The Liberals’ Creed
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:47pm |
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
by: Robert Alt

Pages
Lucky for you, I have been and for quite some time now. There is this great book called "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" by Yossef Bodansky. He worked for the government as the director of HOuse Task FOrce on Terrorism and Unconvential Warfare. It was written in 1999 I think. However, it has been a while since I read this book, but I am trying to find some quotes for you. But for now here are some..
"All of htese groups were unified by their commitment to waging a relentless jihad against the Unites States, Ahmad al-Najjar told the Egyptian interrogators. 'I myself heard bin Laden say that our main objective is no limited to one state only, the United States, and involves waging a guerrilla war against all U.S. interests, not only in the Arab region but also throughout the world, and that this operation on the whole will ultimately force the United States and those gravitating within its sphere to review their policies toward the Islamic Groups." ...(pg 404-405 of above mentioned book)
What policies?
"The conference's concluding statement warned the Muslim world against being 'deceived by international organizations, such as NATO and the United Nations, becuase they are hostile to Muslims and are responsible for all the massacres perpetrated against Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Albania, and Kosovo." ...(pg 403)
"He explained that 'terrorism is a Sharia term which Muslims must remain committed to. This means that terrorism is the means for clling on the oppressed to terrorize the tyrants.' Kamil stressed that Islamists must resort to terrorism as the sole viable and effective means of meeting such challenges as 'the enslavement of mankind, the unfair killings of the oppressed on earth, the corruption of man and land, and the proliferation of destructive weapons that are used only by tyrants.".. (pg 403)
Now with all of that being said, I do not beleive in what they call terrorism. I do not think killing innocent people helps anyone.
However, they are reacting to a situation that was presented to them by the U.S., and by countries world wide. Muslims have always been given the raw end of the deal in any situation. So do you think they should just sit there and take it as they have done? It took only one attack on U.S. soil for the U.S. to declare war, but how many attacks have been done to them?
You can call him a religious fanatic if it makes you feel justified, but he is very politicaly motivated. He may just call you a polical nut-case, and he would be equally as justified, but perhaps your religous views are also is to why you are. (I dont know what your views are, and really dont care to know) Unfortunately religion and politics as much as we try to divide the 2 they seem to always come together.
For them it is also fight bck or die in mass numbers. They feel just as justified in fighting America as you do in fighting in Iraq, Afghan, or Palestine. So who is right? YOu can say you are, and they can say they are. Both sides have legitimate arguments.
the entire "creed" exposes the zealotry and the hypocrisy of the left."
Actually it shows how incredibly short sighted the right is.
I see nothing inconsistent in what I've stated. The president sang one tune before the war, and another now as the original reasons cannot be justified. I've been consistent from before the war in my opposition and the reasons why... and they are all over this board.
Trust me they dont want you to convert, where would you get somethng like that from? Muslims dont send missionaries to non-muslim countries, it is the Christians. Muslims dont say convert or we will with hold you food, that is Christians. hahahaha
What do you think would happen in that scenario? I'd guess there would be people speaking out in outrage, refuting their commentary, etc... but there would be no shut down unless they committed a crime and there were no staff to publish.
Not changing the subject at all... I was debating elsewhere the religious relationship between Christians and Muslims, so I'm leery when the discussion touches on it.
They aren't waging war on us to change our beliefs. They are waging war on us because we play favourites in the middle east.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/8794188.htm?1c
Subtle strategy, lethal tactics pushed Iraqi cleric into deal
BY BILL GLAUBER
Chicago Tribune
NAJAF, Iraq - (KRT) - As he prepared last month to send soldiers across a volatile swath of Iraq to battle a rebel militia threatening to ignite a wider Shiite Muslim uprising, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey provided lethal instructions.
"Tactically, what we said to our soldiers is if you are attacked, turn and fight and finish it," Dempsey recalled. "Don't allow the militia to live to fight another day."
The blunt instructions, backed by a subtle strategy, pressured rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi Army militia, eventually backing them into a corner with almost no way out.
After seven weeks of the bloodiest skirmishes since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in May 2003, a cease-fire of sorts began late last week in parts of al-Sadr's last strongholds of Najaf and nearby Kufa as the rebel cleric sought a negotiated way out of his improbable fight with the Americans.
Whether the cease-fire holds remains to be seen. On Friday, insurgents launched mortar attacks against the main U.S. base and a four-hour firefight erupted between U.S. forces and militiamen in Kufa.
And whether the deal represents full-fledged U.S. success is also open to debate. Al-Sadr's fighters marched in the streets of Najaf after word of the agreement spread on Thursday, claiming victory. But the understanding with Sadr fails to resolve two key demands that U.S. officials have been making since al-Sadr launched his uprising - the dissolution of his militia and al-Sadr's surrender to face murder charges in the death of a rival cleric.
Instead, according to the deal reached between al-Sadr and Iraqi officials, militia fighters not from Najaf or Kufa must return home, and the ones who remain behind cannot carry weapons in the street. Also, Iraqi security forces will be allowed to move back into both cities. Al-Sadr's legal status remains unclear.
"I don't obey the occupation. Never," al-Sadr told an interviewer from Al Jazeera satellite TV channel on Friday.
For his militia, composed mainly of poor, young men at the bottom rung of society, the cost of fighting was devastating. U.S. military officials estimate that hundreds died during weeks of clashes from Baghdad's Sadr City slum to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Others, apparently, simply quit.
U.S. commanders estimated that there were 2,500 al-Mahdi fighters across the country at the beginning of the uprising. By late last week, they believed there were fewer than 500.
"We have reached this point, whether it's victory or progress, on the shoulders of some courageous and disciplined young soldiers," Dempsey said late last week at Camp Baker, the main U.S. base in Najaf.
What is clear is this: U.S. forces had pushed al-Sadr's fighters into two final strongholds in Kufa and Najaf by the end of last week and brought the United States to the cusp of solving one of the thorniest problems ahead of the June 30 hand-over of power to the Iraqi people.
Regardless of whether the cease-fire holds, American commanders say they inflicted maximum damage to al-Sadr's organization while limiting damage and civilian casualties in close urban environments.
There is no accurate civilian death toll from the fighting, but it appeared al-Sadr's fighters suffered most.
Even while operating in some of the holiest cities and around some of the holiest shrines in Islam, the United States in its offensive against al-Sadr did not inflame Iraq's wider Shiite Muslim population. It has also succeeded in isolating al-Sadr, the son of a martyred father with a revered family name.
"It was pretty clear he was trying to take what was a fairly small - let's call it narrow - uprising (and) was trying to expand it to a popular uprising," said Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division. "The principal goal in return was not to allow this thing to become a popular uprising, because if he gained broad support of the Shiite population, there truly would have been nothing we could have done."
It all looked far different April 4, the day the uprising was ignited after coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper and arrested one of his chief aides.
Dempsey's troops were caught in violent street battles in Baghdad. Some others already had gone back to home bases in Germany and Louisiana, having finished their yearlong tours in Iraq. All of those troops were given orders for an extended deployment.
Before setting the battle plan, Dempsey had to figure out his foe and motivations. "We had to embark on a course that maintained local, general popular support - at least neutrality," Dempsey said.
"It was very important for us to get the message out that what motivates Muqtada Sadr was not the betterment of the Iraqi people, the protection of Islam, the defense of the holy shrines," he said. "It was really power-based, money-based, influence-based and competition with other Shias for long-term control. We hammered that theme everywhere we went."
Dempsey said he brought that message to meetings with local and regional officials and tribal leaders. He also tried to rebuild the local security forces. Amid the uprising, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and local Iraqi police had cut and run in several major cities.
"We had to restore some degree of confidence in the Iraqi security forces," he said.
The final pieces of the plan were military.
On the operational level, where battles are linked together, Dempsey said "we had to be seen as very methodic, very patient, very precise, very disciplined."
At the tactical level, the actual fighting, Dempsey said "we need to be seen as rapid, decisive, overwhelming and lethal."
The result was a systematic destruction of the militia on a trail from Kut to Diwaniyah to Karbala to Kufa and Najaf. Dempsey's forces didn't try to clear neighborhoods. They went to the heart of the Sadr organization, whether at his political headquarters or at safe houses and weapons caches.
"We knew where to go and we went straight there, finished the fight and moved out," he said.
Once the militia was beaten in skirmishes, humanitarian projects were quickly started and radio stations were opened to spread the news. The former foes were given jobs.
"In Kut, we were fighting the al-Mahdi Army one day, and the next day we put them to work repairing the amusement park," Dempsey said.
Rubble was also removed as the battle moved to the next city.
Not wanting to inflame religious or political passions, U.S. troops couldn't forcibly remove al-Sadr's militiamen from holy sites in Karbala or Najaf.
"In both cases the local populace became so outraged by the use of the shrines essentially they were able to tip the scale in our favor," Dempsey said.
Al-Sadr finally relented and agreed to negotiate after U.S. forces captured his key aide and brother-in-law, Riyadh al-Nouri, early Wednesday.
Apparently, al-Nouri was relieved.
"He said, `First of all, thank you for capturing me not killing me,'
" Dempsey said. "
`Thank you for treating me as well as you are, and thirdly, I'm really glad this is over.'
Pages