Libya

I don't hate progressives, I simply think they're misinformed to the point of being dangerous. I put them into several categories...those that are misinformed, those that are hypocrites and those that are just damn liars. This jerk starts off in the second category, and quickly propels himself into being a damn liar category. The lies begin at the 1:00 mark, but it's not uncommon...they all do it..Anthony Weiner...hypocrite, liar, war monger.

YouTube - Anthony Weiner talks about Libya with Don Imus


Now for the facts...A congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force for the Iraqi conflict which included affirmative votes by...Harry Reid, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton John Edwards,

It matters not your opinion on the wisdom of the conflict. Opinions are subjectctive, facts are not. Anthony Weiner...liar, hypocrite, and now military hawk !!

And a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which was unamious !!!!!

And despite Whiner's backhand slight about 4 Polish troops ...here's the countries involved

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia: 2,000
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom:
• Romania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Romania.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Romania"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png:
• El Salvador - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg" class="image" title="Flag of El Salvador"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg/125px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg/125px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png:
• Estonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Estonia.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Estonia"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png:
• Bulgaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Bulgaria"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg/125px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg/125px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png:
• Moldova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Moldova.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Moldova"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/125px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/125px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png:
• Albania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Albania.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Albania"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Flag_of_Albania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/36/Flag_of_Albania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine:
• Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Denmark.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Denmark"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/125px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/125px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic:
• South Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_South_Korea.svg" class="image" title="Flag of South Korea"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/125px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/125px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png:
• Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Japan.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Japan"><img alt="Centered red circle on a white rectangle." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/125px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/125px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png:
• Tonga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Tonga.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Tonga"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Tonga.svg/125px-Flag_of_Tonga.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Tonga.svg/125px-Flag_of_Tonga.svg.png:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan: 250
• Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/125px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@ @commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/125px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png:
• Republic of Macedonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Macedonia.svg" class="image" title="Flag of the Republic of Macedonia"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Flag_of_Macedonia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Macedonia.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/f8/Flag_of_Macedonia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Macedonia.svg.png:
• Latvia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Latvia.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Latvia"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png:
• Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Poland.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Poland"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/125px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/125px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png: 200
• Kazakhstan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Kazakhstan"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/125px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/125px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia:
• Georgia:

• Slovakia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Slovakia.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Slovakia"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Flag_of_Slovakia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e6/Flag_of_Slovakia.svg/125px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png:
• Lithuania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Lithuania.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Lithuania"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg/125px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png:
• Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Italy.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Italy"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/125px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/125px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png:
• Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Norway.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Norway"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/125px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/125px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png:
• Hungary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hungary.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Hungary"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg/125px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg/125px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png:
• Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg" class="image" title="Flag of the Netherlands"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/125px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@common s/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/125px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png:
• Portugal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Portugal"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg/125px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg/125px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png: )
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand:
• Thailand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Thailand.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Thailand aka Rainy Thailand (most recorded Rains)"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg/125px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg/125px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png
• Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg" class="image" title="Flag of The Philippines"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg/125px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@common s/thumb/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg/125px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png:
• Honduras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Honduras.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Honduras"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Flag_of_Honduras.svg/125px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/82/Flag_of_Honduras.svg/125px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic:
• Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Spain.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Spain"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/125px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/125px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png:
• Nicaragua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Nicaragua"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg/125px-Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg/125px-Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg.png:

Be Consistent—Invade Saudi Arabia
by Robert Scheer

A confused and useless article. Realism in politics has always meant that states will support a nasty dictator as long as there is a strategic advantage to it. The USA believes for many reasons it is stratgically advantageous to support Israel, it has also sold billions of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Intervention directly in Saudi Arabia has always been a sensitive issue: it is true that in the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany this alliance failed to use their call to 'Jihad' to rouse Arabs and Muslims from the Mediterranean to India to rise up against the British; the latter made a point of not intervening in Arabia when Ibn Saud and his 'Muslim Brothers' left their kingdom in the Najd to invade the Hejaz on the western side of Arabia and overthrow the Hashemite monarchy-damaging much of Mecca in the process. Ironically, perhaps, after sending Ibn Saud a bag of gold every month for a year or so, the British fell out with him over his attempt to take over TransJordan, and so Ibn Saud took the yankee dollar instead, and the rest is history.

There are some things one just doest do, and invading SA is one of them. As it happens, non-Muslims have been to Mecca, the siege in Mecca in 1979 was broken on the advice of a French special forces officer, Captain Paul Barril -one version has it that he 'converted' to Islam before entering the city, but I have also seen a source which says the Grand Mufti of the time, ibn Baz issued a fatwa waiving the 'Muslims only' rule for as long as it took to lift the siege. Even when US troops were stationed in the north-west of Saudi Arabia in 1990 even moderate Saudi's I knew were outraged. Even if Saudi Arabia were to lose its Saud's, the oil would still be there, and the new government would need to sell it. Anyway, their biggest problem is the long term future of water, not oil, but thats another thread I think.

YouTube - Ron Paul: U.S. Foreign Policy is Destabilizing the World

And:

YouTube - Americans asked: Where is Libya and why are we there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

You're funny. I don't think big oil is neither bad....nor good. I think they act in thier best self interest as any other industry. Shocking revelation for you.....but if you've ever been to K Street in DC, you know Big Oil is hardly the only industry with lobbyists !! Shocking...I know. How about Health Care Lobbyists? Barry's pretty cozy with those folks !

You want to make big oil irrelevent ??....advocat for a cogent energy policy cause windmills tilting in the wind in Iowa and electric cars ain't gettin' it !!!!!!!!!

---

And there it is, the CON philosophy in a nutshell. You think it's perfectly ok for Industries to work in their own self interest, even when that self interest directly opposes the Public Interest. Cheaper to hire an army of lawyers than fix a problem? Okie-dokie. Better for the bottom line to crush worker's rights, pollute the environment and spread propaganda? Sure, why not. When will you figure out that Big Oil, etc, doesn't give any more of a shit about you and your family than it does about me? The ONLY thing they'll do for you is put a little more money in your pocket when the stock you own goes up. Apparently, you think that's a fair trade for stomping the long term health of people and the planet. That's the difference between hardcore CONs and the rest of us.

K Street, C Street, they're all scumbags. Are you really gonna imply that I agree with everything Barry O does? I've told you before, the best thing I can say about him is that he's better than the alternative. The reason we don't have a real energy policy that benefits The People is because Big Energy has bought all the CON legislators to block anything that they think will interfere with their profits.

Oh, and I'll say it again : The Koch boys remind me of mega-corp 'Engulf and Devour' from Mel Brook's 'Silent Movie', whose motto was 'our fingers are in everything'.

Hard to believe that even you would deny that Big Energy is funding the climate change deniers, but then, deny and spin is what the REICHwing is all about. Karl Rove would be proud of you. Here's a summary of the Greenpeace report:
'Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the ‘climate denial machine’.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...secretly-fund/

Selling your soul is a prerequisite for working at the Heritage Foundation. The ceremony is rumored to involve self-flagellation and the ritual sacrifice of bunnies in front of a statue of JP Morgan...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

And there it is, the CON philosophy in a nutshell. You think it's perfectly ok for Industries to work in their own self interest, even when that self interest directly opposes the Public Interest. Cheaper to hire an army of lawyers than fix a problem? Okie-dokie. Better for the bottom line to crush worker's rights, pollute the environment and spread propaganda? Sure, why not. When will you figure out that Big Oil, etc, doesn't give any more of a shit about you and your family than it does about me? The ONLY thing they'll do for you is put a little more money in your pocket when the stock you own goes up. Apparently, you think that's a fair trade for stomping the long term health of people and the planet. That's the difference between hardcore CONs and the rest of us.

K Street, C Street, they're all scumbags. Are you really gonna imply that I agree with everything Barry O does? I've told you before, the best thing I can say about him is that he's better than the alternative. The reason we don't have a real energy policy that benefits The People is because Big Energy has bought all the CON legislators to block anything that they think will interfere with their profits.

Oh, and I'll say it again : The Koch boys remind me of mega-corp 'Engulf and Devour' from Mel Brook's 'Silent Movie', whose motto was 'our fingers are in everything'.

Hard to believe that even you would deny that Big Energy is funding the climate change deniers, but then, deny and spin is what the REICHwing is all about. Karl Rove would be proud of you. Here's a summary of the Greenpeace report:
'Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the ‘climate denial machine’.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...secretly-fund/

Selling your soul is a prerequisite for working at the Heritage Foundation. The ceremony is rumored to involve self-flagellation and the ritual sacrifice of bunnies in front of a statue of JP Morgan...

---

Wow.You progressives sure do like to create boggy men. Are we to blame the Koch boys too that the alternative ( green) energy industry has been a huge colossal bust ? With all those government give always from Barry's boys they still can't make it work. Solar Panels? Not here...check the Chinese. Ask T Boone Pickens. LMAO. Billions in subsidies and all we get is a new light bulb that you can't dispose of. You stay awake nights worrying about the Koch boys while Soros is plotting to manipulate the world currency.....AGAIN.

This whole Public Interest thing with corporations is also another red herring...Who decides what is in "The Public Interest" ? You and Trish ?? LMAO...With all due respect you couldn't operate a lemon aid stand with your anti business agenda. You'd pay the workers more than your net profits and would be in receivership in a month. You really in your heart believe a company exists to serve the workers. That's socialist my friend. They exist as publicly held companies to serve the stock holders. The beauty of that is you too can be a stock holder and get in the fun........but that's not what you want....you want some sort of government intervention so that you can control the results...rig the game.

I have to laugh at these idiots in Wisconsin screaming to tax the corporations more....sure...let's do that and have even more of them take their profits overseas. Look the problem with this administration and most of the people looking to take his place is they lack a fundamental understanding of business, monetary policy, The Federal Reserve and it's impact on the economy, and tax policy. You have the most anti business president in a generation. You must love this guy...yet do you love the results? Folks like you got your guy.....yet we see unemployment stuck at 10-12% Housing starts still at an all time low. Business capitol investment and expansion almost non existent. Energy and commodity prices creeping up, inflation trying to make a come back , a weak dollar, a ballooning trade deficit almost everywhere. These are the monetary policies and the results of someone with your political philosophy. Change? Change for the worse I'd say, and so would most Americans at this point.

And by the way....why would one have to sell his soul to work for the Heritage Foundation ? Would one have to do that to work at NPR?
You may not like the research results or the positions of Heritage, but they are one of the most respected think tanks in the country...notwithstanding your partisan misinformed opinion to the contrary. Don't like the results of thier research? Prove them wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...CdfOXvec#at=16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Wow.You progressives sure do like to create boggy men. Are we to blame the Koch boys too that the alternative ( green) energy industry has been a huge colossal bust ? With all those government give always from Barry's boys they still can't make it work. Solar Panels? Not here...check the Chinese. Ask T Boone Pickens. LMAO. Billions in subsidies and all we get is a new light bulb that you can't dispose of. You stay awake nights worrying about the Koch boys while Soros is plotting to manipulate the world currency.....AGAIN.

This whole Public Interest thing with corporations is also another red herring...Who decides what is in "The Public Interest" ? You and Trish ?? LMAO...With all due respect you couldn't operate a lemon aid stand with your anti business agenda. You'd pay the workers more than your net profits and would be in receivership in a month. You really in your heart believe a company exists to serve the workers. That's socialist my friend. They exist as publicly held companies to serve the stock holders. The beauty of that is you too can be a stock holder and get in the fun........but that's not what you want....you want some sort of government intervention so that you can control the results...rig the game.

I have to laugh at these idiots in Wisconsin screaming to tax the corporations more....sure...let's do that and have even more of them take their profits overseas. Look the problem with this administration and most of the people looking to take his place is they lack a fundamental understanding of business, monetary policy, The Federal Reserve and it's impact on the economy, and tax policy. You have the most anti business president in a generation. You must love this guy...yet do you love the results? Folks like you got your guy.....yet we see unemployment stuck at 10-12% Housing starts still at an all time low. Business capitol investment and expansion almost non existent. Energy and commodity prices creeping up, inflation trying to make a come back , a weak dollar, a ballooning trade deficit almost everywhere. These are the monetary policies and the results of someone with your political philosophy. Change? Change for the worse I'd say, and so would most Americans at this point.

And by the way....why would one have to sell his soul to work for the Heritage Foundation ? Would one have to do that to work at NPR?
You may not like the research results or the positions of Heritage, but they are one of the most respected think tanks in the country...notwithstanding your partisan misinformed opinion to the contrary. Don't like the results of thier research? Prove them wrong.

---

Wow, now there's a surprise. The venerable onmyknees tosses off a post comprised entirely of REICHwing talking points. Move away from the FOX, lad. What little humanity you have left is in dire jeopardy.

You don't even attempt to defend your beloved Kochers, but instead rail about the Left creating bogeymen while trotting out George Soros, a fellow Lonesome Roads Beck would have us believe is the devil incarnate.

Who decides what is in the Public Interest? Why, the PUBLIC, of course - better us than some corporate CEO with visions of golden parachutes dancing in his pointy little head while he's busy cooking the books and trying to decide how to hide his latest environmental crime. You think WE want to rig the game. You poor fool! The game is already rigged. Money = power = a kick in the teeth for democracy, every time.

Lol, I'm a socialist because I believe corporations owe some loyalty and gratitude to their workers and the communities they reside in. Seems you and the coal barons of the late 1800s and early 1900s have a lot in common. Not good company, lad.

Yeah, Barry O is REALLY anti-business. That's why he rolls over for corporate power at every opportunity. Even the tiny bit of fairness and equal treatment he's had the balls to push for are too much for you guys. Like your heroes, the Koch boys, you want ALL the cookies. All the dire results you bemoan are the result of 8 years of Bush/Cheney and unchecked CON greed, not two years of Obama. Of course, we'd be in better shape in Barry and the Dems had had the guts to stand up to the REICHwing bullies and not allowed the stimulus, healthcare and everything else to be watered down like whiskey in a backwoods after-hours saloon.

And finally, yes, the Heritage Foundation is respected...by FOXNOISE and the Grey Poupon crowd. Everyone else knows it's just another CON propaganda machine. You know it too, but you'd never admit it here. You're too busy playing the game and trying to score points against the left. Your posts sound like a 'fair and balanced' discussion between Karl Rove and Sean Hannity: "Oh Karl, you're so brilliant". "Oh Sean, you're so butch".

YouTube - Rand Paul on Freedom Watch 03/31/11

YouTube - US media quick to support war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

The instability in Northern Africa and the Middle East could send oil prices soaring and cause a world wide recession . What to do ??

---

Build more nuclear power stations.

You'd have to miniaturize those nuclear stations and put one under the hood of every car, truck and train in the world; that or you'd have to put electric motors or electric-gasoline-hybrid engines under all those hoods so you can plug them into the yields of all those new nuclear plants you want to build. We could just go back to the old calorie burning modes of transportation, horse & buggy, donkey and rickshaw.

Declare victory and leave.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theone1982

Declare victory and leave.:)

---

The man's a genius.. next issue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

The man's a genius.. next issue!

---

Lol! Thank you, thank you! Now if I could just get the Pentagon on speed dial!:)

Rand Paul has an interesting take on Libya:

YouTube - &#x202a;Sen. Rand Paul on AC360 with Anderson Cooper&#x202c;&rlm;

YouTube - &#x202a;3/23/2011 - Rand Paul on Libya&#x202c;&rlm;

"Involvement to be a matter of days, not weeks." Tell me another story daddy!!

Lure of Oil: 'NATO set to stay in Libya for long' - YouTube

Dangerous times. Qadaffi has still to be found, the remnants of his forces are still capable of inflicting a lot of damage, and most of all, the opposition coalition is largely incoherent and fragmented, with western-style liberals and jihadists jockeying for supremacy.

On the other hand, it is worth celebrating the overthrow of yet another tyrant in this remarkable year in the Middle East.

Question: don't they have much oil in Syria? :whistle: Cynical, moi?

I know that there's the issue of Israel on the doorstep and the absence of any consensus among the Arab states, but hasn't Assad being doing to his people essentially exactly the same as Qadaffi was doing to his before, and after, NATO went in?

I think you are right to be cautious about the political changes that many would like to see, and the changes that might actually come to pass. If this is a genuine revolution it will be five to ten years before a proper assessment can be made. Libya on one level is a relatively small country and while there is an historical cultural/political issue between Arabs and Berbers (mostly in the West/South West) I don't think this need be overplayed. Libya was in the process of refurbishing its existing oil and gas resources through its deal with British and American companies, and looking for new resources. I see no reason why this should not continue in the short-to-medium term, as the independent companies have the capital to do it while the state will have to focus on re-building, particularly in the east which Qadhafi deliberarely neglected. I don't see oil as part of a conspiracy, apart from heritage tourism there isn't much else in Libya. Thr workforce is well educated, so ultimately it comes down to the ability of different factions to reach an accommodation. Unfortunately the Arabs have an historic inability to agree with each other, on top of which the absence of civil society in Libya has meant that many people don't have much experience of consensus and cooperation across many levels. The two places where Libyans were free to congregate were football matches, and the Mosque, yet even in these places the secret police were known to be listening in. That inexperience and the details of a new constitution could delay agreement -the Islamic bloc will want it to declare Libya an Islamic republic, for example. Libya can absorb many of the rebels into a revamped armed forces if they want a career in the military, the danger that they might branch out into private armies is there, but Libya is not Iraq on this level, although revenge killings have already begun. I once asked a Libyan what would happen if Qadhafi was overthrown and he automatically said 'a bloodbath' because of the bitterness so many people have and the revenge they want for all sorts of crimes.

Qadhafi is undoubtedly finished, its rather like Saddam as I read this morning he might be on a farm someone. Its just a matter of time really -his tribal cohort if they have any sense, will ditch him for the new regime. The fate of Megrahi is the most intriguing; he is also protected by his tribe, which is even bigger than Qadhafi's.

As for Syria, oil is indeed a small resource compared to its Arab neighbours, but accounts for 25% of state revenue, an indication of how badly managed Syria has been. It remains to be see, however, if the gas fields that currently extend from offshore Alexandria through Gaza to Haifa, also lie off the Syrian coast. None of the maritime boundaries to my knowledge have been formally demarcated, at least one gas field straddes Gaza and Israel, and now it seems if you go further out there is the complication of Cyprus making claims -either 'Northern Cyprus' or the real one. These are not Persian Gulf level resources, but of great importance for domestic markets in the Eastern Mediterranean countries.

Interestingly though the issue of oil may be relevant in Libya, the case of Syria is much more complex - with the collapse of the minority sect tyrant there (should it happen) likely to cause a far greater regional insecurity. Syria is bolstered by iran. They won't allow a pro-Saudi government there. Syria could be a powder keg for a wider conflagration. It has a strategic importance that Libya lacks.

And, of course NATO could find the collapse of Gaddafi will open the door to a regime of greater risk - a Jihadist dominated Libya with its oil wealth could find common cause with other similar groups in North Africa and the wider region. A confortable outcome after Gaddafi is by no means guaranteed. And if a fundamentalist government emerged there, what chance for Tunisia or Egypt to stave off something similar. The Muslim brotherhood is already allowing its real colours to show in Egypt.

I understand your anxiety Prospero. The key reason why people fear the potential for radical Muslims to assume power in both the Maghreb and Mashrek, is that historically they have been better organised, and prepared to take on the state, as was the case in Egypt and Syria in the 1980s, and Libya in the 1990s. The potential for Islamic parties to win a large share of the vote in a free election is strong, again, because of its superior organisation, with the Mosque a read-made recruiting ground/polling station. In addition, while there are strong secular voices in Syria, and Muslims in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya who would prefer a separation of religion from the state, they are likely to be poltically divided in ways the 'Muslim Brotherhood' are not, this would give them the advantage in elections, and I don't see how 'we' can continue to protest if elections don't go 'our' way.

Nevertheless, I subscribe to the theory that 9/11 marked the end of the radical Islam that is associated most of all with the events of 1979, the siege of Mecca and the Iranian Revolution (Olivier Roy has the most eloquent version of this, the link is below although I posted it before). The generation that has done so much to break the back of one-party states does not have the same agenda as the Militant Muslims, but again, I dont know how these shebab are going to translate the energy of protest and rebellion into practical politics, raising the fear of the 'same old same old Middle East' being (re)-constructed on the ruins of the other. But first they have to root out Qadhafi and his loyalists.

Roy's article is here:
http://www.europeaninstitute.org/Feb...cal-islam.html

I don't think what's happening in the Arab world can be seen in the same way we've been looking at it all these years. This is an upheaval against autocracy, & especially monarchy. It's internal & caught everybody by surprize. It's not that hard to see. Just look at the catylists that set it off. In Tunesia, Egypt, Syria, & Libya, the dictators were in the process of putting their sons in line to take over the dictatorship. How's that different from a kingdom? Syria's already in the second generation & going for 3. In Jordan, they're trying to lose a standing monarchy. The house of Saud is real scared right about now.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is staying quiet. This isn't their gig. They had nothing to do with it, & still don't know where they stand. They're not really a factor. Same goes for Hezbollah. They're not taking sides at all. If they did, this'd be over. They're a lot more badass than the Syrian army. Except for Hezbollah, Iran doesn't have much influence. They can't really back the Assad regime (kingdom) without calling their own revolution into question.

None of this is about philosophies or religion. People are just tired of kings. With all the modern communications, they see what things can be like when the kings are gotten rid of. Philosophers & theologians just argue over who should be king. The standard explanations don't work here.

Leaked cable: Sen. McCain promised to help Gaddafi obtain U.S. military hardware

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011...

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to help former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi obtain U.S. military hardware as one of the United States' partners in the war on terror, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released Wednesday by anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.
The meeting, which took place just over a year ago on Aug. 14, 2009, included other influential Americans, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Susan Collins (R-SC) and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer Richard Fontaine, the document explains.
McCain opened the meeting by characterizing Libya's relationship with the U.S. as "excellent," to which Liebermann added: "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi."
"Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends," the cable continues. "The Senators recognized Libya's cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both countries to make the relationship stronger."
Part and parcel to that relationship: military hardware, including helicopters and non-lethal weaponry, meant to ensure the security of Tripoli. In exchange for this and assisting the nation in rehabilitating its image with other lawmakers, Gaddafi pledged to send Libya's highly enriched uranium supplies to Russia for proper disposal.
The cable does not mention anything about the senators pressing Gaddafi for democratic reforms.
In a twist of fate, Gaddafi temporarily abandoned that agreement in dramatic form last November, leaving a large quantity of uranium in a poorly sealed container strewn on the side of an airport runway for weeks. The incident nearly caused massive quantities of nuclear radiation to leak into the atmosphere -- a nuclear disaster, by all accounts.

And it all stemmed from a spat Gaddafi had with U.S. billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump even bragged about the incident in a recent appearance on Fox News, telling the conservative television station he "screwed" the Libyan dictator out of a land deal. Gaddafi had paid Trump to pitch a tent on his property in New York ahead of a United Nations summit. Once the media began zeroing in on the bizarre structure erected on Trump's property, the billionaire revoked his permission and sent Gaddafi packing.
Gaddafi is quoted in other U.S. diplomatic cables as saying he felt "humiliated" by his treatment, inspiring him to back out of the deal.
A rapid response was made by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who had aides describe in detail what exactly a nuclear disaster in Libya would look like. After nearly a week of talks, Libyan officials finally allowed the uranium to be carted off to Russia, with the U.S. paying $800,000 to transport it.
Sen. McCain, who provided the impetus for the whole strange affair, later wrote on microblogging site Twitter that he'd shared an "interesting meeting with an interesting man" (Gaddafi) -- a comment that has haunted the Arizona Senator since the former dictator began slaughtering his own people.
Since that time, McCain has also come out in favor of arming Libya's rebels, saying: "I think we could do the same thing that we did in the Afghan struggle against the Russians. There are ways to get weapons in without direct U.S. supplying."

Happy 6 month anniversary

Ben -your post merely underlines the sad truth that some politicians think Libya has little to offer the western world than oil and that access to it was a 'payoff' for Qadhafi's renunciation of 'weapons of mass destruction'. It happened before, in one sense, when 'we' backed someone called Saddam Hussein when he was attacking an even greater enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

This is an upheaval against autocracy, & especially monarchy

A neat idea, Hippified, especially as Mubarak used to be sarcastically referred to as Pharoah by some critics; but I see this as a deeper problem that relates to the formation ane subsequent performance of the state as it emerged in the Middle East from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.

In fact, you could see it in the context of the processes of modernisation that have been taking place globally since c1400 but which accelerated with the onset of the industrial revolution. This created the separate development which gave Europe, Japan and North America an industrial base at a time, in the 19thc when the Ottoman Empire, reeling from the shock of Napolean's invasion of Egypt, tried and failed to reform itself at least three times before 1914. To a limited extent, the reforms of the military and bureacracy did bring modern administration and weapons into the Empire; land and tax reform did raise revenue from an agricultural sector that had more potential than had been realised; but industry was small-scale and craft based and capital poor, and no match for its competitors -the modernisation of the Ottoman Empire can look impressive at times when compared to what went before, but compared to what was happening in the USA, in Britain or Germany, it was poor. By the 1930s, many Arabs were wearing cheap cotton made in Japan, and even cheaper sandals, also made in Japan. The Qajar 'Empire' in Persia was even poorer, and led to the D'Arcy Concession of 1901 and the discovery of oil in 1908, but you cant say that Persia (Iran from 1935) struck it rich; there was no substantial development outside the south-west and the coast at Abadan, until real modernisation began in the 1960s.

Bear in mind that when Lawrence claimed to be the first person to drive a car in Arabia -in Seven Pillars of Wisdom (I think at Aqaba but not sure)- he was right -the only known wheeled vehicles I can think of south of Damascus at that time were the two-wheeled carts imported by the Circassians who were re-located to Amman from the Caucasus in the 1870s. Once south of Amman, I don't know if they had the wheel -it sounds absurd, but as a ubiquitous object I think its true outside major cities.

I make these points because part of modernisation is a mind-set, one that is educated to some extent, and receptive to new ideas particularly in science and the (usually) happy marriage of science with commerce.

The Arabs (and certainly the Israelis) are actually good at both science and making money, but my argument is that the emergence of the State from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire gave the Arabs an inheritance of Grand Politics based on a feeble economic base; it would have been better had the Arabs been in possession of great natrual resources and then built a state around it -the only successes close to this are the UAE and Oman.

The British were instrumental in shaping this transformation, yet people don't know or forget that when Churchill assembled 40 People in Cairo to determine the future of the region, Britains' primary concern was India. The security of the land and sea links to India shaped Middle Eastern policy -the Indian Army had jurisdiction in Iran and Iraq after 1920, and in Iraq the currency was the Rupee, until Iraq's so-called Independence in 1932.

Hourani referred to the late Ottoman and early independence periods as the 'liberal age', his primary concern was to see how the modern world impacted on Islamic scholars and Arab political thinkers. In a way my argument is that the state template which the Arabs were given by the British offered a pluralist polity in a social framewoek so riven with differences shaped by religion, income and geography, it is hardly surprising that the two key states of Syria and Iraq were poltically volatile until both, in the 1960s, opted for the Ba'athist One-Party state as a means of putting an end to endless bickering and the paralysis of decision-making that followed. The architect of Ba'athism, a Christian called Michel Aflaq tried to combine Arab nationalism with Arab socialism, with stunningly obvious pitfalls. Both Syria and Iraq, potentially the richest and most powerful states in the Arab world, sacrificed economic development for political grandstanding and, given Syria's chronic inability to even get back the Hadbatu-i-Jawlan, and Iraq's hopeless attempts at Military Supremacy, they have both been failures at this.

The modern state has thus been a failure because it has attempted to march its citizens to one tune, as played on the band in the Presidential Palace. When the population was much smaller, the Centre could send cheques to the tribal leaders, give their sons jobs in the Ministry of Love and Hate, and marry their daughters to the right people in the Military or, well, the Ministry of Love and Hate. At some point the money ran out, the cushy jobs ran out, and though I doubt there is a daughter-deficit, there are many more people with ambitions that are unfulfilled.

But these states have been doing everything, the people have no experience of doing things for themselves; there was no civil society. Which is why the transition from a one-party state, neo-monarchy or whatever you call it could be so difficult, and also disappointing. So much more is yet to come.

Nice double post. (Don't you wish the servers would get their connection problems out of the way when you're not clicking the send button?)

Quote:

---

But these states have been doing everything, the people have no experience of doing things for themselves; there was no civil society. Which is why the transition from a one-party state, neo-monarchy or whatever you call it could be so difficult, and also disappointing. So much more is yet to come.

---

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the exact same line that gets recited every time people demand self-determination? Eurocentric hubris. Ottomans were just one in a long line of invading powers who were saving the savages from themselves. What a crock of shit. This attitude goes away when people are seen as people, instead of some lame inferior stereotype from any "explorer's" point of view or 3 Stooges movie. No states "emerged" from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Europeans drew a bunch of lines on the map to carve the region up between themselves. There's never been anything but an utter disrespect for the people of the levant. The cradle of civilization.

Quote:

---

Bear in mind that when Lawrence claimed to be the first person to drive a car in Arabia -in Seven Pillars of Wisdom (I think at Aqaba but not sure)- he was right -the only known wheeled vehicles I can think of south of Damascus at that time were the two-wheeled carts imported by the Circassians who were re-located to Amman from the Caucasus in the 1870s. Once south of Amman, I don't know if they had the wheel -it sounds absurd, but as a ubiquitous object I think its true outside major cities.

---

There's the perfect example. Do you really think southern Arabia was oblivious to the wheel until white people introduced it in the 19th & 20th centuries? I consider it insulting that you would think I could possibly buy into such a line of bullshit. You do understand that the modern wheel (independant on the axle, with radial spokes & metal tire) originated in what is now southern Pakistan, & worked its way all the way to Egypt while most Europeans were still living in caves & eating raw meat, right?

On & on it goes. The lies & stereotypes have become accepted memes. These people aren't cut off from the world. Go on facebook or twitter & ask them how remote they are. Don't worry. They can probably speak your language. Even the Saudi king (the most repressive regime in the region) was forced to lift the ban on satellite dishes years ago. Sorry, but "They don't know how..." doesn't work anymore.

You seem to have misunderstood some of my points.

Eurocentric hubris. Ottomans were just one in a long line of invading powers who were saving the savages from themselves. What a crock of shit...No states "emerged" from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Europeans drew a bunch of lines on the map to carve the region up between themselves. There's never been anything but an utter disrespect for the people of the levant. The cradle of civilization.

1) I did not even suggest that the Ottomans were invading powers in the way you mean. I was trying to draw attention to the gulf that opened up between the Ottoman empire and the European Empires, Japan and the USA. The point is that within the Ottoman Empire, the reforms that were made to the state bureaucracy, to the military and particularly to land and tax reform were of great importance and more successful than used to be thought -but the scale and breadth of growth in the industrialising economies was far beyond what the Ottomans could achieve by 1914. I probably made an assumption that you are aware that the golden age of arts, science and letters in the Islamic world had long since declined and the Ottoman Empire by 1914 had not been able to match the achievements of the Abbasid, to take one example. The overall picture is patchy. There was some growth of the agricultural sector in Palestine, and Nablus was emerging as an industrial town; the textile industry was of importance in the Damascus-Beirut corridor with increasing ties to the silk merchants of Lyon who were instrumental in propelling France to make claims on the Levant in 1914; the proposed railway mooted before 1914, to be financed by the Germans, from Constantinople to Baghdad was one project intended to open up a new trading route. In other words, the Empires were looking at opportunities in the Ottoman Empire that were provided by both existing raw materials and local skills, but the range of skills -and, critically the capital investment- cannot be compared to what was happening elsewhere, and you have to accept that the level of education across the Arab world was poor at this time, because it was poor.

2) The emergence of the modern state may not have been the inevitable consequence of the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war in November 1914, but it was following the defeat in 1918. In two cases, there are states which were not created by Anglo-French collusion. Turkey emerged as an independent state, and continued to grow of its own accord or, if you prefer, Anglo-French indifference, vide its illegal and enforced annexation of the old Sanjak of Alexandretta in 1938.
The Kingdom of the Hejaz, which had been under Ottoman control was ruled by the Hashemite Hussein ibn Ali, supported by the British until he was thrown out of Mecca by Ibn Saud who merged the Hejaz with the Nejd in the 1930s having failed to add TransJordan to his domain -he really wanted Jerusalem as well.
Of the others, the point is that the Arabs did not get the States -or single, unified state- they wanted. The Syrians told the American King-Crane Commission that they wanted to choose their own government, but the US did not participate in the League of Nations, and Syria ended up with a French administration, imposed at the point of a gun. When General Gouraud entered the city in 1920, he made a point of going to the grave of Salah ad-din Al-Ayubi and shouted We're back! The French then proceeded to dismember what had been Ottoman provinces, creating Lebanon as a majority-Christian statelet. They were supposed to have taken over Mosul, but the French foreign minister Berthelot was so drunk the night before the negotiations with the British in 1919, he signed it away in the morning, so he could go back to bed.
There was an Arab nationalist movement, it was small, it was young and inexperienced, and many felt they were sold out by the landed elites and Sheikhs who did deals with the British and the French in return for gold and guns--the same sell-out which saw tracts of land in Palestine sold to Zionst settlers. It sounds sleazy because it is; but crucially, it meant that for decades the Arabs felt they were not in control of their own destiny, and this has been a powerful theme in their own history, its not a patronising, Eurocentric concept.
And when there were revolutions against British-imposed monarchs -Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958 -what did it bring? The fractious nature of politics and political instability isn't some patronising Eurocentric fantasy -it was real, and as paralytic as the French Fourth Republic -sometimes politics is like that, wherever it happens.

These people aren't cut off from the world. Go on facebook or twitter & ask them how remote they are. Don't worry. They can probably speak your language. Even the Saudi king (the most repressive regime in the region) was forced to lift the ban on satellite dishes years ago. Sorry, but "They don't know how..." doesn't work anymore.

3) And it is the reason why so many Arabs feel they have been denied real Freedom, the kind of freedom they have experienced in the west, in America, in Germany.
The quality of life under the dictators cannot be measured in dinars or dollars, but in the freedom people have had, or not had even to speak. When my father and I were in Tunisia in the 70s, we tried to talk to a student on a bus in a town somewhere, but all he would say was I believe Habib Bourgiba is the best man for Tunisia and that he is leading the country to progress, and so on. What else was he going to say knowing other people on the bus could hear him? You turn on the tv and 90% of the news is about Habib Bourgiba receiving delegations, from the army, from Olive farmers, from teachers and so on and so on. How long to you think the Arabs could put up with this drivel, year after year -what is patronising about telling the truth when the Arabs themselves so long to do it? A key point about the Arab Spring is that young people can see what the rest of the world is like, many have visited our countries to study or stay with relatives -their issue is why can't they have some of that? But the key point about civil society, is that people like Saddam Hussein and Qadhafi stripped it all away and replaced it with a surveilance state that is a dismal mix of 1984 and Stalin's Russia -Stalin succeeded in a vast place like the USSR how difficult was it in Libya or Iraq? Its not patronising to tell the truth about how little freedom people have had, and how much of it they want to create for themselves.

4) The wheel. Yes, I exagerrated that a little, but the first car south of Damascus probably was Lawrence's -for years there was only one car in Oman and that belonged to the eccentric Said bin Taimur until his son (with the help of the British of course) overthrew him in a coup in 1970. You understimate just how poor much of Arabia was before oil wealth began to affect life there in the 1960s; the wheel argument was not meant to be patronising, but an illustration of the reality -but I was not referring to places like Palestine, Syria, Jordan or even Iraq.

New person here... no matter what I think, know, or think I know.... Some of you all are kind of bright and intelligent... whether I agree with you or not. I am pleasantly surprised, not at all what I expected to find on this site... cool.

It sounds like you are going to be a welcome and interesting addition to this colourful pageant yourself Jane. Nice to meet you here.

Wish I was on the pacific coast of the US for a plethora of reasons. But at least some of its sunshine is here... so welcome Jane.

I scanned the last few posts. no time to read all. But I DO take issue with the notion that radical islam is played out after 9/11. I have read Olivier Roy's most recent books and simply see evidene everywhere that he is wrong. Economic wealth can bring a surcease of such aspirations (the UAE has fe rumblings - even against its obvious autocrats) and nor does Qatar. As Stavros observes the Mosque has been a great focal point - or protest but also of social organisation. It could become that again in a chaotic post-Quaddafi Libya. And the Muslim Brotherhood have certainly been visible recently in Egypt. They took over Tahrir square for a vast demonstration only a couple of weeks ago.

And look at the growth of Radical Islamism in the Mahgreb, in Nigeria (yesterday's bombings) in Pakistan and - though pretty ruthlessly supressed - in central asia. It's an impulse and temptation that is far from run its course. But it isn't a simple thing to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

it sounds like you are going to be a welcome and interesting addition to this colourful pageant yourself jane. Nice to meet you here.

---

(blush)

I have read Olivier Roy's most recent books and simply see evidene everywhere that he is wrong

The point would be that Roy is indicating a trend -obviously a welcome trend -but that there are still enough Muslims over the age of 35 or 40 who haven't noticed their bus left the station. This suggests a generation struggle within any emerging 'Islamic republic' similar to what is happening in Iran. And wishful thinking on my part, I admit.

There is certainly a generational struggle going on within islam internationally - and that is also evident in the UK where young second generation Muslims males are among the greatest reruiting ground for organisations like Hizb ut Tahrir (the party of freedom) which has been outlawed throughout the Middle East but not in the UK (Blair said this was for fear of simply driving it underground). They are a more sinister group than those led by clowns like Anjem Choudhary. I have met former members of this organisation and also former Jihadists who are involved in organisations to thwart its work and to help those tempted by these ideas back "into the fold' of the mainstream. Most Muslims are good people - nice people - and in the end ordinary people with the range of faults and strengths of the wider society. Radical islam is a tiny minority (but revoutions are often made by tiny minorities) and since 9/11 and, in the uk, since 7/7 MI5 and special branch have done a good job so far in monitoring any singificant threats. But it has not gone away. Militant islam (globally a minority) will NOT go away while key issues that it ralies around are resolved. (israel is an obviously one, but economic hardship is another, kashmir, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, the persecton of maintream islam in Western China, in Chechnya, in Uzbekistan and the other central Asian 'stans, the growth of islamophobia in Europe - oddly much more profund than in the US). As i said its complicated and I would love to share your optimism Stavros. But this is a long story and is by no means played out. The Arab spring could mutate into an radical islamist summer.

Libyan capital under Islamist control after Tripoli airport seized:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...operation-dawn