WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against < =yqin =http://yq.search.yahoo.com/search method=post>Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

< =text/> if (window.yzq_a == null) document.write(""); < =text/> if (window.yzq_a) { yzq_a('p', 'P=s_aPHkLaS.a8lXJFRCWrYw9IRuGnEEQ3vj4ABITq&T=1a8kjrpvr%2fX% 3d1144503870%2fE%3d95959707%2fR%3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW %3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2824927027%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdz IiBjb250ZW50PSJXaGl0ZTtIb3VzZTttaWxpdGFyeTtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O0Rl bW9jcmF0O0FtZXJpY2FuO3JlZnVybF9pcmFuaWFuX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJy ZWZ1cmxfaXJhbmlhbl9jb20iIHRvcGljcz0icmVmdXJsX2lyYW5pYW5fY29t Ig--%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d92A949D1'); yzq_a('a', '&U=139310oq1%2fN%3dioADI0Je5tk-%2fC%3d390764.8220712.911318 8.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d3226908'); }

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

when khatami was in power the USA said that the iran was a dictatorship and that the president had no powers at all and that khamenei has all the power.

now that ahmadinejad is in power, the USA's war mongering propaganda is making it look like ahmadinejad is the ruler, and if thats true, than that would make iran a democracy.

george w. bush is the worst president this country has ever had, he is going to be the one to destroy this country, more than any terrorist would have ever imagined!

its funny, nostradomaus and another predictor (i for got his name, i think he was bosnian(?) strabus or something like that) both predicted WWI and WWII, and on top of that, they both predicted a third world war before 2010, started by the new incarnation of hitler.

and it looks like george w bush is going to start anotehr war, which could potentially be massive, before 2012. looks like the hitler is bush, not ahmadinejad.

seymour hersh is the only one exposing the bush administration for who they truly are, war mongerers.

bush has no education, he is a drunk, and he got the presidency by cheating, ofcourse that many and his super rich oil tycoon friends are only interested in one thing, war and power.

since the bush administration got to power, what have they done for the american people? nothing.

My bad, I was thinking of Michael Ledeen for some reason.

I want to see what will happen when the bloodthirsty US administration orders an attack, the US public have been suckered into thinking Iran is the biggest threat to America through the usual deceitful media tactics. 

the patterns are so similar and im sorry to say, but the american people are one of the most gullible and "stupid" people in the world.

they believe everything they are told! its really funny.

first iraq was the biggest threat and now suddenly its iran.

fox news is the bush administrations propaganda machine, every second they are pumping out propaganda against everyone:

the china, mexicans, iran, arab world, north korea, russia, france, venezuela, etc.... non stop propaganda machine.

I don't think the US public got suckered into anything. The People who leaned toward the left were against, alot of the right thought it was a bad idea, and half of Americans didn't know where Iraq.

I hope this won't happen. Seems like Bush is on a rampage. We put Clinton up for impeachment, but we don't Bush when he just keeps picking and choosing what to blow up even though most Americans disagree with what he does already. You'd think with the polls and all the protests there are he'd get an idea that people don't want him to continue on with his personal campaign...

the only country in the world that has the power to start a third war is the USA, and unfortunatly, it looks like the bush administration is going to do it.

these nuclear bunker buster missiles, f used, will not only destroy the iranian cities that they are targeting, but will likely cause earthquakes also.

this could very well be the greatest massacre in world history if the USA goes through with its plans.

Yea, Clinton's lies never got anyone killed.

I have read somewhere that this report is just scaremongering by this guy.  What he is doing is taking bits and pieces from various US contingencies and piecing them together to make it look like there is an impending attack.  The Us and other countries have contingency plans against even their so-called allies, but does that mean they ever plan on attacking?

Just read the story. Seems that George Bushwacker is on a rampage. Americans may be naive at times yet most of us would like to see the president go back to Texas and raise another baseball team (such a success that was!).

I certainly would not want to see the US attack Iran. No more war Bush! Nukes or not. This propaganda talk resembles the kind before the Iraq invasion. I think  most of the Iranians at AE have been sensitive and anxious lately. Irritable and confrontive too. I wonder how much of it has to do with the talk of war looming?

Just wondering: is there something in the US Constitution about special/extraordinary powers given to the President in case of war? Where can I find a (good) copy of the US constitution?

Go to the National Archives and Records Administration website:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html - www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/const itution_transcript.html

As to your question, the constitutional power to make war and peace is vested in the Congress.  However, the quaint notion of an actual "declaration of war" has become a casualty of modern times.  Now, you just bullsh*t the Congress into going along with military action as necessary, or unnecessary - whatever.

Going to war is bad, bad, bad.  No one can be seen to declare war on anyone now.  There are no war departments anymore; they are all defense departments.  Semantics of course.

I don't know if there has been a declaration of war anywhere since USSR-Japan in 1945.  It is just not done now, although there has been plenty of military action since then.

       Why?  We aren't using it anymore.

Oh come on guys, Bush would be unable to "rule" like a dictator, even if he wished to do so. The checks and balances system, established by the founders prevents a "dictatorial" governing style. If any branch of the American government has been acting unilaterally it is the judiciary. I'll grant that the legislature has been pretty impotent lately, but that is hardly the fault of the president.

-Akolouthos

lol, the checks and balances only work if people dont force them!

so far, bush has spied on americans, started war without congress, forced companies to give up confidential records, held people with charges, and much more...

where are the checks and balances?

many leaders have used war in order to gain more powers.

And how is that any different from the actions of any number of U.S. presidents throughout our history? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights, Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, and any number of Cold War Presidents spied on Americans much more than our current president (by the way, the domestic spying is aimed at those who have storngly suspected links to terrorist groups). After all, even our last president, of beloved memory, had a family detained when they inferred that he might, possibly, "Suck," in reference to the situation in Kosovo.

The fact of the matter is that at some point it became enshrined in American political discourse that Bush is a dictator, NAZI, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. These hyperbolic comparisons serve only to prevent rational discourse and obscure issues of real concern.

-Akolouthos

Not quite the guy I'd prefer going to as a source, but I think old Goering makes a good point. Doesn't matter where you are, what your system of belief is, etc.; people, the world over, will find a way to pervert the ideas they embrace and generally will choose to take the easy way out--whether that be being blindly patriotic, or even insulting an unpopular president.

-Akolouthos

Aye, I don't know why we even bother calling it democracy. The American system is deeply undemocratic, though it is much more democratic than the founders intended. I don't, necessarily view this as a bad thing. I'm definitely anti-democracy if democracy implies an extremely broad based determination of policy.

-Akolouthos

They vote how they are told though.  There is only one instance where an elector who was appointed by his party did not vote the way he was told.

To tell you the truth, i am so bored hearing all the time about Iran....Will be bombed?Will not?Oh,bombed it to put our agony away!

Originally posted by Dharmagape If someone has still doubts that US elites are nazi in fact look at it: 1938: Austria -> 1938: Czechoslovakia -> 1939: Poland 2001: Afghanistan -> 2003: Iraq -> 2006: Iran

Well, Dharmagape does list one of his interests as "conspiracy theories."

Iran is the center of the universe, or have you not been paying attention?

coincidentaly, its located on the center of a map.... weird huh?

Well, George II did have congressional backing for Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

Part of the system of checks and balances lies in the changing of legislative make up through elections.  I am not a fortune teller, but I suspect that after the 2006 election, this administration will be hopelessly crippled in terms of policy.  No one knows exactly how that might play out, but already Congress (Dems and Reps) is blocking the president on policy issues.

Congress cannot withold funding for the war as that is "letting down the troops," but they will come up with something to rein in an imperial presidency, as they have done before.

Originally posted by Dark Age At any rate, it has been my experience that any threat is always less than the right says it is and more than the left.

I disagree with your assessment of the domestic surveillance program, but I do like this quote .

Actually, I believe Clinton's highest approval rating was 73%. Bush enjoyed an approval rating in the mid eighties after the September 11th attacks. All both of these numbers serve to show is that the American public is fickle, and it would thus be unsound to base policy upon polls. By the way, I cannot speak for the Republicans, but I personally find nothing wrong with criticizing anyone, especially an ex-president, for lying under oath.

Actually, Richard Nixon was not impeached. Anyway, most of the allegations raised against him in the hearings related to the Watergate Scandal, not government spying on anti-war groups.

By the way, he was NOT doing the same thing Bush is doing. The domestic surveillance program targets only those who have been determined to have a clear link to terror groups. But, then again, I guess we disagree as to the nature of the program.

I would ask you though, would you rather believe the media than the government? Or perhaps the public instead of the media? Maybe activists instead of the public? OR maybe the government instead of activists? I'm not trying to make an argumentative point. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of sources of information out there, and that is where these disagreements arise from.

I wish more people would realize this. Many of the educated people who should be saying that have gotten swept up into our little 24 hour news cycle.

-Akolouthos

Right.  Which is why I mentioned the end of Clinton's presidency.  Aside from an October surprise, Bush's presidency is already over.

I wouldn't say the people are fickle.  A lot of events have happened since his ratings were at high levels, a lot of promises have been made, and a lot of people have been disappointed.  It has more to do with the administration's incompetence than anyone being fickle.  Back when Bush had high approval, the nation was wrapping its head around the Iraq War Group, who was publicizing an "imminent threat" in a series of at least 250 official statements that turned out to be completely wrong.  With all of the talk of "mushroom clouds," etc., the group was building this public support.  I don't think there was any dissent about going to Afghanistan and removing the Taliban to get to the real culprit for 9/11.  By the way, how is the chase coming along, anyway?  Will they get Osama by November 1?

And no matter what you say about polls, a politician low in poll numbers is rarely successful.  Only the faithful Republican base believe Bush can turn things around.  In reality, the situation is more divisive than ever.  The report released Friday by the State Department on the Iraq situation says the same thing.  Some people should have really thought this whole thing through before taking action.

You are correct.  Nixon did resign.  I apologize for the error.  But the articles of impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary Committee by the time he resigned so it was only a matter of time.  Only article 1 of the articles of impeachment deal with Watergate.  The domestic spying allegations consist of Article 2 (http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtm l), in which he claimed he was only spying on Americans in the interest of national security but it was apparent his was not, as it is becoming apparent that the NSA is not only spying only on people with terror ties.  Your claim that only terror-related spying is going on is fantasy.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/0 1/06/AR2006010601772.html)

At any rate, the FISA law exists because of the wrongful surveillance of Americans which happened during the Nixon administration.  Whether it's good forsociety or not is open to debate but most Americans don't like it.  In fact, most believe he should be impeached if the courts determine he violated citizens Constitutional liberties.  (http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2)  All he needed to do was get warrants but didn't.  His excuses why he flouted the law are weak.  The FISA court is right down the hall from the Attorney General's office.  Get a warrant, you fascists!

And Nixon's domestic surveillance program targeted only those who have been determined to be a threat to national security.  What's the difference?

Like I said, the NSA, under Bush's directive, cast out a wide net to obtain information.  Lawsuits are being filed by people and groups who believe they are under surveillance but have no terror ties, like that Quaker-based Baltimore peace group.  What are their terror ties?  The government, in pure Orwell infowar fashion, won't even acknowledge the subjects of the program.  So regular Americans have to tie up the court system and taxpayer dollars to get the government to reveal information they will be ordered to anyway.  Talk about obstructionism.  But I suppose you think there's nothing wrong with that.

And under the Patriot Act, people being investigated cannot even talk to their attorneys or anyone else about any searches or surveillance, an absolute violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.  This is in effect whether you are innocent or not.  You don't even get a chance to defend yourself.  Does that not sound dangerous to liberty, to all of the ideals this nation holds dear?  What if it were you?  Some one has to stand up for the innocent or there will be nothing left to fight for.  Giving up rights for security is one of the most dangerous things a citizenry can do.  Any student of history knows that.

I'm glad people are trying to be tough on terror and although I do not believe the problem of terrorism will ever go away, I still feel that ordinary people's rights do not need to be trampled upon in order for that to happen.  Then the terrorists get the draconian American government they hope for, short of total distruction.

You know, that's a good question.  Personally, I do consider more than one side from more than one source but ultimately, no one can really be trusted to bring unbiased information to the table.  But I am the type of person who likes results, not repeated excuses for failing policies.  It reminds me of the CEOs who get paid huge sums of money regardless of the job they do for the corporation.  There is just no accountability.  "I screwed up, but I'm going to see what's on the other side, anyway." 

We're probably all guilty of that at one time or another.  The main problem is that we can't stay there forever.  And we can't move troops out by tomorrow.  So when can we get some answers?  Why let the terrorists dictate the timetable for withdrawal and when soldiers can come home to their families?  They are willing to hurt us in some way forever so we apparently have to act in kind.  This nation will not withstand some eternal ideological war.  It was an incredibly stupid idea from the outset.  None of those big brains in Washington couldn't have seen this coming?  That's incompetence.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I think it does demonstrate that people are fickle. Look at the Iraq polls. People were becoming opposed to the reasons for going to war back in December of 2003, then we captured Saddam. All of a sudden people believe that the reasons for going to war were just. The equation of success with the justified/unjustified nature of motives is just one example of the fickleness of the American people.

As for whether they will get Osama by November 11th or not, I have no idea. I would assert that the fact that many people were asking this question back in early 2004 is an example of how jaded and fickle the American people are. 

You know I'm sure I sounded clever when I noted that Nixon had never been impeached, but I honestly came to that realization after a bit of research. After conferring with several of my friends via phone I found that the ignorance is not limited to you or me alone. I think our primary/secondary education system has failed us . Thank you for providing the imformation about the second article of impeachment. Isn't it kind of sad that the people had to be informed of something that affected their precious election (article 1) before they cared about something that affected all of them in general (article 2; I still haven't read that third one yet)?

Of course the Bush administration had to use a "wide net" to root out terrorists. Like you I am glad that they are doing so, although I believe the origin of our disagreement relates to exactly how wide the net should be. As for tax dollars being tied up in investigating the government, it is hardly the fault of the administration--did they demand the investigation? They view the press reports of the program as breaches of national security. They, as I, believe that they are protecting the security of the American people; and no, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Once again, this is nothing new. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and every other wartime president has taken *ahem* liberties with the Constitution. Bush is not a special case.

This nation is not able to withstand an eternal ideological war. I'll do you one better (since I don't view the war to be eternal): This nation will not withstand a prolonged ideological war. Whose fault is that? The president? The administration? The Congress? Of course not. It is the fault of those in America who consistently agitate against the interests of their nation. We saw it in the 60s-70s, and now the precedent is being confirmed. I view this as a tragedy, not a progression.

Originally posted by Dark Age Even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, at least on this issue, I do enjoy our discussions.  I'm sure there are some issues where we meet in the middle.

I hate you! No, I despise you! No...I guess I kinda like you . I also suspect that we might not disagree on every issue. I'm actually kind of glad you responded, as you have given me more insight into the Nixon "non-impeachment" than I would have had otherwise. God bless.

-Akolouthos

I don't think the US public got suckered into anything. The People who leaned toward the left were against, alot of the right thought it was a bad idea, and half of Americans didn't know where Iraq.

I hope this won't happen. Seems like Bush is on a rampage. We put Clinton up for impeachment, but we don't Bush when he just keeps picking and choosing what to blow up even though most Americans disagree with what he does already. You'd think with the polls and all the protests there are he'd get an idea that people don't want him to continue on with his personal campaign...

I invite you to relieve yourself from further embarassment and to  take your family with you and exile to one country that stands by good principles: Turkey. The beautifull country rich in culture with sweet people. Give your kids their chance to grow up to become honnorable and lucky able to call themselves Turks! What Americans and Turks have in common is that they're not xenophobe and are a people with hope who want to build a better future so you'll feel at home unlike in some other destinations. Wherever you are, 

"Come, come again, whoever you are, come!
Heathen, fire worshipper or idolatrous, come!
Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times,
Ours is the portal of hope, come as you are."

Aye, Turkey protested the U.S. action in Iraq. And after they voted not to support the U.S. effort, they sent troops into the north anyhow. It was a bit hypocritically imperialistic, don't ya think, maybe even..."aggressive"?

By the way, Bush was elected by a majority of U.S. citizens in 2004. As for the 2000 election (man we're going to be talking about that till we're old, aren't we ), we have an electoral system.

As for us "betraying" you, our "allies", I say again: TURKEY refused to support the effort, and then TURKEY sent troops into the north, against the request of the President and the coalition.

As for treating people like subhumans...: Greeks, Armenians, Cypriots and, most relevant to the discussion, KURDS. And yes, I am proud to be an American citizen.

As for your "invitation" to "one country that stands by 'good principles'" I think I shall decline. Ethnic minorities don't have the best history in Turkey, do they? As for good principles: Greeks, Armenians, Cypriots, and Kurds.

And as for "What Americans and Turks have in common is that they're not xenophobe".... Both America and Turkey demonstrate xenophobia in their own special ways. The difference is that recently we have stopped killing people because of our xenophobic tendencies.

-Akolouthos

Aye, Turkey protested the U.S. action in Iraq. And after they voted not to support the U.S. effort, they sent troops into the north anyhow. It was a bit hypocritically imperialistic, don't ya think, maybe even..."aggressive"?

By the way, Bush was elected by a majority of U.S. citizens in 2004. As for the 2000 election (man we're going to be talking about that till we're old, aren't we ), we have an electoral system.

As for treating people like subhumans...: Greeks, Armenians, Cypriots and, most relevant to the discussion, KURDS. And yes, I am proud to be an American citizen.

As for your "invitation" to "one country that stands by 'good principles'" I think I shall decline. Ethnic minorities don't have the best history in Turkey, do they? As for good principles: Greeks, Armenians, Cypriots, and Kurds.

And as for "What Americans and Turks have in common is that they're not xenophobe".... Both America and Turkey demonstrate xenophobia in their own special ways. The difference is that recently we have stopped killing people because of our xenophobic tendencies.

-Akolouthos

Your country thinks of 'world domination', we think of the countries all over the world as the organs of a body for which you should care as if your own body if one should be sick. Of course you don't know how civilised and ethical we are because you still thinking in Medieval way that Turks are barbars!


Edit: removed red colour.

You are correct. We in America have been raised to hate Turks and the Turkish people. The first day of kindergarten they show us the propaganda video How to Properly Hate Turks. The indoctrination doesn't stop there. Throughout our primary schooling we are exposed to a program entitled Basics of Turk Hating. It continues into high-school (my extra-curricular activities were football--our mascot was the Anti-Turk--and intramural Hating of Turks--although this was only available in the spring. Nor is high school the end of the American Anti-Turkish conspiracy. In college we are exposed to a wide array of courses in which we specialize in different forms of Anti-Turk learning. My favorite courses were "Gender Studies in Modern Anti-Turkism" and "Afrocentric Anti-Turkism."

But now that you have exposed the American anti-Turk conspiracy, we can all hope that this horrible system will fall apart. I'm very glad to find that you are "interested" in other cultures... as long as they are not occupying lands that you feel you have a strategic right to. Please pardon my barbarous western medieval perspective.

I think I shall avoid getting drawn into a discussion dominated by nationalistic propaganda. Feel free to continue without me; may you have much joy of it.

-Akolouthos

You are correct. We in America have been raised to hate Turks and the Turkish people. The first day of kindergarten they show us the propaganda video How to Properly Hate Turks. The indoctrination doesn't stop there. Throughout our primary schooling we are exposed to a program entitled Basics of Turk Hating. It continues into high-school (my extra-curricular activities were football--our mascot was the Anti-Turk--and intramural Hating of Turks--although this was only available in the spring. Nor is high school the end of the American Anti-Turkish conspiracy. In college we are exposed to a wide array of courses in which we specialize in different forms of Anti-Turk learning. My favorite courses were "Gender Studies in Modern Anti-Turkism" and "Afrocentric Anti-Turkism."

But now that you have exposed the American anti-Turk conspiracy, we can all hope that this horrible system will fall apart. I'm very glad to find that you are "interested" in other cultures... as long as they are not occupying lands that you feel you have a strategic right to. Please pardon my barbarous western medieval perspective.

I think I shall avoid getting drawn into a discussion dominated by nationalistic propaganda. Feel free to continue without me; may you have much joy of it.

-Akolouthos

Edit II: removed red colour for your eyes' pleasure.

    What is present in his post is sarcasm, and with good reason.  Ultra-nationalist BS is usually reacted to in that way when one wants to remain polite but not totally ignore the issue.

     By the By-   since you seem to be head cheerleader for the Turkey is wonderful club, whyzit you live in Belgium?

omg! bush is officially crazy! i just heard on the news that he was quoted as saying that he will be the only president now and in the future to ever have the courage to "save" iran.

mr. bush, you think you can save iran by nuking it? there is something big going on right now, we just have to wait and see what it is, but now im mroe convinced that htis bush administration has huge plans in mind, and WWIII could be closer than we imagine.

All Americans are proud of our country, just not the current adminstration. Seems like Americans are different from Turkey if your going to ask that question. All of us Americans have different ideas on how the country should work. We all are very individualistic. We usually disagree with each other and in bad times we band together. Even today the North and South have alittle animosity towards each other(more so the south).

See I really don't agree with Bush and his Iraq War, while Akolouthos agrees with Bush, though I don't know if he really supports the war. Yet both of us are very proud to be Americans even though we have different ideas.

I'm not suffering, and by not paying taxes means I lose everything I have. And if you say, "Then why not just move out of the country", then that means I can never help turn things around here. I don't give up that easily and call it quits, that'd be just un-American. 

That would be a Embarrassment. It means I'd put my tail between my legs and run away(I don't have a tail, just a saying). Our forefathers fought in the Revolution against one of the Greatest Powers of the times, and they won for fighting in what they believed in. I'm not going to start a war aginst my own country, unless Bush decides not to leave office in 2008.  But I'm also not going to agree with the current adminstration, and I hope to see change in the government one day.

I'd rather they be called Americans. My kids will grow up to be honorable New Englanders. They will vote for whats right and maybe help make good changes in this country one day. And if they vote for politics I don't agree with, I'll send them to Turkey.

I am all for getting back to the topic at hand, which we were discussing until someone brought Turkey into all of this.

By the way, excuse me, but I will not stand idly by while you charge me with being a racist. If you can't brook rational disagreement then I'm afraid you are in the wrong forum.

-Akolouthos

P.S.

Bingo!

Leonardo-

      Oh give it a rest!   You are- either trying to start a flame war, which won't happen, or, you might be one of our "famous AE ghosts" simply looking to disrupt a decent thread. Either way someones going to hit the button on you, if it hasn't happened already. 

Thanks for calling me an ignoramus, as I needed that today.

And no, conspiracy theories do not fit my "dogmats" nor my "believies."

Too bad you will not post anymore, as we all would like to know about how Americans were so pro-Nazi that we fought the Second World War to defeat them.

Bush only listens to those who he wants to. He drives by protesters like they aren't there, refuses to answer questions by them, and if any of the people that are in his tight circle disagrees with him he lets them go. He only wants people to support him.

--
I think the US hurt alot of friendships with allies. Yet some still came even though they disagreed with it. So there is nothing special there.

You? As in me? I didn't do anything. I don't support this war, and my state had the popular vote against Bush both times, along with the rest of New England. Though I think New Hampshire went red at one of the elections.

Well you as a human, no, I mean all of you as the citizens of USA.
During the wedding of my aunt in France, one of the guests was an American from Chicago, it was back in 2002 I think. He was all against his new president. btw I will never forget him because he was such friendly person. He even invited me in the States (but I still not went) So you remind me of him. There're good people in the USA, I just wonder what make them not flee, when they have no say in their own country.

All Americans are proud of our country, just not the current adminstration. Seems like Americans are different from Turkey if your going to ask that question. All of us Americans have different ideas on how the country should work. We all are very individualistic. We usually disagree with each other and in bad times we band together. Even today the North and South have alittle animosity towards each other(more so the south).

Turkish public have very strong opinions. e.g. vote is not an obligation (unlike in Belgium), however the majority feels concerned enough to vote and the political debate is very alive, in everyday discussions as well as on political debates on TV. It's a more democratic country then people think. As an individual you have to follow rules, like you may not belitting the country in the press, and I'm thinking of writer Orhan Pamuk. His book was never a problem, but it became a problem when he said things to a foreign (Swiss?) media that are concidered to be 'belitting', however the citizens as a whole have a strong voice and the government cannot do anything against them. These laws come from the  real state and that is the generals. The military institution is sacred, like some sort of Pharaonic Kingdom. But politicians are seen like the servants of democraty and not more. Never will there be a prime minister that behaves like he can do anything against the citizen's approval.

I think Turks are less individualistic most Western nations. And I hope we can retain that because I see it as a quality. For instance Turkish soldiers are seen as a reference even in the United States because they deeply care of eachother more then themselves. In daily lives it's also important because you won't see that many lonely people you see in Belgium.
I feel very sad for the lonely women and men in Belgium but no one sees it and it's concidered 'normal'. I don't concider it as natural because I have the Turkish reference. Turkishness is about honnour, proudness but also humanity.

See I really don't agree with Bush and his Iraq War, while Akolouthos agrees with Bush, though I don't know if he really supports the war. Yet both of us are very proud to be Americans even though we have different ideas.

--
 I'm not suffering, and by not paying taxes means I lose everything I have. And if you say, "Then why not just move out of the country", then that means I can never help turn things around here. I don't give up that easily and call it quits, that'd be just un-American.

--

That would be a Embarrassment. It means I'd put my tail between my legs and run away(I don't have a tail, just a saying). Our forefathers fought in the Revolution against one of the Greatest Powers of the times, and they won for fighting in what they believed in. I'm not going to start a war aginst my own country, unless Bush decides not to leave office in 2008.  But I'm also not going to agree with the current adminstration, and I hope to see change in the government one day.

How about the refugees who flee to US, like the Jews, they had no choice because it got so bad in Europe for them. That's not a shame. What about Europeans who flee to the US in the last 30 years,  why didn't they try to make things better in Europe? Yet now Americans they would like to make things better. It's like their 'promised land' or something. I'm talking about refugees, because US gave them a chance to live in piece, and in case of the Jews the US saved their existence. But the others, apart from the decendents of the slaves and native Americans (including a native community of Turkish origins), didn't they at one time not turn their back to their country?

I know there're also Turks in the US that who're also making part of the American culture, like the head of Universal, as the head of Coca Cola International. The US gave them the chance to be successfull at international level.

The historical country of exile for Europeans is not USA, it is Turkey.
However, Turkey is not perfect, and this is why it wants to join the EU; It's like a hygienic treatment. And if in the end Turkey doesn't join the EU, it will have had the reforms and the basis for stability and a bright future, and it will have won in the end. It's a win-win situation!
Turkey will again be the shiny star that captures the envy and imaginations the world over.  We've not been the 'shiny star' for some time, but Turks didn't loose their honnour because they stayed independent. We earned our sovereignty ourselves. Our proudness is not volatile nor superficial.

 I'd rather they be called Americans. My kids will grow up to be honorable New Englanders. They will vote for whats right and maybe help make good changes in this country one day. And if they vote for politics I don't agree with, I'll send them to Turkey.

I respect that you want your kids to be called Americans and grow up to be honnorable New Englanders. People like you will save the US. However what can you do now? If the US nukes Iran the damage will stay forever. You live confortably far away, but these people will have their land contaminated and don't forget that Iranians are people of honnours. Ottomans were never able to rule over Persia!

There's an American community in Turkey who concider it as their second home. I think Turks and Americans can go along real good, and perhaps better then with Western Europeans whom I find tend to be pretentious. I don't have 100% Turkish blood, and my European famaliy don't really care for my Turkishness, yet in Turkey people ask me alot of questions with their curious eyes. In my mind, Americans are more like that.  They like new things. For instance they let the Turkish community in New York have their Turkish Day Parade. That's near to impossible in Europe! Here we generally look down to immigrants. Not in USA and not in Turkey.

I think the US would be damed if they do and damed if they don`t . So what if Iran does gets the bomb with the  promise of wiping Isreal off the map, with this suicide bombing idealogy that seems to be a way of war now days.  What would happen  is once a atomic bomb is launched at Isreal  they would launched theirs, destroying millions of people, all the surrounding countires and the world  be affected.   All a  middle eastern country needs is to have a sucide bomber behind a atomic bomb in this world, what is better the chance of saving millions of  people from  dying,and starting WW3, or just to go in a bomb the site and come out with a bad opinion?

 (Robert Blake ) the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for goog men to do nothing.

First of all, I didn't call you an ignoramus. I defined by this word people who present a special kind of attitude and behavior. I explained it. I neither know your views nor your attitude to this issue. You know it much better than me. I wrote clearly:

"So-called "conspiracy theories" should never be disregarded, neglected, rejected and sneered at in advance. The one who does it is simply an ignoramus."

Please do not misinterpret my words. Perhaps it's my fault that you misinterpreted some of my words because I had not explained my views precisely. Please, be understanding. English is not my native language and, as you can see, it's far from perfect.

Nevertheless, I infer from your last post that you felt offensed or abused, because you reject and ridicule it on principle, a priori, in advance.

Secondly, I didn't say that Americans were pro-Nazi. Please, do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say. I said precisely that American establishment or elites were pro-Nazi, not American citizens. Of course not all of American establishment had pro-Nazi sympathies, but quite a lot. There is a big difference between an average American citizen and American establishment. Their is a big difference between average citizens and their establishments in any nation. I would like to emphasis that many members of American elites who had pro-Nazi sympathies, rarely presented their views openly, outright.

Actually, I should say that such sympathies were common among not only American elites but also British or generally Anglosaxon.

1. USA fought WW II because your state had been attacked by Japan and Germany declared war against USA. Your state and nation didn't declare the war against Germany and Japan before just because Jews and Slavs were persecuted and large part of Europe were conquered and many nationalities were oppressed. It simply didn't interest most of Americans. Your leaders and politicians made your nation believe that you engaged in war just to fight for ideals, "new better world", etc. It's an old, well-known and common way to unify the nation against an enemy by convincing it (I mean the nation) that "we are good and we fight against bad people" for generous purposes, aims. In case of WW II USA really fight against bad people, but in most cases the truth is not so simple, "we are white and they are black".

Now, the propaganda of US government (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) preaches that "Iran is bad and dangerous for us and we must bomb it in order to liberate the oppressed nation and introduce the order and the peace in the Middle East" and so on and so forth, ble, ble, ble, ble.

2. I always considered why neither the RAF nor the USAF bomb concentration camps and railways leading to them. Yet they knew well what horrible atrocicties were taking place there. Usually the response, the explanation of  most of English and American historians were such that it was too dangerous, too hazardous, too risky for the crews of bombers. The distance between airbases and concentration camps were too big. The air defense in area of upper Silesia was too strong, etc. But this explanations don't stick to the facts. The German rafinery in Trzebinia (pronounce Tshebeenya) (which had much stronger air-defense than any concentration camp!) had been bombed. Trzebinia is located about 50 km from Auschwitz - you must admit that it is not very far from Trzebinia. For airplanes such distance is like piece of cake.

The explanation why Anglosaxons did not bomb railways is similar and sometimes a new reason is added: because bombing of railways is especially hard, the planes must bomb from low altitude, which mean that the potential losses had too be big, too big to accept such bombing and that effects of such bombings would be small etc.

Well, what can I say. Before the D-day there were especially intensive  bombings of railways in Normandy and they were quite effective and the losses in allied air forces were small.

The other common explanation is that Anglosaxon politicians believed that only fast victory of allies would stop the Holocaust. Well, however this explanation is better, it also has weak points. The bombings of concentration camps would considerably diminish the scale of Holocaust. Thousands or even millions of people would survive.

Logical conclusions, explanations, options come to my mind:

1. The leaders of US and UK didn't know about Holocaust. But it is not true. They knew about it. There is plenty of evidence for that. Polish Domestic Army gave them many proofs for that and informed about it scrupulously. Polish government on exile informed not only allied governments, but also, for instance, Jewish orgainization in USA.

2. The leaders of USA and UK in that time were total idiots, fools who did not realize that many Jewish lives could have been spared, saved if the bombings had taken place.

3. The leaders of USA and UK were deliberately and intentionally disinformed by the highest officers of RAF and USAF that the bombings of concentration camps is impossible from this or that reason.

4. The leaders of UK and USA didn't bother about Jews at all. "One Jew more or less, who cares!"

5. They had antisemitic and racist views as well and they wanted Jews too be doomed.

Sorry, but I'm still not going to sit by while you baselessly--and rather recklessly--accuse me of racism. I'm also not going to let you accuse anyone of being ethnocentric, especially in light of your "U.S. citizens should move to Turkey because their country has disgraced them" post . Apologies and all that, but it's simply not going to happen.

Once again, if you view the mention of some of the less pleasant aspects of your country's history as a racist insult then you are in the wrong forum. Rather than offer a response to the question of the Greeks, Armenians, Cypriots, and Kurds--which we shouldn't even be doing on this thread anyway; in fact we wouldn't had a certain individual not posted a nationalistic tourism ad--you have been content to accuse me of racism. A bit disingenuous, don't you think?

By the way, what is all of this talk of "going down on knees?" And what is this nonsense about me calling Turks barbarians? Feel free to search the whole day through, you'll never find me saying that. Is this all just rhetoric, or the result of a bit of an inferiority complex? You know there is a word for that: trolling!

As for:

I don't see how removing a color that emphasizes your words over those of everyone else is a "grand demonstration of humility," but hey, whatever floats your boat.

As for giving the thread back, who was it that initially shifted the emphasis away from Iran with nationalistic rhetoric? Hmmmmm?

And finally, since you've accused me several times of either being a racist (because I don't like the way Turkey has treated her ethnic minorities), or insulting you (frankly, I have no idea where you got that idea), let us examine some of your recent work:

From the first post (the one that knocked this thread off track):

Originally posted by Leonardo Turco I invite you to relieve yourself from further embarassment and to  take your family with you and exile to one country that stands by good principles: Turkey. The beautifull country rich in culture with sweet people. Give your kids their chance to grow up to become honnorable and lucky able to call themselves Turks!

And the second one, where you baselessly hinted at an accusation of racism:

So I ask you: Who is being insulting?  Also, I challenge you to find a single example of nationalism or ethnocentrism in my posts that compares with your posts that are cited above. That's about it. Not gonna let you get away with your groundless charges of racism buddy; simply not gonna happen. Find another place to post nationalistic drivel.

-Akolouthos

I know! Part of our deeply conspiratorial anti-Turk training should have included a basic course in world geography. By the way, thanks for the earlier summation of how different people can hold different opinions and still be equally proud of their country. I really couldn't have said it any better myself, and I wish more people in America (specifically some of my compatriots on the right )would recognize it.

-Akolouthos

By the way, thanks for the earlier summation of how different people can hold different opinions and still be equally proud of their country. I really couldn't have said it any better myself, and I wish more people in America (specifically some of my compatriots on the right )would recognize it.

Americans are just very individualistic, we are a family, and like any family, we argue with each other.

People's opinions are being shaped by spin (by both sides, of course).  Upon Saddam's capture, the rationale for Iraq suddenly became a humanitarian one and not for enforcement of Iraq's alleged chemical weapons cache.  Rove and the administration will spin an event one way, the liberals another, and the public is left with the respective liberal/FOX News media to further the respective ideological agendas. 

And perhaps you're right about the public being fickle.  I've never had a good opinion of the general public and their slowness is discerning the truth in things, as opposed to the spin.  Heck, there's still a bunch of good folks out there who believe Saddam caused 9/11.

And you'll recall that Osama made a statement just prior to the election that tipped favor towards Bush's favor once again.  Why do you think he did that?  Because Osama wants the status quo: terrorists spreading terror and Bush unable to do much about it.  I have a feeling that he knew some of this was going to happen.  Another president might not be as predictable.

And you know, it's not the first time that I've read about Nixon actually not being impeached.  Apparently, it's a general misconception of history.  And of course, Clinton was never fully impeached, either.  We can never seem to finish what we start, I guess. 

And again, that doesn't make it right.  It is the same rationale that children use when peer pressure becomes a problem.  Know what my mother would say, like many others throughout the ages?  C'mon, say it with me: "If Lincoln Roosevelt, and Clinton jumped off a bridge, should Bush, as well?"  Bush should take the high road and fight to protect our freedoms, not take any away, which is exactly what law enforcement is doing at his behest. 

And you know what?  I think Americans could really care less what Saddam did to the Kurds or anyone else when it comes to governmental intrusion on themselves.  And I think it might be reflected in the poll numbers.  You know what the people aren't fickle about?  Losing their own freedom. 

I hate you! No, I despise you! No...I guess I kinda like you . I also suspect that we might not disagree on every issue. I'm actually kind of glad you responded, as you have given me more insight into the Nixon "non-impeachment" than I would have had otherwise. God bless. -Akolouthos

I think I agree with you here. I was not so much speaking of the 40-60% (depending upon the political climate) who oppose the war as much as I was speaking of the counter-culture fringe, which I view as a child of the 60s-70s anti war movement. The common people who don't support the war, for me, would fall into the category of individuals influenced by the agitation of the anti-war movement. I think I (perhaps unjustly) would probably define the anti-war movement a bit more narrowly than you.

As for winning the war, I think enough evidence exists to point out the utter inability of fighting a prolonged limited war. If you'd like to talk about this at some length I'd be willing, but right now I'm very, very late for something.  God bless.

-Akolouthos

Quick Addendum: I definitely don't view everyone who is opposed to the war as anti-American (for I believe that defining them as such would be anti-American). I do, however, view the anti-war movement (which I define a bit more narrowly) as anti-American.

I am itching to start a "solutions" thread, discussing the pros and cons of lowering Iraq down to a simmer that people can work with to restore law and order, not the Saddam dictatorial type but the pre-9/11 American innocent until proven guilty type.

I like the idea, but I have a feeling that what you would have after a few days would be one of two things:

1) A shouting match (flame-war).

2) Something identical to this thread (off topic rational discussion)

Not that option two isn't productive, useful etc.; it's just that we can do it here. I'd actually like you to start the thread though--maybe I'm too pessimistic.

Hm, a difficult question: What is the anti-war movement, in my mind?

I think--and I reserve the right to change my mind several hundred times--that I, when I use the term anti-war movement, I am referring to fringe activists. As for MoveOn.org, I find them dishonest, disingenuous, blindly partisan, etc. However if we declared every group or individual that fit that description un-American, we would soon run out of Americans .

The complex nature of the modern political world precludes a great sense of positive understanding. I think I could better define the anti-war movement apophatically. Now onto the key point...

You know, I think I'm changing my mind. I don't think I like calling the anti-war movement un-American. In fact, I don't think I like calling anyone un-American. Does this mean it cannot be done? No. Does this mean that actions cannot be un-American? No.Hmmm.

Perhaps the problem lies in our definition of America (and you know what's funny? After all of that unpleasantness with Leornardo Turco, he actually inspired this thought!). Anyway, when we say "un-American" we tend to mean "bad" as often as we mean "against property rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, etc.". Furthermore, we--I believe rightly-- would never associate the term "anti-American" with "good". Anyway, the crux of it is I don't feel comfortable applying such an unclear, general term to anyone. Don't know if I could say the same thing for every possible context the word could be used in.

Ugh, don't even know if that made sense; I changed my mind several times while reading your post and writing my response, so it probably doesn't fit together well. Don't hold me too tightly to any of the above written statements . Oh well, I need a nap. God bless.

-Akolouthos

Leornardo, seriously, give it a rest.

1) My opinions of Turkey's relations with its ethnic minorities are not a product of racism, nor are they a product of the media. They are a product of my historical studies.

2) Stop terming everyone who disagrees with you as "ignorant" or a racist. You won't make many friends that way, and you certainly won't get close to any objective truth.

3) If you insist on deeming people "pretentious," "ignorant," or racist, back it up. Don't simply make general statements about their educational systems/media (By the way, where did you get your information regarding our educational system?)

4) Stop already with the flamboyant, nationalistic rhetoric (e.g. things like "from your high pedestal," "you want us down on our knees," etc.) Not only is it trolling, it's also a bit tacky . Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we're "hateful," "racist," "poorly educated," gullible, or any of that other nonsense.

Finally, if you are so convinced that we should all move to Turkey, why don't you live there?

-Akolouthos

Addendum: Speaking of reading things that are insulting, have you looked back over you're first post? The general gist of it was that Americans should all be so humiliated by our nation that we should move to Turkey! How is that anything other than insulting, nationalistic rhetoric?

I'm really confused, why are you saying we have a huge ego? I'll admit we do sometimes, mostly in sports or about our military, but I don't think US citizens think they are better or superior then anyone. Atleast I never heard that. Many Americans are very proud of their ancestral backround which comes from all around the world.

And what do you mean Americans claim we are the heirs to Greek civilization? While more Americans would probably be able to point out Greece then Turkey, I highly doubt they know anything about Greek History, nevermind architecture. I think in sixth grade we talked about a few ancient civilizations and then moved on. History and geography is not something big in the US and students don't think it's essential. Sorry if it upsets you that Americans can't find Turkey, but to be honest is has nothing to do with ego's.

And what are you talking about Americans portraying Turks as evil? I think there was one movie where Turks were portrayed bad, or atleast thats the only one I heard, "Midnight Express" I think it is. I never saw and only heard about it on these message boards. The only movie I saw with Turks is "Murder on the Orient Express", which if I remember right, the Turks weren't even the bad guys in it. Other then that I don't remember seeing any other form of media about Turks.

I think education has alot to do with it, and with Bush's no child left behind program, schools are cutting our history further back to make way for math, literature, and science I believe. So it seems our History courses are only going to be getting worse.

And not to knock on you Turks, but you guys are always claiming a bunch of histories of your own, always saying how great your military is and the US should never mess with you Turks(or atleast I read this a few times in threads about the Iraqi war). And then in here your telling me that Americans are claiming histories and cultures of other civilizations? Now I'm not denying that maybe you Turks are telling the truth, but if you read these boards, and there are alot of Americans, you'd see we don't claim anyones history, and that we are proud of ourshort history as it is.  If you read our messages, you'd see that we all disagree and agree with certain issues. We even put down parts of our government all the time. That sounds hardly like we have a ego. I don't even think we say that we are superior to anyone else outside of Military, and thats only with a few countries, where we debate whether we can take on larger countries or not.

The reason Americans don't know much about other countires outside of North America is because, in away it doesn't concern Americans. They want to work and have fun if they have the time. Americans are more concerned with cars and sports it seems then politics and history.

I don't understand why you think Americans have claim to the Classical look.

Though it's a known symbol of the US, I believe Americans recognize it more of a symbol of New York.

It's America and it's people that represent those. They are embodied in us because thats what we believe in more then anything. It seems rediculous to me that you claim everything the US is supposed to represent is just artificial. It's not, it's what we fought for to become independent!

Though I will say this, it seems the Politicians have lost the ideals of what the US used to represent. But I guess you could argued that we fought the war to give Iraqi's freedom from a oppressor, but I think it has to do with all money and not our past ideals... Which to me is pretty sad.

Hmm, so let me get this straight:

I am supposed "to make a human connection with Turkish people," not see "them from a political point of vieuw." Meanwhile, in a galaxy far, far away, you "criticised the United States for concrete things you do now and which has direct consequences to Turkey," or...dare I say it...looked at the U.S. from a political point of view?

By the way, I never stated, hinted, or implied support for the PKK, a terrorist organization. Sympathy with the Kurds as a general ethnic group does not equate to sympathy with terrorist fringe groups. You brought up the issue of xenophobia (which, unfortunately, is present in every nation to some degree). I simply used the Kurds, Greeks, Cypriots, and Armenians as examples of Turkey's own xenophobic problems. Once again, every nation in this world has its own ethnic problems.

As for my Addendum, I believe it accurately portrays the insulting--and blindly nationalistic--nature of your initial post. Allow me to illustrate:

Offended yet? This is what your initial post would look like if you switched the names "America" and "Turkey," and then brought up some nationalistic issues relevant to that part of the world. Of course what this amounts to is a nationalistic diatribe. I hope you can see it in the edited statement above, if so, can you not see how insulting your initial post can appear to many Americans?

-Akolouthos

Akolouthos,

I wouldn't get too upset by anything Leonardo writes here -- much of it is silly and is probably just venting. When he writes this: "You killed innocent people in Iraq and Cyprus, treat Kurds and Cypriots like subhumans, you provoked civil war, in fact you are yourself the demon you try to portray others," you cannot take him very seriously. This is coming from the self-appointed spokesman for a country that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians, tens of thousands of Kurds, and is slowly "cleansing" itself of the last ethnic Greeks in Istanbul/Constantinople.

I understand the Turkish position in Cyprus ("no more Cretes" Rauf Denktas used to say), and their concern about Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq, but the rest is just ranting. No country has supported Turkey more in the last 60 years than the US. It is only the direct application of US influence on the EU that led to Turkey being invited to begin accession talks, because no European country wants them to join. When, during the Iraq war, only the US cared enough about Turkish security (despite Ankara's atrocious behaviour) to push NATO into taking action to honour its defence treaty. It was the US who protected the Kurds after the first Gulf War and pushed the UN into authorising the no fly zone over northern Iraq. (By the way, at that time, Ankara would have been quite happy to just watch all the Kurdish refugees in the north starve on its borders rather than let them in. ) By the way, Leonardo, not all Kurds are PKK, but Turkish policy towards the Kurdish people has certainly helped the PKK recruiting efforts.

Earlier, I used the word "silly" with reason. Any Turk who implies that his homeland has a better record as a defender of human rights than the US or just about any Western country is just oblivious to history. The Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey have fascinating histories, but let's not bend facts.

     cunctator- Nicely said, thank you.

We Turks are no more "honourable" than other people.  And I totally disagree with you saying that we love other cultures and have no prejudice against them. This can't be farther from the truth. Most Turks hate Israel (anti-semitism in Turkey is widespread for example) and the West. We are certainly not less prejudiced towards other cultures than Westerners or other people - we all have our good and bad sides..

"we all have our good and bad sides."

Most certainly yes.

Well said that! Once we all acknowledge our flaws we can start fixing them. If we ignore them, or even deny them, they grow.

-Akolouthos

Aren't you overstating the influence of the US over the EU? With anti-Americanism rising around the EU I would say US support for Turkey actually had precisely the opposite effect - it made Turkey seem like a US Troyan horse. Besides if Turkey is to ever become a member of the EU it will be because of the interests of EU states, not American influence.

And it protected them with Turkish authorization. The no-fly zone was enforced from the Turkish base in Incirlik.

Aren't you a bit unfair here? Turkey did accept and let in many  Kurdish refugees during Saddam's brutal reign and particulary the Halabja massacres. I do not think the starving of Kurdish refugees on the border was intentional. It is very hard to deal with humanitarian disasters of such scales - take the example of Albanian refugees to Macedonia during the Yugoslav campaign, only that the Turkish southeast is far poorer.

I agree with you. As a member of a minority myself I too find the Turkish policies against Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin unacceptable. In this respect I support the EU's attitude regarding the issue of minorities. I only wish that the EU did not only focus on Turkey, but paid some attention to the abuses in current EU member states like Greece for instance.

What abuses?Are you going to start another pointless flaming discussion about the Chams or the Muslim Minority of Thrace?We overtalked about this one bizillion times.

You have not been persuaded by past arguments?You want a new argument to the past arguments?Open a new topic so it can be discussed.Your trolling  here is unecessary.

denial of ethnic identity, banning civic organizations of the minority, persecution of individuals belonging to the minority, forced deprivation of citizenship, intereference in the religois affairs of the minority, police surveilance, restrictions on freedom of speech, ...

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-06.htm#P225_36797 - http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-06.htm#P225_ 36797