cases even FDR had a hand in some of the games being played in the middle east before and during the war by participating with the English and French in their territories.

For that matter there have been pockets of radical Muslims and all other religions since before electricity. What I'm talking about is the post-Shah Iran that was converted to a radical, anti-western theocracy by the ayatollah khomeini - the father of modern islamic terrorism.

We help lay the foundation for today's radical Islamic groups, we are not the only source of problems but if you look at today's Paris arab population (and other large arab populations in France) you can see what exactly went on that opened the door for the radical Muslim.

Hopefully none of the major metro areas in the US will deteriorate to the point where Paris is. Their problems have been caused in large part by allowing an unfettered immigration of muslims into their society, only to have the muslims then try to impose their social norms onto the French. Finally the French get fed up with these interlopers trying to take over their country and take measures to take their country back, only to have the invaders start rioting. Of course we have almost the same thing going on in the Southwest, but that's not a muslim problem.

If you know history, then what was the thing with Columbia that forced the creation of Panama?

It's called SECESSION - and the citizens of the Department (state, if you will) of Panama had been trying to secede from Columbia for quite a number of years before the Roosevelt administration got involved.

Maybe Teddy Roosevelt used a form of state sponsored terrorism in that case...

Maybe not. Maybe the Roosevelt administration decided to support the Conservative faction in the civil war in order to bring the conflict to a close so they could complete the treaty to build the Panama Canal which provided considerable commercial and economic benefits to the Panamanians. I assume it's not necessary to spell out the details of our national interest and the benefits of being able to get ships through this waterway instead of having them go around Cape Horn for east/west shipping routes. Maybe Ron Paul and the Libertarians would consider this "meddling", but I'm pretty sure there's no way even they could remotely call it domestic terrorism.

With that said, we have to understand how people think, without that key component, we lose sight of our purpose and outcome. In the case of Iraq, the people here were all in an uproar when they didn't want to adopt our form of government but choose something else. Even the ignorant here screamed when religion was placed in their constitution. But with Afghanistan, we made strides with winning the hearts and minds of the people thinking that maybe this time around it would work and it hasn't - having a 60 minutes segment with Petraeus showing off his efforts to accomplish that when we all knew it would fail. I can't see why he is the CIA director, kind of scary when you come down to it.

Only a small minority of people had any objections to the way the Iraqi constitution was formulated, and there would have been gripes from pundits and politicians no matter how it was done. Everyone that counted has been mostly satisfied with the results and that Iraq now has a government and a constitution with it's citizens holding elections. Hopefully the Iranian intrusions into Iraq won't make it necessary for the U.S. to go back in there again, but I doubt that will be the case.

Well first we don't know what they are doing, mainly because we took the "revenge at any costs" road for the embassy thing. The second thing that comes to mind is that if we went into Iran after the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have most of the middle east against us. Think about this for a moment, why is the Sauds and the Arab league so interested in Syria to the point they are moving to isolate Syria but they are not making any moves against Iran?

Syria is Iran's lapdog, and the moves against Assad regieme will certainly weaken Iran's position in the Middle East if the sanctions are successful.

Don't you think that if Iran launched anything against Israel, they know that their interests are damaged and they will react against Iran?

We don't have to worry about that unless / until Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Once they get that trump card they'll be much more difficult to deal with, not only for us but for all the other countries in the Middle East. That's why the development of nuclear weapons by the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is provocation in and of itself. Given the contemptable cowardice of the Obama foreign policy it should come as no surprise to anyone that he's more than willing to let Israel do the dirty work while BHO continues to lead from behind.

 

[greg334]

For that matter there have been pockets of radical Muslims and all other religions since before electricity. What I'm talking about is the post-Shah Iran that was converted to a radical, anti-western theocracy by the ayatollah khomeini - the father of modern islamic terrorism.

Really? That goes without saying but you know when we talk about Iran, we can't forget that we had a part to play in the rise and fall of the Shah, without any contention we should approach our involvement as a lesson but not to apologize for it at this point. As for Khomeini and the credit you give him, I think that maybe you need to examine the entire terrorist issue and see who actually did more for promoting the violence, because it really wasn't Khomeini. I am thinking maybe Qutb or al-Hudayb.

Hopefully none of the major metro areas in the US will deteriorate to the point where Paris is. Their problems have been caused in large part by allowing an unfettered immigration of muslims into their society, only to have the muslims then try to impose their social norms onto the French.

Actually we won't see this unless we allow those in the Christian religion try to evoke some sort of religious war, plain and simple. With that, the problem with the french wasn't about allowing unfettered immigration but in what would be considered unreasonable discrimination and hatred toward those who arrived from the former colonies. It also has a lot to do with making a second class citizens out of those who tried to assimilate, leaving an emotional gap between the first generation and other generations that left the "ghetto".

Finally the French get fed up with these interlopers trying to take over their country and take measures to take their country back, only to have the invaders start rioting. Of course we have almost the same thing going on in the Southwest, but that's not a muslim problem.

Well think about it this way (by the way you're wrong), when you have high unemployment, a no win situation among the groups of immigrants and a repressive government trying to force them to "behave", you will have rioting. Their solution was to let Paris burn, because they knew that if they did anything like send in the military, it would have prolonged the rioting.

It's called SECESSION - and the citizens of the Department (state, if you will) of Panama had been trying to secede from Columbia for quite a number of years before the Roosevelt administration got involved.

But why did he get involved and what was the outcome?

It didn't matter whether or not it was a case of secession but a case where we went along with helping one side with our military being involved to give us an outcome that we wanted.

Maybe not. Maybe the Roosevelt administration decided to support the Conservative faction in the civil war in order to bring the conflict to a close so they could complete the treaty to build the Panama Canal which provided considerable commercial and economic benefits to the Panamanians. I assume it's not necessary to spell out the details of our national interest and the benefits of being able to get ships through this waterway instead of having them go around Cape Horn for east/west shipping routes. Maybe Ron Paul and the Libertarians would consider this "meddling", but I'm pretty sure there's no way even they could remotely call it domestic terrorism.

Nope don't call it domestic terrorism, but international. The point is that we had our hand in changing a government when we didn't like the outcome of a vote on a treaty. No matter how you want to spin it, it has an overtone to today's issues we face and more to do with our arrogance that we think we are always right.

Only a small minority of people had any objections to the way the Iraqi constitution was formulated, and there would have been gripes from pundits and politicians no matter how it was done.

Well maybe or maybe not. I think I can count a few hundred articles from right and left wing religious writers who thought differently, even here there was an outcry. The point being that we didn't get as a country what it means to have them write it, I think there was a congressman who wanted to have the US do that - I may be wrong but it just sticks in my memory for some reason.

Everyone that counted has been mostly satisfied with the results and that Iraq now has a government and a constitution with it's citizens holding elections. Hopefully the Iranian intrusions into Iraq won't make it necessary for the U.S. to go back in there again, but I doubt that will be the case.

Well Ok, I guess. BUT what has been the outcome of our involvement? It seems that we walked away without a gain being made. I think, and it seems to be the thought of a lot of others who know the region, is our involvement was not about giving Iraq freedom but giving Iran a hard poke but it seems to have not worked out that way.

Syria is Iran's lapdog, and the moves against Assad regieme will certainly weaken Iran's position in the Middle East if the sanctions are successful.

Well let's see ... Syria has also worked with us in the past and as of 2008, they were in talks with Israel to settle some issues between them. Does not mean that they are to be trusted but if they are Iran's lapdog, then there seems to be more of an issue with these things with Iran. You know that my enemies enemy is our friend thing.

We don't have to worry about that unless / until Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Once they get that trump card they'll be much more difficult to deal with, not only for us but for all the other countries in the Middle East.

AND I have to ask so?

If this is a real issue for the middle east, then the Arab league would be leading the solution, not us. They have more to lose than the west does because an unstable and middle east will put them in the cross hairs, especially the Sauds, then any one else.

That's why the development of nuclear weapons by the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is provocation in and of itself. Given the contemptable cowardice of the Obama foreign policy it should come as no surprise to anyone that he's more than willing to let Israel do the dirty work while BHO continues to lead from behind.

Well I know that they are not the leading state sponsor or terrorism, China may be in the lead with Russia not far behind. BUT I digress .... The one thing that you and others seem to miss is that we can deal with Iran but failed to do so since Carter, including Reagan. So for you to speak of cowardice makes me wonder what can be done, genocide? A nuke option to just wipe the country clean?

I only see the issue by standing by our friends but when also becoming strong, which we know won't be possible being the worlds police.

 

[RLENT]

As for Khomeini and the credit you give him, I think that maybe you need to examine the entire terrorist issue and see who actually did more for promoting the violence, because it really wasn't Khomeini. I am thinking maybe Qutb or al-Hudayb.

And, of course, Sayyid Qutb never really went fully off the deep end ..... until after he was tortured in prison ..... under the auspices of the CIA .....

Can we all say "blowback" ?

 

[RLENT]

Actually we won't see this unless we allow those in the Christian religion try to evoke some sort of religious war, plain and simple. With that, the problem with the french wasn't about allowing unfettered immigration but in what would be considered unreasonable discrimination and hatred toward those who arrived from the former colonies. It also has a lot to do with making a second class citizens out of those who tried to assimilate, leaving an emotional gap between the first generation and other generations that left the "ghetto".

Please keep in mind that you are addressing someone, who after complaining about the problem of lack of assimilation, reacted - when queried about what his own responsibility might be in assisting assimilation to happen - with utter hostility (nearing absolute rage) to the idea that he himself might bear some responsibility for a solution to the problem he was complaining about .....

Of course, I'm very sure that "unreasonable discrimination" and (religious) "hatred" had nothing whatsoever to do with that .....

 

[RLENT]

Nope don't call it domestic terrorism, but international. The point is that we had our hand in changing a government when we didn't like the outcome of a vote on a treaty. No matter how you want to spin it, it has an overtone to today's issues we face and more to do with our arrogance that we think we are always right.

Well, it always worth a shot and expending a little effort to raise awareness ..... but I'm not so sure that this will be a persuasive argument ..... to those who are, in fact, arrogant and believe they are always right .....

 

[RLENT]

Well maybe or maybe not. I think I can count a few hundred articles from right and left wing religious writers who thought differently, even here there was an outcry. The point being that we didn't get as a country what it means to have them write it, I think there was a congressman who wanted to have the US do that - I may be wrong but it just sticks in my memory for some reason.

Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari signing on
to the TAL. You can see in the background top Iraqi
and US officials including Paul Bremer.


Did the U.S. Intervention in the Iraqi Constitution Help Make It Illegal?​