| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2003/3/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27911 Activity:high |
3/29 A little late but I had a busy day:
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR2RisetoPower.htm
http://www.indianaobserver.com/2002/12/I69Iraq.html
http://www.arationaladvocate.com/dejavuonthebrink.htm
Some of this is fact. Some is opinion. These and other links you can
easily find yourself show the Baathist/Nazi link in action, attitude,
goals, etc. If you want to dig deeper go look up Michel Aflaq, the
founder of the whole Baathist insanity. Here's a starter on Aflaq:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june03/sb_1-24.html
\_ nice links, thanks
\_ Good stuff. Refresh my memory: You're posting these to prove
what, exactly? Or you're posting them as informational links?
\_ This was the Saddam is a Nazi vs. the Saddam is a Stalinist
thread from over the last few days. Having read these and a
few other links I confirmed my previous understanding that the
Baathists are Arab Nazis but was unaware they were also fans of
some of the earlier Russian communists to some extent.
\_ It's an idiotic argument.
\_ There are people who will argue whether the flames are
blue or green when the point is that your arse is on
fire.
\_ Yeah, it would be better to discuss something deeply
intellectual like which linux distro is better or car vs.
bike, or whether the war is about oil or just pure meanness
on the part of dick cheney. You've totally nailed it with
your deep and incisive commentary and editorial. How can I
learn to be as smart as you?
\_ Um, go back in time and prevent your past self from
getting that lobotomy?
\_ oh! ouch! it's like 1st grade all over again!
*laugh* It's too funny that the motd can sink even
this low. I thought most of the grade schoolers
left when the motd got a little harsh on that sort
of infantile stupidity.
\_ Apparently not: we're both still here.
\_ 1) Another common thread of 20th century genocidal dictators is
where many developed their political philosophies - the
cafes of Paris.
\_ That's because Paris used to be where you went to be educated.
Things have changed now and the U.S. is where you go to get an
education. Hence all the terrorists who are educated in the
U.S.
2) Hitler was a socialist.
\_ the cafe's of Austria then?
\_ 'many'
\_ Hilter was more fascist than socialist, but then again lots of
of people had similar POVs. And the key to Soviet socialism,
German nationalist socialism, and Italian facsisism is the
emergence and misinterpretation of Darwinism. That is, thinking
survival of the fittest rather than understanding evolution.
Which leads us to the roots of pure capitalism and the American
sense of superiority....
\_ It does? How so? This hasn't been a pure capitalist society
in your great grand daddy's lifetime. The American sense of
superiority comes from having a robust economy, an effective
military, and a flexible and adaptable culture that rolls
with the punches. That 'sense' is because it's true.
\_ I agree in part, but the greatest contribution America
has made is put forth in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
No amount of wealth or power can overshadow rights and
government ordained by God.
\_ "Bill of Rights" & Constitution establish religions via
"ordained by God" therefore are unconstitutional
\_ So you wrote them?
\_ Uh... what? They establish no such thing. Are you
one of the left wing nutters that thinks the Pledge
is a violation of your rights too? |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR2RisetoPower.htm -> www.efreedomnews.com/ Discount domain registration DNS domain brokerage domain appraisal domain transfers and Web hosting. Discount domain registration DNS domain brokerage domain appraisal domain transfers and Web hosting. Discount domain registration DNS domain brokerage domain appraisal domain transfers and Web hosting buydomains buy domain buy domain domain registration domain transfer register domain transfer domain website hosting web hosting whois search premium domains special collection bulk whois expired names NameFind DNS nameserver name server free support fire network solutions subject category premium collection rare collection URL forwarding frame forwarding web developer ISP internet address internet name register web address web address bulk registration change registrar change registrant e-commerce cheap affordable replace network solutions internic top level org com net registry site address net name internet identity computer security secure transaction electronic commerce Whois dot com TLD registre de le domaine transferer registro dominio transferencia de datos abtretung computer program computer access top level startup startup company speculation broker trade trader market appraisal market value buy and sell branding trademark URL sale brand label registro de dominio brokerage memorable easy to remember rent lease for sale for rent expired unused on hold on-hold unclaimed dropped lost deleted domin donain doman website traffic traffic auction computer consulting purchase virtual real estate . References 1. |
| www.indianaobserver.com/2002/12/I69Iraq.html We guess that many people have accessed the Observer to check our positions on those two issues, I-69 and Iraq, and have been surprised to find nothing. We have not published any opinions about those issues, not because they are controversial, but because we are I-69 and Iraq agnostic. We explain our agnosticism on those two issues, I-69 and Iraq, as follows. The "universal interstate landscaping formula" that makes all interstates in America look identical is boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, milemarker after milemarker after milemarker. It is landscaping that attempts to appear "natural", but does so in a mathematical sense that only an engineer, and probably not all engineers, could appreciate. Too, the procurement of property for interstate highways infringes upon the property rights of those citizens who are forced to sell land for the projects, and, interstate highways are expensive to build. On the other hand, we understand the necessity of interstate highways in general. Regarding the suggestion by some people that building highways "harms the environment", that phrase and charge has in recent years been abused to the point that it no longer has important meaning, and seems to refer simply to any human activity. So, the question becomes, what circumstances, today, warrant construction of an interstate highway? America's major "news" media portrays Saddam as simply a thug-turned-"rogue dictator", which are as common in the world as dirt. Thus, most Americans do not associate the home-boy Saddam with any ideology or agenda beyond simply the maintenance and local propagation of his dictatorship. But Saddam and his regime represent a more-than-half-century-old political ideology and movement; Baathism is best described as "Arab nationalism on steroids". In addition to being a rogue dictator, Saddam is a political ideologue and activist with an agenda. In the 1930s and 40s, Baathism's founder, Syrian-born and French-educated Michel Aflaq, and a handful of his cronies, were "students" and admirers of Marx, Lenin, and Hitler. Aflaq's alma mater, the University of Paris, produced numerous notable political leaders, such as Cambodia's Pol Pot. In the 1950s, in Iraq, young Saddam was an early Baathist, and in the 1960s became a personal associate of Aflaq. Saddam and the Baath "party" attained dictatorship in a 1968 coup, and, at Saddam's invitation, Aflaq spent the remaining years of his life in Iraq, where, with irrepressible college spirit, he was on Saddam's cheerleading squad. Saddamized Baathism is a fiercely and overtly racist (Arab supremacist), violent, and imperialist political ideology that is the Arab version of National Socialism (NAZI-ism), and was actually derived in part from NAZI-ism. Baathism prescribes "perpetual revolution" toward a goal of Baathist-Arab world domination, and Saddam views America as the main impediment to that goal. It would be thoroughly consistent with that agenda if Saddam possessed "weapons of mass destruction". It is very important to note that Baathism is not "militant Islam". Baathist founder Aflaq was not Moslem, and, while Saddam does, for obvious reasons of political expediency, pander to Moslems (when he is not killing them), it is well known that Saddam is not a practicing Moslem. Some Arab Moslems are Baathists, and many or most Baathists are Moslem, but Baathism is doctrinally secular and has nothing directly to do with Islam. Thus, for example, Baathism does not, ideologically, have anything directly to do with "al-Qaeda", which represents Islamic-based, not secular, totalitarianism. That might explain why no clear link has been established between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. They probably embrace one another tentatively, and Saddam might feel threatened if there was an al Qaeda presence in Iraq. It is ironic, and a little amusing, that, to the extent that Baathism is a secular ideology that was derived from German NAZI-ism by a French-educated founder, Saddam is a "Western imperialist". It is imaginable that if Saddam's regime and al- Qaeda became the Middle-east's two superpowers, war would erupt between them. It would be a clash of totalitarian Titans to rival Hitler and Stalin. Should the French have disposed of Hitler in the mid 1930s? Note that "weapons of mass destruction" were not an issue. Ideas are more dangerous than "weapons of mass destruction". Ideas have killed tens or hundreds of millions of people without the use of "weapons of mass destruction", and sometimes without the use of weapons at all. Of course, dangerous ideas combined with "weapons of mass destruction" are doubly dangerous. So, how does the "North Korea issue" fit into all of this? Because Iraq is a totalitarian state, it is difficult to say whether many or most Iraqis subscribe to Saddam's Baathist ideology, and support him. We are amused by American television "news" interviews with Iraqi citizens who proclaim their support for Saddam. If we lived in Iraq, we too would publicly proclaim our support for Saddam. Thus, we have repeatedly here referred to "American military action" in Iraq, rather than "war" in Iraq, because, if there is a "war", it might all be rather anti-climactic if most Iraqis and the Iraqi military are not Baathist believers and do not fight for Saddam. In addition to all of that, today, America is virtually the world's sole source of liberal thought. Thus, whatever America's many flaws, it is essential to humanity and morality that America survive. So, we believe that America should maintain the most powerful military in the world, and should vigorously defend itself. For example, the American military action against the Taliban government and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was defensive in nature. Thus, we supported that action, and will support any future actions against al-Qaeda, anywhere in the world. Recently (November 2002), an al-Qaeda spokesman, said to be Osama himself, threatened to retaliate against America if it attacked Iraq. On the other hand, regarding the Iraq issue, we (at the Observer) are liberal political xenophobes, and, thus, we tend toward American foreign policy and military wariness, even isolationism. The overwhelming majority of people in the world either do not understand or do not appreciate liberalism, and liberalism (not to be confused with mere "democracy") cannot simply be "exported" and "implemented". Thus, we support peaceful, patient, worldwide liberal proselytizing by America, the export of liberal thought, but rare use of military power, and we disdain the use of American dollars to engage in "nation building". Peoples around the world should develop liberal governments and economies and build their own nations. As you can see, the Iraq issue has been poorly presented by American political leaders and the major American "news" media, the issue is little understood by most Americans, and it is a more complicated matter than simply "oil". So, should America pursue military action against Saddam Hussein? On the rhetorical and lighter side of the matter of possible American military action in Iraq, we are amused that American "doves" on the issue have taken to referring to "hawks" who are not military combat veterans as "chickenhawks". If the I-69 and Iraq issues are combined, we quickly develop a firm opinion. We would oppose the construction of an interstate highway to Iraq. |
| www.arationaladvocate.com/dejavuonthebrink.htm Return to main page A Rational Advocate "The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason" Dj Vu On The Brink Of War By Alan Caruba In 1942, a young foreign correspondent named William L. You could substitute new names and places in the various entries and discover that all the confusion, hesitancy, deception, and fear that existed in the years running up to World War II reflect the headlines of today with an eerie sense of dj vu. Diplomatic circles and most of the correspondents are growing optimistic over a general settlement that will ensure peace. Sir John Simon, the British Foreign Minister, is coming to Berlin. A few days ago, Lavel and Flandin (French diplomats) met the British in London. He's also triumphed over the League (of Nations), by bluff. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council continues to dither, giving him ever more time to prepare his defenses. Hitler this spring day has occupied a couple more countries. Permitting such naked aggression to continue is an invitation to an ever-widening conflict and one that has already reached our shores. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, beginning WWII. The nation, by that point, was firmly in the grip of men who were little more than gangsters led by a charismatic leader. And they were Socialists, as the name of their party revealed. The Baathist Party in Iraq resembles the former Nazi Party in many respects. The Nazis ignored the League of Nations as a toothless debating society. The United Nations Security Council has revealed itself to be the same. Frank, the Governor-General of occupied Poland, today decreed that the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw henceforth must be shut off from the rest of the capital by barricades and place under sharp police control. The wish to exterminate Israel is on the lips and in the prayers of most Muslims. For Islam, Israel and the world's tiny Jewish population is merely an excuse to perpetrate its jihad. Today, as it was in the 1930s, gangsters rule Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and, Saudi Arabia, to name just a few nations of the Middle East. It heralded a new phase in a war that had been declared decades before. It led to the US invasion of Afghanistan to rid that nation of al Qaeda and the Taliban and to begin introducing democracy and freedom to its people. The UN's dictator-neutral approach has put our troops in harm's way again. The first war ended at the demand of the United Nations, permitting the evil regime of Saddam Hussein to remain in place. If one contemplates the number of despots and dictators in power in the world today, little has changed from William Shirer's world of the 1930s and 40s. These men rule nations that are members in good standing in the United Nations. Today, the United States of America is the lone superpower with the capability of bringing about a significant change in the lives of millions of people in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific Basin, North Korea, and elsewhere throughout the world who yearn for freedom. Now, like previous generations, we must demonstrate we have the will. Alan Caruba is the author of a new book, "Warning Signs", a collection of his weekly columns, by Merril Press. |
| www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp But they really should give serious consideration to Michel Aflaq. It was Aflaq, a Syrian intellectual and political organizer, who founded the Syrian and Iraqi Baath parties. It was Aflaq, too, who in 1963 elevated Saddam Hussein to the Regional Command in Iraq's Baath party, and so set him on his course to dictatorship. And it was Aflaq who laid down the ideology that continues to dominate Saddam's thinking today. Saddam Hussein, after all, isn't a general who took over a government by means of a military coup. He's not only a thug, a ruthless tribal leader, a Don Corleone-style Godfather, a power-mad dictator. He is first and foremost a political activist, a party man. Saddam grew up as a cadre in the highly ideological and dogmatic Baath party structure. His speeches, from the time he entered government in 1968 until today, have had a consistent ideological, pseudo-intellectual character, even if in the past decade a layer of Islamist rhetoric has been added. From his first declarations to his last, he has always presented the Arabs as the master race, whose history and accomplishments are glorious. He has always had a mystical belief in self-purification through violence, the notion that the soul is elevated through warfare and killing. And most important, he has always been committed to the life of relentless struggle, of ever-widening wars and confrontations, of perpetual revolution, which undermines all objective truth, all stability, all possibility of rest and peace. He has believed all this in the name of some final and transcendent conquest for himself and the Arab nation. These beliefs and habits of mind he absorbed from the Baath party, and ultimately from its founder-leader. It is Aflaq whom Saddam cites when he insists, as he does frequently, that the Baath party is not like other parties. MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party. Due to this limitation, you may experience unexpected results within this site. |
| www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june03/sb_1-24.html Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the 21 Middle East,, 22 law and 23 the White House. The American public's reaction DAVID BROOKS: That's about what I find when I travel around the country. You go to even Republican areas you find people basically trust the president but they don't really know what it is about. In part because of the complexity of the missile technology, is this a nuclear weapon, is that a nuclear weapon? In part because I think the administration has failed to deliver one part of the formula which is what is Saddam all about? Now, that intention, that description of what Saddam Hussein has been entirely missing from the Bush administration's case, which has dwelt on this missile, that missile and that missile over what Saddam is doing to show how his vision is being enacted. You have got to get at the vision - what Saddam wants, why he wants to destroy us, if you want o get people who don't follow this professionally to be moved and to be alarmed and so far that hasn't been done. JIM LEHRER: That's why you think the polls are going the way they're going. They don't know who Michel Aflaq is - the guy who really is the guru for Saddam. No major publications have done reports on what Saddam thinks in the past year, I've looked. Now it's a country that's uncertain in the economy, it's uncertain about Iraq, it's uncertain about North Korea. We have been told, we've said on this broadcast the United States is absolutely relatively the most powerful nation right now in the history of human kind, and yet we see ourselves paralyzed by North Korea. The president has not made the case, there is no question about it. To go to war Jim on a 53-42 vote with limited support as Andy Kohut pointed to Ray, in addition to that, Americans by overwhelming margins believe that the president, in order to make his case, has to present a smoking gun to the allies before going to war and to the American people before going to war. And I don't think there's any case that, I don't think there is any question that has not been done. In fact the case for war has been weakened in the country. JIM LEHRER: Let's go back to what Senators Dodd and Warner were talking about. Dodd's point was a little more time, meaning a little more time for the inspectors cannot hurt anything. In fact he said it could be in our best interest -- countered by Sen. Warner saying hey, wait a minute, Saddam Hussein has already had 12 years. How do you think that is going, that particular argument is going down with the public or is it going at all? Group Discussion MARK SHIELDS: I think in spite of David's very persuasive presentation here tonight, Jim, we had a very loose arrangement with Saddam Hussein. We've an armada off the shore, troops, he is ringed, he is now impotent. So the threat that Saddam Hussein represents or may represent are in most people's minds checked because he is reined. DAVID BROOKS: He may be reined for a month but what we saw in the 1990s was as this thing goes on for months and months, the ring will develop holes in it. To me, the most important thing to me and the most amazing thing that happened this week was the education of Colin Powell. He gets the French, hold a meeting this week, Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister holds a meeting and says to Colin Powell, you have to be there. He unveils this German-French anti-American assault, really. What has happened this week is that Colin Powell and the administration have become united around point that we can't go back to the 1990s delay, delay, delay because that helps Saddam. MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think Colin Powell was sandbagged, there wasn't any question about that. I mean, the great political philosopher ,Mark Russell put it, the French are not going to be with us either way. If we decided not to go in, they would say we should have. I don't think there's any question about that but I think he was sandbagged, and I think beyond that, Jim, there are consequences to not having a coalition. I mean Donald Rumsfeld this week-- JIM LEHRER: Forget your anger with the French, you mean. They aren't a newcomer on the block, the last time I checked but the last time, Jim, this country went to war in the Persian Gulf was with a 31-nation coalition put together by George Bush's father. George Bush himself this week helped his cause not at all by saying this is a rerun of a bad movie. Security, now everybody says, they voted to have the inspections, the inspectors say we are not finished yet. DAVID BROOKS: What has happened is Resolution 1441 said Saddam must disarm. When the French and Germans got together this past week, they said forget about disarmament. Saddam submitted the report, which everybody acknowledges was a tissue of lies, Saddam has apparently according to Paul Wolfowitz, threatened to kill the scientists, which is an incredible breach because in the resolution he has to volunteer the scientists. And the whole expert opinion when the inspection regime started was that we are never going to find these hidden systems which can be fitted into the mobile biological units in a country the size of Texas. JIM LEHRER: I know the technical stuff, but just spiritually, you've gone from 15-0 to I don't know, maybe the other way. I disagree with David because the case going in and made by Donald Rumsfeld again was everybody in the world knows that these people have big weapons. Now it is not that there is a smoking gun that we are going to find, Jim. Now it has become, all of a sudden, we've spun on this the past week, starting with Condi Rice and continuing. It's become, no, no, it isn't a question of us finding a smoking gun. It's a question of him producing no gun, no bullets and something of the sort. I don't think that's enough for the rest of the world and I don't think it's enough to send Americans into battle. Group Discussion DAVID BROOKS: We knew when the inspectors left last time he had 30,000 biochemical and bacteriological missiles, we knew he had thousands of gallons of anthrax, we knew he had these biological weapons. Let me get back to one thing about the timing here and this is strictly not political. JIM LEHRER: So we either have to use the troops or have an alternative that is a disarming alternative to using itself troops. So that does represents a major percentage of them, but I don't think it is a question of, gee, we're getting restless, we have been here; We've also gone from what had been, and David had spoken eloquently on this subject, from a democratizing of Iraq. There is no sense of this is what we are going to do and there is going to be a better Iraq like there was Germany and Japan. I'm saying that's a persuasive case but certainly was a far more valuable case. In 1942, The Nation Magazine said this is an hour of exaltation. They were not fond of FDR, but they thought whatever the hell this war creates, at least we have the opportunity to create a better world. That idealistic sense is strong in the left and on the right. Why the president has not appealed to that is beyond me. You've got 100,000 people marching in the streets and they are, in effect, marching to preserve a fascist regime. They want to prevent war, which is a legitimate thing to do. But they are never asked why are you preserving a fascist regime, why don't you want the tide of democracy, which is to spread through Latin America and Central America, to spread to the Arab part of the world - that's the idealistic case the Bush administration has made a little but they haven't made strongly enough. Yes, do they think it's worth spilling the blood of thousands of people? I'll tell you, the antiwar demonstration, there's one of the great disconnects of our time. I would like to meet whoever the program chairman was at each place and basically take him to the woodshed. The crowds and I was down there on the mall - the crowds were wonderful people. They were nurses and teachers and clergy people and blue-collar workers and middle American families who were very much against the war. This is the biggest antiwar movement I've ever seen before a war. Don't forget, it took us three years in Vietnam ... |