Not so Kind...
I am very pissed.
I do not have many kind words towards my fellow Iraqis. Let me qualify here, before you start jumping to conclusions.
I do not have many kind words towards my fellow Iraqis. Let me qualify here, before you start jumping to conclusions.
I have no kind words towards that category of Iraqis who gave it away for Free to the Americans and the Iranians. I have absolutely no respect for them, no consideration and zero sympathy.
I have zero respect for those bastards living and working in the Green zone.
I have total disdain for those who voted and now come meagerly complain about "lack of the promised democracy"..."but we voted" broken record. Sure you voted. You voted for your sects and your wallets.
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who applauded and filled their blogs with hurrays "Saddam is gone" and now cry over poor Iraq...and congratulate themselves with cheap words of sympathy coming from the occupier.
It took a bunch of your kind to make it happen. Now you have lost it all.
I do not want to be too cruel and say you deserve what you are getting because I happen to be in the same boat...
Oh how I wish someone would give me a life saving raft so I no longer have to be associated in name with you lot.
My condolences Iraqi hypocrites. You lost your country and made us, the rest, the silent majority who are not pocketing any of the American - Iranian "dough", pay for it with our bodies, blood, children, selves and sanity...
Al Hajjaj was right. You are "ahl al-shiqak wa al-nifaq".
Fuck you all.
Oh how I wish someone would give me a life saving raft so I no longer have to be associated in name with you lot.
My condolences Iraqi hypocrites. You lost your country and made us, the rest, the silent majority who are not pocketing any of the American - Iranian "dough", pay for it with our bodies, blood, children, selves and sanity...
Al Hajjaj was right. You are "ahl al-shiqak wa al-nifaq".
Fuck you all.
Painting: Iraqi artist, Mohammed Al-Shammarey.
me neither layla.....anyone who welcomes an invasion of their country needs to be shot in the face
I love when you speak from the heart. The fire in your soul is a light in the night for all to see. The truth you put on the plate is often to much for all to eat, but like a parent some kids are forced to at least give it a try.
No, not everyone is able to except the truth so they with there little minds like to confuse others with off the wall shit.
Yes, and like others have proclaimed on your bolg, I do find the fight in your heart very appealing. I love a woman that has a honest riotous way.
Keep up the good work!!!
Soon goes the "hot season" .. and comes the "fall time" ..
This statement has GOT to be a joke, although I'm not laughing. If there was a WORLDWIDE poll asking who was/is the most evil man on this planet, without a doubt the award would go to Bush. With over half a million dead Iraqis, double that amount living as 'refugees' in other countries, all the creation of Bush the Chimp, the Roman 'philosopher' above seriously needs to get his/her facts right.
Your lancet figure of 650,000 dead, allthough a complete load of crap totally devoid of any fact attributes 70% of the dead to the insurgency. Furthermore; even that completely outrageous and faux figure pales in comparison to the deaths attributed to the tyrannical leader of the Baathist regime modeled after the Nazi's, which took power by force, ruled through force and the brutal repression of its citzenry, so just who the hell are you to say that an outside power can not remove such a tyrant by force?! People who claim there was no terrorism before the U.S. entered Iraq are living under a delusion, there was terror only it was state terror institutionalized by the Baathist regime.
History is written by the victors and George W. Bush will be remebered as the man who liberated 60 million people from two of the most brutal regimes in the history of the world. Saddam will be remembered as a thug and a tyrant who lived like a criminal and died like one as well.
Lambs on the alter, Jesus on the cross. God will only accept a living sacrifice, a suffering unlike any other.
Can you imagine the pain?
Although we all have struggles, some worse than others, you should consider yourself blessed. God only wants those who are steadfast in their faith.
Like a weed; most people hate weeds. we tear them out of our gardens, because we want only things that are 'pleasing' to our eyes. Yet they are the ones that don't break in a storm. Trees snap, homes crushed, cars thrown, buildings destroyed and the weed lives on, humbly yielding to the higher power.
Have you ever wondered why god choses to elevate things the people reject??
If you have burdens, whether it's family, finances, alcohol..etc. You best believe you are blessed by god!
You are being refined, molded and sculpted to prove your unwaivering faith.
All thru history, god has chosen the most rejected, lost, sick, hated or decrepid person as his 'living sacrifice'.
God loving people, will have to bare burdens and go thru the fire, to be tested and refined in their faith. God doesn't want someone who will collapse at the first sign of distress, NO! She wants someone who will NEVER curse her or turn away when the going gets tough. Like Job.
Job is my favorite person. He went from the pinnacle of success to the depths of hell and NEVER cursed or lost his faith, despite his family and friends turning against him. That is the kind of faith god is looking for... steadfast!!!
Bare your burdens, hold your head high and carry your cross, be steadfast. You will surely be blessed.
Layla, YOU are a living sacrifice!
伊拉克的國歌叫 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
國際國歌叫 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
讓全世界都唱 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
Bush&Blair&Olmert = the coalition of the murdering
the coalition of the willing = the coalition of the evil
Unde tanta Nietzscheana memoria "voluptas imperii" ?
Instrumentum tuum procreandi parvum sicut oliva esse existimare debemus ?
P.S. Layla, for God's sake, ban this delusional loony at once or he'll drag us all to his nuthouse !!
do u have the same speechwriter as george bush??
You support the Baathist regime and the tyrant Saddam, and I'm the one who's delusional? Kettle meet pot.
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice just as tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS!
A Living Sacrifice:
no bible bashers plz
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.
He makes good beer too. ;-)
And the numbers do speak for themselves, as a % of the population more Iraqi's voted for their Democratic Republic than did Americans in the 2000 Presidential elections, and we weren't risking life and limb to do it. It is really beyond me how one could perform tyranny to liberty, Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? But ofcourse like I said the Tikriti Sunni elite who lived a lap of luxury while the masses starved under the heal of oppression that was Saddam's Iraq were tranquil in their servitude and loved wealth better than liberty.
“Oh my God, I trust in thee, let me not be ashamed, let not my enemies triumph over me.” -- Psalm 25:2
“Blessed is the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: My goodness, and my fortress, my high tower, and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I trust who subdueth mine enemies under me." -- Psalm 144:1-2
Please spare me you leninist "imperialist," dribble which is nothing more than an excuse of why Capitalism did not fail inline with the teachings of his false prophet Marx.
"...PREFER (NOT PERFORM) TYRANNY TO LIBERTY..."
Oh and why is it that you would rather ban me than to face me in the battle of ideas? Is it because you have come to the battle unarmed?
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's even better!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Khalil if you are opposed to the bible then you mean "no bible thumpers," "bible bashers," are those that bash the bible, if that's not the case I misinterpreted you then a 1000 pardons but if not this ones for you:
you're right, it's the noblest of duties for every human being to fight against imperialism. Only psycopaths - like the brainless bumpkin and KKKzionazi Trajan Octavian Titus and his ilk - defend imperialism. Only freedom from imperialism makes human life humane, all the rest is nazi barbarity.
plz could u explain to me how the lancelet figure of 655,000 is "a complete load of crap"?? the methodology used in the study is - i am reliably informed - the same one used for estimating casualities in any other war. and again, i am reliably informed, of those 655,000, 24% of those causalities were attributed to non-occupation forces (NOT 70% as u claim), 31% to occupation forces, and 46% unknown..........i think u have sum explaining to do Trajan Octavian Titus
Also if you believe their figure you would have to believe that 1 in 40 Iraqi's have died since 2003. They conclude that 500 people are dying per day, why is it that the most we've heard is probably tops 100 killed per day? And that's on a bad day.
Also the Iraqi Health Minister which has access to hard evidence not just estimates did his own survey:
Iraq Health Minister estimate in November 2006
In November 2006 Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion between 100,000 and 150,000 people have been killed. The Taipei Times reported: "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2007] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals -- though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total." The Washington Post reported: "As al-Shemari issued the startling new estimate, the head of the Baghdad central morgue said Thursday he was receiving as many as 60 violent death victims each day at his facility alone. Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi said those deaths did not include victims of violence whose bodies were taken to the city's many hospital morgues or those who were removed from attack scenes by relatives and quickly buried according to Muslim custom."
From a November 9, 2006 International Herald Tribune article:
"Each day we lost 100 persons, that means per month 3,000, per year it's 36,000, plus or minus 10 percent," al-Shemari said. "So by three years, 120,000, half year 20,000, that means 140,000, plus or minus 10 percent," he said, explaining how he came to the figures. "This includes all Iraqis killed � police, ordinary people, children," he said, adding that people who were kidnapped and later found dead were also included in his estimate. He said the figures were compiled by counting bodies brought to "forensic institutes" or hospitals.
From the November 11, 2006 Taipei Times article:
An official with the ministry also confirmed the figure yesterday [Nov. 10, 2006], but later said that the estimated deaths ranged between 100,000 and 150,000. "The minister was misquoted. He said between 100,000-150,000 people were killed in three-and-a-half years," the official said.
"Oh and why is it that you would rather ban me than face me in the battle of ideas ?"
Because I have been "facing" your ugly crook-nosed mug long enough and would like now to rest my eyes on something more agreeable - sic et simpliciter.
We are all still waiting for an answer to "that" question ..
The only conspiracy is that of the followers of the apostate Qutb and the heretical death cult of Wahhab and their demented aspirations of setting up reestablishing the caliphate under a purritanical and tyrannical intepretation of Sharia law under which anyone who doesn't stone to death their own daughter for sex outside of marriage, is not a real Muslim. So I ask not to spare me because if my choice is life in the chains of an oppresive ideology and death, well I know not what coarse others may take, but as for me GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!! Sic Semper Tyrannus!
I don't defend imperialism, I support the republic, it is the Qutbists who want to establish a pan-Islamic Empire under the caliphate. I support mutually beneficial free trade between our fellow republics but that is hardly imperialistic ambition, unless of course you are reguregtating Lenin and his laundry list of excuses of why Marx was wrong about capitalism failing and why socialism turns economies to shit. The sad part is is that you need us more than we need you, we could switch energy types within 20 years if we started building reactors, freaking France has more nuclear reactors than we do, and we only get about 1/3 of our oil from the ME anyways, are biggest supplier of oil is that tyrant Chavez down in Venezuela who has single handedly destroyed their liberal Democratic Republic through usurpations for the state beyond any rational limits.
Man you people are so ridiculous we are not seeking to conquer Iraq here's a thought if you want the U.S. to leave then QUIT BLOWING SHIT UP!!!
The U.S. hasn't conquered new territory since manifest destiny and all countries that we've liberated are now econommic power houses from Germany to Japan, even Russia is starting to fix the destruction of their economy by years of socialism.
You people need to quit demolishing and start rebuilding your country and the only way that's going to happen is when the Iraqi people start defending their dually elected Constitutional government.
SHUT THE FUCK uP !!!
Layla Darling, you simply have to do something about
this Smegma-like creature Trajan, who has no manners and deserves a good scolding. People like this are a bore and a waste of everyone's time. Could we all agree to simply ignore this impotent toss? So much the better!
"Shut the fuck up" Why because you lack the intellectual skills to debate? What's the matter don't want poking pinholes of light into your curtain of warped world view?
aka brainless bumpkin and KKKzionazi,
you're just a primitive American ignoramus, consummate liar and hubristic imperialist. Short: ameronazi barbarian.
you're totally right. TOT is a psycopath. Can you imagine: this consummate bullshitter believes in absolute (sic!!!!!!!!)(cultural) values. HA HA! And they're of course his and of his bible. And he wants to impose his barbaric views on the whole world. What a Grand Inquisitor! It's really unbelievable how primitive these Americans are! Overweight and obese mentally deficient bullshitters and crapspouters! No wonder: 美國是全世界敗類的垃圾場!
Barbaric views? Ya you mean like Constitutional government and an end to dictatorships wherein everyone is guaranteed life and liberty freedom of religion and speech, freedom from tyranny without a need to fear the state? What exactly is barbaric about my values? Perhaps my favorite quotes from Saving Private Ryan from Psalms, that Private Jackson says before he trains his sniper rifle on a piece of Nazi filth? Or perhaps the quotes from the Founding Fathers who started the first modern Constitutional Republic?
Second, what sense would it make for the U.S. to blow shit up when our goal is to set up the Democracy to a stable level and withdraw our troops? It's the insurgency that is causing the havok.
"put to death by stoning," and I'm the one whose barbaric? How exactly am I psyco?
take a deep look in the mirror and you'll see the nazi criminal that you are!!
"Shut the fuck up" Why because you lack the intellectual skills to debate?
Perhaps they're waiting for some wee bit of "intellectual skill" from you, TOT. LOL, Tot is about right: (a child). Really, what's to be said to some clueless Bushit blowhard ranting his psycho spew of nonsense? The invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on lies. The motivations for the invasion were to subjugate the Iraqi people and to steal their oil. The behavior of all the US representatives (US troops and the crooks they try to defend) in Iraq has proven those declaration to be true. Only a psychotic, a moron or a liar would spew the blather that you're typing here. Obviously, you're trying to hold the record for all three. Little goose-stepping wannabes like you, who got such vicarious gratification in your miserable little non-lives by watching the US war machine rain death and mayhem down on those "funny little foreigners" are now all despondent because the Iraqis kicked back and kicked back hard. That leaves you right back to being nothing but a useless, ignorant skinhead who tries to save himself from seeing what he really is by shaking your nasty ass in these peoples faces.
Mr. octavian titus, you and I sure live in a different country, although we share the same surface and nationality... or perhaps we just happen to see things from a different (extremely different) point of view.
There is very little original you have said in your postings, besides regurgitating the typical positions of the right... pretty far right for sure.
What makes you such an expert on Iraq? Did you live or study the country during the Saddam years and before the (so called) UN Sanctions? Obviously not, but it's beside the point, really.
What I would suggest is that we do a lot more of living by the Nation founders ideals rather than just quote them.
A disclaimer, I am not a great fan of the first drafted constitution of the USA (was improved somewhat by amendments), better than many in those years, certainly not one of the great ones now days, especially if it's not considered a living document, as so many of the right ideologues assert it is not, but in any case it’s being made a mockery of by today’s administration (and before you say anything, I am aware that it’s not only by this administration).
As for your support of the Republic... the Republic is corrupted to the core unfortunately. It's fitting that you would use the pseudonym of Octavian Titus, the one that consolidated the Roman Empery after the murder of the (arguable) great Julius Caesar... well, I hate to be the one popping your bubble, but I doubt very much this "new empery" will ever galvanize (or repress) the world into another 500 years of peace.
One thing that really gets to me is your statements of how “they” need us more than “we” need them… so why is it that the USA history is full of “interventions” in other sovereign countries? Hell, from the very beginning after the revolution, the “construction” of the Nation with the exception of a couple of purchases, it has been through military intervention. Perhaps the motto of the Republic should be “Through Might We Conquer”
And I’m not going to argue about the merits of neither capitalism or socialism, but I tell you, capitalism as seen from my point of view sure it’s beginning to look a lot like feudalism… as for socialism, there are some pretty good examples of it if you care to look at northern Europe, but sure we would prefer to refer to the USSR as an example of how bad it was. What ever!
There were about 20 reasons for the war in Iraq none of them were lies, we have found 500 sarin filled binary warheads with indefinate shelf lives. And Saddam did have a long ongoing relationship with AQ. Furthermore; the war was not illegal Saddam Hussein violated every single one of the UN resolutions against him any which is a violation of the cease fire agreement which he signed. If this was about oil we would have installed a puppet dictator not allowed for a Democratic government which gets to decide its own oil laws.
Speaking of goosestepping I suggest you watch a Hamas or Hezbollah parade sometime.
Furthermore; the vast majority of Iraqi people want their freedom and new Democratic government, and the ISI forces are being pummeled, we are no longer playing whack a terrorist because the Iraqi regulars are stepping up big time and leave the terrorists no safe place of retreat, even Maliki has said that they are ready to take over full control of security, the war is over WE WON!
Octavian's last name was not Titus first of all,
And no I didn't live in Iraq during the Saddam years, thank god for that, Saddam was a tyrant who liked to start unprovoked wars and was a self described enemy of the United States who had used WMD in the past even against his own citizenry and in a post 9-11 world characters like Saddam are more risk than they're worth. As to our previous interventions they have all been pretty benign given the intervention of other nations, and just about every country we've ever been allied with and engaged in free trade with is a stable democratic republic today, some exceptions would include Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, but not because the U.S. intervened but because the U.S. didn't intervene enough, other countries; such as, Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc are the envy of the world, the country that is worst off and least free in Latin America is the one country that doesn't have a normalized political and economic relationship with the U.S., even in the Middle East we have stuck up for the Muslim far more often than not, in the last 11 of 12 major conflicts involving muslims and non-muslims, arabs and non-arabs, and Muslims and secular forces, the U.S has backed the latter over the former. And which good examples of socialism are there? Perhaps Sweden which went as far as it could with socialism as it could in the 90s until serious inflation set in and they've been privatizing ever since?
do you know my ancestors or who they were? Of course you don't know. So how do you know IF my ancestors collaborated with the nazis? Of course you don't know. So how can you assertively CLAIM that they collaborated with them?
BTW, you're just a lousy "zionazi thinker". Logic is absent in most (sic!!!) of your arguing and thinking - another zionazi trait. And you're a lousy observer - another zionazi trait. You're incessantly blabbing statements after statements for which you don't have the slightest clue if they 're true or not. You've never reached the level of rational thinking, your thinking is still way down on the primitive level of magical thinking: you're "producing, dictating" reality with your words - which of course doesn't exist. People like you are just incapable of normal verbal intercourse. NO NORMALBRAINED HUMAN BEING WILL EVER BE ABLE TO NORMALLY CONVERSE YOU ( my take is they shoudln't!). Because you're a bully, a dictator, a liar - an intellectually and socially totally underdeveloped crap of a person. Have a good day, zionazi.
Actually I would be surprised if you were not.
Unfortunately a divided nation will always have two sides (at least) and one will end up winning in military confrontation and end up ruling.
It does not have to be that way, of course, but for the most part history tells us that that’s the way it is. Democracy, if it’s not a thing of the pass by them, will perhaps come after years of enforced peace in Iraq.
The thing about this, so much talked about democracy, is that it’s especially vulnerable to corruption, and besides, we modern people have no the time for such thing. Sure, it was a great thing for the Greek society; after all, it was a society of privileged classes, but modern societies are made of working and entertained people… sure, some of us will vote in national elections; a lot less will vote in local ones, and some of us will even donate some money to the campaigns of favorite politicians, but overall, no really.
It’s said democracy is a participatory sport and in fact the system is set up so as few people as possible participate, so at the end it is an extremely flawed social system.
Layla, there is a hard life ahead for you and many other people of Iraq, and unfortunately that is the real future. Of course there is always the wisdom of stopping the resistance and submitting… the fellow posting as octavious titus says “stop blowing up things and the USA forces will leave after reconstruction, leaving behind a democratic Iraq” and “look at other nations previously destroyed by the US might that now are democratic and economic successes, like Germany and Japan”…
It is a sad thing to contemplate for sure!
It's said "Ignorance is bliss"
I am sure you are blissfully happy!
What a giant load of Sophistry, first of all we are not a Democracy we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic, and what makes our system work is that it allows for a pluralist society, Democracy is not an end into itself either it is the means to the ends of liberalism, individualism, and diversity.
Furthermore; a Representative form of governance is much more preferable to a Direct Democracy because it eliminates the possiblity of a tyranny of the masses which I suppose would be prefferable to the tyranny of the minority experienced under the Baathist regime.
Just keep on bullshitting and crapping, crapping and bullshitting, bullshitting and crapping, ..., zionazi. What a zionazi bore!
By the way, it was a post directed to Layla, obviously, and therefore I was not talking about "your" Constitutional Democratic Republic.
As for the end of liberalism, and all that crap of pluralism... perhaps you need to live more in this country of ours.
And that's the end of my conversation with you.
There's no reason to waste a lot of space here debunking your nonsense; as, only a very small remnant of self deluded fools still cling to the tripe you're trying to sale, and the sound of it only serves to identify the few true nut cases like yourself.
So, I'll only reply to a couple of your declarations. As to the WE WON, let me just pass along the words of Sartre on that "Once you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat."
And, if you ever want to really know the reasons behind the US attacks on Iraq, the place to start might be Saddam's Independence Speech, given at the Amman Summit - February 24, 1990.
shadowvoices.net\SVARC\1990-99\2 24 99 saddam.html
阿富汗的國歌叫 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
伊拉克的國歌叫 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
國際國歌叫 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
讓全世界都唱 Yankee&Co GO HOME!
Bush&Blair&Olmert = the coalition of the murdering
the coalition of the willing = the coalition of the evil
Traitors and collaborators have existed and will exist till God claims the Earth and all those on it (it is not an Iraqi thing).
The true Iraqis are the ones who fight the occupation and its cronies with their minds, their hearts, and their lives.
As for Saddam, you need to understand the motives of people like Octavian and his masters in demonizing the legitimate leader of Iraq. They do so out of hatred and jealousy. Hatred that a man would work his whole life to improve his nation and its people; hatred that such a nation sits of abundant natural resources of people, water, and oil; hatred that such a man says no to the will of the occupation and no to its designs...
Thus, they demonize and lie, they lie about his actions and his intentions, they lie about his history and his acheivements...They lie while they scheme to do to his land what they did to the land of the native Americans who are now only remembered in stories...Murder, mayhem, theft, gencide, torture...This is all the heathens know.
No wonder you have no kind words. It's completely understandable. I feel exactly the same way.
Can someone tell me who said this: Bush or Cheney?
"An evil exists that threatens every man,woman, and child of this great country. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland"
I see you still have a collection of anonymous's, with a couple of idiots tagged on.
طعمَ الحليبِ و أنكروا دفءَ الرَّحِمْ
الكافرين بأصلهم و بدينهم
المسلمين ثَرى العروبةِ للعجمْ
العاملين لدى الأعادي سُـخرةً
يتواطأون لأجل تهويد العَـلَمْ
ستُصَبُّ لعناتُ العراق عليهمُ
مطراً تمورُ بهِ شآبيبُ الحُمَمْ
شعر: هدى محمد السعدي
حوارية الألم بين أم (بغداد) و ابنتها الصغرى
و بَنِيَّ - ياللهول- قد قالوا : بِكَـمْ ؟
عَرَضت عليهم " كوندليـزا " قُبحَهـا
قالت : ألستُ بأمكم ؟ قالـوا : نعـمْ
قالوا نعمٌ نعمُ
للشاعرة العربية هوى والاماراتية وطنا : هدى السعدي التي نعرفها نحن في دورية العراق باسم هدى محمد .
Every fibre of my being is quivering with indignation at the sewerage which is being flooded into your blog by all these vomiting liars and diarrhoeic ignoramuses sounding less and less like human beings and more and more like soulless robots as the long dark sleepless night goes by and the new dawn comes nearer ..
And yet .. I will go so far as to say that maybe in a thousand years my soul will be at peace and forgetful of their spiteful tongues, and even of the unspeakable horror of the crimes they applaude .. but never .. ever .. ever .. from now until the end of time .. never will it recover from all the sadness, the pain and the anger at the cruel and vile stab in the back which the degenerates of our own flesh and blood dealt to our common motherland ..
In the end of the nightmare .. I wish the invaders would simply vanish into thin air as the evil spirits they are .. but the Iraqi collaborators be concretely and crudely crushed to a pulp and thrown to feed the dogs in the streets ..
For they had sucked in a pure milk and had the truth flowing in their veins .. and even so, chose to follow the path of ingratitude, denial, treason and dishonor ..
Again, God bless you .. pride and joy of our Nation ..
A Socialist today is in the position of a doctor treating an all but hopeless case. As a doctor, it is his duty to keep the patient alive, and therefore to assume that the patient has at least a chance of recovery. As a scientist, it is his duty to face the facts, and therefore to admit that the patient will probably die. Our activities as Socialists only have meaning if we assume that Socialism can be established, but if we stop to consider what probably will happen, then we must admit, I think, that the chances are against us. If I were a bookmaker, simply calculating the probabilities and leaving my own wishes out of account, I would give odds against the survival of civilization within the next few hundred years. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities ahead of us:
1. That the Americans will decide to use the atomic bomb while they have it and the Russians haven't. This would solve nothing. It would do away with the particular danger that is now presented by the U.S.S.R., but would lead to the rise of new empires, fresh rivalries, more wars, more atomic bombs, etc. In any case this is, I think, the least likely outcome of the three, because a preventive war is a crime not easily committed by a country that retains any traces of democracy.
2. That the present ‘cold war’ will continue until the U.S.S.R., and several other countries, have atomic bombs as well. Then there will only be a short breathing-space before whizz! go the rockets, wallop! go the bombs, and the industrial centres of the world are wiped out, probably beyond repair. Even if any one state, or group of states, emerges from such a war as technical victor, it will probably be unable to build up the machine civilization anew. The world, therefore, will once again be inhabited by a few million, or a few hundred million human beings living by subsistence agriculture, and probably, after a couple of generations, retaining no more of the culture of the past than a knowledge of how to smelt metals. Conceivably this is a desirable outcome, but obviously it has nothing to do with Socialism.
3. That the fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. This seems to me the worst possibility of all. It would mean the division of the world among two or three vast super-states, unable to conquer one another and unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything that the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilizations of this type might remain static for thousands of years.
Most of the dangers that I have outlined existed and were foreseeable long before the atomic bomb was invented. The only way of avoiding them that I can imagine is to present somewhere or other, on a large scale, the spectacle of a community where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power. In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area. But the only area in which it could conceivably be made to work, in any near future, is Western Europe. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the tradition of democratic Socialism can only be said to exist — even there it only exists precariously — in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy. Only in those countries are there still large numbers of people to whom the word ‘Socialism’ has some appeal, and for whom it is bound up with liberty, equality, and internationalism. Elsewhere it either has no foot-hold or it means something different. In North America the masses are contented with capitalism, and one cannot tell what turn they will take when capitalism begins to collapse. In the U.S.S.R. there prevails a sort of oligarchical collectivism which could only develop into democratic Socialism against the will of the ruling minority. Into Asia even the word ‘Socialism’ has barely penetrated. The Asiatic nationalist movements are either Fascist in character, or look towards Moscow, or manage to combine both attitudes: and at present all movements among the coloured peoples are tinged by racial mysticism. In most of South America the position is essentially similar, so is it in Africa and the Middle East. Socialism does not exist anywhere, but even as an idea it is at present valid only in Europe. Of course, Socialism cannot properly be said to be established until it is world-wide, but the process must begin somewhere, and I cannot imagine it beginning except through the federation of the western European states, transformed into Socialist republics without colonial dependencies. Therefore a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worth-while political objective today. Such a federation would contain about 250 million people, including perhaps half the skilled industrial workers of the world. I do not need to be told that the difficulties of bringing any such thing into being are enormous and terrifying, and I will list some of them in a moment. But we ought not to feel that it is of its nature impossible, or that countries so different from one another would not voluntarily unite. A western European union is in itself a less improbable concatenation than the Soviet Union or the British Empire.
Now as to the difficulties. The greatest difficulty of all is the apathy and conservatism of people everywhere, their unawareness of danger, their inability to imagine anything new — in general, as Bertrand Russell put it recently, the unwillingness of the human race to acquiesce in its own survival. But there are also active malignant forces working against European unity, and there are existing economic relationships on which the European peoples depend for their standard of life and which are not compatible with true Socialism. I list what seem to me to be the four main obstacles, explaining each of them as shortly as I can mange:
1. Russian hostility. The Russians cannot but be hostile to any European union not under their own control. The reasons, both the pretended and the real ones, are obvious. One has to count, therefore, with the danger of a preventive war, with the systematic terrorizing of the smaller nations, and with the sabotage of the Communist Parties everywhere. Above all there is the danger that the European masses will continue to believe in the Russian myth. As long as they believe it, the idea of a Socialist Europe will not be sufficiently magnetic to call forth the necessary effort.
2. American hostility. If the United States remains capitalist, and especially if it needs markets for exports, it cannot regard a Socialist Europe with a friendly eye. No doubt it is less likely than the U.S.S.R. to intervene with brute force, but American pressure is an important factor because it can be exerted most easily on Britain, the one country in Europe which is outside the Russian orbit. Since 1940 Britain has kept its feet against the European dictators at the expense of becoming almost a dependency of the U.S.A. Indeed, Britain can only get free of America by dropping the attempt to be an extra-European power. The English-speaking Dominions, the colonial dependencies, except perhaps in Africa, and even Britain's supplies of oil, are all hostages in American hands. Therefore there is always the danger that the United States will break up any European coalition by drawing Britain out of it.
3. Imperialism. The European peoples, and especially the British, have long owed their high standard of life to direct or indirect exploitation of the coloured peoples. This relationship has never been made clear by official Socialist propaganda, and the British worker, instead of being told that, by world standards, he is living above his income, has been taught to think of himself as an overworked, down-trodden slave. To the masses everywhere ‘Socialism’ means, or at least is associated with, higher wages, shorter hours, better houses, all-round social insurance, etc. etc. But it is by no means certain that we can afford these things if we throw away the advantages we derive from colonial exploitation. However evenly the national income is divided up, if the income as a whole falls, the working-class standard of living must fall with it. At best there is liable to be a long and uncomfortable reconstruction period for which public opinion has nowhere been prepared. But at the same time the European nations must stop being exploiters abroad if they are to build true Socialism at home. The first step toward a European Socialist federation is for the British to get out of India. But this entails something else. If the United States of Europe is to be self-sufficient and able to hold its own against Russian and America, it must include Africa and the Middle East. But that means that the position of the indigenous peoples in those countries must be changed out of recognition — that Morocco or Nigeria or Abyssiania must cease to be colonies or semi-colonies and become autonomous republics on a complete equality with the European peoples. This entails a vast change of outlook and a bitter, complex struggle which is not likely to be settled without bloodshed. When the pinch comes the forces of imperialism will turn out to be extremely strong, and the British worker, if he has been taught to think of Socialism in materialistic terms, may ultimately decide that it is better to remain an imperial power at the expense of playing second fiddle to America. In varying degrees all the European peoples, at any rate those who are to form part of the proposed union, will be faced with the same choice.
4. The Catholic Church. As the struggle between East and West becomes more naked, there is danger that democratic Socialists and mere reactionaries will be driven into combining in a sort of Popular Front. The Church is the likeliest bridge between them. In any case the Church will make every effort to capture and sterilize any movement aiming at European unity. The dangerous thing about the Church is that it is not reactionary in the ordinary sense. It is not tied to laissez-faire capitalism or to the existing class system, and will not necessarily perish with them. It is perfectly capable of coming to terms with Socialism, or appearing to do so, provided that its own position is safeguarded. But if it is allowed to survive as a powerful organization, it will make the establishment of true Socialism impossible, because its influence is and always must be against freedom of thought and speech, against human equality, and against any form of society tending to promote earthly happiness.
When I think of these and other difficulties, when I think of the enormous mental readjustment that would have to be made, the appearance of a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me a very unlikely event. I don't mean that the bulk of the people are not prepared for it, in a passive way. I mean that I see no person or group of persons with the slightest chance of attaining power and at the same time with the imaginative grasp to see what is needed and to demand the necessary sacrifices from their followers. But I also can't at present see any other hopeful objective. At one time I believed that it might be possible to form the British Empire into a federation of Socialist republics, but if that chance ever existed, we lost it by failing to liberate India, and by our attitude toward the coloured peoples generally. It may be that Europe is finished and that in the long run some better form of society will arise in India or China. But I believe that it is only in Europe, if anywhere, that democratic Socialism could be made a reality in short enough time to prevent the dropping of the atom bombs.
Of course, there are reasons, if not for optimism, at least for suspending judgement on certain points. One thing in our favour is that a major war is not likely to happen immediately. We could, I suppose, have the kind of war that consists in shooting rockets, but not a war involving the mobilization of tens of millions of men. At present any large army would simply melt away, and that may remain true for ten or even twenty years. Within that time some unexpected things might happen. For example, a powerful Socialist movement might for the first time arise in the United States as ‘capitalistic’, with the implication that this is something unalterable, a sort of racial characteristic like the colour of eyes or hair. But in fact it cannot be unalterable, since capitalism itself has manifestly no future, and we cannot be sure in advance that the next change in the United States will not be a change for the better.
Then, again, we do not know what changes will take place in the U.S.S.R. if war can be staved off for the next generation or so. In a society of that type, a radical change of outlook always seems unlikely, not only because there can be no open opposition but because the régime, with its complete hold over education, news, etc. deliberately aims at preventing the pendulum swing between generations which seems to occur naturally in liberal societies. But for all we know the tendency one generation to reject the ideas of the last is an abiding human characteristic which even the N.K.V.D. will be unable to eradicate. In that case there may by 1960 be millions of young Russians who are bored by dictatorship and loyalty parades, eager for more freedom, and friendly in their attitude towards the West.
Or again, it is even possible that if the world falls apart into three unconquerable super-states, the liberal tradition will be strong enough within the Anglo-American section of the world to make life tolerable and even offer some hope of progress. But all this is speculation. The actual outlook, so far as I can calculate the probabilities, is very dark, and any serious thought should start out from that fact.
It was NOT the Iraqi national Resistance, you simple-minded boor.
It was YET AGAIN the same old CIA/Mossad/Iranian backed, armed and trained "El Salvador Option" battalion, also known by its code name "Al Qaeda".
How many times do we have to explain to you the difference and ABSOLUTE incompatibility between those two forces on the battlefield ?
Also, how many times do we have to "reassure" you (as if you gave a fuck ..) that the former itself bears NO ill-feelings to the US as a nation but ONLY as a colonial empire ?
In fact, can you understand the language of Shakespeare or must we start addressing you in Texan dialect in order to pass the most elementary concepts through your thick skull ?
Man .. aren't you impossible !
Would it be hell?
Pride & Joy isn't that a song that Stevie Ray Vaughan put out?
lmfao, ya AQ in Iraq is really working for the Mossad and the U.S. what a bunch of crap, your conspiratorial rhetoric aside, your entire insurgency targets civilians, you are not freedom fighters because you do not fight for freedom, you fight for a tyranny of the minority, you murder dually elected representatives of the Iraqi people, you fight against constitutional governance based on natural rights and for the memory of a despotic tyrant who ruled under no law but his own. Baathists, Qutbists, Wahhabists, Shia extremesists in the Sadre Army, you're all descended from the Reich and you ALL fight for tyranny.
by F.A. Hayek
Planning and Power
IN ORDER to achieve their ends, the planners must create power—power over men wielded by other men—of a magnitude never before known. Their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning- and democracy.
Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be "no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors." There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?
In every real sense a badly paid unskilled workman in this country has more freedom to shape his life than many an employer in Germany or a much better paid engineer or manager in Russia. If he wants to change his job or the place where he lives, if he wants to profess certain views or spend his leisure in a particular way, he faces no absolute impediments. There are no dangers to bodily security and freedom that confine him by brute force to the task and environment to which a superior has assigned him. Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.
Background to Danger
INDIVIDUALISM, in contrast to socialism and all other forms of totalitarianism, is based on the respect of Christianity for the individual man and the belief that it is desirable that men should be free to develop their own individual gifts and bents. This philosophy, first fully developed during the Renaissance, grew and spread into what we know as Western civilization. The general direction of social development was one of freeing the individual from the ties which bound him in feudal society.
Perhaps the greatest result of this unchaining of individual energies was the marvelous growth of science. Only since industrial freedom opened the path to the free use of new knowledge, only since everything could be tried - if somebody could be found to back it at his own risk — has science made the great strides which in the last 150 years have changed the face of the world. The result of this growth surpassed all expectations. Wherever the barriers to the Gee exercise of human ingenuity were removed, man became rapidly able to satisfy ever-widening ranges of desire. By the, beginning of the 20th century the workingman in the Western World had reached a degree of material comfort, security and personal independence which 100 years before had hardly seemed possible. The effect of this success was to create among men a new sense of power over their own fate, the belief in the unbounded possibilities of improving their own lot. What had been achieved came to be regarded as a secure and imperishable possession, acquired once and for all; and the rate of progress began to seem too slow. Moreover, the principles which had made this progress possible came to be regarded as obstacles to speedier progress, impatiently to be brushed away. It might be said that the very success of liberalism became the cause of its decline.
No sensible person should have doubted that the economic principles of the 19th century-were only a beginning — that there were immense possibilities of advancement on the lines on which we had moved. But according to the views now dominant, the question is no longer how we can make the best use of the spontaneous forces found in a free society. We have in effect undertaken to dispense with these forces and to replace them by collective and "conscious" direction. It is significant that this abandonment of liberalism, whether expressed as socialism in its more radical form or merely as "organization" or "planning," was perfected in Germany. During the last quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th, Germany moved far ahead in both the theory and the practice of socialism, so that even today Russian discussion largely carries on where the Germans left off. The Germans, long before the Nazis, were attacking liberalism and democracy, capitalism and individualism.
Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first put into practice by the socialists. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking. It was not the Fascists but the socialists who first thought of organizing sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by their organization of "cells" and devices for the permanent supervision of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party. By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable but that to strive for it produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."
It is disquieting to see in England and the United States today the same drawing together of forces and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense. "Conservative socialism" was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded. It is "conservative socialism" which is the dominant trend among- us now.
The Liberal Way of Planning
"PLANNING" owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems with as much foresight as possible. The dispute between the modern planners and the liberals is not on whether we ought to employ systematic thinking in planning our affairs. It is a dispute about what is the best way of so doing. The question is whether we should create conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether we should direct and organize all economic activities according to a "blue-print," that is, "consciously direct the resources of society to conform to the planners' particular views of who should have what."
It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument does not advocate leaving things just as they are; it favors making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of coordinating human efforts. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the past nor the existing legal rules are free from grave defects. Liberalism is opposed, however, to supplanting competition by inferior methods of guiding economic activity. And it regards competition as superior not only because in most circumstances it is the most efficient method known but because it is the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. It dispenses with the need for "conscious social control" and gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages connected with it. The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity. This does not mean that it is possible to find some "middle way" between competition and central direction, though nothing seems at first more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable people. Mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in this field. Although competition can bear some admixture of regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete, and a mixture of the two - means that neither will work. Planning and competition can be combined only by planning for competition, not by planning against competition. The planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning against competition.
The Great Utopia
THERE CAN BE no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives—the craving for freedom — socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom." Socialism was to bring "economic freedom," without which political freedom was "not worth having."
To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive system is being progressively abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road to planning.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."
No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.
Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything — the whole direction of the resources of the nation-for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible than, for instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure. As in strategy it would become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. And even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole. There will be a stronger and stronger demand that some board or some single individual should be given power to act on their own responsibility. The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning. Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain that the vote will go in the direction he desires. Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible. There is no justification for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial qualities, the power must also be limited. A true "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if democratic in form, if it undertook centrally to direct the economic system, would probably destroy personal freedom as completely as any autocracy has ever done.
Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently subordinated. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this fact in wartime, when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run. The fashionable phrases about doing for the purposes of peace what we have learned.to do for the purposes of war are completely misleading, for it is sensible temporarily to sacrifice freedom in order to make it more secure in the future, but it is quite a different thing to sacrifice liberty permanently in the interests of a planned economy.
To those who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters, the connection between the two systems is obvious. The realization of the socialist program means the destruction of freedom. Democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is simply not achievable.
The Tight Ass TraJan writes:
“"crook nose," is that some sort of anti-semetic [Semitic] slite [slight]? lmfao, to bad I'm not even Jewish.”
You might as well be for you are spewing forth the standard Jewish/Zionist rhetoric that your ilk has been flooding the global mind with for the past century.
Divide and rule (or conquer) by way of deception has been the guiding principle of the International Jewish program for global hegemony since time immemorial and Iraq is a prime example, along with the ME, Africa, South/Central America, etc. of this methodology.
Tight Ass you're just another pathetic example of either a brainwashed bigot or a deceiving Jew whose mandate is to lie and cheat all Gentiles and lay waste to legitimate nation-states.
To quote a recent writer of great courage and humanity (Layla Anwar): FUCK OFF!
"Pride & Joy isn't that a song that Stevie Ray Vaughan put out?"
Not that I recall.
Be honest, do you think I should "de-flower" my language a little bit ? ;-)
So now Hayek who is opposed to authoritarianims in all its forms is part of your grand Jewish conspiracy? Seriously how far does this conspiracy go? Does it involve everyone you don't agree with? Those raskily Jews sure do get around don't they? I mean somehow they are behind every one of your political opponents, my how conveneint for your argument that anyone with an opposing view can be deemed part of your conspiracy theory and deemed an enemy. Freaking lunatic.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny. Sec. 199.
AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion. Sec. 200. If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James the first, in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus, I will ever prefer the weal of the public, and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant: for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people, And again, in his speech to the parliament, 1609, he hath these words, The king binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as well the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly, by his oath at his coronation, so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge. Hereafter, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease while the earth remaineth. And therefore a king governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws, And a little after, Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests both against them and the commonwealth. Thus that learned king, who well understood the notion of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public, the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite. Sec. 201. It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better. Sec. 202. Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong. Sec. 203. May the commands then of a prince be opposed? may he be resisted as often as any one shall find himself aggrieved, and but imagine he has not right done him? This will unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion. Sec. 204. To this I answer, that force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case, draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man; and so no such danger or confusion will follow, as is often suggested: for, Sec. 205. First, As, in some countries, the person of the prince by the law is sacred; and so, whatever he commands or does, his person is still free from all question or violence, not liable to force, or any judicial censure or condemnation. But yet opposition may be made to the illegal acts of any inferior officer, or other commissioned by him; unless he will, by actually putting himself into a state of war with his people, dissolve the government, and leave them to that defence which belongs to every one in the state of nature: for of such things who can tell what the end will be? and a neighbour kingdom has shewed the world an odd example. In all other cases the sacredness of the person exempts him from all inconveniencies, whereby he is secure, whilst the government stands, from all violence and harm whatsoever; than which there cannot be a wiser constitution: for the harm he can do in his own person not being likely to happen often, nor to extend itself far; nor being able by his single strength to subvert the laws, nor oppress the body of the people, should any prince have so much weakness, and ill nature as to be willing to do it, the inconveniency of some particular mischiefs, that may happen sometimes, when a heady prince comes to the throne, are well recompensed by the peace of the public, and security of the government, in the person of the chief magistrate, thus set out of the reach of danger: it being safer for the body, that some few private men should be sometimes in danger to suffer, than that the head of the republic should be easily, and upon slight occasions, exposed. Sec. 206. Secondly, But this privilege, belonging only to the king's person, hinders not, but they may be questioned, opposed, and resisted, who use unjust force, though they pretend a commission from him, which the law authorizes not; as is plain in the case of him that has the king's writ to arrest a man, which is a full commission from the king; and yet he that has it cannot break open a man's house to do it, nor execute this command of the king upon certain days, nor in certain places, though this commission have no such exception in it; but they are the limitations of the law, which if any one transgress, the king's commission excuses him not: for the king's authority being given him only by the law, he cannot impower any one to act against the law, or justify him, by his commission, in so doing; the commission, or command of any magistrate, where he has no authority, being as void and insignificant, as that of any private man; the difference between the one and the other, being that the magistrate has some authority so far, and to such ends, and the private man has none at all: for it is not the commission, but the authority, that gives the right of acting; and against the laws there can be no authority. But, notwithstanding such resistance, the king's person and authority are still both secured, and so no danger to governor or government, Sec. 207. Thirdly, Supposing a government wherein the person of the chief magistrate is not thus sacred; yet this doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his power, will not upon every slight occasion indanger him, or imbroil the government: for where the injured party may be relieved, and his damages repaired by appeal to the law, there can be no pretence for force, which is only to be used where a man is intercepted from appealing to the law: for nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100l. to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100l. that way. Sec. 208. Fourthly, But if the unlawful acts done by the magistrate be maintained (by the power he has got), and the remedy which is due by law, be by the same power obstructed; yet the right of resisting, even in such manifest acts of tyranny, will not suddenly, or on slight occasions, disturb the government: for if it reach no farther than some private men's cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them; yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest, wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one, or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving mad-man, or heady malcontent to overturn a well settled state; the people being as little apt to follow the one, as the other. Sec. 209. But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too; how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force, used against them, I cannot tell. This is an inconvenience, I confess, that attends all governments whatsoever, when the governors have brought it to this pass, to be generally suspected of their people; the most dangerous state which they can possibly put themselves in. wherein they are the less to be pitied, because it is so easy to be avoided; it being as impossible for a governor, if he really means the good of his people, and the preservation of them, and their laws together, not to make them see and feel it, as it is for the father of a family, not to let his children see he loves, and takes care of them. Sec. 210. But if all the world shall observe pretences of one kind, and actions of another; arts used to elude the law, and the trust of prerogative (which is an arbitrary power in some things left in the prince's hand to do good, not harm to the people) employed contrary to the end for which it was given: if the people shall find the ministers and subordinate magistrates chosen suitable to such ends, and favoured, or laid by, proportionably as they promote or oppose them: if they see several experiments made of arbitrary power, and that religion underhand favoured, (tho' publicly proclaimed against) which is readiest to introduce it; and the operators in it supported, as much as may be; and when that cannot be done, yet approved still, and liked the better: if a long train of actions shew the councils all tending that way; how can a man any more hinder himself from being persuaded in his own mind, which way things are going; or from casting about how to save himself, than he could from believing the captain of the ship he was in, was carrying him, and the rest of the company, to Algiers, when he found him always steering that course, though cross winds, leaks in his ship, and want of men and provisions did often force him to turn his course another way for some time, which he steadily returned to again, as soon as the wind, weather, and other circumstances would let him?
Germen meretricis intereo dolens quod ustulo in abyssus!
trajan etc i dont think layla approves of copy n paste jobs...unless its by george orwell n i post it...n the treatise is a load of crap neway....i cud probably make a better one if i wanted
what the fuck is wrong with u??
do you read uruk.net?
Be good to بنت الرافدين !
do you read uruk.net?
Be good to بنت الرافدين !
only when sum1 links a story to it...
what does: "بنت الرافدين " mean??
BTW, without knowing a people's language you can't understand and fully appreciate its culture.
not sure i agree......if sum iraqis moved into my neighbourhood and we were neighbours for a good number of years i think i would have a pretty good understanding of iraqi culture & psyche....
neway im off 2 bed, lots to do tommorrow!!
Layla has called and she’s in Italy with some friends. For those who don’t know what Layla looks like, she sends this video of her and friends chatting. She’ll be back to the blog in 3 weeks. Layla is the one dressed in white.
(you may have to cut/paste url into browser)
we are all super-delighted that the operation of cutting off your cojones has been so successful. Wow, what a beautiful voice you have now! I happened to listen to your singing La cucaracha and I found you formidable. So if your blues befall you again, just cut off your carajo, put it in the freezer and sing happily the old sweet song La cucaracha...
I don't Know then.
No your flowers are fine thank you.
“Blessed is the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: My goodness, and my fortress, my high tower, and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I trust who subdueth mine enemies under me." -- Psalm 144:1-2
Friedrich A. Hayek
"It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought. Their system was developed with ruthless consistency. Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization." -- Hayek
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny. Sec. 199.
AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion. -- John Locke 1790
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ... speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair., Federalist No. 29
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [ when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. in Federalist Paper No. 28
The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution. -- Federalist Paper No. 69
Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others." -- Publius Valerius Publicola The Federalist No. 34
There's cartoons, I wish you could put up pics here:
Though my Hellenist principles will not allow me to call you my queen . . . Dear sovereign of Cnidus:
Never have I heard a more eloquent portrayal of the the problems and the solutions now presented in the greater Middle East which my countrymen have now been forced to contemplate. It is my hope that King Abdullah the second is sincere in his promise to adopt his fathers resolve for democratic reform and, also, I hope that the solution to these problems through the democratization of the Middle East will be achieved through peaceful ends as they are in your country, rather than through the coercive measures which my government has now been forced to implement.
Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 34
`In our time the destiny of man presents its meanings in
political terms' - Thomas Mann
HOW can I, that girl standing there,
My attention fix
On Roman or on Russian
Or on Spanish politics?
Yet here's a travelled man that knows
What he talks about,
And there's a politician
That has read and thought,
And maybe what they say is true
Of war and war's alarms,
But O that I were young again
And held her in my arms!
King And No King
WOULD it were anything but merely voice!'
The No King cried who after that was King,
Because he had not heard of anything
That balanced with a word is more than noise;
Yet Old Romance being kind, let him prevail
Somewhere or somehow that I have forgot,
Though he'd but cannon - Whereas we that had thought
To have lit upon as clean and sweet a tale
Have been defeated by that pledge you gave
In momentary anger long ago;
And I that have not your faith, how shall I know
That in the blinding light beyond the grave
We'll find so good a thing as that we have lost?
The hourly kindness, the day's common speech.
The habitual content of each with each
Men neither soul nor body has been crossed.
To A Young Beauty
DEAR fellow-artist, why so free
With every sort of company,
With every Jack and Jill?
Choose your companions from the best;
Who draws a bucket with the rest
Soon topples down the hill.
You may, that mirror for a school,
Be passionate, not bountiful
As common beauties may,
Who were not born to keep in trim
With old Ezekiel's cherubim
But those of Beauvarlet.
I know what wages beauty gives,
How hard a life her setvant lives,
Yet praise the winters gone:
There is not a fool can call me friend,
And I may dine at journey's end
With Landor and with Donne.
Trajan Octavian Titus
P.S. You can help an injured American soldier by donating to the intrepid fallen heroes fund which uses 100% of the donations recieved to build a hospital for injured veterans:
2:47 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove
I am your god bow down.
Obtaining and Maintaining New and Mixed Principalities:
Machiavelli wanted there to be a unified Italy and dedicated his book The Prince to Lorenzo di Piero de Medici of the Medici family who were the ruling class of Italy at the time. The Prince was written as a detailed explanation of how the Prince should come to power and unify Italy. It was less theoretical than earlier works and was written specifically for Italy at that time in the world by using historical examples of what the Prince ought and ought not to do. At the time The Prince was written Italy was in a state of great political strife. The Italian City-States of Florence, Venice, Milan, and Naples were each vying for the control of Italy, so to, did the foreign powers of France and Spain, as well as, the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. It was all of these different power centers in their grabs for control over Italy through the use of political maneuvering, crime, and violence that led to such a climate of political instability. And the infighting between the Italian city-states left Italy weak and vulnerable to foreign invasion. At a time when Machiavelli had reentered Florence, Italy had been invaded by King Charles VIII of France and in fact it was another French king named Louis XII who committed the five fatal errors in statecraft which are listed in The Prince and for his errors he was subsequently driven out of Italy. Foreign invasions, infighting between the different city states, and the influence of the Catholic Church each presented different problems that must be overcome in order for the Prince to unify Italy and maintain his control over the populace. Cesare Borgia who had brought the city states of Romagna in central Italy into tow was one of the major influences for Machiavelli for how the prince should rule, because he displayed the characteristics of both fortuna and virtu.
Machiavelli identifies three forms of Principalities that the Prince will encounter; that of the hereditary principality, the new and mixed principality, and the ecclesiastical principality. Machiavelli argues that the hereditary principality which is obtained through inheritance and birthright is the easiest to maintain because the citizenry has a pre-existing loyalty to the ancestry of the Prince. In relation to unifying Italy the most important principality is that of the new and mixed Principalities which are new territories obtained through military or civil means. Machiavelli lists four ways in which to obtain a new principality, by that of his own arms, the arms of others, by evil means, and by civil means.
To obtain new principalities through ones prowess the new ruler may be tempted to set up new forms of governments, however, Machiavelli urges against this, because people dislike change and, also, once the people realize that the ruler can not make good on all of his promises it will lead to civil unrest that is why Machiavelli recommends that for those principalities acquired through prowess or fortuna should be maintained through force. Machiavelli would argue that if one must use force to acquire and maintain new territory then it would be best to use native troops because they have an inherent loyalty to the prince and to his kingdom, though foreign troops may be employed if needed they still have a loyalty to a foreign power and therefore can not be relied upon as heavily as native troops, mercenaries, according to Machiavelli, are the worst type of troops to be used, because they owe their loyalty to nothing and no one and only fight for money therefore they are less likely to be willing to die for the cause of the Prince.
For new principalities acquired through evil means Machiavelli argues that the Prince may gain power but not glory. When a new territory is acquired by crime there will be no one to trust that is why Machiavelli argues that such territories should be maintained through cruelty but that proper cruelty must be done early and quickly in such as way as to obtain the goal without making putting the people under in an environment in which they feel under constant threat. Cruelty should be inflicted early and quickly all at once in order to avoid becoming hated by the citizenry and rewards should be doled out selectively little by little.
For a new principality acquired through civic means and popular support Machiavelli argues that this power comes from the antithesis goals of the people wishing not wanting to be oppressed and the nobles wishing to oppress. From these to contradictory wishes there can come three forms of government that of Monarch, Democracy, and Anarchy. Civil principalities are formed either when the nobles appoint one of their own to lead the people, or when the people elect one of their own to protect themselves from the nobles; furthermore, Machiavelli argues that the a ruler who comes to power through the former is less secure because the nobles will consider themselves to be equal to the new Prince but a prince who comes to power through the latter is more secure because the peoples only ambition is that they be protected from the tyranny of the nobles. If the prince comes to power through the nobles he must divide the unsupportive nobles into two separate groups that of those with weak character and those with ambition. Machiavelli argues that the nobles with weak character can be used but those who dislike the Prince because of their own ambition must be looked upon as enemies. In either case whether the prince is elected by the nobles or by the citizenry he must take care to win over and maintain the good will of the people and the easiest way to do this is by not doing them excessive harm.
W. B. Yeats
I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse.
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vain-glorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
A terrible beauty is born.
Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter, seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute change.
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim;
And a horse plashes within it
Where long-legged moor-hens dive
And hens to moor-cocks call.
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.
Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death.
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead.
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse --
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
Several posts on this site are completely irrelevant and utterly boring.
Hala, I would respectfully suggest you don't bother to address some of the things being said here - it's an absolute waste of time. While all the copied and pasted stuff is being regurgitated here, innocent Iraqis continue to lose their lives, courtesy of the greatest crime to be committed in the history of mankind - not forgetting the 'sanctions' imposed on Iraq by both the US and UK.
Hello Savage and Jr. I hope you are both well.
Oh really? Then explain the 80 dead civilians in the market. That's the insurgents doing. Don't even try to pin that bullshit on us.
You act like you're the only ones with a dog in this fight.
Everything not in italic is my words copied and pasted from another site.
Today I will be discussing the history of the Israeli Arab conflict which has been going on for a little over half a century, though the history of the story spans as far back as the Jewish expulsion from Judea by the Romans during the 1st century I will start from the beginning of the Zionist movement and end with the situation as it stands today.
Zionism which is the movement dedicated to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine became very popular between the inter-war period between 1917 and 1939 and many European Jews moved out of Europe and into Palestine after the Balfour declaration which established British policy to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine, however, when WW2 broke out the British, who had acquired Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after Turkeys defeat in WW1, made the immigration of Jews to Palestine illegal. The thought here was that the Jews were far less likely to take the side of an anti-Semitic Nazi Germany than were the Arab Muslims who now resided in Palestine and were angered by the large influx of Jewish immigration into a Muslim land, however, after the true horrors of the holocaust were fully realized the immigration of Jews to Palestine was reestablished with the U.N. support of a partition plan in which Palestine would be divided into two zones one Muslim and the other Jewish leaving Jerusalem in the control of a U.N. sanctioned international body. Unfortunately, the Arabs reject this partition plan and on May 15, 1948 when the British mandate on Palestine ends the Israeli Jews declare their independence and announce their new state of Israel. Thus begins the Israeli war of independence between Zionist Jews and the Palestinian Muslims backed by the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Against overwhelming odds out manned and outgunned a mere half million Israelis manage to repel the Arab states with populations numbering over 40 million. In 1949 an armistice is signed giving the Israelis control over 77% of Palestine and leaving the remaining 22% in Egyptian and Jordanian hands. Wars end brings about the displacement of 600,000 Jews and 600,000 Palestinians. The Jewish refugees are absorbed by the newly created state of Israel while the Palestinian refugees are rejected by their Arab neighbors who instead of integrating them into society place them into refugee camps with the hopes of one day using their numbers to be used as fedayeen in a future war against Israel (Jewish Virtual Library ).
Even after the armistice is signed the Arab states still refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist. Soon after led by Gamal Abdul Nasser a group of Egyptian officers undertakes a military Coup de’ta against the Egyptian king Farouke. Under Nasser young Palestinians, soon to become known as Fedayeen, are recruited to spy and commit sabotage against Israel. In 1956 as part of a French and British coalition Israel fights a war against Egypt as a response to the Egyptian’s losing of the Suez canal and the Fedayeen terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, as well as, eth Egyptian blockade of the Straights of Tiran (Israel’s only trade route to the Eastern half of the world). The war ends with the Suez canal still in Egyptian hands, however, the straights of Tiran had been reopened and the Israelis agree to pull out of the Sinai Peninsula in return for Israeli freedom of shipment (Palestinian Facts)
Upon False reports by the Soviets of an Israeli military build up on the Syrian border Egyptian troops move into the Sinai Peninsula and in 1967 fighting again erupts between Egyptian and Israeli forces as the result of a preemptive strike by the Israelis for the Egyptian’s again closing the Straights of Tiran. Nasser turns to the Soviet block for military support and the Soviets commit weapons to the Egyptian military hoping to show the benefits of Soviet Support in the Arab world and thus turns the Israeli conflict into an intricate part of the cold war. Following Israeli air strikes against Egyptian targets Israeli, ground troops then invade and capture both the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula. After the shelling of Israeli targets by both Syria and Jordan Israel seizes the Golan Heights and the West Bank. At wars end approximately 300,000 more Palestinians find themselves as refugees. On October 1, 1970 Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt dies and is replaced by his successor Anwar Saddat and Saddat reestablishes communications between Egypt and the United States (Palestinian Facts).
In 1973 tensions between Egypt and Israel reach a boiling point and the Syrians and Egyptians launch a coordinated attack against Israel to regain territories lost during the war of 1967, however, the Israeli army repels the early attacks and with the subsequent Israeli counter attack that was to follow the Israeli forces manage to destroy the Syrian and encircle the Egyptians. The Israelis were now in a position to take the Syrian and Egyptian capitals of Damascus and Cairo. Only the threat of a Soviet military intervention would lead to a cease fire. On November 9, 1977 President Saddat makes an unprecedented speech to the Egyptian Parliament. In his speech he announces that he will speak with the Israelis directly and actually go to Israel itself to negotiate for peace. During the seven month long peace talks Israel agrees to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for Egypt’s recognition of the state of Israel.. The peace between the two nations would prove to be a lasting one, however, two years after the signing of the historic peace accord militant Muslim extremists angered at the new found Egyptian peace with Israel assassinate Anwar Saddat. (Jewish Virtual Library).
The year 1964 saw the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, an organization who’s original intent was to bring about the destruction of the Israeli state. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat who gained control of the P.L.O. along with several other guerrilla organizations, amass in Jordan with the intent of overthrowing the government of King Hussein and after the hijackers of 3 western airliners force the planes to land in Jordan, King Hussein finally decides that he’s had enough and on September 16, 1970 Jordan declares war on the P.L.O.. Soon after Syria joins the fray on the side of the Palestinians and they send tanks across the Jordanian border. With no other recourse King Hussein turns to the Americans for help but not wanting to risk a war with the Soviets the Americans decline to intervene. Instead of helping themselves the Americans ask Hussein if it was possible for the Israelis to intervene. Hussein was stuck between a rock and a hard place either he could accept help form a hated enemy or lose control over his entire country. In the end Hussein accepts the Israeli offers to intervene and the Israelis send jets over the Syrian tanks in Jordan. Without the Israelis even firing a shot the Syrian tanks turn back. Now Hussein still had to deal with the removal of the Palestinians from Jordan. And after a meeting in Cairo between the P.L.O., Arab delegates and King Hussein, Arafat agrees to leave the capital of Beirut where he would continue to strike at Israeli targets (Palestinian Facts ).
In 1974 a succession of Palestinian raids launched from Lebanon into Israel prompts the Israelis to shift their defensive strategy from the borders of Syria and Jordan to the border of Lebanon. In 1975 civil war breaks out in Lebanon between Christian militias and the Palestinian backed Lebanese Muslims. Desperate for allies in the Arab world, along with their wishes to remove Palestinian terrorist elements out of Lebanon, Israel decides to back the Christians against the Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims. Soon after the Israelis invade Lebanon but for diplomatic reasons are unable to conquer the capital of Beirut, however, under the military leadership of Ariele Sharone the Israelis encircle the city to root out the Palestinian terrorists based there. After Israeli forces lay siege to the city for nine weeks even Lebanese Muslims demand the withdraw of the Palestinian forces from Beirut. And in 1982 the P.L.O. withdraws from Lebanon, however, soon after Bashir Jamal, Israel’s ally and the Lebanese presidential elect, is assassinated and the Christian militia men seek revenge in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla and on September 16, 1982 they slaughter many innocent men, women, and children while Israeli soldiers stand by and do nothing. This action or lack there of would lay the foundation for a deep seeded hatred of Ariel Sharone throughout the Arab world (Msn Encarta). There continues to be strife between Israel and Lebanon even after Israel fully withdrew their forces in 2000 in accordance with U.N. resolution 425, however, there is still dispute over the Shebaa Farms which Israel claims to be part of Syria and not subject to resolution 425, furthermore, Hezbollah has used this as a pretext not to follow U.N. resolution 1559 which calls for them to disarm. The dispute over the Shebaa Farms prompted cross border raids and rocket attacks by Hezbollah that instigated the short Israeli-Lebanese war of 2006.
In 1985 Israel seeks to extend the peace they had made with Egypt to Jordan and the Palestinians. However, after peace negotiations break down discouraged Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied territories begin the First Entifada (Arabic for uprising). These violent demonstrations along with P.L.O. terrorist operations sends Israel into a state of chaos and Israeli troops are sent to squash the rebellion. After the Entifada the P.L.O. realizes that street rioting nor acts of terrorism would help their agenda and on December 13, 1988 the P.L.O. renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. However, Israeli Prime Minister Perez still remained skeptical of Palestinian intentions and the Israeli doubts of Arrafat’s sincerity turn out to be well founded when in 1990 after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait Saddam Hussein pledges to destroy Israel and receives support from none other than the leader of the P.L.O. Yasser Arafat. After the U.N. victory in the Gulf War president George Herbert Walker Bush brings the Arabs and the Israelis back to the peace table as part of an international peace talk and on October 13, 1991 for the first time Palestinians were invited to the negotiations in Madrid. The peace negotiations between the Syrians and the Israelis quickly break down, however, the talks between Israel, the Jordanians, and the Palestinians prove to be a great success and lead to a series of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiations in Oslo Norway. These negotiations led to the signing of the 1993 Oslo peace accords by Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and the P.L.O. leader Yasser Arafat. Things seemed to be going well for the peace process, the Israelis had pulled out of the West Bank and the Gaza strip and the Jordanians recognized Israel’s right to exist, however, in 1995 the peace talks came to a screeching halt after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli extremist. And the 2000 camp David summit between the new Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat failed to reach any type of agreement what so ever. On September 28, 2000 a second Entifada known as the Al Aqsa Entifada breaks out with more suicide bombings initiated by militant Muslim groups then ever before. This led to the Israeli military under the leadership of the new hard line prime minister Ariele Sharone reoccupying the West, Bank, imposing strict military law, and sealing off the Gaza strip. More recently, however, with the death of Yasser Arafat and the rise of his successor Mahmoud Abbas the Israelis and Palestinians went back to the peace table and the Israelis agreed to pull out of most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. However, due to anger over the security wall, and because of the percieved corruption of the Abbas’s Fatah party the Palestinians elected Hamas into power which the U.S., Israel, and the E.U. consider to be a terrorist organization which caused the cut off of aid to the Palestinian territories. Since then there has been continued factioning between Hamas and Fatah and this factioning has escalated into violence and all out conflict so that as of now the goal of an independent and unified state of Palestine seems unlikely to occur within the near future as the coalition government has broken down leaving Hamas controlling Gaza and Fatah running the West Bank.
Anti-Defamation League. 1999. 14, Nov. 2005 http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/48war.asp
Bush, George. Presidential Discussion on a Road Map for Peace in the Middle East. 2003. 15 Nov. 2005. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030314-4.html
Jewish Virtual Library The American-Israeli Cooperation Enterprise 2005. 10 Nov. 2005 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...y/1956toc.html
"Six-Day War," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
© 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
راقبو برنامج الاتجاه المعاكس علي قناه الجزيره.عنوان البرنامج الاستيلاء على النفط العراقي
O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb?
I am no baby, I, that with base prayers
I should repent the evils I have done:
Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform, if I might have my will;
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.
Sailing to Byzantium
That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees
- Those dying generations - at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.
An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.
O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.
“We know they (al-Qaeda) will come soon,' but, with God's help, they will cause us few problems."
The Lion of Panjshir
I'm guessing u live in a trailer?
Either way u need a shower.
By the way, I haven't read any of the copied and pasted trash you've posted here, except, perhaps, a couple of your ridiculous comments.
But then your existence is a waste of oxygen.
I hope u fall over in some insecticide. Its fatal to you?
Hope you are doing OK. I miss your comment moderation. I know you find it boring, and after looking at some of the posts, I now know why.
It's better to ignore a TOT than to lecture, by lecturing you cause the TOT to spew forth utter rubbish.
When you ignore a kid behaving badly, he will eventually stop, due to lack of engagement.
Apart from that, it would be OK if his posts were worh reading, but they are off topic and immeasurably long and very dull.
He's probably having a mid life crisis or an adult temper tanrum.
O, Death, don't spare O-Death-O-Death Anonymous over till another second!
Forgive me i have no intention of making you feel worse, but i thought you have to read this too
Bravo Khalil . thank god , I had thought i was the Odd one out when i said i hated it , before but now im finding more and more Arabs agreeing that we have to change things ourselves but allowing and inviting invasions to our countries is a crazy thing to do . Farid ghadiry is one of those he wants america to invade syria and turn it to the stone age . and destroy those beautiful churches and mosques that are a lot older than the creation of America .
I will be attending officer's candidate school right after graduation, where I will gain my masters in international relations.
"Iraqi sniper," what is that like a joke? If the insurgency had any shooting skills then they wouldn't have to strap bombs to children to blow up unarmed civilians.
not all the bombing is suicide bombers , like your pentagon tells you . they have done it before in vietnam and Latin America .
I suggest to read about this
Those bombs in Iraq are PLANTED by all your wonderful fellow citizens, and NOT Iraqi children, in collaboration with the other thieves who are squatting in Iraq right now. Never mind.....we shall soon see how these thieves, your fellow citizens included, will be chased out with their tails between their legs!!!!!! In Vietnam, they were airlifted. Iraq does not offer that luxury. Oh, what a joyful sight that will be!!!! I guess, in your international relations course, if there is one, you have not read the history of Iraq and the nature of Iraqis, yes???????? And yet, you pompously post your comments here, expecting everyone to agree with you.
And, by the way, with reference to a much earlier comment from you, I am neither Iraqi nor Muslim....but I have the good sense to decipher right from wrong....
good thing you're so fuking smart!! Officer Candidate School, huh?
You need a college degree to tell people right-face, march?
I wouldn't brag about going to OCS. Especially after all the bullcrap the current administration is doing to soldiers for the WAR in Iraq. People who have already done their contractual obligations. Yet you, the flaming genius are knowingly signing up for more. What a lapdog you are!
You'll be sitting in the green zone with a bible praying you don't have to go outside the zone.
good luck, you just may come home in a box.
What graduation !
Are you a man or a book-worm ?
Go fight the "trouble-makers" in Vichyraq or guard the "impure" in Guantauschwitz instead of stuffing your "pretty mind" with pseudo-philosophical jumble in the safety of your Texasgaden vacation home !
Show the whole world that you are indeed a "pure-blooded" son of Ameritschland !
Ein WASP Volk !
Ein Demokreich !
Ein Bushrer !
P.S. LAYLA HELP US !!!
Hello and nice to read you again.
I have just been watching Itijah al Muaakis with Mishaal Al Jeboori and Adam Early the US ambassadors in the not so great Britain.
Never in my life have I witnessed a people so much up to their ears in lies and deceptions like the majority of the American people...Did you watch it?
If not I urge you to
my Best Salams
His cut and paste is a total waste of blog space. I have suddenly fallen in love with my delete button....
I wonder sometimes , actually all the time if the rift, the gap that has gripped Iraqi society will ever be mended again...
Who could have imagined that democracy could be so savage?
Hala as for Titus the Cretinus..."La chasse aux cons est un safari sans espoir" Cocteau.
Thanks for the link...I will read it and I know you always give good links.
I do not know Farid S. Is he the twin "intellectual" brother of Fouad Ajami the arab hater?
I think if any country is going to be bombed soon it is Syria and not Iran...I hope not for the Syrian people even though I am no fan of the Al Asad family . But then history may prove that al Asad clan is more democratic than the Tush, Bush mafia.
Actually you got it wrong...I understand because you say what you are to be - A confused kid.
It is those Iraqis who rolled on American tanks and came in private cars from Iran that equated Iraq equals Saddam...Until this very day they persist in their equation and when they are face with facts
like 1 million Iraqis dead, 4.2 million displaced...70 % of iraqis have no access to water, etc...
They will turn and say - Saddam....
Will they ever feel shame at all?
"not all the bombing is suicide bombers , like your pentagon tells you . they have done it before in vietnam and Latin America"
It is the stated policy of the ISI to cause sectarian violence by murdering Shia.
The assertions that the U.S. is responsible are baseless and don't even make sense due to the fact that sectarian violence are against the interests of the U.S..
lecturing others on tyranny while at the same time supporting Saddam Hussein is beyond laughable.
And for the record the U.S. fought against the Nazi's while the majority of the ME collaborated with them.
"Those bombs in Iraq are PLANTED by all your wonderful fellow citizens, and NOT Iraqi children."
Minister: Suicide bomber a handicapped child
Iraq police say attacker seemed to have Down Syndrome
That's your brave insurgency for you strapping bombs to retarted children. How proud you must be.
Had it not been for the national liberation struggle by the European resistance movements and the counter-attack from the East by Stalin's Red Army, your all brawn and no brains grand-fathers would not have got the better of Nazi Germany in a hundred years.
Speaking of grand-fathers and Nazi sympathizers .. I did not know that Prescott Bush was from the ME !
As for our "rampant hatred", it is not for Judaism per se, but it is for its bastard child Zionism and the colonial entity called "Israel" which has illegally occupied our Arab land of Palestine.
I shall follow Layla's and Little Deer's advice and refrain from replying to any future feverish delirium comments of yours.
Te saluto, o moriture.
your decision was long overdue.
A) The U.S. outproduced everyother nation in WW2, and if it was not for lend lease both Britian and the U.S.S.R. would have fallen to the hun.
B) Prescott Bush had connections with Fritz Thysen who ended up in a concentration camp because he was opposed to the Nazi's, the trade the U.S. had with Germany was before the war and while we still considered them to be a Democracy IE we traded with the Weimar Republic not Nazi Germany.
C) Turkey backed Germany, they lost their right to Palestine, it was British Mandate and theirs to do with what they wished; furthermore, the Arabs got all of Palestine east of the Jordan river and would have gotten quite a bit of the lands West of the Jordan as well, but the Arabs weren't satisfied with 70% of Palestine they wanted all of it because a Jewish state no matter how small or insignificant was a slite against Arab pride.
And please don't try your "we don't hate jews, we hate zionists," double speak bullshit, it's no secret that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a hero throughout the Arab world due to his hatred of the Jews and his support of the Nazi's.
you're trying to explain the colors to a blind man who believes only in his absolute truth that there are no colors ...
do you still think my take was wrong?
Stay strong...you are loved a lot.
If so many Jews died in the Internment Camps in Germany and Poland etc why are you here? Because of what I can see you are a Psychiatric Patient and these things are genetic so how did your scrap metal dealer father and harlot mother escape Zyklon-B?
Maybe because the Holohoax has been exagggerated beyond all recognition?
ps. hi little dear
********** END OF THREAD **********
Layla, you are missed...
Will post soon inshallah. Stay tuned.
A) I'm not Jewish.
B) A holocaust denier now that's original. And I'm the one who's psychotic.