Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-09-09T18:57:47Z

FoxMulder:

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism|War for oil]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,

{{Cquote|There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

A majority of Iraqis believe their religious leaders. The alternative would be to believe what for them is entirely incomprehensible--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments are the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accuse the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation is offered, because no obligation is felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

===Al-Qaeda's use of torture===
Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. To this end, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which is the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace is impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy has swiftly waned. As a result, the US support for the war has dropped and many discouraged American people support the pullout of troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck claimed that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

==The Surge and Progress in Iraq==


Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==
As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.{{fact}}

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemical Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,700 U.S., and over 290 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 27,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War taken from this entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemical Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Queen Elizabeth II

2007-09-09T18:57:37Z

FoxMulder:

[[Image:Elizabeth-II.jpg|right|Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II|thumb]]
Her Majesty '''Queen Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, born April 21, 1926) is the reigning unelected monarch and current [[head of state]] (1952-) of the [[United Kingdom]] and of several former British colonies, including [[Canada]] and [[Australia]]. She is the elder daughter of King [[George VI]] and the late [[Queen Elizabeth]], the [[HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother|Queen Mother]].

In Britain, she is referred to formally as "Her Majesty the Queen" or "Madge", but is generally called simply "the Queen". Her full title, by virtue of the Royal Titles Act of 1953, is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

==Early life==
She was the first child of The Duke and Duchess of York, who later became King [[George VI]] and Queen Consort Elizabeth. At birth she stood third in line of succession to the throne after Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII), and her father, The Duke of York. It was not expected that her father would become King, or that she would become Queen.

Princess Elizabeth's quiet family life came to an end in 1936, when her grandfather, King [[George V]], died. His eldest son came to the throne as King [[Edward VIII]], but, before the end of the year, King Edward VIII had decided to give up the throne in order to marry the woman he loved, Mrs [[Wallis Simpson]].

Upon Edward's abdication, Princess Elizabeth's father acceded to the throne as King George VI, and in 1937, Princess Elizabeth attended her parents' coronation in Westminster Abbey. This put Princess Elizabeth first in line to the throne.

The Princess received home tuition at Sandringham and [[Buckingham Palace]] during the 1930s, where her tutors included her father and Henry Marten, the Vice-Provost of Eton. She was also instructed in religion by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. Now that she had became first in line to throne, Elizabeth started to study constitutional history and law as preparation for her future role as Queen. Elizabeth also learned French from various French and Belgian governesses, this skill standing The Queen in good stead, as she often has cause to use it when speaking to ambassadors and heads of state from French-speaking countries, and when visiting French-speaking areas of [[Canada]].

In 1940, at the height of the Blitz, the young Princess was moved to the safety of [[Windsor Castle]], where she spent most of the war years.

==Marriage and Children ==
She married [[Philip, Duke of Edinburgh|Prince Philip Mountbatten]] of [[Greece]] and [[Denmark]] on November 20, 1947. Her first child, [[Prince Charles]], now The [[Prince of Wales]], first heir to the throne, was born in 1948, and his sister, [[Princess Anne]], now The Princess Royal, two years later. After Princess Elizabeth became Queen, their third child, [[Prince Andrew]], arrived in 1960 and the fourth, [[Prince Edward]], in 1964.

==Death of Father==
On Wednesday, February 6, 1952, Princess Elizabeth, who was on a tour of [[Kenya]] and staying at the 'Treetops' resort, received the news of her father's death at Sandringham and her own accession to the throne.

==Coronation==
On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth was crowned Queen of the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] and [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and her other realms and territories at [[Westminster Abbey]] by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], in the traditional coronation ceremony that has been used for at least 1000 years.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Elizabeth 2}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Monarchs]]

[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Scotland

2007-09-09T18:41:18Z

FoxMulder: /* Scotland and Cultural Controversies */

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

== Introduction ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Position || Current Holder
|-
| [[British_monarchy|Monarch]] || Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|-
| [[UK_Prime_Ministers|Prime Minster]] || [[Gordon Brown]] MP
|-
| [[Secretary of State for Scotland|Secretary of State]] || [[Douglas Alexander]] MP
|-
| [[First Minister of Scotland|First Minister]] || [[Alex Salmond]] MSP
|}

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (3000 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has six major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]], [[Glasgow]], [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]]. Until relatively recently, Inverness and Stirling were not considered cities.

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like sculptures.

==Union with England==

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.)The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish, and formerly he was [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]].

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

== Scotland and Cultural Controversies ==
Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]] and it is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by:
* The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm MSPs abolish Section 28]</ref>
* The legalization of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex unions]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm Same-sex couples embrace equality ]</ref>
* The [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 MSPs approve gay adoption]</ref>
* Teaching homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006 Schools told to give pupils gay sex advice]</ref>
* [[affirmative action]] for homosexual soldiers and policemen<ref>[http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm Army marches in Gay Pride parade]</ref>
* forcing religious schools to employ [[Atheism|atheist]] teachers<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4787496.stm Atheist teacher wins job tribunal]</ref>
* Identity protection for [[Child molesting|pedophiles]] <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm 'Make friends with a pedophile']</ref>
* The banning of anti-gay chants at sports events<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007 Anti-gay chants to be banned from terraces]</ref>.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is [[football (soccer)|football]]. Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-09-09T18:39:18Z

FoxMulder: /* Negative */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that's a little oversimplified - I happen to have a very old and good friend, a rancher who lives in Montana. He's a Republican, gun carrying, NRA member, pro-life, chruch-going, and a real American Man's Man. Yet he's a keen supporter of Greenpeace and the NRDC, because he's also a huge lover of nature - he's very keen on the reintroduction of the wolf, he advocates banning off-road vehicle use in most rural areas and has similar views on skidoos, he drives a Prius because he doesn't want to pollute the atmosphere or contribute to global warming, he generates his own windpower. I think people see the world in much broader shades of gray than the two boxes of Liberal and Conservative you seem so keen to put them in. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:That's a non sequiter. You're assuming Greenpeace is an organization concerned about the environment. We usually ban disinformation activists/specialists. Right now you are in violation of 90/10 rule -- 2/3 of your edits are meaningless talk such as above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:47, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Why is it a non sequitor? The comment above mine says Greenpeace is a liberal organization, and I'm simply saying my Republican, God-fearing rancher friend wouldn't call himself a liberal if you paid him! He's a very 'typical Conservapedia' person in many ways, but he loves the environment, that's all - I'm simply saying there's people like you, who wouldn't agree with you about Greenpeace. And regarding my edits, I'm a new user around here, and I have contributed one edit to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was reverted, causing two comments, and this comment here. So that's 75/25, surely?

Finally, I'm not even a member of any environmental organizations myself! [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== taxpayer funded abortion ==

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:
#Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
#State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).
[[User:Tester|Tester]] 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:You're not serious, are you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, [[Deceit|Liberals]] also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well. I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Lol.gif‎ ]]

*Rob, feel free to "borrow" my LOL for all such posts. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:Great! Will do.
:"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine. It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase. Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [http://web.archive.org/web/20000819003459/http://www.alternatives.com/libs/poledge.htm] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports") "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their ''real'' intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to [[exterminate]] minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes. This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."

:So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

: How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website. But it does make for a starting point here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chip_Berlet] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A fringe nutjob who wrote for the [[Yippies]] ''Overthrow'' publication, and the [[Guardian]] newspaper, which was founded by a few [[KGB]] operatives and hired a reporter who actually took part in torturing American [[POW]]s during the Korean War. Yes, this fringe nutjob not only has a record of writing for marginal, fringe & extremist publications, is the inventor of bizarre conspiracy theories, this same fringe nutjob is in fact Wikipedia's Gatekeeper of political content--the person assigned by Jimbo & the Foundation to judge acceptable politcal content and sourcing for the information your children get all the Google hits on. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Source? I like sources. Can I get a source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:38, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::*"Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)" [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]
:::::*“Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left,” The [[Guardian]] (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3." cited from Berlet's own webstie [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]; Conservapedia's article on the [[Guardian#post-60s_radicalism]] gives you everything you need to know about ''Guardian'', cited from a mainstream publisher (Prometheus Books), [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], pg. 125.
:::::*"Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, '''and is highly regarded''' as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. '''He's definitely a credible source for WP''' and has been used as such in several articles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20232935&oldid=20232665]
:::::*"a valuable Wikipedia editor" Fred Bauder Sun Dec 4 15:37:38 UTC 2005 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html]

== Another definition of liberal ==

In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the [[realism]] page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)

:In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.

:The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

Thanks!! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:"an actor whose methods...etc" "complex interdependence between states" (really? who wudda thunk it...) "no hieracrhy of importance" IOW, peace isn't anymore of a priority than war, or famine relief is no more important than extermination and slavery.

:Sheeesh, why do we get all these types? Can you give an example of this type of "actor"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:12, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well, an actor in international politics is rarely actually an individual, it is any organization which makes or is involved with the foreign policy. But I'm not just making this stuff up, I basically copied the definition straight from my IP class notes. Some examples of liberal actors would be the UN, as well as many countries in Europe. The European Union is a textbook definition of a liberal organization. The US is basically a textbook definition of a realist, the opposite of a liberal. We (meaning the country's leadership with indirect influence from the citizens) generally believe that power and unilateralism are better (more effective) than institutions and international law. The USSR would be another great example of a realist state.

::I realize it might seem to muddy up the definition of "liberal", but this isn't a new definition for a different ''type'' of liberal. It's applying the same definition (more or less) to a different ''level'' of politics. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:45, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sounds like more double speak to muddy the waters. Liberals, world-wide, tend toward socialism/socialistic thinking and policies. That the State should regulate and control more. That much is universal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:50, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Eeeeeeh ''kind of''. Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics. For example, no country has as part of it's foreign policy a "support of affirmative action" because it doesn't make sense in world-level politics. The IP definition of liberal also has ''nothing'' to do with socialism, that's again a lower level of politics. You could maybe argue that they want more government control... but that's not exactly right either. I wish they had invented a new term, because the two "liberals" are distinct from each other.

::Just pretend that the IP liberal is actually some new word, like "miberal". If you go up to my definition and replace "liberal" with "miberal" it gets the message across better. "Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess! I hope this makes sense. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: Just be glad I'm leaving the definition general. We could get into neoliberalism and transnationalism and REALLY get things interesting! :)''

:::Considering it was [[Alger Hiss]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and [[Josef Stalin]] who created the [[United Nations]], [[liberal]] may be the correct word to ascribe to it. However then, we must therefore incorporate its history into the United Nations, and an understanding of what the word liberal means. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Unfortunately I don't have any information about the etymology of the word liberal. I don't know if it is related to the creation of the United Nations. I will see if there's a discussion in my IP books anywhere. Either way, they are still two different meanings, even if one meaning branched from the other in the past. Go through the article and you will find that much of it simply does not apply to world-level interactions. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per Andy: Liberal = [[Deceit]]. That's good enough for me! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's fine [[rhetoric]], but it's not accurate. It probably doesn't bother anybody on this website but me (there aren't a whole lot of political theory nuts in the world), but getting nuances like this correct are important if you want to be an accurate encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::You seem to be describing a paid bureaucrat, however the "methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" is a little bit suspicious. And what term would describe an actor who rejects "no hierarchy of importance among international issues"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bureaucrats though, tend to be very "conservative" i.e. "resistant to change" as a group in whatever political machine they find themselves in. A "conservative bureaucrat" in a Marxist regime would resist efforts to bring his country's policies in-line with an open and free market system. Conversely, a "liberal bureaucrat" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), in the same regime would be pushing for something closer to what US conservatives would like. Maybe it's time to chuck this "definition" for something workable. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 19:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Luckily, Rob, I brought my text books with me to sell off... and luckily they haven't sold yet :) Here are some quotes which should clear things up, and prove I'm not just inventing this stuff! (from ''World Politics: the Menu for Choice'' by Russett, Starr, and Kinsella):

::::'''Power vs. international law and institutions'''
::::*"liberalism was and continues to be a reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics"
::::*"[Liberals] emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which prevented countries' actions."

::::'''Glossary definition'''
::::*"Liberalism - A perspective that emphasizes the importance of institutions and linkages between states for facilitating cooperation, coordination, and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution"

:::An actor who rejects a lack of a hierarchy (in other words, an actor who believes there ''is'' a higherarchy) would be a realist: realists place security above all other matters. I'm not sure what you mean by the beaurocrat comment, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, yes, this is classical liberalism; "benefits of collective security and the rule of international law" is moreless the same as a Wilsonian Democracy. This picture is however, incomplete. Because it is not a straight line from Wilson Democracy through the New Deal & post WWII institutions such as the UN or IMF. State planning intervened, and the modern idea of "liberalism" was corrupted. I haven't read enough of this stuff (your cite) to know if it makes that fact clear, or is just another fig leaf. This author evidently is David Kinsella, not to be confused with Stephan Kinsella, whose ideas I think are radically different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:21, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::I was talking with my friend who has had much more study on the subject, and she suggested I use the term [[idealist]] instead of liberal. This is an older term that means the same thing, but it's not as confusing or muddying as liberal. You are right, liberalism and idealism are similar, and they have similar roots, but they aren't the same thing. Both overlap, but they have different scopes and applications. Should I take this over to [[idealist]] then? (And yes, it is David; I don't know anything much about Stephan). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:38, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Actually, I'm not certain that would fit, here's why: "reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics" and "focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" can be very [[pragmatic]], as opposed to partisan [[ideologue]]s (conservatives tend to speak in these terms, pragmatists vs ideologues). An actor (individual or entity) who ignores partisan "power politics", and driven by pragmatism and reality, probably is not so much of an idealist. "Idealist's" are generally regarded as dreamers; yet none the less, elected and appointed offices are full of these types, and they never cease trying to convert others to thier idealism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:See, though, this is just another problem with English, not a problem with the definition. Just as there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal), there are two types of idealists (the "opposite of a realist" idealist and the "opposite of a pragmatist" idealist). (There are also two types of realists!) My book takes 2 pages to give a basic definition of liberal (including the transition from idealists to liberals) and then another 400 pages distinguishing liberal from realist. (There's also another term, "radical", which generally describes the socialist view of world politics). Repeating this entire discussion is not practical in a concise encyclopedia, so I boiled down a whole semester's study (and then some) into the definition I gave at the top of this section (aaaaaaaaaall the way up there!). That definition needs to go *somewhere*, because right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist. Please advise me on where I should put this information. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:06, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::Let me offer an unfair, stereotyped conjecture about Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, which I have not read and is only based upon my own personal experiences and biases: these gentlemen appear to attempting to rehabilitate 'liberalism' (to a youthful audience) using band aids, duct tape, rubber bands, and paper clips. They are attempting to put a good face upon it, and deny & sweep under the rug much of the historical record since the aftermath of the First World War. They are attempting to paint a picture that draws a straight line through the idealism of Woodrow Wilson (and that entire generation at the time of Wilson which was highly ideological, that went to war to "make the world safe for democracy"), that then in theory this idealism supported radical social & economic change during the New Deal, as well as ''more'' foreign interventionism (which the record shows, again failed). And the two points that connect the dots in this theory of a continuity of "liberal ideals" is the failed League of Nations, and the (in theory) more successful United Nations.
::All this [[disinformation]] is intended to indoctrinate young people who's political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet. So of course we have throw in the mix somewhere the notion of good guys & bad guys. Liberals of course, are always the good guys, forward thinking, kind, considerate, defenders of the oppressed, etc., and anyone who opposes them is of course, a conservative or Nazi by any other term. Never mind how we arrive at these conclusions, it is just getting there is all that matters. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Um... no, that's not really the case at all. And it's a little foil-hatted, to boot. HSK are not the only sources we used in that class, either. We also drew from ''International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues'' by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (which is actually a compiliation, so there are at least 20 or so more authors associated with it), as well as ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Relations Since 1945'' by Geir Lundstad. My national security policy book also used the same definition, but I don't remember who wrote that off the top of my head (the book is at home). We also touched on it very minorly in my political theory class, which was taught by a visitng professor. My friend who is a 8th semester poli sci major at a completely different school from me read this conversation last night and agreed that I was using the right definition, and that this is the "official" international relations use of the term.

:::You keep substituting your opinion about liberalism for a critique of the definition of liberalism. Even if you don't agree with liberals (in either sense of the word) ''liberals still exist.'' Unlike the monster under your bed, what is in your mind has no impact on what is in the real world. You also keep using your modern frame of view to interpret the past. You complain that they aren't defining Wilson's ideology correctly, because they weren't defining Wilson's ideology. Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions. R, S, and K did not draw a false line from Wilson on; they gave a breif (2 paragraph) overview of ideological history from WWI through the creation of the UN to set the ground work. That's on pages 27-8. Then on pages 28-519 they describe modern ideology.

:::If you had taken my class you would have surely seen that there was no vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature of liberals -- half the class was about realists as well! We were taught the definition and we were taught how to apply the definition, but there were no value judgments made. If anything, the class had a "conservative" bias, because we basically brushed off the "radical" view entirely! There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all.

:::Is there anybody else who has studied IP back me up here? I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased) opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education. I might have to ask for a refund! ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::::That's all very good, and does answer much. Those paragraphs would be interesting to read (as everything you cite would be). But how do we reconcile somebody focused on the business of administration, i.e. "institutions and international laws," vs mindless partisan "power politics," and call them ideological dreamers instead of realists? This definition says persons focused on mindless partisan power politics are realists, and bureacratic administrators are dreamers and idealists. In either case, no generalizations would be true, because dreamers & realists exist both as bureacratic administrators ''and'' and persons "focused" on "power politics."

:::::One further note, using the term "actor," to refer to an insitution rather than individuals doesn't tell us much; we are are still dealing with persons, and not some mindless machine or animal. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Oh, I guess part of the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics". (Naturally, [[political power]] is a redlink :/) "Power" in this case would, like most of these terms, be best served by many paragraphs, but it can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack.

All of these terms have false implications in them due to the fact that they also mean something else. So idealist doesn't necessarily mean a dreamer, and a realist doesn't necessarily mean a pragmatic, at least not in the most conventional usage of these words.

The term "actor" isn't used to imply that these are mechanical organizations; it's used to group together all the people who have influence on decisions. You and I are individuals having a discussion, but if "The United States" and "Canada" have a discussion, even though there are more than one person involved, they are discussing the interest of only 2 actors -- each country. Also note that it's never President Bush making a foreign policy decision. He's affected directly by his advisors and his staff, and he's affected indirectly by the media and public opinion. So in a sense, it is a country acting, not a man. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:I get it. Change the meaning of terms after you get committed to debate. Move the goal posts. Yes, that is liberalism.

:So, you're still arguing only dreamers go after political power, and practical people do not. Yes, this does indeed appear to be the type of liberalism taught in college text books.

:Here are two problems: (a) why do we have to redefine "liberal" since all the other terms we've discussed seem to serve just fine for the purpose and ideas they are intended to convey, and (b) what does this new definition of "liberal" stand in contrast to?

:Let's get specific: the root term, "liber", from Latin means "to free." In 1900, liberalism was very popular, because it was respected as the thought & ideology that "liberated," or freed human beings from oppressive feudal regimes which lacked the Rights of Man. Than after WWI, on a vast international scale, the idea of "freeing" human beings from theism took root. By the 1930s in the United States, people didn't only need to be freed from religious beliefs, they needed to be freed from poverty & ignorance ("ignorance" in this sense, is another codeword for religious beliefs). Being freed from poverty means people have to be made wards of the state, and give up thier rights that liberalism had won for them. Being made a ward of the state means accepting Social Security and free Healthcare, but the cost is in human freedom.

:So liberalism today seeks to liberate human beings from theism, and looks to the day a non-Christian messiah will come, heal the sick, raise the dead, give free healthcare, destroy international borders, raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour--including those who make $2 a day in Indonesian sweatshops, so without borders, and an equal distribution of poverty, we then will have true godless fraternity (to use a sexist term), liberty, and equality.

:This is to raise from the ash heap of history that great leftist utopia that collapsed in 1992. "Liberal reformer" like Gorbachav tried to save it, but "conservative Communists" opposed him in a coup and took him hostage. Both failed. So who is Yeltsin?, since Gorby holds the title as the forward looking liberal reformer? Yeltsin was just another Stresemann, Kerensky or Al-Maliki, just an interim caretaker til the true liberal messiah arrives bringing us all our free lunch and making us all slaves again. Yes, this is progressivism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such. You misunderstood the definition and I clarified it, but nothing is different than it was when I started.

::I have said nothing about dreamers (and neither have my text books). I have specifically ''denied'' that idealists are dreamers -- twice, I believe. And even if "idealist" ''did'' mean "dreamer" you've got it backwards! Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same think as what you seem to think it does).

::I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''. "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", "affirmative action", "political correctness", "the Fairness Doctrine", "censorship of prayer in classrooms" (need I go on?) are all NATIONAL issues. They make NO SENSE on the international level. (b) the opposite of a liberal is a realist!! Still!

::What the heck is with your anti liberal historical rant?! It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and as I said before, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS.

::I am continually told that Conservapedia is a meritocracy. What qualifications do you have, may I ask? If Conservapdia wants to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" we really need to get past all the rhetoric, and rely on people who have studied the subjects. Otherwise we seriously need a name change. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::*(a) So, "the opposite of a liberal is a realist"
:::*(b) "Realists are the ones who 'go after political power'"
:::*(c) "liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(d) Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power"
:::*(e) "I never once changed the definition"
:::*(f) "the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics".... "Power" in this case would... can be simplified to "the use or display of force"
:::*(g) "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics....make NO SENSE on the international level."
:::*(h) "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(i) "Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS. "
:::Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning. You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical. You claim only "realists" are focued on political power. You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense." You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."' You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning.
:::In this lengthy discussion, we have had absolutely no disagreement on any of the terms both of us have used, save one. I point to it historic meaning, which is known, accepted, and has a record. You propose to redefine the term because it, "make NO SENSE on the international level." You go on to say, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Earlier you will recall, I noted, "somewhere we have throw the notion of good guys & bad guys in the mix." Evidently we have reached that point, where terms have changed their meaning so we have to throw good guys & bad guys in the mix, and the wrong good guys are being called bad guys.
:::So to set set the world right-side up again, we need to redefine terms. And of course it is only one term we need to redefine, liberal.
:::Can we agree, this pretty much summarizes what we have discussed? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Pw sign 44.gif|right]]
::::Unfortunately there's no easy way to do this so I will have to make a list as well. My responses are in italics.
::::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''
::::*"You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical." ''I do not. I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power''' (meaning generally coercive force).''
::::*"You claim only "realists" are focued on political power." ''Correct.''
::::*"You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense."" ''No, I never mentioned trade issues. I said '''most''' of the qualities on the list make no sense (and I listed several), not '''all''' of the issues. You are putting words in my mouth.''
::::*"You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."'" ''Correct.''
::::*"You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning." ''I "assign a motive" when you go on a two-paragraph rant on the evils of liberalism and communism (which isn't liberalism on an international level -- it's radicalism). You are assigning value to a definition. And if the reasoning is convoluted, it's certainly not my fault; I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature and my class notes.''

::::As far as I can tell, we disagree about "liberal" and "political power". We also disagree about "idealist", and "realist", unless I misunderstood what you were calling a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". So that's 4 terms. As I've said, I'm not trying to redefine a term, I'm trying to define a different, but similar, term that happens to use the exact same word. It's like the word "constitution". Ohio has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. The United States also has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. Both are similar, they use the same word, but they are not the same thing and one can not be directly applied to the other. Can you tell me, how many Democrats use the UN to negotiate domestic policy? And how many Republicans (realist is the analogy to conservative) use the military to enforce domestic policy?

::::I'm not sure what you mean by the good guy - bad guy thing. Last time you mentioned it you were talking about the bias of my classes, and now... you're the good guy and I'm calling you a bad guy? Or some political leader's a good guy being called a bad guy? I'm not sure.

::::I notice you keep ignoring my qualifications and you still haven't told me yours. You called ''basic'' IP concepts "disinformation". If this is a meritocracy why am I answering to someone who admits to not knowing the subject matter? I'm spending a lot of time here debating when I could be filling out [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|other fundamental IP and national security concepts]]. It really would be faster if you'd flat out say that one sysop's opinion trumps two people's advanced study, and I'll move on to something else. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

#So, when you quoted your teachers saying "political", you really meant "military." Ahh, now we see point.
#"I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense;" when you started this discussion, you expressly stated international issues, and articulated that very well. I never diverted into taxpayer funded abortion or eco-racism or any domestic issues. Nonetheless, international relations still is a sphere of human activities which for the most revolves around one group of persons selling the produce of thier labor to another group of persons, kinda like what happens everyday in grocery stores or an individuals place of employment. Here, the "actors" usually involve governments either facilitiating trade or impeding it (and nowadays, various NGOs also are involved).
#"I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature;" does your literature instruct you to assign a motive of hate to someone who questions its authors reasoning?

What we see here is, "liberals" now are just benign pacificist bureaucrats who stand in contrast to power mad militant killers. And the fact that they are focused on thier institutional jobs which require a political appointment does not make them political, or power hungry in any sense. The are just moreless social workers, focused on international law. Ahh yes, the good guys win out in the end.

As for me, I am a qualified historian. But the nature of my work and career remains classified. I was for many years a partisan political operative, but don't have the stomach much for it anymore, so now I just focus on my true love, historical research and writing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

== Another definition of liberal -2 ==

:Please read my original definition again. Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats or about realists being warmongers or killers. (In fact, realists and liberals were both a response to the same act; liberals did not come to being because of the actions of realists). Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever. Nowhere in the definition is their factually incorrect material. Most importantly, nowhere (within the original definition or elsewhere since then) have I personally endorsed liberalism. (For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist).
:Please let me know when you have actually read anything at all about modern internation political theory, and we can continue this discussion (not that we will need to once you actually read the definition for yourself). You have officially succeeded in bullying me away from a subject you know very little about. Score one for the meritocracy. Good night. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 01:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

::Simply put, why the need to redefine the term? Its meaning is very well understood by both liberal activists and critics of liberalism. Redefining it to some nebulous concecpt above that raises more questions than it answers just adds confusion. It's not that different than the Cheka, OGPU, GPU, MVD, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and finally KGB just finding a new name everytime the old one falls into disrepute. But the basic idea remains intact. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "why the need to define the term?"'''
:::*"Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics"
:::*""Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess"
:::*"Either way, they are still two different meanings"
:::*"there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal)"
:::*"right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist"
:::*"I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''"
:::*"I'm not trying to redefine a term"
:::Maybe from now on I'll just continue my part of the discussion/bullying by copy/pasting my own words. (See other responses below) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, Jazzman is being taught with today's revisionist thinking. One cannot undo in some posts the years of brainwashing, which is what it realistically is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:21, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I resent the implication that I'm not smart enough to know I'm being hoodwinked. I don't know what kind of crap you learned in school, but since I didn't attend the same school you did I don't insult your intelligence by presuming I know more about it than you do. I'd expect the same respect of my eduction. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Of course. If college students got the idea "liberal" meant somewhere between useless and dangerous, we'd be in big trouble. So we have to promote nonsense like the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political. Then throw in the mix things like denying what we just said, or redefine terms in the midst of debate. This moreless puts the liberal stamp on the argument just in case someone gets confused.

::One of the more pecular things about this redefinition is obscuring the line between "politcal" and "coerecive use of force." While liberals evidently are benign pacifists only pursuing careerism in international institutions which govern our lives, we need these politcally appointed caretakers to keep in check the power mad realists who wish to take our rights away, make war, rape the planet, and all sorts of other anti-liberal schemes.

::It's been very "enlightening." And Jazman, here's a realists point of view. [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/Itemid,49/type,1/] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "we have to promote... the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political"'''
:::*"I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power'''"
:::*""You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political '''power'''."'" ''Correct.''" (emphasis added).

:::'''Rob Smith: "redefine terms in the midst of debate"'''
:::*"I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such."
:::*"nothing is different than it was when I started"
:::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''"

:::'''Rob Smith: "liberals evidently are benign pacifists... [more ranty stuff about how I think liberals are better than realists]"'''
:::*"there were no value judgments made"
:::*"There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all."
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats"
:::*"Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever."
:::*"nowhere... have I personally endorsed liberalism."

:::'''Rob Smith: "power mad realists... [more ranty stuff you think I said about realists]"'''
:::*"Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate '''doesn't mean the same [thing] as what you seem to think it does''')." (emphasis added)
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about... realists being warmongers or killers."
:::*"For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist"

:::Rob, it is very obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. At first I wanted to help you understand, but now I see that it's an entirely futile effort. The definition of a liberal is World Politics 101 day 1. ''I literally learned this stuff on the first day of teaching in Intro to World Politics.'' Please let me know when you have taken 1 day of a class, and then your critique might actually have some merit. (Get it? It's that damn meritocracy biting me in the butt again! Talk about revisionism! The one with the most merit is the one with the stronger, more ''admittedly'' ignorant opinion). Your qualms with my definition come not from a problem of the definition, but of your ignorance of the subject matter. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
::::It's so simple. I asked how being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not poltical. You can't explain it. Then, when you (or your teachers whom you claim to parrot) use "political power," somewhere you translate the term "power" into "coersion", Then you turn the phrase around to "power politics", which gives a whole new and entirely different meaning from "political power." I dwell on. I ask you again. You retort: ""Power" in this case would...can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack."

::::Now its hard to see if your parroting your teachers or not. Obviously, "focused on political power", and "focused on power politics" have two entirely different meaning. I pressed you on it several times. When you finally ''did'' give a defintion of "power", it was in reference to something other than what your cited text books said. You referred to "power politics" and military force. Being "focused on political power" does not carry this connotation. And you as yet have not explained how being focused upon institutions and international law is not be being focued on political power. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, read a book, please. Why can't I explain how it's not political? Ready for this? '''It is political'''! It has been the whole time! I said it's not '''POLITICAL POWER'''. Here it comes again:
::::::'''Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power!'''
:::::Got it? They ARE '''political'''. They are NOT '''political power'''. Understand yet?
::::::No. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way; I'm sorry I wasn't careful enough with my phraseology. I'm not a professional teacher. However, if I clarify something, is it really that hard to use the clarification? When I say "political power is not mindless power politics" stick with that; it's what I really mean, even if you misunderstood what I meant otherwise earlier on. It's kinda hard to change the past.

:::::You seriously need to educate yourself in this area before you critique others. You are a historian, so let me use an analogy from within your field of study. What you are asking me is akin to me asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies" and everything would be clear.

:::::Has Conservapedia changed somehow without me knowing? Have Ed Poor and Andy Shlafly turned away from their undying oath to "Conservapedia is a meritocracy"? I also hear people complain a lot about how Wikipedia is scaring away their professionals, leaving them with only novices. Was it possibly because of "discussions" like this one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:05, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way''
::Typical marxist doublespeak.
*''asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? '''You would tell me''' to '''read''' chapter one of '''"World War II for Dummies"'''
::Me recommending commie propaganda? Not likely.

Summary: Ok, so you come here as a student of 101 IP class (whatever IP is, I'm assuming it stands for something like "International Politics" or something; I don't work hard to keep up on academic fads). You give a fairly liberal-to-marxist alleged "definition" of "liberal." The defintion raises more questions than it answers, as marxist gobbledygook usually does. When quearied on it, you (a) claim your just parroting class notes and matierials, (b) begin using words and phrases that evidentally don't appear in the class notes. Then you proceed to give your own interepretation as to what the teachers said while at the same time maintaining its all course material.

Somewhere, beginning with the questions I asked to clarify the definition, everything got lost. This only supports my suspicion the definition you cited is in fact liberal-marxist gobbledygook, and your answers only support that. You started reading things into the text that were not there, for example, the inability to see the difference between "focused on political power" and "focused on power politics" (I pray you are not contemplating pursuing and career in diplomacy).

In spite of all this, and reflecting on it all, I actually have come to see the point you & your teachers are trying to make. Put briefly, the UN & liberals are the good guys, focused on law & every sweet smelling thing, whereas the handful of "realists" in the world, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and Iranian theocratic actors ignore all this stuff and do what they deem is in thier own best interests. So while Kim Il-Sung spends much of his time watching pornographic videos, the people of Cuba eat rats because the cats & dogs were all eaten decades ago, and the Iranian actor(s) dream of Islamic Middle Eastern hegemony, we all take comfort in the fact they are not lead by dreamers, but by realists.

So you made you point, I understand it. And actually it is not a simple as I've characterized, but I'm not certain you understand what your teachers are saying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:Is that seriously your response, Rob? That I'm a Marxist? And that my professors are Marxists? And that the "for Dummies" series are commie propaganda? Very professional mode of discourse. I thought sysops were supposed to be of superior quality to other editors, but that reply just makes you sound idiotic. You don't have to do a lot of work to find out that those claims are just plain wrong. For instance I have said several places on this site that I am quite the opposite of a Marxist, and I have said several times within this conversation that I am not a liberal. No offense meant, but do you read my replies, or just skim them for quotes to take out of context?

:Rob, how in the hell do you know what I'm adding to the text? Have you read the text? You don't even know that IP stands for international politics, how are you supposed to somehow magically know what's in an entire IP (that's international politics) text book? I can see the difference between YOUR definition of political power and YOUR definition of power politics. I said before, I'm sorry if I wasn't careful enough, but I MEANT the same thing by the two phrases. I never said the two were the same thing. This whole conversation is about the different use of the same words within two different fields of study -- is it really that hard to grasp that you can't just substitute whatever definition you want?

:For some reason your eyes keep missing this next part, so I'm going to make it easier for you to read: '''''I never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My teacher never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My book never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. I have called myself a realist several times -- why would I call myself a bad guy?''''' This next part is going to blow your mind, ready? If you read my definition and think that liberals are the good guys and realists are the bad guys, it's because YOU think liberalism is somehow inherently good and realism is somehow inherently bad. It's especially baffling to me that you take issue with the fact that Sung, Castro, and various Iranian leaders are bad guys -- and ignore that the US is a good guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very conservative viewpoint here.

:The important point to remember here is that you are pushing away an editor who has made many good faith and useful edits. You obviously don't have many editors with experience in international politics or national security theory, so I found a niche in which I could help out. I have a long list of red links within both of those areas but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily decide you don't like my work. I don't think it's very good for the project as a whole to be in the practice of pushing away editors based on edits in areas in which you have no expertise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:30, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::To quote [[Ronaldus Magnus]], "Well, ...well,... and ...well...."
::*Ok, so in IP 101 they teach "power politics" and "political power" are the samething; it must be in IP 102 they draw a distinction.
::*You've gone onto a discussion of "realism" without satisfactorily defining "liberalism", so I'm not going to ask for a definition of "realism." Let's just not go there.
::*You've repeatedly made personal comments, some even of disparaging character, which makes me think (a) you are not suited for the field of foreigns affairs, and (b) you are using liberal & commie methods.
::*''"I have a long list of red links ...but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily (sic) decide you don't like my work."''
:::Response: Nothing arbitrary about it. See my recent comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=277033] The source I am referring to calls every US President who opposed Communism a "killer", and FDR, who faciliated Communist enslavement of 100,000,000 people, and handed over 2,000,000 people to the Communists for extermination, a "hero."
:::So let me conclude, you better have your sources particularly well qualified -- '''that is your responsibiltiy.''' If it is commie prop, with commie intent, my job is to keep it and the offending editor out. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::::*No, they don't teach that they are the same thing. Please read what I wrote and try again. I really am not going to explain this point any more because I can only say the exact same thing so many ways.
::::*Realism is the opposite of liberalism. What realism is, liberalism is not. The two help define each other, and neither makes sense without the other.
::::*You have repeatedly accused me of being a liberal, Marxist and commie, are these not personal remarks? I have observed your behavior; that these traits of yours are disparaging is not my fault.
::::*Wait, so you are basing your Marxist claims on a reference I've never seen? That's a bit of a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberal&diff=275823&oldid=275814 non-sequiter], don't you think? I never used that source for class, or for this discussion, and until you linked to it I have never read it. It is an anonymous blog, not an international politics authority, and has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever.
::::In conclusion: it's my responsibility to prove that I am qualified (which you define as "gives the answer I want to hear"), even though there's really no way for you to know if I'm qualified, since you aren't familiar with the subject matter. Against my repeated denials, and my declaration on my user page and elsewhere (and my 1000+ uncontested edits to Conservapedia), you continue to call me a "commie" (which is, by the way, a dasparaging remark). You claim my book (which you have not read) is propaganda, my teacher (whom you have not met) is a Marxist, and the entire field of international politics (in which you have had zero hours of training) is secretly a liberal plot to promote socialism, and I'm just not smart enough to notice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:43, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
<--

Ok let's beat a dead horse a little more. I never said anything about you. I refered to some of the arguments and claims you made as being marxist, and you specifically declaimed them all and blamed your teachers. I asked you to clarify a few times who was speaking, but never got a straight answer.

Here's what I think you and/or your teachers are trying to say:
:*Liberalism is defined by "liberal institutions" such as the [[United Nations]], and the rule of law.
:*[[Realpolitik]] characterized a succession of events and crises that finally precipitated the formulation of the United Nations.

So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
:*Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't ''defined'' by institutions, it is ''characterized'' by the ''utilization'' of institutions.
:*We didn't use the term ''realpolitik'', because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe [[Thomas Jefferson]], would you? ''Realpolitik'' does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where ''realpolitik'' takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.

:I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."

:That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yah but virtually all these alleged "realist" actors are members of the liberal insitution, the UN. And this definition of "realism" is misleading, because in truth they are virtually non-existent (Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is the only case in recent memory).

::That is a very interesting quote; I'd gather from it (and other evidence) RKS are trying to "systematize" the study of international relations. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I believe some of the cracks in the foundation have been identified. Namely, attempting to draw a straight line from early twentieth century liberalism til now.

::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]]. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.

:::First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.

:::Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.

:::Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).

:::I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Ahh haa....''the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic).'' Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler. And this isn't Marxist goobledygook? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's the problem: divorce this idea of "liberal" from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue [[United_Nations#UN_Sexual_Abuse_Scandals|pedophile Peacekeepers]] and the greedy [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil for Food scam]] represents modern "liberalism"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Are you really that thick Rob? [[User:NadhoB|NadhoB]] 20:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::''My little finger is thicker than my father's loins.'' (1 Kings 12:10). [http://bible.cc/1_kings/12-10.htm] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:06, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::(I'm going to ignore the "loin" comment, because frankly it brings to mind disturbing images.)

:::::I'm assume, since you are a historian (which I believe without having you prove it, by the way), that you know that those three Germans you mentioned didn't skirt the UN, since they all died before the UN's formation. I'm guessing what you meant by the "goobledygook (sic)" comment is that those four were all realists? If so, you are making the false assumption that if one or many members of a group are bad then all must be bad. The United States is a realist power, and like it or not, some dictatorships are also realist powers. This isn't Marxist opinion, it's a fact (and anyway you haven't shown any glorification of Marxist ideas, only the association of "good" ideas with "bad" ones). So, if I use your logic, the United States can't be realist, because only bad guys are realist. This, by process of elimination, makes us liberal instead, which by your definition (the definition on the main article) means that as leader of our country, President Bush supports abortion, high taxes, same-sex marriage, fair trade, labor unions and globalism? That doesn't seem right to me, but then again, I only have a background in international politics, not world history.

:::::I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Go back and see what I posted before: you somehow got "liberalism" all confused and bound up with the United Nations. The United Nations is not democratic, never was, and may perhaps never will be. The United Nations is not even a parliament or law making body.

So if you wish to discuss the concept of liberalism in the field of international relations, foreign policy, "globalism", or whatever, forget using the UN as part of that definition. We may discuss it as part of an example, or in its historical context & development, its role in international relations, foreign policy and globalization, but let's not use it as part of a defintion. To quote yourself, "That makes no sense." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:Please look at my definition. It really clears a lot of things up when you know what you are talking about.

:Liberalism is not defined by the UN, the UN is an example of liberalism, as it clearly says in the definition. I added it as a clarification to the reader; to give the reader something with which they are familiar in order to solidify the concept. Liberalism does not hinge on democracy, as it says clearly in the definition (you were the first an only person to mention democracy, so how it got mixed up with what I said is beyond me). Remember those "international institutions", "international law", and "avoidance of political power" things you got hung up on before (they were all in my definition)? Those are what liberalism hinges on, not democracy. Liberals generally support [[democratic peace theory]] (great another red link; guess the IP nerds all got scared off), but that's not because liberals promote and requires democracy, it's because they recognize that democracies lower the barrier towards creating a "complex interdependance" between states (another term directly from my original definition).

:Why does the UN have to be a law making body? Didn't we have the conversation about "actors" verses "states" already? Any state, NGO, or IGO (such as the UN) is an actor. Any actor can be classified as liberal, realist, radical, or somewhere along the scale between them (though since most can not use force, there is a high proportion of liberal IGOs and NGOs).

:So since you tell me to use the UN as an example, and I do use it as an example, I guess you finally think something I say is right? (Have you actually been reading up on international politics? Or am I actually changing your mind?) I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:*''the UN is an example of liberalism''
::This is where we have a problem.
:*''Liberalism does not hinge on democracy''
::This is where we have another problem. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just butting in here, but I think the country would be much better off without the UN. They are way too libral and only seek to stop the United States from taking actions, like in Iraq. As for the second point, Liberalism does not need democracy to florish--look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::*''Rob does not have a background in international politics'''
:::Problem three. Minor problem, as long as you are willing to learn new ideas.
::*''Rob clearly doesn't read my entire post, but still expects to understand my entire argument''
:::Problem four. A larger problem, because I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself.
::*''Rob wants to apply '''his''' definition to liberalism (as well as realism, actor, and political power) then claim my examples don't fit '''my''' definition.
:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).

:::::If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.

:::::I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're really not getting anywhere. You're not even trying to answer my questions, and your personal demeaning responses directed at me only add weight to this being marxist trolling. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, nowhere in my post did I attack you, but you imply, again, that I am a Marxist. Isn't this demeaning? This is an ad homenem argument that has no basis in this debate, and at any rate is easily refuted by my numerous edits on this site. You also complain that I'm not answering your questions. Your last post contained no questions, therefore there were none to answer. I did write a lengthy response to your statement, though; I don't really know what else I could have done to satisfy you.

''My'' post, however, had five questions, none of which you answered. One set of questions I have asked five times total, just within my last 6 posts, and you have either not been reading my posts all the way through, or you have decided to ignore my question entirely. In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully, which explains how we can be discussing a 66-word definition for over 6 days. I take it, by the fact that your posts get shorter and more vague each time, that you have run out of criticisms. Is this a fair assessment? (And, before you say it, that's not meant to be an attack; your posts ''have'' gotten shorter, and they get less and less specific as time goes on. Your last one didn't even reference the subject in question). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::According to the same 66 word definition, [[NATO]] would be a "liberal organization". [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct, Samwell. Collective security is a major attribute of liberalism, thanks for the helpful example. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not really sure where to put this, but I wrote it to respond to Rob's post then had to go to class and never posted it. I'm going to keep it separate from the pedophilia discussion, because... well I just will. Begin original message:

::Such a strong intellectual argument, Rob. I'm glad you are contributing positively and with solid points, not at all how you guys always claim a liberal would respond. I'm pretty sure if I had come up with an answer such as yours you would have complained that I was demeaning you again. If I or another editor had said that about something you wrote you would have blocked them and called them a troll. This is just another sentence to see how thoroughly you read what I write. I'm still betting on "skim". If you don't have any more arguments, it's not time to turn to ridicule. It's ok though, this probably doesn't happen to you very often. Most of the time around this site editors get blocked long before a sysop runs out of counterarguments; you just don't know what to do when confronted with this situation. Here's what you do: thank an editor for his well-defended contribution and add it to the article.
::*Trash: says who? And why? There are a lot of people who disagree with you and you really need some actual solid points to back a claim like that up.
::*Unencyclopedic : how? The definition is written in absolutely encyclopedic language, and it's just as useful in an encyclopedia as any other political ideology. This is also the first time you have had any problems with its use in the encyclopedia.
::*Marxist tripe: back to the old standby, I see (though you finally dropped the "gobbledygook"). How is my definition Marxist? You've never really explained that, and the only time you've ever actually used the word is to denegrate me in some way. I'm assuming you do know what Marxism is, and you aren't simply using it as an attack word. This is a correct assumption, right?
::*Garbage used to corrupt young minds: ah yes, insulting my intellegence again (and that of the many thousands of political scientists in the world). I fail to see how this stuff corrupts anybody at all. You also have failed to prove the motive of an entire field of political science (including those outside academia) to corrupt minds. At any rate, all you have to go on is what little I have told you about my entire political science experience. It's really rather ignorant to assume that you know everything about political science based on a couple of claims, especially when I've stated over and over that I'm simplifying some of them for the sake of argument and brevity.
::In conclusion, you are requiring me to have an overwhelming burdon of proof, wheras you seem to just spout off things from time to time, and then drop them when you can't back them up. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but you keep calling me names and resorting to unsupported claims and accusations. I try to answer every single point in each of your posts, and then you accuse me of not answering your questions. You sort of answered some of my questions, but it's still rather clear that you aren't reading all the way down to the bottom of my posts (and not reading all of the text within my posts). I asked a question 5 times, and referred to it one more time. You last post answers it tangentially at best. I'd ask it again, but you can just read the last paragraph of 5 of my last 7 or so posts and find it there, written five different ways. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, let's divert into the specifics: The UN Security Council obviously is made of realists, isn't it? Why would it exist otherwise? And we know realists are invited to join this liberal organization. How do realists get in? They practice realism, i.e. kill all thier domestic poltical opponents, and that qualifies them as members of a liberal organization.

:::How does the Security Council of this liberal organization keep peace? It sends pedophiles to commit atrocities. And this is "being focused on international law."

:::Right. We know where all this is going, don't we? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Where what is going? You seem a little obsessed with pedophiles today, Rob. Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument. I'm trying to have a rational discussion and you can't seem to get past your own opinion.

::::Realists have to kill all their domestic "poltical" opponents to get in to the UN? Are you nuts? Who did George Bush kill to become president? I believe you'd call me a Marxist (incorrectly, of course) if I suggested Bush violently forced himself into office.

::::As for the Security Council there are two points to be made. The first and most important point I have made before: politics is not black and white. Just as being a member of the UN does not automatically make you a liberal, using force does not automatically make you a realist. What is the UN's process? Do they shoot first and ask questions later? No, they discuss issues for months and months before anything happens; this inaction has lead to the death of thousands of people. This is another sentence I'm putting in to check your reading comprehension. You are zero for three so far. When they do use force, it's not using it to "keep, increase, or demonstrate [its] power," which is how realists use force (it's from the definition page, by the way). The UN does not have an army, it has a Peacekeeping force. It does not build up its force to influence countries into action, it sends in force to keep the peace. Technologically, the UN Peacekeepers are not set out for warfare, and purposfully so. If you have to have a military force, this is certainly the most liberal way to do so. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::*''Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument''
:::You gonna deny an organization you've bent over backwards for days now, to say, "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization" did not send pedophiles while it was " focused on international laws"? I gave you fair warning above, at least twice, "forget using the UN as part of that definition", "divorce this idea of 'liberal' from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue pedophile Peacekeepers and the greedy Oil for Food scam represents modern "liberalism"). But for some reason, you wish to continue pushing the idea pedophilia is liberal. You almost have me convinced now to put this stuff in. Be my guest and convince me, please. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Rob how can I ever convince you of anything, when you clearly aren't actually reading my defense? Believe me, it has very difficult so far. Did I say they did not send pedophiles, or are you just assuming that's what I must have said? It ''is'' ignorant to say that "the UN can not be liberal because it sends pedophiles to commit atrocities". Are you trying to say that they actually recruit pediphiles, and send them out with the order "go be bad little men"? This is the fifth time I've added a sentence for you to miss when you aren't reading what I write. That is not a rational or credible argument whatsoever. It's a great rhetorical argument, though -- but rhetoric is something they teach in revisionist classes, not educational ones. I didn't take the revisionest class, so I'm not really sure whether or not to associate pedophilia with liberalism or realism. It kind of just sounds like not strong enough background checks to me.

::::I really wonder why you are so afraid of calling the United Nations a liberal organization. You obviously don't like the UN, but you also don't like liberals, so what's wrong with associating them? Are you a liberal, or are you just being argumentitive because you've run out of things to say? You are trying really really hard to prove something that (a) isn't true and (b) isn't in your own interest to prove. I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Would you agree the UN "Peacekeepers" have sufferred some damage, and people may rather continue thier own bloody conflicts rather than import US taxpayer funded pedophiles? And where are the liberal reformers to reform this liberal mess? What about US taxpayers who pay 40% of the UN's budget? What are we supposed to do? Say, let that liberal organization handle its own mess it created, and continue footing the bill? What happens when liberals start trashing the US for funding UN pedophiles? Don't say I didn't say I told you so, cause I did. There is a serious, serious crisis in liberalism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:09, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Rob, do you agree with socialism? Do we have a definition of socialism on the socialism page? Do you agree with homosexuality? Do we have a definition of homosexuality on the homosexuality page? Do you agree with evolution? Do we have a definition of evolution on the theory of evolution page? (I could keep going, but I find you barely read anything I write, and my wrists are getting tired). You obviously don't agree with liberalism, but yet you still aren't allowing a definition of liberalism on the liberalism page.

The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''. If it makes you feel better, I admit that some UN peacekeepers are apparently pedophiles. What does this contribute to the definition of liberalism? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:This really is one monster of a debate. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::That it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Saddam is realist? Who opposed Saddam's removal? Who opposed Iraqi democracy? Who, while being focused on international law and institutions, refused to enforce thier own resolutions? Who opposed bringing [[human rights]] to Iraq? And who to this day opposes Iraqi democracy and human rights? Your professors & school books ignore all this, and it did not happen over night; that is to say, "liberals" abandoning "liberalism", and "liberal actors" abandoning "liberalism" isn't just a phenomenea of recent years. Its been developing for several decades now.

This isn't my definition, but it is an observation anyone can see of recent events. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, we are back to Saddam then? You keep jumping around from topic to topic and it's hard to tell what will catch your interest next. To answer your questions, in order: yes, the US (in a realist way, overruling the UN's failing liberal tactics), terrorists? (unless you are talking rhetorically; remember I said I didn't take the rhetorical class), the UN (decision making is another portion of international politics study; read the book and this makes sense), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically). You did not go to my class and you did not read my text books, please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130]

:The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''.

:I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::What do you know of Toynbee's theory of Challlenge and Response? [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/1999/03/ii-genesis-of-civilizations.html#V.C.II.(b),p.364,n.1]

:::"the challenge of being called upon to create a political world-order the framework for an economic world-order ...now confronts our Modern Western society...the challenge of the increase in material 'drive' which Industrialism and Democracy entail ...confronts our own society in our day in an unprecedentedly high degree. ...now, in the twentieth century, the problem of 'world-order' and 'material drive', which found no solution in the medieval city-state cosmos, have presented themselves again—and this time more intensely than ever—on the newly-achieved scale of the Great Society. "

:::This is written by probably the foremost promulgator of all the arguements that were presented to all the founding "actors" of the United Nations to induce them to participate (trust me, I know the language). And if wish to read his material, I'll present it chapter and verse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not familiar with Toynbee. Could you paraphrase what it has to do with this? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Toynbee was the Director of the [[Royal Institute of International Affairs]] and [[Chatham House]], the editor of [[Survey of International Affairs]], and other works. Toynbee lays out all the reasons of what, how, and why the United Nations came into existence. His works have all the arguments that were made to every nation, language, and culture, as to ''why'' they should participate in the international organization of the United Nations. It is the central theme of his life work, really beginning even ''before'' WWII when the League Treaty was still in effect.

:::::Toynbee began his ''Study of History'' in 1927 and completed it in 1963. He's not only an eyewitness of all the events, beginning with in his own words, when "1914 seized my generation by the throat," down through the failed League, Spanish Civil War, Appeasement, Chamberlain, Hitler, the Commintern, Japan, Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, Stalin, etc. etc. etc., with all the historical background material relating to six surviving, of 23 civilizations (in his accounting, however he allows for other variations) that have appeared on planet earth since the dawn of history.

:::::Toynbee made all the arguments to all founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Familiarize yourself with some of the background material, then we can discuss the the stuff from your 101 text book from a US government funded college campus you wish to insert. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism. I also find it interesting that now you are asking me to familiarize myself with some random reference you give me, when I asked you to familiarize yourself with any source piked from a large body of study and you have not.

Also, you are presuming to know something about my education again, which I asked you not to do. Please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130] I go to a private school, with minimum government funding, at most, and certainly no government determination of the curriculum. I am attending this school thanks to the generosity of alumni and by significantly increasing my own debt. Please do not suggest that I am mooching off the efforts of the hard-working American taxpayer.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Toynbee is not an observer of others, Toynbee expresses the reasons why a UN was needed. To use the short hand you like, Toynbee was an insider. Toynbee is the granddaddy of em all in expounding the intellectual arguments and reasons that ''others'' responded to when they signed up to join the UN. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:05, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... ok. I never said he was an observer of others, or that he wasn't an insider. In fact, I've admitted to not even knowing who the man was. Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism.

::I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll be happy to enter into a ''modus vivendi'' with you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::About the UN, or about the whole definition? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Does this definition state how the liberal organization, the United Nations, and others self described as liberals, ''actively opposed'' the removal the realist, Saddam Hussein? IOW, the liberal UN & liberals opposed human rights, opposed democracy, and supported a realist. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Sooooooo... what happened to the ''modus vivendi''?

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I gave you chance to explain how libs & lib orgs support realism; you dodged the question. Let's do the ''modus vivendi''. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::I "dodged" your loaded question because you brought up a modus vivendi then changed the subject, and I was trying to change it back.

::Which part are you talking about, specifically, when you say you are willing to end the discussion? I've been willing to agree to disagree on the liberalness of the UN, and I have said six times (I counted) that I'm willing to drop this part of the definition if that's the only thing holding it up. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, let's see some proposed text. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Man, I hope you're joking. Here's the text:

:::::In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues.

:::::The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Just don't see where any of it applies; especially in light of of liberal support of realism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, with all due respect: what the hell? You are trying to say that the UN disproves my definition, because it's a liberal organization that acts like a realist. That is a complete logical fallacy -- it either is liberal, or it is realist. Pick one. If it follows my definition it's a liberal, and if it doesn't it's a realist. You simply ''can't'' use it as an example to disprove my definition. (And at any rate, your argument shows a poor understanding of liberalism; "supporting" realism doesn't necessarily negate liberalism.) Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree about the UN anyway. Why do you keep bringing up other issues? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Either a liberal or a realist? Where did this come from? Talk about a logical fallacy. You'd do better to argue its either a carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore--that would have more standing in fact, logic, reason, or evidence. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Fine, what is it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:14, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Its a conglomeration of some sort. It supposedly has lofty ideals, but an abysmal record, particularly since its very founding. It has fundamental flaws in who it allows as members. And most troubling aspect of all is the pure tripe and disinformation it indocrtinates child with in the American public school system regarding (a) it purpose, (b) how it functions, (c) its history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, if you refuse to label it, then it doesn't really hurt my definition, right? I took the UN out of the definition, just for you. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The UN is a community of diplomats living in close proximity to one another. It almost a ''Sharashka'' of sorts, to use a Russian word. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka][http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/circle.html] I see Ed Poor recently referred to it a "parliament", but it is not a parliament. By parliament we mean law making body. It is not a law making body, and has no legislative powers. You will note the American representative is an Ambassador, and not a Legislator; to be otherwise would be inviolation of the [[Separation of Powers]] doctrine, as any school child can discern.

::::It's just a location were various soveign governments get together and debate, discuss, and sometimes actually conclude various multilateral international agreements. But unlike a parliamentary system, those agreements are only binding upon the participatory powers, and not other non-signatories to an agreement. Use of force is a separate issue, and I can discuss that separately. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So can we put my definition of liberal into the page, since I took the UN part out, and the UN "isn't liberal"? Is there something wrong with my definition, now that the UN is gone? (We can debate the fact that what you just described is very, very, liberal at a later time. Right now I'd rather finish this discussion before starting another.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
<--

Given the record recently (in the post-Soviet era) of child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein, how does this definition of "liberal", in "international politics", making any sense whatsoever? It only confuses an already confused situation. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Given whose record, the UN's? I said I'll debate that elsewhere with you. I'm more worried about the definition of liberal right now (which, again, no longer includes the UN, for this very reason). Liberalism does not have a record of "child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein," unless you are applying the definition of liberal to the UN, which you said I could not do. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::You lost me. You brought forward an idea the "liberal" either didn't have, or made no sense in whatever "international politics" is (an idea undefined); then you proposed a defintion that made little or no sense. Now you appear to be grasping about for some idea or concept to fit the word "liberal" together with some notion of conduct of international affairs between states or other entities, or perhaps some worldview taught on college campuses about what liberalism is or how liberalism functions or is applied in the conduct of international affairs between states and other entities.

::I don't see the point in stringing meaningless words and phrases together to allege some kind of ideological construct behind them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, I've explained before what [[international politics]] is. I might have filled out the red link a week ago, but this discussion has greatly slown down my productivity. International politics is the study of political interactions between entities ("actors") on an international level. Just as politics on a city level are vastly different from those on the state level, politics on the intranational level are vastly different than those on the international level.

:::Please tell me why my definition makes no sense. I've been trying to clarify it for you for days now. I've answered all of your questions about it, but you still seem to have some massive misunderstands of the concept. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

You've said many times, "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics" and it "makes no sense on the international level." I agree with this. You and your textbooks are attempting to systemize the study of international relations, absent the historical context. That's fine, but this page here, as you've been told several times by me & Ed, probably isn't the place to do it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Where should I do it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::Something might be able to be done with [[liberal democracy]], however this definition you're using goes beyond that. It attempts to refer to UN participatory states such as North Korea, the CCP, and Saddam as participants and beneficiaries of these "liberal" institutions. Frankly I'm not sure, it seems like trying to drive a square peg in a round hole. If the subject is international realtions and international affairs (which you refer to as international politics), I'd suggest focusing upon that subject, and if the term "liberal" comes up in some meaningful context, it might apply or be used. (But I get the impression your focus or interest is more upon trying to give a convoluted meaning to this term moreso than writing upon those subjects).
::Yes, the study of international relations can be systematized, but it still needs historical context to give it any real meaning, and to gain any understanding of it. I was just reading a Congressional Research Service report, ''Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy'', and noticed that "actor" was used several times, for example, “Since 1945, the United States has conducted its foreign relations in the context of a world that practiced what can be called Classic Diplomacy. It was a world in which government-to-government relations were the principal activity....a world, in short, in which nations were '''''more sovereign and independent actors than today’s environment allows them to be''''' on the cusp of the 21st century.”2

::I do not deny this language is gaining currency, and it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy. So we're just faced with the everyday common problem of having our words convey precise meaning. "Liberalism", for example, appears to be in some sort of disarray and crisis for a period going on several decades now. It simply would be easier to find other more descriptive words to use, than to use ambigious terminology no one agrees on.

::Finding acceptable, agreeable solutions, this at its core should be the diplomats mission. Trying to force an issue is "realism", as I've come to understand it the way you have explained. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::My goal isn't to force this "convoluted" meaning, and I did fully intent to write more articles which utilized the meaning. However, I didn't want to put tons of effort into writing those articles before I found out whether or not the foundation for them was going to be there. So, instead of writing about IR/IA/IP and leaving redlinks to the fundamentals, I wanted to build from the ground up.

:::As for systemization, this seems to be the difference of opinion between social scientists (i.e. political scientists) and historians, which I mentioned above (way, way, way above :p). I find it most useful to define the term "liberal" then look for the liberalness of modern institutions (if that makes sense). Certainly, even if liberalism is in "disarray" (which I'm not sure I agree with), there ''are'' principals of liberalism in most if not all international institutions. (It's also not accurate to say that "nobody" agrees on the definition; it is used identically in every work I've ever found in international politics). So instead of saying that no liberal institutions exist, we explain, using a common definition, the "liberal" and "realist" actions of any actor.

:::To draw an analogy to American politics, there are very few "liberals", "conservatives" and "libertarians" in America, if we use the complete definition of each of those words. However, there are many people with liberal, conservative and libertarian traits. This isn't to say that everyone is moderate, just that humans are too complex to ever fit a perfect definition. In order to function at all in a discussion of American politics (and the analogical international politics) we have to define the "perfect" value, then discuss if and how an actor deviates. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::To recycle what I said years ago, the term "liberal" was hijacked. True liberals, such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Boris Yeltsin managed to get on with thier lives without dying for a cause or trying to rehabilitate the term. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::I agree that the (American politics) term "liberal" has changed since its first use. As a historian, I'm sure you know much more about the history of the word than I do. However I'm not very sure what you imply by the comment. If you are trying to say that I don't need to rehabilitate a term to discuss international politics then you are correct -- I am trying to add a new term. If you are trying to say liberalism doesn't mean what it used to you are also correct -- and that is also why I'm trying to add this new definition.

:::::The bottom line is that this conversation greatly lowers my productivity, and I need a straight answer from you about whether you are ever going to allow this definition or not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:57, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::IMO, it confuses both readers of this page, ''and'' students of IP. I'd suggest getting other texts to see what language they use; it's just a theoretical definition, and an ideological one at that. I'll check the CRS cite I made above and see what kind of language the use. It is extrememly current (dated August 23) and is written for Congressional Representatives, House & Senate,and Congressional staffers. This is the actual text and language they use to analyize information and discuss issues. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:18, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Well, it didn't seem to confuse students in my class, but it's your opinion that counts since you are the one who can edit the page. I'll see if I can find other sources, but I'm rather limited (my school is pretty secluded, and I don't have a car). In the mean time, I think if you picked up an IP text you would find it enlightening. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==CRS Report==
Ok, here's some extracts from the CRS Report :

"'''U.S. Diplomacy — Need for Change'''

"Many foreign affairs experts believe that the international system is undergoing
a momentous transition affecting its very nature. For indicators of this change, they
point to the end of the bipolar world of the Cold War, the changing nature of the
nation state on which the existing international system is based, the rise of new
national power relationships, as well as the growth in the number and the role of nonstate
participants (ed. note: or "actor") in the international arena. These experts also note the impact that
the changes in worldwide communications, due to advances in technology, have had
on international relations. For the United States to continue to lead in this world,
they argue, it will have to make adjustments to how it operates and relates within the
changing system and the new, intense political aspirations causing these changes.6
Even before the United States entered the 21st Century, however, foreign affairs
officials and experts were '''calling for reforms of the foreign affairs infrastructure, foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs''', as well as the need to address the
changing roles between the Department of State (State) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) in foreign affairs. According to then Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright in 1999,
:The past decade has witnessed a transformation of the world political situation...Challenges such as transnational law enforcement, global terrorism, democracy building, protection of the environment, refugee issues, and access to global markets and energy sources now compete with traditional security and political issues for policymakers’ attention. These changes demand that we reexamine the nature and basic structure of our overseas presence.7

"'''The Foreign Affairs Institutional Infrastructure'''.

"In the 1990s, several
organizations and think tanks voiced concerns about the inadequacy of the U.S.
diplomatic infrastructure. The Department of State’s own report said that the United
States overseas presence '''“is near a state of crisis” and “perilously close to the point of system failure.”'''8 Experts called for the enhancement of the security of U.S. posts
and missions abroad, the right-sizing of these posts based upon U.S. interests in a
particular country and a continual readjustment as policy needs changed, the
'''improvement of training opportunities''' in terms of foreign language skills and jobrelated
training, and the modernization of communications/information technology
at the State Department and its posts and missions abroad. ....

'''Comment''' : So, this is just to give some flavour of the text. Now, while it discusses need for reform, better training, etc., and uses terms like "actor" to refer to things "non-state entities" throughout the text, one big concern is the need for reform and better trained people in the post-Soviet era. Nowhere, throguout this 32 page document, does it use the term "liberal", or "realist." My guess is dropping such nonsense is part of reform & better training. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:08, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so Congressmen don't use the terms. I wouldn't really expect them to. If I were going to write a report about alternative fuels I wouldn't start using terms like "integrated gasification combined cycle" or "cellulosic ethanol", I would say "coal-derived fuels" and "E85". Unless my audience is other chemical engineers I also wouldn't go into the various catalysts, enzymes, reactors, separators etc. needed to do produce each of these fuels. Similarly, "liberal" and "realist" are useful to the political theorist, but only get in the way of a policy maker's work. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"==
BTW, using your definition, " The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization," we're having a discussion of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm liberal pedophilia] at [[Talk:Main_Page#Amnesty_International "...abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region..."]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this was posed to me, but that does not seem like the type of discussion I want to be engaged in. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you all aren't Liberals engaging in a massive parody of yourselves? Because thats the way it feels with some of the cringeworthy things you come out with [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well either the UN is "a liberal organization" or its not, and either a pedophile is a pedophile, or its not. Add to that, either pedophile Peacekeepers are the solution to all conflicts or they are not.

::Put another way, either liberal solutions are the answer to our problems or they are not. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::But the definition of '''liberal''' used in American politics and the definition of '''liberal''' used in international politics are not the same. They are different concepts. It is common for different disciplines to have separate meanings for the same word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you Porthos. That's what I've been saying since day 1. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::That is exactly what I've been saying to since day one: this definition is [[classical liberalism]] and related to Wilsonian democracy, and you can't draw a straight line to modern "liberalism.' You're the one insisting pedophiles who work for this institution are focused on international law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Am I? I don't remember mentioning pedophiles anywhere. I do remember mentioning something about not judging a group by some of its members though. I have also addressed your classical liberalism qualm up above, where this discussion is taking place. I've answered it, but you probably didn't read my answer. Please stop reaching for an excuse to find something wrong with my definition. I won't gloat if you change your mind and agree with me; I will thank you and carry on making useful edits to the encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Let's not label the UN as "liberal". I'd prefer to reserve the general use of ''liberal'' for American politics. US liberals might support aspects of UN policy, but that doesn't make the UN "liberal". It just means that bad people like bad policy.

The UN deserves much criticism, and some of its anti-Americanism may coincide with US liberalism. But the UN is a nothing more than a parliament of the world's nations. Each nation gets one votes, even the itty-bitty ones with postage stamp area and a handful of people. Feh! I'm going to bed.... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, a more thorough discussion of the liberalness or not liberalness of the UN (and what we mean by liberalness) can be found in the above two sections. Beware, the reading's a doozy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*You ask way too much of Ed! He would be driven to hanging himself before completing two paragraphs of that! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:48, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Meh. Good thing the same can't be said for Rob or me, or CP would be getting some very negative headlines!! (Don't think WP's ever had a suicidal editor). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Digression==
Jazzman: the point you've been driving at on the ''realism v liberalism'' has always been understood, how ''liberalism'' stands for everything true, noble and good, and ''realism'' is the domain of killers and Satanists (like Bismarck, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam, and GW Bush), I direct your attention to some primary source research I am heavily involved in which anaylizes the founders of this brave new world, the aspirations of the dictators and progenators of these noble "liberal institutions" :

:"As these three men sat down to confer, two of them, [[Stalin]] and [[Churchill]], were '''[[realist]]s''' with their eyes fixed on definite objectives in the interest of their respective governments. They wanted specific and realizable things. Roosevelt deceived himself into believing that the mere meeting of himself and Stalin was "half his battle" as he told [his son] Elliott, and that, for the rest, he wanted to create a condition of mutual trust and understanding . ''Specific agreements about the postwar world could wait, trusting to mutual good will to provide the desired solutions'' ."

:"Major General Deane, who was at all the conferences as the head of the U.S. Military Mission, wrote :
::'Stalin appeared to know just what he wanted at the conference . This was also true of Churchill, ''but not of [[Franklin Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]'' . . . His apparent indecision was probably the result of our [[obscure]] [[foreign policy]] ."'(Italics added) 74

:"General Deane points out that Roosevelt was thinking of winning the war but that Stalin and Churchill were thinking of ''their relative positions when the war was won''. Stalin got everything he wanted - everything without any exceptions . Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his [[vain]] policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill . Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see . He got, of course, the [[United Nations]]." ([http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/The_Roosevelt_Myth-John_T_Flynn-1948-444pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=276&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 353-354]) [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:36, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Negative ==

This seems to just convey the most negative aspects of what it would mean to be a liberal. I just as easily say that conservatism means US government sponsored killing Iraqi babies![[User:FoxMulder|FoxMulder]] 14:39, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-09-09T18:38:56Z

FoxMulder: Negative