|
Post by valpomike on Nov 25, 2007 9:49:27 GMT -7
Charles, Facts are facts, but not what you read in the slanted press. Search out the facts, they are there. Most of all know, but will not understand.
Holly & Jaga,
Where did you find the information that Saudi Arabia is first. Show some facts, not bad, slanted news. Search out the truth.
Michael Dabrowski
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 25, 2007 10:07:27 GMT -7
Michael, this report that Saudis and Libyans form the biggest number of the foreign fighters was everywhere in the news, even FoxNews talked about it.It was based on AP report: here is a fragment from FoxNews: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312552,00.html The New York Times, meanwhile, quoted senior American military officials as saying that Saudi Arabia and Libya were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks. The report said that data came largely from documents and computers discovered in September, when a U.S. raid near the Syrian border targeted insurgents believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. A key discovery was a listing of hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006, the newspaper said, according to the U.S. officials who were not further identified. Saudis accounted for the largest number of fighters listed with 305, followed by Libyans with 137. United States officials have previously offered only rough estimates of nationalities of such fighters. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 25, 2007 10:17:05 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 25, 2007 10:17:36 GMT -7
Michael, Please show us your facts/sources. I would be very interested in seeing the reports you have that are not derived via news sources.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 25, 2007 17:54:03 GMT -7
Charles,
Go to a American Legion, even if you are not a member, and speak with the men, who were there, get the truth, on the slanted side, most mews give you. I belong to the American Legion, and talk with the men all the time, and get all the facts.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Nov 25, 2007 18:21:03 GMT -7
Hi Michael, What American Legion Post do you belong to? Curious because have friend in Poland with the same name. Let's talk.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 26, 2007 5:50:51 GMT -7
Hi,
I belong to Post #97, in Valparaiso, Indiana, and you? Where is Poland is your friend? My family came from near Warsaw, many years ago, around 1900.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 26, 2007 17:21:57 GMT -7
Freetobe,
Still awaiting your reply. Could this friend in Poland, with my name, be my family?
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Nov 26, 2007 20:10:44 GMT -7
Michael, My VFW is in New York. My friend lives in Bialystok. Doubt there is a connection as his family who came to the US all lived in NY and they were his mother's relations,no Dabrowskis. Just thought that you might be in my area and we could share a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by troubledgoodangel on Nov 27, 2007 4:31:42 GMT -7
While I agree with Jaga that the Chomski article is quite interesting, but I also caution that I wouldn't base my conclusions on Chomski. For those of you who do not know, Noam Chomski is a rabid anti-Republican! All his pronouncements on Iran are skewed in the extreme, to bash the opposite Party. To win an argument is more important for Chomski, than to provide a realistic solution. It is interesting what he has to say, given his notorious linguistic expertise. I have known Chomski when I called his attention in the eighties to his onesided presentation of truth. The dialogue that resulted between us lasted only a short while. Our dialogue ended when he wrote to me that "he has no clue what is truth." My assertion that truth [God], as far as language, is the most excellent spirit of reading, writing, and thinking, of both Parties, found no echo with him. Why? It's simple: his linguistic theory that all human languages are like a living organ in a constant process of metamorphizing" does not include God as the source and reference of all that is positive! The Chomski conclusions on Iran reflect this moral and epistemological vacuum. Chomski does not care whether the good wins or not, as long as the Democrats win! It is for this reason that he pits Iran against the Republicans! Iran, he says, "is a victim of the United States." Middle East, he suggests, "has no room for an atomically armed Israel - it should be nuclear free." His apology of Iran is useful, but exagerated, and I agree on the ideal scenario for the Middle East. Moreover, while I share his view that "Iran at one time wanted a treaty that all fuel for atomic plants be produced by outsiders"(my own contention for a long time), I remind him that Iran no longer advocates that! All the above underscores the fact that Chomski theories are detached from reality ... in order to be valid! Useful as such theories are for academic discussion, all onesided theories detached from reality are doomed to fail, lest both Parties get together, and work out realistic solutions as one team!
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 27, 2007 4:49:32 GMT -7
TGA has brought up what for me is a critical point. For me, the ironic thing about Chomski is that in the end the proves his own point about how the message and "truth" can be twisted and used to bolster the messenger's own political ends and thus becomes worthless. However, is warning is valid, that when reading or viewing anything the reading but remain an active participant in the dialog and not just passively adopt the author's agenda. Thank you TGA for reminding me of this. I also agree, that the situation i Iran is so much more complex than what is largely presented in the press. But there is glimmers out there of those attempting to interject that complexity into the discussion. In that light, I offer the following article from the "Economist" economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10181134This is just the introduction, please read the entire article "IT IS not hard to find examples of the peculiar divergence between how the world looks from Tehran, Iran's capital, and how it looks in the West. Take the recent release of a long-awaited report on Iran's nuclear programme by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. To Iran's state-controlled television, the report showed Iran's innocence and slapped its detractors in the face. In Washington, DC, the focus was on the report's doubts, which appeared to justify a push for further punitive sanctions. But in many ways, the sparring capitals look more like mirror images than polar opposites. On different scales, both Iranians and Americans tend to take an imperial view. Both governments demonise the other. They use past resentments to reap political rewards by looking tough. Yet in both America and Iran, currents of dissent are growing, even inside their administrations. In neither case do the dissenters differ much from their leader's stated objective: for Iran it is to claim a perceived right to nuclear technology; for America it is to perform an assumed duty to stop Iran making atomic bombs. In both cases, critics lambast their leaders for tactics that may take their countries to war."
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 27, 2007 7:56:26 GMT -7
Troubledgoodangle,
You make many great points, but no one here wants to hear them. Most of them have there minds made up without any facts.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 27, 2007 7:58:38 GMT -7
Freetobe,
What is the number of your V.F.W. post? Where in New York is it? I gave you all the information, why can't you give me? I do get your way on work at times.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Dec 3, 2007 10:31:36 GMT -7
Here are some facts. I hope they would prevent the push for the next war: U.S. report says Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003WASHINGTON: A new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be explosive in the middle of tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program, and in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran's ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/03cia.php
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Dec 3, 2007 12:35:09 GMT -7
Jaga This has been a long standing problem with the Americans. They do have some very excellent intelligence people, very top in ability to gather and assimilate information in a very correct manner. The problem is to those these reports arrive at. After the reports are disseminated and distributed, the remains is of that which one would expect to be at the bottom of a scheiße haus. The Iranians from the very start, have been developing feasibility into action, a nuclear heat sourced for water steam/turbine powered electrical generation complex. This is necessary for the contractual agreements for electrical energy transmission to several nations that of {Iraq/Pakistan/India/Syria} this is for non-interruptible electrical supples. The following is a credible symbalance of intellegence of what occured in actual. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925482/postsCharles
|
|