brotherpeacemaker

It's about our community and our spirituality!

A Pot Calling a Kettle Black

Ahmadinejad

A long time ago my parents taught me that you always do your best to be a gracious host to your guest. Sometimes it’s a hard lesson to follow. For example, I have had several visitors to this blog who have disagreed with one of the articles and proceeded to make a nuisance of themselves. I’m sure it’s part of being a blogger. But it takes some getting used to all the people who actually take offense to me expressing my opinion on subjects such as racism and spirituality. Some people have countered my expressions with some seriously hateful stuff. One person actually made a wish for my timely expiration. When it gets that bad, all gloves come off. But I honestly want to do my best to be civil whether I agree with the person or not.

I was proud of Columbia University of New York for its courageous decision to host the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Monday. A bold move considering the negative sentiment associated with the Iranian President’s visit. When Mr. Ahmadinejad requested permission to visit the site of the World Trade Center attack, he was denied by the city of New York. Mr. Ahmadinejad was gracious with the rejection and respected the local government’s wishes. He had no choice. But Columbia University stepped up to the plate and invited the President to speak on their campus. I tuned into MSNBC to watch the speech and the following question and answer session.

People were protesting the visit. It is understandable considering the propaganda and history between the two countries. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger stood before the podium to introduce the Iranian President. I was astonished by the vehemence of his sneak attack. Mr. Bollinger said such inflammatory statements as, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” The crowd applauded. Mr. Bollinger continued with comments accusing the Iranian government of brutal crackdowns on dissidents, public executions, executions of minors and other actions. Mr. Bollinger said that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Jewish Holocaust as ridiculous and dangerous propaganda and followed this up with calling the leader of another country brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated and expressed doubt that the Iranian leader would show the intellectual courage to answer the questions before him.

My upper arm began to pain from the twisting pinch I could imagine my mother giving me if I had shown such bold faced disrespect.

To his credit, Mr. Ahmadinejad remained a respectful guest despite the attack on his character and to his country. It was obvious he was somewhat taken aback by his less than cordial opening. He acknowledged the insults and comments in an institution with such a reputation for higher learning and for questioning assumptions. The Iranian President continued with his prepared speech and spoke about the significance of science and the responsibility of communities to share their scientific knowledge for the benefit of all humanity. That really is a serious oversimplification of his speech. If you get a chance, please listen to Mr. Bollinger’s introduction (click here to see the introduction) and Mr. Ahmainejad’s speech in its entirety for yourself (click here to see the first part of the speech).

Once the prepared speech was finished the Q&A started. Mr. Ahmadinejad was asked about his insistence that the Holocaust (it still amazes me that we collectively act like the Jewish Holocaust is the only one and we never acknowledge the African, Palestinian or the Native Americans Holocaust) never took place. He didn’t hesitate to respond. He explained that as a fellow academician he posed the question to his students that the Jewish Holocaust could benefit from further research and study. The answer was followed with a follow up question. With the Holocaust so well documented why would further research be necessary? I won’t give away his reply. But I will say Mr. Ahmadinejad’s answer was a well prepared response.

Many of the pundits who came online after the speech and the Q&A were over expressed caution and suspicion of the Iranian leader’s performance. Some of the MSNBC analyst wanted to remind the viewers that Mr. Ahmadinejad was trying to score points of propaganda. Imagine a politician trying to do his best to look good in the public eye. Some pundits accused the Iranian President of using long winded answers to relatively simple questions. No American politician would ever do that! In all honesty I have to confess that the Iranian leader did score points with me. His answers were well thought out. The Iranian President obviously did his homework and came prepared.

I found the hypocrisy of the American people against the country of Iran troubling. We point the finger at Iran and talk about how they execute women and minors all the while black children in Louisiana are being charged for murder in school fights and die in Florida boot camps. We talk about how Iran will hold public executions and turn a blind eye to the Texas murder machine called the injustice system. As Governor of Texas the President stood by and watched retarded men put to death for criminal convictions made with highly questionable evidence. But let Scooter Libby get convicted for treason and poor Mr. Libby has suffered too much to face jail time. We talk about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Jewish Holocaust but then turn a blind eye to America’s cruel involvement in the African Holocaust and the perpetuation of the subjugation of the general African American population.

Mr. Ahmadinejad proved Mr. Bollinger wrong and showed courage to stand his ground and answer every question he was asked in what could arguably be considered a seriously hostile environment. His introduction was shameful. He was denied the opportunity to pay respects at the World Trade Center. But he stood there and answered every question as time permitted. Yet, how many press conferences has President George Bush flat out refused to answer the simplest of questions?

It is popular to hate Iran. We’ve hated the country ever since the Iranian people revolted against the Shah and held Americans in the embassy captive and made us wait in long lines for gas for our cars. But, it was the meddling of the United States that instigated the coup that toppled the publicly elected Iranian President and installed the Shah of Iran in the first place. The Iranian people were trying to take their country back from our puppet government. And it was the United States that helped Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq and used him to counter the Iranian threat. Everything was cool when Saddam was acting as an agent of the United States and fighting the Iranians. But when the Iraq-Iran war stopped and Saddam invaded Kuwait, the American government started pulling on its collar in a perfect Rodney Dangerfield impersonation. And now the United States government feels entitled to point an accusing finger at Iran for interfering in Iraq’s happenings.

It was the United States that taught the Taliban how to fight against the Soviet Union. With the aid of the United States, the Taliban were able to bog the Russian military down in a quagmire that humiliated the Soviets. That chicken is now coming home to roost. But instead of having the courage to take responsibility for our interference and mismanagement of the war effort, we want to accuse Iran of interfering in our interference of their next door neighbor. It is not Iran that is in the process of destabilizing Iraq but the United States. America needs someone to blame for its continuing lack of success in Iraq. Just like we took the opportunity to blame Iraq for being an accomplice in the training of the nineteen hijackers that took down the twin towers we now have an opportunity to use the public’s hatred of Iran to blame them for our failures in Iraq. This is justified by the documented fact that Iranian weapons have been found in Iraq in the hands of the insurgents. Funny thing though, everybody forgets that American made weapons have been found in the hands of insurgents as well.

I recently saw a quotation on another blogger. I think it was from Mark Twain. The quote said something to the effect that you don’t make peace by talking with your friends, you make peace by talking with your enemies. By allowing the public to see Mr. Ahmadinejad and to experience him firsthand we see that he is not the monster and madman that government propaganda wants us to believe. Like many politicians he is articulate and he is charming. It may be nothing more than an act. But so are the acts we get from our own theatrical politicians. But the bottom line is that the American people listening to the Iranian leader may thwart our government’s attempt to inspire us to support our military rattling a saber or two.

There is a scene from the 1998 movie Stepmom featuring Julia Roberts and Susan Sarandon. The father in the film, Luke Harrison played by Ed Harris, has divorced the mother of his children, Jackie Harrison played by Ms. Sarandon, and is about to marry Isabel Kelly played by Ms. Roberts. Like many children of divorced parents the children are more than ready to hate Isabel. But during a court ordered visit with their father they spend time with their soon to be step mother and actually learn she is a person with her own feelings and personality. The children begin to like her. They return to their mother and share their new perspective by telling all the wonderful things they did during their stay with their father. With every comment they make the mother makes a snide retort about Isabel. Finally, the boy, Ben Harrison played by Liam Aiken, out of devotion and love to his mother, turns to his mother and says that he doesn’t hate Isabel but he will if she (the mother) wants him to. The realization of the moment stuns Jackie in to seeing her behavior for what it was. The negative propaganda she was using to slander Isabel’s character was fueled by unwarranted hate to a woman she really didn’t know.

I don’t know enough about Mr. Ahmadinejad to hate him with the vehemence that seems to be the norm these days. No Iranian has made an effort to deny me a job. No Iranian has worked to block my education. No Iranian has pulled me over to check my legal status. No Iranian has ever followed me as I walked through a store. No Iranian has ever accused me of stealing. No Iranian has ever left the black community to fend for itself. No Iranian has ever denied me medical care. Fortunately, I don’t suffer some blind devotion to the American government or any television pundit to hate the Iranian leader simply because they say I should.

I have to put things into my own perspective. Mr. Ahmadinejad may have said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That may have been an awful thing to say. But what is more awful is the way Israel subjugates the Palestinians. Israel’s relentless pursuit to forcibly take more and more of the land belonging to the Palestinians is far more repulsive. Israeli snipers in towers pick Palestinian children off in the occupied territory for doing nothing more than looking out of a window during an Israeli imposed curfew. The Israeli government gets military and financial aid from the United States in a package that is the envy of any other country on the planet. Israel has nuclear weapons at its disposal. I seriously doubt if Iran has a clandestine goal to develop a nuclear bomb in order to use it against Israel. Iran has signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Neither Pakistan or India has signed the treaty and they both have nuclear weapons. But we are told to keep our attention on Iran.

Now, I am told the Iranian President is a warmonger. I don’t know about that. I do know that Iran was attacked by Iraq with the backing of the United States. I know that the Taliban fought the Soviet Union with the backing of the United States. I know that in the past five years the United States has attacked and occupied two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and has made threatening gestures to attack two others, Iran and North Korea. I know that I live in a country that preemptively attacks others based on evidence so flimsy it wouldn’t get a black man convicted in Texas. I know that America spends more on its war machine than the rest of the world spends on their military readiness combined. And now I am supposed to believe that I am in danger from a warmonger in Iran based on information from a warmongering government that neglects the development of its black communities, refuses to protect its black communities, and refuses to accept responsibility for its role in the subjugation of black people? Excuse me if I have my doubts, but you have to admit that a lot of this sounds like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - Posted by | African Americans, Black Community, Black Culture, Iran, Iraq, Life, News, Philosophy, Thoughts

42 Comments »

  1. Brother Peacemaker…
    I know I’ve posted a lot the last couple days but I’m really feeling your blog.
    I must say that I watched that yesterday. I was very unpleased with the way, sadly to say, WE (we cuz I am an American and what they do also reflects on all of us) treated that man yesterday. Seems like we/they/whatever, for a lack of world history teaching, tend to think we have the “moral” high ground on everything. People tend to forget that the United States has been interfering/manipulating that part of the world for many many years… We tend to forget that our shyyt stinks too. That man has a right to believe what he wants… He may have said some things that I disagree with (There are no gays in Iran, HA!) but that doesn’t mean that his views are not justified, I mean their culture is so different than ours… they may be wrong is many aspects but who are we to compare… I’m sure he has seen the devastation first hand while we at home just see it on the “news”… the very carefully edited news.
    That man showed alot of courage to come here and he took his tongue lashing very distinguished manner.
    We hear so much of the holocaust we as a country are in denial about as you said the Native American holocaust cuz last I checked not acknowledging and refusal to reconciliate counts as denial.
    It’s like we accept the BS from our own and refuse to give anyone else an ear, even if his views may be justified.
    As being one who is born, raised and resides in Texas who says you need evidence to convict a black man here! HA!
    Lastly, I’d like to say that we need to stop stomping around the world like we’re the world police and take care of home and fix our shyyyt and maybe other countries would follow… but we like to do whatever and take our “ideals” to places that are thousands of years older than us with situations very much more complex and think we have a solution for them.

    Comment by Damien | Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | Reply

  2. I was thinking that I would find this more controversial, but I have to agree with so much in the post. You know I can’t remember the last time an Iranian hang nooses from trees in order to harass and subjugate Blacks. For such a war monger him nor his countrymen have yet to recently enter into another country with an army and war with them over what was proven to be lies told by their government.

    Yet the Iranians violate human rights when I know a country who has police shooting men 20 to 30 times in the street for showing identification or less. Wow I am sure that if that occurred in China the American’s would be in uproar and ask that our government do something about it.

    Be controversial, show this stupid propaganda for what it is.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | Reply

  3. Thanks for the feedback Damien and theblacksentinel. I really didn’t think I would get many people to agree with my line of thinking on this post. So many people are on the get the bastards wagon. It’s good to know other people are out there thinking for themselves as well.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | Reply

  4. Damien, Maybe the reason you don’t hear any of the bad things from Iran, are because they don’t allow word to spread.

    In the US however, if we submerge an enemy combatant under water for a few seconds, the headline on every paper is: “Another Civilian Tortured By the US!”

    It seems that freedom of speech has turned out to be America’s own worst enemy in this war…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | Reply

  5. Like the title says… calling the kettle black is very fitting.
    I just have to say Freedom of speech isn’t America’s worst enemy… Hypocrisy is America’s worst enemy.
    For a country to laugh at another countries treatment of homosexuals is ridiculous… me may not hang them… but we still deny them rights…
    I must say that the information is out there for people to know. No matter how hard anyone tries the truth will come out. Also, let me add, that the U.S. doesn’t allow word to spread on what we done or have done to those people… I’m not taking their side but I’m just open to the ying and yang of all things… there are 3 sides to every story…

    Comment by Damien | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  6. My Brother,

    EXCELLENT COMMENTARY! This is my first time reading a post on your blog. I have been denying myself nutritious “food for thought” without realizing it. I will be sitting at your table for a while enjoying your buffet. I will also be returning for a “taste” more often.

    Your intellect and wisdom is inspiring.

    Stay blessed.
    Asa

    Comment by asabagna | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  7. “Also, let me add, that the U.S. doesn’t allow word to spread on what we done or have done to those people…”

    You know this how? Gut feeling? Because you are making an awful big claim with not much to back it up…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  8. A lot has been said lately about how Iran is sponsoring terrorism as well as using the explanation of trying to develop nuclear power for energy as a ruse for developing nuclear weapons. But if we look at the Iran’s circumstances the pursuit of nuclear power is actually quite logical. Even with its huge oil reserves Iran is suffering from its own energy shortage. The development of a nuclear weapon is not a logical conclusion for Iran. The theory that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon is one born out of ignorance and fear. And even if this was the case the is it the right and/or the responsibility of the United States to prevent another country from joining the nuclear weapons club?

    The United States government made a lot of claims about Iraq in order to justify the attack and occupation of Iraq. We were told that Saddam was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and he was harboring elements of al-Queda. But the invasion proved quite the contrary. The reason for the invasion has since been changed to the liberation of the Iraqi people. Now the reason for the occupation is the establishment of a democratic government.

    Recent history should teach us to take what our government tells us with a grain of salt.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  9. It is hard to prove a negative, Asabagna.

    So, you’re telling me that the American Government tells the American people everything that they do in other countries? That is all that I am say’n, brother.
    People are quick to judge other countries and their way of life… Does any other country owe America an explanation for it’s actions? Does America seek approval from other countries on it’s actions?
    Do you know the history of the manipulation/interference of America in the middle east.
    Like I said before I don’t defend or endorse anybodies actions… cuz whose to say who is right or wrong that is for GOD to decide… all I’m say’n is we should think about judging others… we should think about who is telling the truth and who is lying… also you must look at people/organizations motives? We must ask questions and not take what someone has to say just cuz they say it or not say it.
    The government of all countries say what they want us to hear it’s called politics… turn on the television and you’ll see it everyday… read the paper and you’ll see it everyday…
    Like what happened to all that money that was “lost” in Iraq? http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Waxman_grills_exUS_leader_in_Iraq_0206.html What happened to all those weapons that were “lost” in Iraq…http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2143071,00.html
    I only use my gut to digest… I use my eyes, ears and my brain to form MY conclusions.

    Comment by Damien | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  10. “The development of a nuclear weapon is not a logical conclusion for Iran.”

    Oh, it is not? Even if by producing the one, they get both…?

    If you are debating someone while you’re holding a gun, how persuasive are you?

    Now he has a gun as well and neither person wants to die. The debate becomes much more interesting.

    Nuclear weapons would make Iran untouchable. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a country whose leader wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, to be untouchable.

    It is hard enough to stop humans from killing one another, but when you add a crazy person and nuclear weapons into the equation it really gets dicey.

    Apathy is death. Sitting back with a pacifist mindset will not help the problems that plague this world. And there will always be problems. A world without war and problems is heaven. There is only one heaven, and I guarantee you this is not it…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  11. “The wise man does at once what the fool does finally.”
    -Niccolo Machiavelli

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  12. Why should a country be worried about another country becoming “untouchable” unless there is a plan to touch them? Why should we be using nuclear weapons to persuade another country unless we want to be able to force our will upon them like some thief who wishes to force his/her will on someone else? The United States made threats against an axis of evil consisting of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. This country already attacked one preemptively and have been threatening the other two. You may think I’m apathetic but I’m not. I think about the dangers of provocation every single day. Pacifism is not death. A world without war is heavenly, not heaven. No one is threatening a number of countries around the world. Only a bully works to assure he/she controls everyone around him/her by force.

    A wise man does at once what the fool does finally. I guess this means that a wise man will look for peace at once while a fool will look for peace only after all the lives are shed and the land is burned and scarred.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  13. “There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
    -Niccolo Machiavelli

    Let us think theoretically for a moment… Lets assume, that by some miracle the entire world dismantled all the weapons and denounced war. Now lets assume, that there is one man who after the weapons were gone, raised a small army and declared himself ruler. Further more, this man will kill anyone who does not follow him. How do you peacefully solve this situation?

    Granted, this is an extreme example. It is the basis of why there will never be peace on earth. All it takes is one man. Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves against attack, and then they attack others.

    Here is another one, If a man holds a gun to your head, how do you solve this peacefully? If that man has already decided to blow your brains out, all the diplomatic talks in the world will not change his stance….

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | Reply

  14. So the man with the gun should use it against anybody he sees as a potential threat. It’s okay to go to a preemptive war with a country in order to prevent war with weapons of mass destruction. So what if there is no evidence of weapons. We stopped somebody who may have been developing weapons so in the end it’s justified. Your theory is based on you being the one holding the gun and everyone you consider your enemy being defenseless yet looking to arm themselves to attack you. I don’t live in fear of Iran. I do have a fear that this government acts like the man in your theoretical scenarios and is bent on holding its persuasive gun on others.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Thursday, September 27, 2007 | Reply

  15. knighthospitaller,

    You are more than welcome to engage in conversation about this post or any other post on this blog. You started with making somewhat descent commentaries. But your last contribution to this post was nothing more than a backhanded compliment at best, a clumsy insult at worst. I did not feel it worth posting. If you wish to continue to be a contributor here please stay respectful without attacks on the character of others.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Friday, September 28, 2007 | Reply

  16. The idea of world peace is a utopian concept. It assumes that all humans are able to put aside their human traits. I am not a war monger mind you. I am a realist.

    There is a good quote that sums up my prospective…

    “Pray for peace, prepare for war.”
    -Vegetius

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  17. I cannot agree with you more. It is always prudent to be prepared for the eventuality that someday someone is likely to try and wrongfully subject their will on yours. However, this does not mean that we have to prevent others from being able to defend themselves unless we intend to be the ones they need to defend themselves against.

    Pray for peace, prepare for war. Not pray for peace and start the war. Peace is not a utopian concept. There are many countries at peace. They are not utopia. They are simply not trying to force every other country to their way of thinking.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  18. Were you for the invasion of Afghanistan? Would you say we started that conflict?

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  19. It doesn’t matter if I was for the invasion of Afghanistan or not, the two are totally separate issues. Besides, if we had focused our attention on Afghanistan and did we was necessary in that conflict before we started looking for other countries to invade we may not have the problem in Iraq now. So now we will start a third conflict based on the same standards of evidence used to start the previous conflicts. If I remember correctly eighteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the last was from Syria. Why is there no talk of invading those countries?

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  20. It is a completely relevant issue. Afghanistan did not attack us yet they sympathized and supported those who wage war against us. Most would call the fight in Afghanistan a just fight.

    I ask you this as well, who do we fight in Iraq? Who sets off the roadside bombs? Who walks into the markets and detonates vests of explosives? Who saws off the heads of reporters and contractors?

    Are these enemies distinguishable? You see we are not at war with a nation… we are at war with a fanatical idea that is not limited to boarders…

    If the world truly can achieve peace, and wishes to achieve peace, why are these monsters allowed to find safe haven? Why can they dwell in safety? You see a nation who wills our destruction can sit back and allow fanatical fighters with no political alignment to fight their war for them. This is what is so insidious about our enemy. Bush realized this in Iraq, but unfortunately he chose a poor time to invade. I think the situation today would be much better if the US had the support of more allies in this fight.

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  21. A lot of countries sympathize with the people who attacked the United States. That does not warrant them being attacked by the United States. Put this is perspective, there are people sympathized with Timothy McVeigh when he attacked the United States. The United States did not bother to attack all the white militia groups in response. Russia sympathizes with the enemies of the United States. So does China. There are people who are in Saudi Arabia who support the people who are attacking the United States. How much planning do you think is going into launching attack against them?

    The allies of the United States were doing everything they could to keep this country from invading Iraq. We didn’t listen and launched the attack with the Coalition of the Willing with such super powers as Tonga, Moldova, and Iceland. These days the Coalition of the Willing is more like the Coalition of the Dwindling. And with nearly 700 billion dollars down the drain and 3,800 troops lives lost al-Queda is more dangerous today that it was four and a half years ago.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  22. Now you know how complex this war is. But it is a war none the less. A war that is not going to simply disappear when the US leaves Iraq.

    As soon as you come up with a peaceful solution to stop the massacring of innocents on the part of these fanatics, let me know. I have not heard one as of yet. Pulling troops out just does not cut it. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. They will not yield until you submit yourself to their views, or until your country is a smoking pile of ruble. How do you negotiate with someone, who attains eternal life, by killing as many innocents as possible? How do you maintain peaceful relations? These are the questions that have plagued Israel for over half a century…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  23. It is interesting how Denmark, Norway, Jamaica, and a number of others manage to live a life of peace without the threat of some other country threatening to attack their freedom. It’s not all that complicated at all. As far as I can see it, we wouldn’t be in the Iraqi quagmire if we hand not attacked Iraq. The only complication is when people try to twist facts for their personal agenda.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  24. US presence in Iraq does nothing to further my agenda, and I assure you a have not augmented facts in any way shape or form.

    Interesting you mention personal agenda… Why do terrorists attack the US? Is it because of Iraq, is it because of Afghanistan? No, the strike us because “Allah wills it…” I am afraid it is far more complicated then you perceive it… They see the West as corrupt. And they feel they are Gods instruments, chosen to cleanse it. I don’t think passing out flowers will change their prospective…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  25. BTW, willing or no, Norway was still pulled into conflict…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Norway#Norway_in_World_War_II

    As was Denmark…

    And Jamaica and other island nations are called assets, to larger protecting nations. This is why you do not see someone invading Jamaica… It would not be worth Mexico’s while, to invade Jamaica and end up at war with the US…

    Do you follow?

    People will follow their own interests, it is human nature. Not everyone can be like you and me, and try to understand each other through dialogue… though it is such a shame…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  26. I wasn’t referring to your personal agenda. Because you’re not profiting does not mean someone else is. I was actually referring to the companies with the billion dollar profits from their war contracts.

    But be that as it may, it appears we are going to have to agree to disagree. You believe I’m all for passing flowers and I believe you’re for dropping bombs on the slimmest of evidence on countries that refuse to simply bow to the will of the American president.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  27. It is a wonder that Denmark and Norway aren’t planning to attack Iraq on the world’s behalf. And it wouldn’t benefit Mexico to invade Jamaica, but it benefits the United States to invade countries like Panama, Grenada, Cuba, and Haiti. It may be complicated to you, but it appears to be a very simple case of the United States using propaganda to manipulate people into believing we have all these reasons to justify war with whoever our government wants. We accuse Iran of doing the same things the United States did when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. We will just have to agree to disagree.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, September 30, 2007 | Reply

  28. You seem to be missing my point. By you saying,”…we have to agree to disagree…” you have proven my point all along. Diplomacy between you and me just failed.

    Now lets assume you still wish to be at peace with me. But instead, I attack you. You have still gone to war, despite doing everything in your power to avoid it. Only now you are at a significant disadvantage, in a war you are going to lose… You goal is noble sir, but it is unrealistic. It is one thing to persue peace knowing you are prepared to wage war, and it is another thing entirly to persue peace and being unwilling to go to war.

    Diplomacy is a art…
    A diplomat tries to use talks to solve a problem, but a good diplomat knows when the talks are no longer working…

    It is like playing the card game 21. You keep getting more and more cards until you get as close to you can to 21.

    If you have less then your opponent (if you go to war prematurely) you lose. If you go over 21 (wait too long to gor to war), you lose.

    Humans will never all agree. And where there is disagreement, you have the potential for war, like it or not that is the unfortunate reality.

    There is a good example of when hundreds of German women stood up to the SS after there husbands were taken away for being Jews. The Women marched up to the SS building and demanded the release of their husbands, and the SS set up their machine guns. In the end, the Women won, because the SS did not want to gun down unarmed women.

    The moral of this story is, it all comes down to a persons will. If the SS wanted to, there would have been hundreds of dead women in the streets.

    Diplomacy, is the art of determining your enemy’s (or potential enemy’s) will.

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Monday, October 1, 2007 | Reply

  29. Actually, by agreeing to disagree you prove my point. We have a difference of opinion that does not call for us going to war. You have your opinion and I have mine. We may not agree but we leave each other to be wrong.

    However, instead of agreeing to disagree you feel that you are entitled to inflict your view on me. Kind of like the United States inflicting its view on Iran. Yes Iran is at a disadvantage because they never planned on attacking the United States. If anything your logic supports Iran getting nuclear weapons to protect itself from an aggressor country.

    If people always solved their differences by the use of force we would have anarchy in our streets. Married couples would experience more instances of domestic violence, bar fights would be more common, more shootings in the streets. But civilized people are supposed to be able to solve differences without the threat of using a hammer. Diplomacy is not a tool of war, diplomacy is a tool for peace. It all depends on your point of view.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Monday, October 1, 2007 | Reply

  30. Yet again you completely miss the point. I can agree to disagree with you.

    For the sake of argument, throw aside all the US, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Israel, and Palestinian examples… Keep it simple.

    Pretend there are two nations in the world, Nation 1 wants to live in peace with its neighbor Nation 2. But Nation 2 wants to invade Nation 1 and conquer the world.

    It does not matter how much Nation 1 wants peace, if nation 2 attacks, there is a WAR. A war Nation one is a part of, like it or no. All the diplomacy in the world won’t change this.

    This is the reality. There was a war between Terrorists and the West well before 9/11. Whether we wish it to go away or not. This is the reality of the world. Being in denial of this fact will make it very difficult to achieve anything, Because the “Nation 2” people of the world will play along with your “peace” lying through their teeth until it no longer suits them. Then they will simply remove you from the equation.

    We fight to secure peace.

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Monday, October 1, 2007 | Reply

  31. If we’re pulling hypothetical situations out of the air then let me pull one out as well. Nation A and Nation B disagree. Nation A attacks Nation B. The nations go to war. AND? Many countries have gone to war unprepared because they did not use half of their GDP to maintain a standing army. The United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Germany invaded all of Europe. The United States invaded Cuba, Panama, Grenada, and others. Israel attacked Syria. What’s your point? That it is okay to start wars with preemptive strikes? What you don’t get is that because there are always war doesn’t mean we are entitled to start one. Yes it is true that you have barbaric nations and barbaric people who do nothing but think of war. There are barbaric people who do nothing but think of attacking their neighbors.

    The great superpower the United States was attacked by nineteen hijackers. All of our nuclear arsenals didn’t and couldn’t prevent it from happening. Somebody was bent on a goal. But because of those nineteen we now have authorization to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran. Those countries didn’t have standing armies with a fraction of the capacity of our military and yet now somehow they are able to engage us and drain our military. I don’t know if you heard the news but many people are saying that a military solution in Iraq is not going to get the job done. It is going to take diplomacy.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  32. well said my brother, well said. i think that you pretty much captured my precise sentiments on the entire situation. i cant and wont place blind trust into this country’s hands when at ever chance it gets it puts me and mine underfoot. forget that…and the nerve to try and censor Columbia in the 1st place? why to me it just seems like this country is moving quickly towards a dictatorship where the patriarchal governance rules supreme. and shame on Columbia’s president for using Ahmadinejad’s presense to just insult the man to his face.

    sometimes i really get sick of this place.

    Blessings

    Comment by Storme | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  33. I can see where you are coming from. But my primary point is not to defend past invasions. It is to prove to you that everlasting world peace is unattainable…

    You said it yourself, all it took was somebody bent on a goal to dispel peace. This is why world peace is a utopian concept. I’m glad we finally agree. 🙂

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  34. I hope you can see my point. The relentless pursuit of war simply because peace is impossible is a self fulfilling prophecy. If more people actually pursued peace instead of war we could actually make war less prolific than what our government practices.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  35. my 2 more cents…
    Like I said before… all this is complicated cuz as much as our “leaders” wants to say that they hate us for our freedom, I refuse to accept that. Cuz, like I’ve said before, we’ve been over there manipulating that part of the world for years… we sit back over here and go to basketball games and the mall and listen to our music while our government is all around the world manipulating things for money for cheaper gas and the such… instead of investing in our own people to come up with ways to become more self reliant. i understand helping other countries…. but to the point of waging war over these things is ridiculous to me.
    This is a war of ideals… which means that the only solution is diplomacy and to leave those people alone… and defend ourselves if need be. They know that if they drop a bomb we’ll drop a bomb and blow this whole m-fer up. I doubt anyone wants that. Plus, christians and muslims want the last days to come so we have the same crap here as they do there. Once again we take care of home then maybe people wouldn’t hate us so.
    Granted we are a nation of materialism and a lack of “morals” .

    Comment by Damien | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  36. Plus, I can really appreciate you guys conversation! For real!!

    Comment by Damien | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  37. Damien,

    You mentioned that they enemy would leave us alone if we left them alone. The only problem is this war has been going on long before we attacked.

    September 8 1974: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner. Attributed to Abu Nidal and his terror organization.

    December 29 1975: Bomb explodes at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, killing eleven and injuring 75. No arrests ever made in this case and the reason for this attack remains unknown.

    March 9 1977: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized by members of the militant African-American Muslim Hanafi sect and over 100 hostages taken. One bystander is shot and killed, and Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest. After a two-day standoff all hostages are released from the District Building (city hall), B’nai B’rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center.

    November 4 1979: Iran hostage crisis, a 444-day standoff during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States inside the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

    August 11 1982: A bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, enroute from Tokyo to Honolulu, killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.

    January 25 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

    February 26 1993: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra’/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front.

    March 1 1994: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City in response to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

    March 8 1995: Terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, armed with automatic rifles, murdered two American consulate employees and wounded a third as they traveled in the consulate shuttle bus.

    July 27 1996: Centennial Olympic Park bombing, killing one and wounding 111.

    February 24 1997: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the “enemies of Palestine”. His widow claimed he became suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture. In a 2007 interview with the New York Daily News his daughter said her mothers story was a cover crafted by the Palestinian Authority and that her father wanted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.

    August 7 1998: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.

    December 14 1999: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

    October 12 2000: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda.

    September 11 2001: Attacks kill 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capital Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane’s passengers; by Al-Qaeda, being one of the most catastrophic terrorist events ever known…

    Keep in mind, these are just the attacks that are directed at the United States. There are hundreds upon hundreds more attacks that took place throughout the rest of the world.

    Nuclear deterrence only works when you are fighting a nation. We are fighting a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | Reply

  38. I may not be able to spew out some dates of terrorist attacks on us or whatever… sorry. But, maybe you should look into some reasons why they feel like they feel… and not be so quick to take sides with those rich people whom for years has formed our foreign policy as it pertains to the middle east, my brother. Once again, I’m not taking no sides i’m try’n to be objective in my thinking… All I’m say’n is that you speak as though these people have pulled out a map and said hey let’s go bomb them! People have reasons why they do things… Before I take side or defend people that aren’t defending me i try to look at what they have been doing in those countries… Lest you forget that America has been the country providing weapons to other countries for the sake of allying with some other countries over there. Like our allies the Saudis… whom most of the 9/11 hijackers were from… Might I add that we were the ones who put Saddam in power and armed him… you think those people are gonna side with us when they know the real deal of what “we” are doing over there… or should I say those rich men who get off on manipulating the world and the people in it… and do it in our name.
    It’s like the pharmaceutical companies that shape our laws and leave the average person paying out the yang for drugs that they NEED without any sympathy only profit on their minds… This same government you’re defending would rather invest in war and defense, when we have the strongest military in the known world, than on it’s own children’s education and health.
    Also, you say that we’re fighting against a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma… Then the powers that be need to talk to and not talk at people and expect them to conform to “our” will.
    People are gonna kill and be killed… but we don’t have to aggravate things by going into other countries and destroying them in attempts to get “ally’s”… or homies that’ll give us the hookup on their resources. We could be alot smarter and develop our own products by investing in ourselves, education and health.
    Feel me…

    Much Love,
    D.

    Comment by Damien | Wednesday, October 3, 2007 | Reply

  39. You mention that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

    Yet we are allied with Saudi Arabia. This is why this war is unprecidented. That is why it is so difficult to fight this enemy. They are everyone, and they are no one…

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Friday, October 5, 2007 | Reply

  40. And yet we point our collective finger at Iran because some of the insurgents were found with Iranian produced weapons. This is the very reason why we just can’t go starting wars with other countries on such circumstantial proof and/or evidence. They are everywhere. Yet we selectively choose to attack countries that happen to have resources that we want or need.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Friday, October 5, 2007 | Reply

  41. “…some of the insurgents were found with Iranian produced weapons.”

    That is not the only reason why. I suggest you look up the Iranian Quds Force… They are operating inside Iraq.

    Comment by knighthospitaller | Saturday, October 6, 2007 | Reply

  42. The Iranian Quds Force may be operating in Iraq. But is this any different than the operatives of the United States that have worked in countries like Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Haiti, and others? May I suggest you get a copy of Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

    When Russia was in Afghanistan the United States was most instrumental in helping the Taliban with their resistance. Would Russia be justified in starting a war with the United States? There are people in Iraq helping the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and anywhere else with a large Muslim population. Why are we focusing on Iran?

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, October 6, 2007 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: