Christiane Amanpour interupted on air in London.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/9/175847/3787)

http://216.55.181.228/images/image272.jpg

Making this interview the most diverse array of viewpoints CNN has presented in the last 10 years.

[Desertrat]

All well and good to speak of "the truth about Iraq", but anyone who thinks pulling out of there would end terrist bombings is playing Cleopatra: De Queen of DeNial. This is a modern resumption of an age-old territorial expansion that started over a thousand years ago...

'Rat

[skunk]

All well and good to speak of "the truth about Iraq", but anyone who thinks pulling out of there would end terrist bombings is playing Cleopatra: De Queen of DeNial. This is a modern resumption of an age-old territorial expansion that started over a thousand years ago...Really? Whose territory? Anyway, staying there ain't going to end anything, that's for sure.

[Xtremehkr]

Yeah at this point we may as well secure the oil supply. We've invested almost a half trillion there already.

Let's hope that the next move is to do something about Terrorism.

Though I think that Blair is the only one actively working on that. Blair seems to understand how terrorists come about.

Besides, who is calling for a pullout, I thought the plan is to march on to Iran.

[mkrishnan]

So, let me get this straight... the one who couldn't get a word in edgewise during the whole interview session was the one being interviewed, right? :rolleyes: :eek: :D

[Desertrat]

skunk asks, "Really? Whose territory?"

Looks to me like whatever territory can be had. You can start with the unending efforts at genocide for Israel. Then, add in those areas in mainland Europe, England and Canada where there have been political efforts to establish Sharia in Islamic communities. You can see the results of the efforts in parts of Africa; Chad comes readily to mind.

In countries with a predominantly Moslem population, the effort seems to be toward a monoculture, with non-Moslems run off.

skunk, I dunno about what's "truth" as opposed to hearsay, but just for fun why don't you walk down the streets of Riyadh with a Bible in your hand, and report back?

:), 'Rat

[MacDawg]

skunk, I dunno about what's "truth" as opposed to hearsay, but just for fun why don't you walk down the streets of Riyadh with a Bible in your hand, and report back?

:), 'Rat


Don't think he would be around to report back :o

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

I'd say anyone suggesting that staying in Iraq is making us safer is the one living in a riverside apartment on deNile. How many more corners can we turn before we're just going in circles?

And as for the 'walking through Riyadh' comment, I'm sure you're not implying that one cannot dissent from the administration's approach to the WoT and yet still find hatred of Americans to be a serious issue. You think there aren't places in America where a Muslim (or even a Sikh mistaken for a Muslim) wouldn't be accosted if he/she walked down main street holding a Koran? And if there are, does that prove anything about all Americans?

[MacDawg]

I don't want to speak for desertrat, but I think his point would be that intolerance and/or cultural arrogance isn't limited to one country or people, and certainly can't be ascribed solely to the US. At least that's the way I understood it. I'm sure he will clarify if he feels necessary.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

Hmm.. I didn't think the person to whom 'Rat was responding said anything resembling something that said he thought cultural arrogance and intolerance was only limited to our side... Could just be me though.

[skunk]

skunk asks, "Really? Whose territory?"Yes, really. Whose territory is who grabbing? You think there's a Worldwide Muslim Conspiracy? Like the Jewish Bankers' Conspiracy? Like the Christian Missionary Conspiracy?

Looks to me like whatever territory can be had. You can start with the unending efforts at genocide for Israel.I don't believe you're not aware whose land was seized to create the State of Israel. Where do you think all those refugees come from? Allow those kind of conditions to persist, and you get whatever is coming to you.

Then, add in those areas in mainland Europe, England and Canada where there have been political efforts to establish Sharia in Islamic communities.Any successful efforts? I thought not.

You can see the results of the efforts in parts of Africa; Chad comes readily to mind. In countries with a predominantly Moslem population, the effort seems to be toward a monoculture, with non-Moslems run off.Think of it like Utah.

skunk, I dunno about what's "truth" as opposed to hearsay, but just for fun why don't you walk down the streets of Riyadh with a Bible in your hand, and report back?I hold no brief for the Saudis. They wouldn't last a minute without US support, anyway.

[MacDawg]

Hmm.. I didn't think the person to whom 'Rat was responding said anything resembling something that said he thought cultural arrogance and intolerance was only limited to our side... Could just be me though.

You're probably right, I was just poking my nose into a discussion I wasn't really following and drawing some conclusions myself. Maybe that was what I was wanting him to mean. :o

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

Hmm.. I didn't think the person to whom 'Rat was responding said anything resembling something that said he thought cultural arrogance and intolerance was only limited to our side... Could just be me though.I agree.
:D

[MacDawg]

I agree.
:D

Sorry if I came off sounding like that was your opinion skunk, didn't want to speak for you either! :o

OK, I'm heading back to the dawghouse for a while.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

Sorry if I came off sounding like that was your opinion skunk, didn't want to speak for you either! :o

OK, I'm heading back to the dawghouse for a while.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif'Sokay. Woof to you, too. :)

[mactastic]

Hey, don't let us chase you off. I like seeing you down here. Your input is certainly valued.

[MacDawg]

See, this is why I try to stay out of the Political Forum!
But, when I hit new posts, it brings them up and I get tempted again.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

See, this is why I try to stay out of the Political Forum!
But, when I hit new posts, it brings them up and I get tempted again.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif"Once a forum junkie, always a forum junkie". Remember, you've done the difficult bit: acknowledging that you have a problem.
;)

[IJ Reilly]

How many more corners can we turn before we're just going in circles?

I'm sorry, but that's impossible. If you turn enough corners, you'll be going in squares. Or maybe in rectangles, but never in circles.

[skunk]

I'm sorry, but that's impossible. If you turn enough corners, you'll be going in squares. Or maybe in rectangles, but never in circles.Nobody said anything about ninety degrees...

[mactastic]

I'm sorry, but that's impossible. If you turn enough corners, you'll be going in squares. Or maybe in rectangles, but never in circles.
You're Rumsfeld-ian logic is, once again, inscrutable. I'm sure you'd also remind me that any sign of strength on the part of the enemy is a sure sign of their desperation and imminent collapse. As is any sign of strength on our part as well.

[skunk]

You're Rumsfeld-ian logic is, once again, inscrutable. I'm sure you'd also remind me that any sign of strength on the part of the enemy is a sure sign of their desperation and imminent collapse.That's rectangular thinking for you. Typical.

[IJ Reilly]

Nobody said anything about ninety degrees...

Yes, that does leave the possibility of pentagrams, hexagons and octagons and the like. But never circles.

Just call me "Bernard."

[diamond geezer]

skunk asks, "Really? Whose territory?"

Looks to me like whatever territory can be had. You can start with the unending efforts at genocide for Israel. Then, add in those areas in mainland Europe, England and Canada where there have been political efforts to establish Sharia in Islamic communities. You can see the results of the efforts in parts of Africa; Chad comes readily to mind.

:), 'Rat

This coming from a country whose military is in almost every other country in the world. Who starts wars based on lies. The US has killed more civilians in the last few years than all "terrorist" attacks put together.

[Inspector Lee]

Besides, who is calling for a pullout, I thought the plan is to march on to Iran.

First off, is it just me or does the guy in the still-shot look like Steve Martin?

Back on topic, there might be a pullout (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1689283,00.html) on the horizon for the British. But this could be pure pravda.

Stateside, I wonder what the future holds here? I mean, recruitment is down, the troops are stretched thin, how does one fight without any muscle? The numbers (no matter how they are twisted and turned, flipped, etc., by the DC boys) reek of big-time problems in the very near future. And the chill wind is definitely morphing into a brisk gale...

[Xtremehkr]

First off, is it just me or does the guy in the still-shot look like Steve Martin?

Back on topic, there might be a pullout (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1689283,00.html) on the horizon for the British. But this could be pure pravda.

Stateside, I wonder what the future holds here? I mean, recruitment is down, the troops are stretched thin, how does one fight without any muscle? The numbers (no matter how they are twisted and turned, flipped, etc., by the DC boys) reek of big-time problems in the very near future. And the chill wind is definitely morphing into a brisk gale...

It's a political hot potato, the side that pulls out will be accused of being weak. No matter what the facts concerning the start of the war, the resulting actions and political spin will be the problem of those who have to deal with it at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if we are there until 2009 so that the current Administration can claim immunity from the final results of this misguided war. No matter what the political outcome, I hope that those who succeed this Administration have the will to do what makes sense. If not now, at some point it will be clear that our involvement there is just going to be a continuing quagmire. In the end, I feel the whole point of starting a war was to give political capital to someone who would not have been able to earn it any other way. And when I say 'earn it,' I am being pretty darn generous.

[Inspector Lee]

It's a political hot potato, the side that pulls out will be accused of being weak. No matter what the facts concerning the start of the war, the resulting actions and political spin will be the problem of those who have to deal with it at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if we are there until 2009 so that the current Administration can claim immunity from the final results of this misguided war. No matter what the political outcome, I hope that those who succeed this Administration have the will to do what makes sense. If not now, at some point it will be clear that our involvement there is just going to be a continuing quagmire. In the end, I feel the whole point of starting a war was to give political capital to someone who would not have been able to earn it any other way. And when I say 'earn it,' I am being pretty darn generous.

No disagreement here. I just don't see even a long-term fix to this no matter who calls the shots in DC. The situation seems so much more incendiary than Vietnam in my opinion even though I was born at the tail end of that ordeal.

[solvs]

Good for him. But...

I'm still kinda torn on this. I was for the war in Afganistan, but strongly against the Iraq war before it even started because it seemed, even then, like a horrible idea. Watching my pregnant friend listening to Bush's BS about Iraq and 9/11 while her husband is preparing to be sent over there certainly opened my eyes. But now that we're there, what do we do? If we leave, it will fall into chaos. If we don't, things just get worse anyway until we do leave. We're stuck either way. The definition of a quagmire I suppose.

So, what do we do? Nobody really knows. And I think that's why people are so pissed. If we had done a better job there, people wouldn't be complaining as much.

[Desertrat]

skunk, doesn't it bother you at all that *some* Islamics, moving to a secular country, will decide that their system of Sharia should replace the existing legal system? It's not that they are or are not successful; it's that the mindset exists that they are--in essence--above or "better" than the society into which they move. From what I read in the various newspapers, over the last several years, this is widespread and is not limited to only a small percentage in these expatriate Islamic groups.

The "bible" thing: During the time of the fuss over maltreatment of Korans at Gitmo, somebody posted somewhere that in some Islamic areas the sight of a Bible indicates an Infidel--who should be disposed of. The Wahabbis are not noted for religious tolerance. Separately, the need for US support on the part of the Saudi rulers has little or nothing to do with this sort of religious issue...

Note that the Mormons don't have a body of state law in Utah which is radically different from other states. Mormonism is not The Law.

I was sorta rolling all this around last night, and an irony of this Iraq thing struck. When the USSR collapsed, the iron control over the disparate groups in the Balkans led to resumption of the internecine squabbles of prior centuries. We wound up with the Milosevic garbage and today's problems there. Similarly we removed Saddam and his iron control over Iraq, which has the Sunnis and Shiites free to go at each other.

Unintended consequences...

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, doesn't it bother you at all that *some* Islamics, moving to a secular country, will decide that their system of Sharia should replace the existing legal system? It's not that they are or are not successful; it's that the mindset exists that they are--in essence--above or "better" than the society into which they move. From what I read in the various newspapers, over the last several years, this is widespread and is not limited to only a small percentage in these expatriate Islamic groups.Of course it bothers me. Anyone who wants to impose some weird anachronistic belief system on me bothers me. Until such time as they give up, I shall use my democratic right to resist any such imposition. But I'm not planning to bomb the madhrassas any more than I'm planning to bomb the White House, whose anachronistic belief system has been fatal to a lot more people so far.

The "bible" thing: During the time of the fuss over maltreatment of Korans at Gitmo, somebody posted somewhere that in some Islamic areas the sight of a Bible indicates an Infidel--who should be disposed of. The Wahabbis are not noted for religious tolerance. Separately, the need for US support on the part of the Saudi rulers has little or nothing to do with this sort of religious issue...Apart from the fact that the Saudis are the Wahhabis, and without ARAMCO and US support, they wouldn't even be there.

I was sorta rolling all this around last night, and an irony of this Iraq thing struck. When the USSR collapsed, the iron control over the disparate groups in the Balkans led to resumption of the internecine squabbles of prior centuries. We wound up with the Milosevic garbage and today's problems there.Actually, it was Tito's death which loosened the Balkans, and Germany's insistence on premature recognition of Croatia which blew the lid off.

Similarly we removed Saddam and his iron control over Iraq, which has the Sunnis and Shiites free to go at each other.And, boy did that come as a surprise! Who'd'a thunk it?

Unintended consequences...More like sheer bloody incompetence. They're not even good War Criminals.

[mactastic]

skunk, doesn't it bother you at all that *some* Islamics, moving to a secular country, will decide that their system of Sharia should replace the existing legal system? It's not that they are or are not successful; it's that the mindset exists that they are--in essence--above or "better" than the society into which they move. From what I read in the various newspapers, over the last several years, this is widespread and is not limited to only a small percentage in these expatriate Islamic groups.

Hmm... I've noticed a similar effort, fairly unashsmedly, from people who are in a secular country, but keep trying to impose their system of beliefs on others. They seem to think they're system is 'better' that the system of the society that they live in. Somehow they see themselves as above the rest of society, or elitist if you will. From what I've read in various newspapers, this is widespread, and not just amonst US Christians.

But you've defended the rights of those people to do exactly what you abhor when it's Christianty, yet you say it's something to be 'bothered' about when it's Wahhabism.

Notice those of us on the left are bothered by this type of behavior no matter who the group is.

[Nickygoat]

Back on topic, there might be a pullout (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1689283,00.html) on the horizon for the British. But this could be pure pravda.

That's just planning. There are plans for an increase in troops, maintaining existing troop levels (about 8500) and a pullout. It just happens that the leaker leaked the pull out plan. They're all worked on independently, so the leaker either worked on the team for a pull out, or, more likely, judged that it was more newsworthy to leak that one. Depending on where in the chain of command they are (assuming that there is a chain of command - it doesn't always look like it, especially when "Buff" was at the MOD).

[Desertrat]

mac, I'm quite happy with the notion that in the US, our basic system protects the secularists from the ultra-religious, and the religious types from the ultra-secularists. The national mood has always been a swinging pendulum as to the relative political power of either group at any particular time. The thing is, we don't have bombs going off or kidnappings/shooting/beheadings in the name of either group's icons.

So it's not that "...it's Wahhabbism". It's the militant Islamic notion of "Sharia or else." It's the militant Islamics' "Marbar infidels!" The tolerance you and I believe in is sadly lacking.

The September issue of "Soldier of Fantasy" came in the mail. There's a list of countries where either Al Qaida or militant Islamics are active: Indonesia, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua. Argentina/Bolivia/Paraguay (Hizbollah), Algeria, Egypt.

China and Russia are setting up cooperation via a Vladivostok summit, worried "that Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan will follow Chechnya's example of Islamic separatism."

(Folks may reasonably think the ads are oriented to the "wannabes" and the editorial views suck, but SOF writers and staff are certainly tapped in to many sources of factual intelligence.)

The US was a target, the primary symbol of everything the militants hate, long before we went into Iraq. It's been that way ever since we first supported Israel. Folks can holler against our Iraqi adventure all they want, but even if we'd not gone in we'd be a target--along with anybody with whom we deal.

I dunno. I said right after 9/11 that we were looking to a minimum of ten years, if not more, before the large-scale Islamic terrorism stuff might be controlled. I doubt there will ever be an end to the small-scale efforts. I sure don't have a clue as to how, worldwide, success will come, and I don't think many (any?) of western political leadership does, either. About the only thing I do believe about it is that negotiation won't work: There's no single entity with which to negotiate.

Remember the Hydra...

'Rat

[skunk]

It's the militant Islamic notion of "Sharia or else." It's the militant Islamics' "Marbar infidels!" The tolerance you and I believe in is sadly lacking.Of course, funnily enough, we all know that Iraq was a model of toleration, where a Christian was Foreign Minister....

The September issue of "Soldier of Fantasy" came in the mail. There's a list of countries where either Al Qaida or militant Islamics are active: Indonesia, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua. Argentina/Bolivia/Paraguay (Hizbollah), Algeria, Egypt.There are a hell of a lot missing from that list. Do they actually know anything? What about Morocco, Spain, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Philippines... and, in all probability, the USA.

The US was a target, the primary symbol of everything the militants hate, long before we went into Iraq. It's been that way ever since we first supported Israel. Folks can holler against our Iraqi adventure all they want, but even if we'd not gone in we'd be a target--along with anybody with whom we deal.You don't think that having killed tens of thousands of innocent people might have inflamed their relatives' passions a little?

I dunno. I said right after 9/11 that we were looking to a minimum of ten years, if not more, before the large-scale Islamic terrorism stuff might be controlled. I doubt there will ever be an end to the small-scale efforts. I sure don't have a clue as to how, worldwide, success will come, and I don't think many (any?) of western political leadership does, either. About the only thing I do believe about it is that negotiation won't work: There's no single entity with which to negotiate.I don't recall anyone ever suggesting negotiation. The UN - with a great deal of help from Britain, admittedly - set up the 1948 Palestine land-grab: the US should be concentrating on a just solution instead of perpetuating the injustice.

Remember the Hydra...Oh I do. Bush ain't no Hercules.

[mactastic]

mac, I'm quite happy with the notion that in the US, our basic system protects the secularists from the ultra-religious, and the religious types from the ultra-secularists. The national mood has always been a swinging pendulum as to the relative political power of either group at any particular time. The thing is, we don't have bombs going off or kidnappings/shooting/beheadings in the name of either group's icons.
Hey, I'm quote happy with the notion that I can vote Democratic and no one will ever come to take my guns away. The system protects yadda yadda yadda... Does that mean you are satisfied that such is the case? That's roughly the argument you're laying on me here.

And yes, we enjoy a few more safety mechanisms here than they do over there to keep religious extremism from taking over. But let them have their way, and the US will be declared a Christian nation, laws will be vetted according to their adherence to their interpretation of Christianity (which is what I understand sharia to be), and you'll see a 'it's the sharia - I mean Christian - way or the highway'. Guaranteed. These guys have been quoted as to saying they would do these things, and they are awfully influential in Republican politics. So forgive me if I voice my suspicion that 'it could never happen here' isn't an insurance policy.

So it's not that "...it's Wahhabbism". It's the militant Islamic notion of "Sharia or else." It's the militant Islamics' "Marbar infidels!" The tolerance you and I believe in is sadly lacking.
Do we not also constantly talk about the lack of tolerance between the two halves of this country? Does Rush promote tolerance? How about Franken? Hannity? Pelosi? Rove? Carville? Your side are idiots and mine are traitors. We're a short hop skip and jump from talk of killing for ideology. Coulter has mentioned wanting to kill liberals to teach them a lesson. I'm sure you could point me towards rhetoric as harsh from the left.

Yes, the tolerance we believe in is lacking. Around the world and at home as well.

The September issue of "Soldier of Fantasy" came in the mail. There's a list of countries where either Al Qaida or militant Islamics are active: Indonesia, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua. Argentina/Bolivia/Paraguay (Hizbollah), Algeria, Egypt.

China and Russia are setting up cooperation via a Vladivostok summit, worried "that Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan will follow Chechnya's example of Islamic separatism."

(Folks may reasonably think the ads are oriented to the "wannabes" and the editorial views suck, but SOF writers and staff are certainly tapped in to many sources of factual intelligence.)
And it's about as unbiased as a Mother Jones article. Impeccable sourced, but still biased as hell.

But still, are you surprised that Russia is worried about the 'Stans? It's more proof that you can be as brutal as you want (see also, Israel v Palestine) and you can still not beat back a guerilla movement that has broad popular support. You'd think BushCo would have known this.

The US was a target, the primary symbol of everything the militants hate, long before we went into Iraq. It's been that way ever since we first supported Israel. Folks can holler against our Iraqi adventure all they want, but even if we'd not gone in we'd be a target--along with anybody with whom we deal.
Would we be as hated right now if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Would our recruiting be so low and theirs so high if we'd nailed UBL's turban to the cave wall and left Saddam alone?

And since you mention that much of this stems from our interests in Israel, we should be reminded that Bush's terrible approach to the problems there have also greatly contributed to the increase of Muslim hatred towards the US. As has his ham-handed handling of both the NK problem, and the Iranian problem, but that's a different 'axis-of-evil' rant. Dealing fairly with the Palestinial - Israeli issue would have gone a long way towards making our 'street cred' amongst regular folks over there a lot higher. But that would have involved putting practicality over ideology, so it didn't happen.

I dunno. I said right after 9/11 that we were looking to a minimum of ten years, if not more, before the large-scale Islamic terrorism stuff might be controlled. I doubt there will ever be an end to the small-scale efforts. I sure don't have a clue as to how, worldwide, success will come, and I don't think many (any?) of western political leadership does, either. About the only thing I do believe about it is that negotiation won't work: There's no single entity with which to negotiate.

Remember the Hydra...

'Rat
And yet you didn't see the time frame for Iraq coming as many people were warning? I said before the invasion of Iraq that we would be there for the better part of a decade, if we ever left at all. I knew we didn't need that as a distraction away from what you rightly describe as a generational struggle. We just didn't need to start two of those at once. Particularly when the second, unnecessary one, saps the majority of your resources.

How does your version of Reagan besting the Soviets go? He forced them to spend into collapse?

Bush has played into the Islamic extremist's hand each and every step of the way. Do you think they don't love the idea of having American soldiers within easy reach? Don't you fear we'll be looking back at Iraq in 20 years the way we look at Afghanistan today - the training ground for a new, deadlier breed of terrorist?

[Xtremehkr]

Does "Soldier of Fantasy" have a website? I can't find anything on the publication.

[solvs]

Unintended consequences...
:confused: Who didn't see this coming? Oh... yeah. Forgot there for a second. And yet, somehow, these are the people who are still in charge.

The US was a target, the primary symbol of everything the militants hate, long before we went into Iraq.
Yes, but you can't say it helped. Cuz, um, it didn't. Where is that Bin Laden anyway?

[skunk]

Does "Soldier of Fantasy" have a website? I can't find anything on the publication.I think he meant "Soldier of Fortune", the mercenary's Bible. Quite the Freudian slip...

[MacDawg]

Note to self: "Stay out of the Political Forum"

Stay out...
Stay out...
Stay out...

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Desertrat]

mac said, "But let them have their way, and the US will be declared a Christian nation, laws will be vetted according to their adherence to their interpretation of Christianity..."

I reckon I'd work as hard as anybody to not let them have their way. Got to. As mouthy as I am about being ordered around, I'd be among the first to be stood against the wall. Heinlein wrote about such a future, but I really doubt it would happen. Then again, SCOTUS said McCain/Feingold CFR was constitutional, so the First Amendment is as much in danger as the Second...

Soldier of Fortune magazine has a URL of http://www.sofmag.com/home.do

"Soldier of Fantasy" is more polite than "Soldier of Foreskin". My wife sometimes tries to keep me calm and polite in mixed company. :)

The thing I've always liked about the SOF articles is that the guys go places nobody else will go, and write from firsthand knowledge plus their own past experiences in combat. They'll "dis" anybody, anywhere, anytime, no matter how much scrambled eggs are on the brim of an officer's hat. Depending on the issue, they'll jump on Bush as quickly as on Clinton.

I trust the judgement, the interpretation of events, of BTDT guys far more than of those who never went and never did. I'd rather have a Michael Schumacher teach me about driving really, really fast, over a Dave DeSpain.

The reason I used the Hydra comment is that there is no central authority to Islam beyond interpretations of the Koran by whichever mullah claims knowledge. With whom does one negotiate anything, and have it stick? All it takes is one super-hater to go to preaching Jihad and issuing fatwas and we can start all over.

Question: Has OBL ever offered any terms whereby he will work to end all terrorism?

For the moment, forget Bush and forget any notions about the past behavior of Israeli leadership: What happens if we do indeed totally quit supporting Israel? If we, say, let the UN deal with whatever happens? Any ideas?

'Rat

[mactastic]

For the moment, forget Bush and forget any notions about the past behavior of Israeli leadership: What happens if we do indeed totally quit supporting Israel? If we, say, let the UN deal with whatever happens? Any ideas?

'Rat

Short term, nothing. Damage has been done. But long term it stems the recruitment tide of people who hate us. The decide they like living more than they hate us.

Same with an Iraqi withdrawl. It won't stop what's been started, but it will go a long way towards preventing an international cycle of 'Hatfields versus McCoys' that has no end.

Question is, as a (largely) Christian nation, can America actually turn the other cheek when it needs to without the same good Christian folks yelling 'appeasement' as loud as they can?

[Desertrat]

"...can America actually turn the other cheek when it needs to without the same good Christian folks yelling 'appeasement'..."

While I think I understand what you mean, mac, it seems to me there's one major problem with the question: SFAIK, the Arab culture in general is pretty machismo. Turning the other cheek is perceived as unmanly, and those who do are not worthy of respect.

My experience with that sort of individual is that if you make any offer to let bygones be bygones, you wind up with more hostile actions taken against you--since there's no need to fear consequences.

'Rat

[mactastic]

"...can America actually turn the other cheek when it needs to without the same good Christian folks yelling 'appeasement'..."

While I think I understand what you mean, mac, it seems to me there's one major problem with the question: SFAIK, the Arab culture in general is pretty machismo. Turning the other cheek is perceived as unmanly, and those who do are not worthy of respect.

My experience with that sort of individual is that if you make any offer to let bygones be bygones, you wind up with more hostile actions taken against you--since there's no need to fear consequences.

'Rat
A couple of thoughts:

Did Jesus make any such distinction when he told his followers to turn the other cheek? Like "turn the other cheek to the pussies who won't hit you, but smite those who you think might hit you given the chance'? I don't recall anything like that in the Bible.

Yes, there are problems with turning that other cheek. You risk getting pasted on the newly exposed one. But doesn't the same Arab culture view revenge as a worthy pursuit? IOW, will you get any different response from 'that sort of individual' whether you attack them or turn the other cheek?

Sometimes you have to be willing to die for a cause, right? Does it matter whether you are willing to die fighting, or whether you are willing to die in a non-violent manner?

Yes you encourage more attacks in the short term. But long term you become the victim to the world and the attackers are the ones who are shunned.

Lastly, experience with individuals is one thing. I'm not sure it can be extrapolated to a society at large.

The longer this goes on, the more I become convinced that we cannot bomb our way out of this. There is no military solution. The military may be a component of the solution, but it isn't the biggest, or leading component by any means.

[Desertrat]

"The military may be a component of the solution, but it isn't the biggest, or leading component by any means."

Well, given what they're learning about the perps of the London bombings, no...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Meanwhile the US military is unable to meet it's recruitment goals, and al Qaeda is having no trouble with their recruitment...

[Desertrat]

I think I've commented before that all we can do is speculate and guess. Many of the various "experts" on terrorist organizations have predicted such events as that in London, but occurring here. I don't think that refusing to turn the other cheek has much to do with Fundamentalist Christian rhetoric. All that may sound good in an Internet forum, but a great many "casual" Christians can readily call for revenge...

It's an ancient saw that a Law'n'Order freak is a Liberal who's been mugged. If any of the doomsayers about dirty nukes are correct, US religions won't have a thing to do with any call for whatever actions. Or politicial views between liberal and conservative for that matter.

You let Sens. Teddy & Hillary get scared enough and Rangel's Draft Bill will blow through Congress like a dose of salts through a widow-woman. "We'll drill for oil through green glass, if we have to." and all that crap.

Promise the public they'll be able to go back to their TVs and free Bubble-Up and our love affair with snuggly safety and security will allow anything.

It just occurred to me that you could consider our lack of action after WTC 1 in '93, the two embassies in Africa and maybe our running away from Mogadishu as turning the other cheek. If so, that turning didn't help much in 2001, did it?

'Rat

[mactastic]

It doesn't count as turning the other cheek if you're still socking the guy with your off hand, now does it?

[Desertrat]

Aw, c'mon, mac. Except for Clinton's cruise missiles, we did nothing in the way of socking for a bunch of years from WTC 1.

Dunno if you remember, but in one of OBL's statements to the press/public back in 2002, he stated that part of his willingness to set the plans in motion for 9/11 was our pullout from Mogadisu. He saw that as an indication that the US did not have the will to retaliate. Which is part of why I'm dubious about this turn the other cheek stuff...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Aw, c'mon, mac. Except for Clinton's cruise missiles, we did nothing in the way of socking for a bunch of years from WTC 1.

Dunno if you remember, but in one of OBL's statements to the press/public back in 2002, he stated that part of his willingness to set the plans in motion for 9/11 was our pullout from Mogadisu. He saw that as an indication that the US did not have the will to retaliate. Which is part of why I'm dubious about this turn the other cheek stuff...

'Rat

You could call troops stationed in SA a knee to the groin of a Muslim who sees the world a certain way, couldn't you?

[Xtremehkr]

The best thing Clinton did not do was create more terrorism. According to the state department, terrorism has reached record levels. After the war on terrorism was started.

Just like drug use is up, despite the war on drugs.

[solvs]

You let Sens. Teddy & Hillary get scared enough and Rangel's Draft Bill will blow through Congress like a dose of salts through a widow-woman.
I don't know what salt through a widow-woman means, but if it means what I think it does, you have a good point. Remember, despite what has been said, Liberals jumped on the War On Terror bandwagon, just as they did to a lesser extent with Iraq. Not to mention that some of this is due in part to the inaction on Clinton. And Bush Sr. And Reagan. But it still pisses me off when I hear about stuff like "Bin Laden Determined To Attack US".

And the nagging feeling that Iraq has made things worse, not better. Half the world hates us, the country is bitterly divided down the middle, and we're still mucking around in Iraq while Bin Laden is still out there. Why, again, did we pull people out of Afganistan before the job was done to send them to Iraq? The fact that there are terrorists there now is little comfort to me.

[mactastic]

I don't know what salt through a widow-woman means, but if it means what I think it does, you have a good point. Remember, despite what has been said, Liberals jumped on the War On Terror bandwagon, just as they did to a lesser extent with Iraq.
Which is why I'm such a proponent of divided government these days. Thing's get messed up real bad when one side has all the marbles.
Not to mention that some of this is due in part to the inaction on Clinton. And Bush Sr. And Reagan. But it still pisses me off when I hear about stuff like "Bin Laden Determined To Attack US".
The way I see it, Bush's action is raising terrorist recruitment levels. Perhaps inaction on the part of Clinton wasn't the worst approach. Bush seems to have found a worse way to deal with the threat.

[Desertrat]

"The best thing Clinton did not do was create more terrorism. According to the state department, terrorism has reached record levels. After the war on terrorism was started."

xtremehkr, I doubt you intended it, but to me, it is implicit in that statement that there is some level of terroristic acts which are acceptable. That is, Clinton was good in that he basically took no significant actions after we lost two embassies and had a bomb go off beneath the WTC.

"If we don't retaliate, maybe they'll be satisfied and leave us alone." Reminds me of the stories about Danegeld--and the lessons to be learned therefrom.

Look: Our non-retaliation, the turning of the other cheek in Mogadishu encouraged bin Laden; he said so. Spain had no notable presence in Iraq, but one bombing totally changed their government--which certainly encouraged the planners as to the effectiveness of terror as an instrument of political change. Now we have English-born citizens bombing in their own country and the vote is still out.

There's no US military jpresence in Indonesia, but Jihadists are bombing. SFAIK, no US military presence in Thailand, other than Embassy guards, but Jihadists are bombing. Same in other SE Asian locales. Jihadists are active in many other places.

I guess as long as it's not keeping us from going to the mall, none of the terrorists' actions matter. So long as it's NIMBY, who cares?

'Rat

[mactastic]

Well our not turning the other cheek has encouraged bin Laden even more, he's said so hisself. So which is the better approach?

And I don't know if you meant it, but saying that 'as long as it's NIMBY, who cares?' implies that some of us don't care about terrorism just because we aren't gung-ho to bomb a random country on the map.

[Desertrat]

Maybe more clear, mac: There are some people who are self-centered enough that nothing of whatever sort will provoke any response to any terroristic act, so long as their own lives are unaffected.

It is my belief that the idea of turning the other cheek, now, won't notably reduce hostilities. We had the cheek-turning before 9/11 and it didn't help.

It is my understanding that OBL's direct hostility toward us stems primarily from the forces we stationed in Saudi Arabia during and after Desert Shield/Storm. To me, this then raises the historical re-write "What if?" about whether or not we should have just sat back and done nothing when Saddam invaded Kuwait. (I've mentioned this before, here in this forum.)

Hell, I dunno. One problem is that implicit in many posts here is the notion that there was no history in the mideast until Dubya got elected. That there was no sequence of events of A, then B, then C, and then on to 9/11 and then on to Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can see a logical step-by-step in all this from the beginnings of the Cold War, through the installment of the Shah and on to the ensuing need to "make nice" with the Saudis to ensure a steady flow of oil and all that.

So hindsight is wonderful at allowing judgements of decisions, but these decisions made sense at the time, in the context of the times. That's part of why I haven't been down on Dubya all that much as to the actual invasion of Iraq. The leaders of both parties were as eager as he to believe in the whole WMD deal. The 180-degree change in view on the part of the lead Democrats in the Congress is purely political, IMO. Anything to ruin the Republican chances of continuing in power.

Nothing happens inside the Beltway; nothing is said, except as furtherance of efforts to increase power. Right now, the Democrats are out of power and it doesn't matter to them if their accusations are factual or are made up--they just want back on top. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; if the Repubs were out, they'd be doing some variation of the same theme...

'Rat

[Xtremehkr]

Are you kidding, there is a long history of involvement in the Middle East. Don't you remember Reagan championing OBL? Troops alone do not represent presence, there has been substantial political involvement for a long time.

http://www.american-buddha.com/a911v51a_small.jpg

[solvs]

You guys may want to look up what "turn the other cheek" actually means. You'd be surprised, it's not what you think.

[takao]

Look: Our non-retaliation, the turning of the other cheek in Mogadishu encouraged bin Laden; he said so. Spain had no notable presence in Iraq, but one bombing totally changed their government--which certainly encouraged the planners as to the effectiveness of terror as an instrument of political change. Now we have English-born citizens bombing in their own country and the vote is still out.

about spain: that change was a done deal before the bombings already.. majority of (voting) spanish population was against the war in iraq ... government not doing what population wants -> get voted out
them trying to blame ETA for it for political advantage (and perhaps more votes) was jsut the icing on the cake
just wait for next election in italy.. chances are high that berlusconi will get kicked out as well besides a lot of other stuff he has done ;) ... you should hear the italians swearing about him

side note: just read today that visiting the US will results in not only taking fingerprints from both index fingers but all 10 fingers and that the error rate will be reduced from 40% (!) to 10% ... you've got to be kidding me ... hows that for changing (other) peoples lives ? :mad: it's - excuse the word - a ****ing scandal (refusing to connect the scanners to international databases of murderers etc. even more so)

[mactastic]

Maybe more clear, mac: There are some people who are self-centered enough that nothing of whatever sort will provoke any response to any terroristic act, so long as their own lives are unaffected.
Agreed. But are you saying these people tend towards one side or another of the political spectrum?

It is my belief that the idea of turning the other cheek, now, won't notably reduce hostilities. We had the cheek-turning before 9/11 and it didn't help.
OK, perhaps you should define what you mean by 'cheek turning'. Do you mean closing your eyes, standing there, and waiting to take another hit without doing anything to prevent it? If so, we're talking across each other here.

It is my understanding that OBL's direct hostility toward us stems primarily from the forces we stationed in Saudi Arabia during and after Desert Shield/Storm. To me, this then raises the historical re-write "What if?" about whether or not we should have just sat back and done nothing when Saddam invaded Kuwait. (I've mentioned this before, here in this forum.)
But you're argued prior to this that nothing we can do would stop him from coming after us, that their hatred of us is based on an unyeilding desire to kill us and our way of life. Here you seem to be proposing that there is some sort of rational basis for their anger, which means something could conceivably be done to mitigate it. That is, if you can keep your cries of 'appeasement' and 'cowardice' down. But it seems like you're saying anything we do to meet their demands contradicts our ideals and our way of life that we are fighting to preserve.

Hell, I dunno. One problem is that implicit in many posts here is the notion that there was no history in the mideast until Dubya got elected. That there was no sequence of events of A, then B, then C, and then on to 9/11 and then on to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh geez, you're right! I'd completely forgotten that prior to GWB that there even WAS a middle east. Never heard of Afghanistan either. Guess I should read up on those things before I have an opinion.

Or I could argue that I see the same problem from the right. No concept that the British tried the Iraq game before and lost. No ability to understand the historical feuds we were tempting by destabilizing Iraq. No regard for the umber of times we've armed someone only to regret it. No grasp of what using the word 'crusade' to describe our WoT might mean to an Arab.

I can see a logical step-by-step in all this from the beginnings of the Cold War, through the installment of the Shah and on to the ensuing need to "make nice" with the Saudis to ensure a steady flow of oil and all that.
Allright, I guess you have me there. If you can see the Big Picture and I can't then I guess there's not much point in running my mouth off in here. Not that there might have been some things we should (but didn't) learn from incidents along that step-by-step process...

So hindsight is wonderful at allowing judgements of decisions, but these decisions made sense at the time, in the context of the times. That's part of why I haven't been down on Dubya all that much as to the actual invasion of Iraq. The leaders of both parties were as eager as he to believe in the whole WMD deal. The 180-degree change in view on the part of the lead Democrats in the Congress is purely political, IMO. Anything to ruin the Republican chances of continuing in power.
Come on 'Rat, you know how the game is played. Would the right be acting any different if the situations had been reversed? Don't get on your high horse about how the Democrats are so evil because they seek political advantage. I'm tempted to ask if you have no concept of history. This is just how things are. Damfino ya know?

Nothing happens inside the Beltway; nothing is said, except as furtherance of efforts to increase power. Right now, the Democrats are out of power and it doesn't matter to them if their accusations are factual or are made up--they just want back on top. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; if the Repubs were out, they'd be doing some variation of the same theme...

'Rat
Would be? They've done the same. Rove's made a career out of it.

Divided government is the way to go.

[Xtremehkr]

xtremehkr, I doubt you intended it, but to me, it is implicit in that statement that there is some level of terroristic acts which are acceptable. That is, Clinton was good in that he basically took no significant actions after we lost two embassies and had a bomb go off beneath the WTC.


In an ideal world there would be no terrorism, no murder, and no crime etc. But we don't live in a perfect world, let alone nation. We live in a world in of inequalities that benefit this nation to a large degree. In order to maintain this standard of living, a lot of resources are needed and that requires a presence overseas.

Foreign peoples do not always appreciate this presence, but they are more tolerant depending on how we act.

My point, aside from what you were insinuating, was that Clinton was a lot more effective in preventing terrorism at home and abroad. Bushs arrogance has brought terrorism levels to record highs.

Bush has not even placed his focus on terror, the invasion of Iraq was for financial gain, not for terror.

The strain placed on the military has reduced the effectiveness as a whole.

And the trend is towards having more incidents of terror and not fewer.

At this point, you can't tell me Bush is doing a good job on terror.

[solvs]

At this point, you can't tell me Bush is doing a good job on terror.
If he was, we wouldn't still be so afraid. Bush uses terror for his own political gain, and people fall for it because they're afraid and believe his words over his actions. Others hate him, and this war, but how many of them even know why? Welcome to politics kids, it's a messy business.

[Desertrat]

Apologies for the hit-and-run of postings. Aside from "normal life", a buddy of mine just got home from three weeks in ICU, due to a hospital-provided infection. (Helluva note when surgery for a brain tumor is the least of one's problems.) I'be been helping make the place "wheel-chair friendly".

No, mac, I don't think it has anything to do with political leanings. I think it's more the common complaceny we've griped about in threads about voting, e.g. Or a desire that they be able to be complacent.

I've taken "cheek turning" to mean an absence of retaliation for hostile actions toward us, or a failure to follow through in hostile situations such as Mogadishu.

"But you're argued prior to this that nothing we can do would stop him from coming after us, that their hatred of us is based on an unyeilding desire to kill us and our way of life. Here you seem to be proposing that there is some sort of rational basis for their anger, which means something could conceivably be done to mitigate it."

Mogadishu was not causative as to OBL's hatred; his perception that we cut and ran was an encouragement, as he has said. Our actions there apparently led him to believe we would not retaliate after his 9/11 effort. (He also said the total collapse of the WTC buildings was beyond his expectations.)

"That is, if you can keep your cries of 'appeasement' and 'cowardice' down. But it seems like you're saying anything we do to meet their demands contradicts our ideals and our way of life that we are fighting to preserve."

I don't believe I'm personally calling "cowardice". I don't think appeasement would work. I believe it's wishful thinking. In the context of OBL and Al Qaida's actions and speech, I would limit "cowardice" to those who know that appeasement wouldn't work, but fear to do otherwise than to try it.

"Oh geez, you're right! I'd completely forgotten that prior to GWB that there even WAS a middle east. Never heard of Afghanistan either. Guess I should read up on those things before I have an opinion.

No, not you, mac. Some who post here, however, don't seem to see any connection between WTC 1 of 1993 and the WTC 2 of 9/11. Bush was not El Prez in 1993. FWIW, I don't mean to imply that Clinton brought on WTC 1. But I have read that the blind mullah who was sort of a ringleader of the WTC 1 event was part of the early development of Al Qaida.

Questions: What did Bush do between January of 2001 and later that year, if anything, to cause bin Laden to execute the 9/11 attack? Weren't the Al Qaida folks well into the planning stage in early 2000?

mac, I don't think I'm saying you don't understand the big picture. I don't believe that. It just seems that there is a focus on the here and now, without regard to the how and why that things have come to the present situation.

"Don't get on your high horse about how the Democrats are so evil because they seek political advantage. I'm tempted to ask if you have no concept of history. This is just how things are. Damfino ya know?"

mac, isn't that bit of rhetoric already answered in the quote below?

"Quote:
Nothing happens inside the Beltway; nothing is said, except as furtherance of efforts to increase power. Right now, the Democrats are out of power and it doesn't matter to them if their accusations are factual or are made up--they just want back on top. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; if the Repubs were out, they'd be doing some variation of the same theme..."


"Would be? They've done the same. Rove's made a career out of it."

Yeah, Rove has indeed been making a career of it--which is implicit in the quoted paragraph. Folks are mad because of his success. "Jealousy" seems apt for those who are now attacking him. Regardless, junkyard dog attacks have become way too entrenched in politics as well as on the Internet--but, sadly, they work.

"Divided government is the way to go."

We're all probably a lot safer in our property and our daily lives when there is gridlock. :)

'Rat

[broken_keyboard]

Nothing happens inside the Beltway; nothing is said, except as furtherance of efforts to increase power. Right now, the Democrats are out of power and it doesn't matter to them if their accusations are factual or are made up--they just want back on top. Six of one, half-dozen of the other; if the Repubs were out, they'd be doing some variation of the same theme...

It's quite disheartening in my opinion. The opposition, even though they are not in power, play a crucial role. They are supposed to study all the same issues as the government and come up with serious alternate solutions.

But the Dems would rather be obstructionists it seems. Way to do your job guys, keep it up!

[skunk]

It's quite disheartening in my opinion. The opposition, even though they are not in power, play a crucial role. They are supposed to study all the same issues as the government and come up with serious alternate solutions.The issues are not always the same. In some cases there is no problem, in others there is no solution.

[broken_keyboard]

The issues are not always the same. In some cases there is no problem, in others there is no solution.

How is the (conservative) opposition in the UK? Are they a proper opposition, or just a guerilla-tactic weilding bunch of obstructionists?

[zimv20]

But the Dems would rather be obstructionists it seems.
i'm going to suggest to the mods that they limit you to one post a day in this forum. do you agree? or are you going to be an obstructionist?

[skunk]

How is the (conservative) opposition in the UK? At the moment they are rudderless and policy-free. They are at least opposing the ID card scheme, but they - like the Democrats over there - failed to differentiate themselves on the Iraq question. Who knows? We certainly need some opposition.

[skunk]

Are they a proper opposition, or just a guerilla-tactic weilding bunch of obstructionists?Hmm. Interesting. Are you drawing a parallel with insurgents and terrorists here, by any chance? Very subtle.

[broken_keyboard]

i'm going to suggest to the mods that they limit you to one post a day in this forum. do you agree? or are you going to be an obstructionist?

That is not analagous. The MacRumors constitution would prevent that kind of thing by either party.

[broken_keyboard]

Hmm. Interesting. Are you drawing a parallel with insurgents and terrorists here, by any chance? Very subtle.

No. It irritates me that they behave that way, but I would never equate an opposition party with terrorists. It's just absurd.

[skunk]

No. It irritates me that they behave that way, but I would never equate an opposition party with terrorists. It's just absurd.Just checking...

[zimv20]

That is not analagous. The MacRumors constitution would prevent that kind of thing by either party.
seems my analogy was too subtle. something was obstructing the meaning.

[solvs]

Yeah, Rove has indeed been making a career of it--which is implicit in the quoted paragraph. Folks are mad because of his success. "Jealousy" seems apt for those who are now attacking him.
No, they're mad because of what he is doing with his power. And not just in the "I don't like the way Hillary's running things" kinda way. More in the "I released information about a CIA agent out of revenge for her husband speaking out about us lying about a war we are screwing up". Believe it or not, there are plenty of vaild reasons to hate the man, and jealousy is not one of them. Partisan politics has nothing to do with it. I'd feel the same way if James Carville had tried to pull this stuff. Or if Rove was helping President Kerry.

But then, I'm sure they just hate us for our freedom. ;)

[Diatribe]

Questions: What did Bush do between January of 2001 and later that year, if anything, to cause bin Laden to execute the 9/11 attack? Weren't the Al Qaida folks well into the planning stage in early 2000?


You gotta be kidding me. It is not what Bush or Clinton or Bush sen. or whoever have done, it is about what they have NOT done. Pull their military out of other countries that is.

And the comment on them bombing countries where the US doesn't even have a presence...
It doesn't matter where they bomb as long as they're hitting Americans/Britains/etc. it is supposed to be a message.

If the US/GB were to pull out completely, terrorism would stop. Maybe not instantaneously but quickly. Best example is Lebanon, since Israel pulled out there have basically been no terrorist attacks from lebanese people.

[Desertrat]

"If the US/GB were to pull out completely, terrorism would stop. Maybe not instantaneously but quickly."

The present level of bombings seems more intended toward those Iraqis who are either not Sunni, not Saddamists; or are trying to work toward/within the framework of a constitutionalist government. Say we leave. Why, then, if the bombers are against a constitutionalist government, would they quit their efforts at blackmail by terror?

"Best example is Lebanon, since Israel pulled out there have basically been no terrorist attacks from lebanese people."

The attacks were from the PLO, not the Lebanese citizens. The PLO terrorists came from the UN concentration camps set up in Lebanon because no Arab country would allow those Arabs who fled Israel in 1948/1949 to enter and settle.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Ah yes, comparing the UN to Hitler...

Nice touch. You've come down with Hitler-itis lately 'Rat.

[skunk]

The PLO terrorists came from the UN concentration camps set up in Lebanon because no Arab country would allow those Arabs who fled Israel in 1948/1949 to enter and settle.The UN refugee camps were set up because no Arab country wanted to let Israel or their US backers off the hook that easily by conveniently absorbing those who had been dispossessed. Deeply unfortunate, but it made a great deal of geopolitical sense.

[Rod Rod]

The UN refugee camps were set up because no Arab country wanted to let Israel or their US backers off the hook that easily by conveniently absorbing those who had been dispossessed. Deeply unfortunate, but it made a great deal of geopolitical sense.
. . . because if Arab countries absorbed the refugees, then the pro-Israel people would say, "Look, they aren't refugees any longer." Then they could almost go on repeating the (formerly popular) mythological slogan, "Israel: a land without a people for a people without a land," as if nobody lived in Palestine in 1948.

To the original topic: that link to the video didn't work for me. Is there another one anybody might know of? I tried the "search" feature of that website and didn't come up with anything.