Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

[zigg]

Hi Ziggy!
i do follow the links. the guardian is a leftest rag which
occasionally has a good article.

oh, the guardian are liars and only right-wing "rags" count...?

i don't believe in massive
conspiracies. you do. usless to argue.

No, I don't believe in massive conspiracies - but I can see how convenient it is to apply that label to uncomfortable truths.

so -saddam being gone is a negative?

Cancelled out by the disproportionate cost in casualties on all sides, damage to international relations and resulting rise in extremism.

tell that to the tens of thousands he murdered and those he tortured.

How many years since he was actually gassing the Kurds and killing his opponents - why didn't you intervene then? Oh, you were actually supporting him at the time of the atrocities and punish him only after he mellows out? He had become perfectly docile and life in Iraq was peaceful at the time of "shock & awe" - why do you think there's so much dismay and incomprehension in the international community?

to push out thugs like these costs us dearly, but i believe in taking a stand against evil.

Stand against evil? I would be convinced if USA didn't encourage and support the same thugs when it suits their interests - please get off the high horse.

one could argue that less people would have died if only no
one opposed hitler. (or any other conflict situation--why not just
surrender!)

You created this particular conflict situation. And you can't compare Saddam of 2003 with Hitler of 1939.

would another un resolution have gotten rid of saddam?

no, but so what?

did europe's hand wringing over bosnia do anything? or did u.s.
military intervention?

US conducted a bit of precision-bombing and took two casualties in Bosnia - sound similar to Iraq?

do you believe in isolationism?

more than i believe in ill-conceived aggression.

do you believe military force is
ever justified?

Ever? Yes - but not when it's a dangerous gamble with far-reaching consequences.

why don't you answer those questions?
thanks

 

[Peter Berressem]

Pardon, Ken, but you twist words / put in his mouth he never voiced. Are you maybe switching from one half of the brain to the other ? (women can do that successfully..

you only see evil. human rights is part of us foreign policy. you
are angry that we still deal with some nasty regimes (secretary of
state rice has criticized the saudi regimes lack of freedom), but
name a country that does not. the usa is at least fairly
consistant and stresses human rights. what has your country done?
do you wish to coexist with totalitarian regimes and "pressure"
them with meaningless un resolutions?

What we all , citizen of the world, see is just the tip of the iceberg. What anyones country does or not, well, we're not seriously involved. At best, with the results. If we wouldn't strive for a free press (that is) we had to re-ly (pun) on what the govs. tell. Good to be suspicious.

Bosnia is an example of us using our military to stop the killing
of muslims while the rest of the world dithered. muslims were
slaughtered while dutch peacekeepers looked on. but i guess this
represents your ideal of non-intereference in the affairs of others.
why do you hate muslims so much?

Wow, he does...? No. Not from what he expressed.

The 400 dutch blue-helmets were left helpless, bumping balls in the net of UN / NATO administrative and diplomatic responsabilities. A real powerful UN was missing here. The US gov. seems to dislike such.

as i write this, news reports 24 children killed by a suicide
bomber in iraq. oh, dear. the poor, misunderstood suicide bomber!
have you prayed for him yet? i am sure that his goal was to throw
out the oppressive usa, so to do that, he killed 24 iraqi children.
keep defending these terrorists. the world needs a good laugh...

Again, sounds populistic to me. There was no defending of terrorists at all. 'A good lough'...you seem bitter, not rational.

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(Pardon my English - not my native tongue)

 

[zigg]

How does invading Iraq stop buddhist monks being beheaded in Thailand?

I am not defending the Muslim fanatics - but what are you doing...? it's like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

Hi Ziggy,
thanks for your comments.
i guess if we just stopped opposing them they would go away.
except they advocate the destruction of western civilization and
values that are anathema to them. freedom of speech, equality of
the sexes. these ideas are repugnant and those who hold them must
be destroyed. look at muslims in southern thailand beheading
buddhist monks. why? certainly thailand does not have an
aggressive anti-muslim policy. it's the non-muslim ideas that are
being opposed by these radicals.
and mentioning the saving of bosnia has much to do with iraq and
u.s. policies toward totalitarian states. you do agree, we did a
good thing in bosnia by stopping the slaughter of muslims, no? or
are you totally in support of isolationism?

 

[_sojourner]

you only see evil. human rights is part of us foreign policy. you
are angry that we still deal with some nasty regimes (secretary of
state rice has criticized the saudi regimes lack of freedom),
name a country that does not.

It is hypocrisy to talk about the "war on terror" and human rights and still offer support to some of the world's worst human rights offenders.

the usa is at least fairly
consistant and stresses human rights.

You can't be serious. The USA has vetoed more UN resolutions calling for the observation of human rights than any other nation. Guess who vetoed a UN resoultion calling on all states to observe international law? That's right, the USA.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-March/007377.html

what has your country done?
do you wish to coexist with totalitarian regimes and "pressure"
them with meaningless un resolutions?

First thing I'd do would be to stop supporting them. If you want to fight terrorism the best way to start is to stop supporting it.

as i write this, news reports 24 children killed by a suicide
bomber in iraq. oh, dear. the poor, misunderstood suicide bomber!
have you prayed for him yet? i am sure that his goal was to throw
out the oppressive usa, so to do that, he killed 24 iraqi children.

That is indeed tragic. And I fear things will get much worse before they get better.

keep defending these terrorists. the world needs a good laugh...

Will you please answer my question from a few days ago : If America was invaded by a superior force and the Americans resisted, would you call them terrorists?

--
Ian Shanahan

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

Hi Ziggy,

too bad your are so unlike your namesake cartoon. you seem so bitter about things. i need adrink just to get through your postings.

first, left wing rags are just as bad as right wing rags. i gues they are worth reading, but they cannot be considered objective.

conspiracies--people see bush as taking the us to war for oil. i don't. and get this, i did not think clinton took the us to war to cover up for his troubles. i just don't see either man as being so without principle.

the gassing of the kurds was an atrocity that was debated in the usa at the time. the argument that saddam was worth the trouble because he supported our policies started to crumble at that time.i i would never use the phrase that saddam was "perfectly docile" and iraq was at peace at the time. that forgives the crimes commited against his own people on a daily basis.

the us supports thugs when it is in their own interests, especially during the cold war. name a country that is immune to the "looking out for its own interests" tendancy. i would say that human rights is a growing consideration in today's policy. and that's why bosnia grates at you. because it shows the usa's generousity.

what would you do if you were president. you can criticize, but let me hear your plan for world peace...

Hi Ziggy!
i do follow the links. the guardian is a leftest rag which
occasionally has a good article.

oh, the guardian are liars and only right-wing "rags" count...?

i don't believe in massive
conspiracies. you do. usless to argue.

No, I don't believe in massive conspiracies - but I can see how
convenient it is to apply that label to uncomfortable truths.

so -saddam being gone is a negative?

Cancelled out by the disproportionate cost in casualties on all
sides, damage to international relations and resulting rise in
extremism.

tell that to the tens of thousands he murdered and those he tortured.

How many years since he was actually gassing the Kurds and killing
his opponents - why didn't you intervene then? Oh, you were
actually supporting him at the time of the atrocities and punish
him only after he mellows out? He had become perfectly docile and
life in Iraq was peaceful at the time of "shock & awe" - why do you
think there's so much dismay and incomprehension in the
international community?

to push out thugs like these costs us dearly, but i believe in taking a stand against evil.

Stand against evil? I would be convinced if USA didn't encourage
and support the same thugs when it suits their interests - please
get off the high horse.

one could argue that less people would have died if only no
one opposed hitler. (or any other conflict situation--why not just
surrender!)

You created this particular conflict situation. And you can't
compare Saddam of 2003 with Hitler of 1939.

would another un resolution have gotten rid of saddam?

no, but so what?

did europe's hand wringing over bosnia do anything? or did u.s.
military intervention?

US conducted a bit of precision-bombing and took two casualties in
Bosnia - sound similar to Iraq?

do you believe in isolationism?

more than i believe in ill-conceived aggression.

do you believe military force is
ever justified?

Ever? Yes - but not when it's a dangerous gamble with far-reaching
consequences.

why don't you answer those questions?
thanks

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

i point it out for 2 reasons:

first, to see whether you would blame the beheading of monks on the usa--i am trying to judge your level of hatred for the usa.

second: to make the point that islamic radicals commit heinous acts against foreign cultures and this has nothing to do with iraq. they will continue to do so so long as radical islamic leaders preach "death to all infidels."

i say we need to fight the terrorists (and we are finding quite a few in iraq--most from thrid countries who came to iraq to fight) and you say if we were just to go away, they would leave us alone. strange, that is not working for the peaceful thai buddhist monks.

p.s. 24 kids dead today in iraq by an iraqi suicide bomber. guess he is to be "understood" for his using this method to drive us out.

I am not defending the Muslim fanatics - but what are you doing...?
it's like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

Hi Ziggy,
thanks for your comments.
i guess if we just stopped opposing them they would go away.
except they advocate the destruction of western civilization and
values that are anathema to them. freedom of speech, equality of
the sexes. these ideas are repugnant and those who hold them must
be destroyed. look at muslims in southern thailand beheading
buddhist monks. why? certainly thailand does not have an
aggressive anti-muslim policy. it's the non-muslim ideas that are
being opposed by these radicals.
and mentioning the saving of bosnia has much to do with iraq and
u.s. policies toward totalitarian states. you do agree, we did a
good thing in bosnia by stopping the slaughter of muslims, no? or
are you totally in support of isolationism?

 

[Chato]

i argue for intervention, you argue that we cajole these regimes.
you argue bush intentionally lied, yet believe saddam had no evil
interntions.
you see the western worlds fight against terrorism as part of a
grand conspiracy to steal oil. i point out a concrete example
wherein we acted to save muslim lives with no economic benefit, and
you dismiss the example as a red herring.
you sure are negative. why are you so ashamed of your country and
your culture?

Since I never said any of the above, my only response is to ask you why you hate America so much? And of course I never argued that Bush lied - I posted the proof that he lied. But since you hate America (hey cliches work both ways) you respond with cliches.

Since none you choose not to respond to anything I actually say, let me ask why you supported Hitler and wanted the Munich deal? Why do you support AL Qeada? And why are you so anxious that we allow the Taliban to make a comeback in Agfhanistan?

And yes, why do you hate America?

dave

If it was, than you are equally guilty of the crimes of every
stinking dictator that we are allied with.

As for this universal belief - I never believed it. Moreover, the
inspectors, once they were there didn't believe it.

And if my government systamatically set out to "fix the facts," as
the British cabinet memor points out, I'm surprised that MORE
people didn't believe it.

Many European countries stated that they thought he might - and
therefore advocated inspections. Well to the surprise and
embarrasment of the administration, Sadaam caved and let the
inspectors in.

Blix became a hero to Bush when he reported that Iraq was not
cooperating - than when he reported that they were - he was
transmorgified into a gullible fool.

You wrote:
"remember bosnia--the slaughter of muslims there? where was your
voice condemning that? where is your praise for u.s. troops ending
it (while europe dithered)? why did saddam condemn usa action in
bosnia, though he claimed to be defending islam? where is the oil
in bosnia the usa grabbed? what cash benefit did the west gain by
stopping the genocide against muslims? what of the warnings that
this action by the usa would earn the enmity of the eastern church
? why are the christian serbs condemning usa actions in iraq?"

And? What does this have to do with ANYTHING in this discussion.
This is called a red herring. Why not argue about WW II?

You wrote:
"because these fights are about totalitarian regimes with which the
west can no longer co-exist. "

Are you referring to our allies?

You wrote:
"and you excuse these tyrants? you argue for usa isolationism. to
hell if muslims are killing muslims! be quiet and do not raise the
issue of democracy in the middle east! "

Well you've laid out an entire scenario which supposedly I "embrace."

Can you back up these claims of my support for Milosivic? Or is
opposing this counter-productive war in Iraq PROOF, that I
supported Milosivic?

You have joined Mr. Hitchens in laying out a scenario, informing
ME, that it is MY scenario and than attacking me for YOUR scenario!

Ok, why did you support Munich? Why did you let Hitler come to
power? Why didn't YOU advocate intervention.

Why do you support Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia? And for that
matter, Darth Vader and the evil empire?

Fair is fair.

dave

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

sorry, i thought i did answer your question.

if a counjtry invades another to free its people and allow democracy, it is a good thing. (like **** germany, bosnia) if they invade to impose a totalitarian government, it is evil.
now answer my questions:
what country is without sin and has never acted in its own national interest?

why do you condemn are throwing out saddam yet condemn us for supporting "some of the world's worst human rights offenders"? are you adovcating we overthrow other regimes?

what are your policies to eliminate terrorism and totalitrian regimes besides "stop supporting them." bosnia did not stop slaughtering the muslims when they lost europe's support--it took our military (thanks, by the way), saddam survived for a long time under un condemnation. somolia--wish we had acted more forcefully there. guess you would have been happy if we complained more and stopped supporting them (oops, we never did--kinda undercuts your theory)

you hate america and only see evil where none exists. you are too biased to be objective.

you only see evil. human rights is part of us foreign policy. you
are angry that we still deal with some nasty regimes (secretary of
state rice has criticized the saudi regimes lack of freedom),
name a country that does not.

It is hypocrisy to talk about the "war on terror" and human rights
and still offer support to some of the world's worst human rights
offenders.

the usa is at least fairly
consistant and stresses human rights.

You can't be serious. The USA has vetoed more UN resolutions
calling for the observation of human rights than any other nation.
Guess who vetoed a UN resoultion calling on all states to observe
international law? That's right, the USA.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2003-March/007377.html

what has your country done?
do you wish to coexist with totalitarian regimes and "pressure"
them with meaningless un resolutions?

First thing I'd do would be to stop supporting them. If you want to
fight terrorism the best way to start is to stop supporting it.

as i write this, news reports 24 children killed by a suicide
bomber in iraq. oh, dear. the poor, misunderstood suicide bomber!
have you prayed for him yet? i am sure that his goal was to throw
out the oppressive usa, so to do that, he killed 24 iraqi children.

That is indeed tragic. And I fear things will get much worse before
they get better.

keep defending these terrorists. the world needs a good laugh...

Will you please answer my question from a few days ago : If America
was invaded by a superior force and the Americans resisted, would
you call them terrorists?

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

 

[Chato]

There are many countries in the world that have legitimate
grievances against my country - Afghanistan was not one of them. We
were attacked by people who are not a part of the Western political
spectrum. From extreme left to extreme right - they couldn't care
less. They will happilly kill all of us.

so...we should run and hide? apologize for promoting freedom?
return to isolationism? let me hear your plan for world peace...

Well Ken, you seem a well meaning man, even though you respond to posts with cliches.

While I don't know you, you've responded to a whole series of "talking points," very few of which I have broght up.

As I pointed out, I am one of those who believe we are at war. The primary physical end of that war ended when we took over Aftghanistan. Our enemies now are no longer States, but ideas.

These ideas are expressed by an heretical sect of Islam. They, this sect and its followers are our enemies.

Totalitarian regimes are not our enemies by default. As a democracy we recognise that they are the enemies of their people. People who wish to fight for their freedom or reist tyranny certainly deserve our aid. But if it is our job to over throw tyrants, better ask Bush to restore the draft, because a lot of dead people are coming and many of them will be Americans. And better restore all those taxes because over throwing tyrants is expensive - and you have to occupy the countries involved.

Actually this entire concept is rediculous. You know and I know that America has no interest in over throwing tyrants. It's an issue created only AFTER the invasion. I can post speech after speech of Bush before the war and regime change as a goal is SPECIFICALLY DENIED!

So let us come back to the real world and the real war that we are being faced with.

Al Qeada predicted that we would invade Iraq. We invaded Iraq. He could not have paid us to do his work better than we are already doing.

1. Secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

2. Support secular and non-fundamentalists in Afghanistan and around the world. US policy up until now has been to attack all secualr forces and work with "tame" fundamentalists. Make Afghanistan a model Republic. We do have a RIGHT to be there because they attacked us.

3. Work on a psychological level to demonstrate that Al Qaeda is an heretical sect. Publish and distribute excerpts from the Koran that contradict his words.

4. Renounce the use of force except in self defense.

5. Work to discredit fundamentalist States, such as Saudi Arabia, which are actually the heartleand of our enemies

5. I don't mention Iraq, because it had nothing to do with this war. As far as Iraq goes, we should immediately hold a referendum asking the Iraqi people if they want us to stay or go.

Announce that we have removed the dictartor and the rest is up to them, but if they really want our help we will stay.

Iraq is an open wound that Al Qaeda leeches off. We have to get out ASAP using any excuse. If the Iraqi people voted for us to stay, we should do so, but for as short a time as possible. Even holding such a referendum would ease tensions, and create a more favorible atmosphere.

5b. Announce that we are abandoning the permenent military bases that we are setting up in Iraq.

dave

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

Hi Peter,
thyanks for admitting i have a brain. i am sure some posters wonder.

ia gree it is good to be suspicious and i love a free press. but i do draw the line at elaborate conspiracy theories. like people claiming bush is an idiot, but also saying he masterminded a war and fooled the world's governments and press (which had their own sources of information on iraq). i don't believe in most conspiracies and the guy is not an idiot.

i said he hates muslims to make the point that to sit by why saddam has killed thousands for years and believe that words would change the situation is a tremendous disrespect for life--muslim life. where is his anger toward the human rights abuses by muslims on muslims? where is his disgust for the radical hate filled mosques?

true, a real powerful un might.might have been effective in bosnia and you could argue that the us has been too critical of this amazingly corrupt and bureaucratic organization (just look at the money made on oil for food and the corruption of kofi's son), but dealing with reality, the UN peacekeepers allowed a slaughter of muslims and the usa stopped the killing, and saddam (the lion defender of the musliim faith) condemned our doing so. why no outrage with the thug saddam? no words of praise for us actions?

he excuses the terrorists actions as these people being the defenders of their land--i say the excuse is a defense of their actions. he is wrong to do so.

Pardon, Ken, but you twist words / put in his mouth he never
voiced. Are you maybe switching from one half of the brain to the
other ? (women can do that successfully..

you only see evil. human rights is part of us foreign policy. you
are angry that we still deal with some nasty regimes (secretary of
state rice has criticized the saudi regimes lack of freedom), but
name a country that does not. the usa is at least fairly
consistant and stresses human rights. what has your country done?
do you wish to coexist with totalitarian regimes and "pressure"
them with meaningless un resolutions?

What we all , citizen of the world, see is just the tip of the
iceberg. What anyones country does or not, well, we're not
seriously involved. At best, with the results. If we wouldn't
strive for a free press (that is) we had to re-ly (pun) on what the
govs. tell. Good to be suspicious.

Bosnia is an example of us using our military to stop the killing
of muslims while the rest of the world dithered. muslims were
slaughtered while dutch peacekeepers looked on. but i guess this
represents your ideal of non-intereference in the affairs of others.
why do you hate muslims so much?

Wow, he does...? No. Not from what he expressed.
The 400 dutch blue-helmets were left helpless, bumping balls in
the net of UN / NATO administrative and diplomatic
responsabilities. A real powerful UN was missing here. The US
gov. seems to dislike such.

as i write this, news reports 24 children killed by a suicide
bomber in iraq. oh, dear. the poor, misunderstood suicide bomber!
have you prayed for him yet? i am sure that his goal was to throw
out the oppressive usa, so to do that, he killed 24 iraqi children.
keep defending these terrorists. the world needs a good laugh...

Again, sounds populistic to me. There was no defending of
terrorists at all. 'A good lough'...you seem bitter, not rational.

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(Pardon my English - not my native tongue)

 

[zigg]

It's too late to change anything now - the neocons are dictating American policy and will ensure that their agenda isn't neglected and terrorism in other parts of the world would seem to work in their favour. Looks like we'll see a lot more bloodshed and childish arguments in favour of a war which will only benefit the neocons and their "elite".

"How come gas isn't getting any cheaper?" - LOL

--

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

Hi Chato,

you are right in that iwas partly responding to another post. between you, zig, atomic and peter, i ahve my hands full.

i actually agree with many of your conclusions and recommendations. i may be a bit more aggressive in defending ourselve--i do believe in a preemptive strike after the 9/11 experience. i am curious about whether the report of our drawing down troops in iraq starting in 2006 will be accurate. we should do our best to set them up, but in the end, it is up to the iraqis to build their future. just hope the suicide bomber subscribe to the view that once we leave, there is no reason to blow up chldren (like the 24 killed today)....as if there ever was an excuse.

There are many countries in the world that have legitimate
grievances against my country - Afghanistan was not one of them. We
were attacked by people who are not a part of the Western political
spectrum. From extreme left to extreme right - they couldn't care
less. They will happilly kill all of us.

so...we should run and hide? apologize for promoting freedom?
return to isolationism? let me hear your plan for world peace...

Well Ken, you seem a well meaning man, even though you respond to
posts with cliches.

While I don't know you, you've responded to a whole series of
"talking points," very few of which I have broght up.

As I pointed out, I am one of those who believe we are at war. The
primary physical end of that war ended when we took over
Aftghanistan. Our enemies now are no longer States, but ideas.

These ideas are expressed by an heretical sect of Islam. They, this
sect and its followers are our enemies.

Totalitarian regimes are not our enemies by default. As a
democracy we recognise that they are the enemies of their people.
People who wish to fight for their freedom or reist tyranny
certainly deserve our aid. But if it is our job to over throw
tyrants, better ask Bush to restore the draft, because a lot of
dead people are coming and many of them will be Americans. And
better restore all those taxes because over throwing tyrants is
expensive - and you have to occupy the countries involved.

Actually this entire concept is rediculous. You know and I know
that America has no interest in over throwing tyrants. It's an
issue created only AFTER the invasion. I can post speech after
speech of Bush before the war and regime change as a goal is
SPECIFICALLY DENIED!

So let us come back to the real world and the real war that we are
being faced with.

Al Qeada predicted that we would invade Iraq. We invaded Iraq. He
could not have paid us to do his work better than we are already
doing.

1. Secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

2. Support secular and non-fundamentalists in Afghanistan and
around the world. US policy up until now has been to attack all
secualr forces and work with "tame" fundamentalists. Make
Afghanistan a model Republic. We do have a RIGHT to be there
because they attacked us.

3. Work on a psychological level to demonstrate that Al Qaeda is an
heretical sect. Publish and distribute excerpts from the Koran that
contradict his words.

4. Renounce the use of force except in self defense.

5. Work to discredit fundamentalist States, such as Saudi Arabia,
which are actually the heartleand of our enemies

5. I don't mention Iraq, because it had nothing to do with this
war. As far as Iraq goes, we should immediately hold a referendum
asking the Iraqi people if they want us to stay or go.

Announce that we have removed the dictartor and the rest is up to
them, but if they really want our help we will stay.

Iraq is an open wound that Al Qaeda leeches off. We have to get out
ASAP using any excuse. If the Iraqi people voted for us to stay, we
should do so, but for as short a time as possible. Even holding
such a referendum would ease tensions, and create a more favorible
atmosphere.

5b. Announce that we are abandoning the permenent military bases
that we are setting up in Iraq.

dave

 

[zigg]

I was just answering your questions and trying to cut through the rhetoric to discuss the real issues - sorry if that makes you turn to drink!

I don't hate the USA but I think the current administration should stop fuelling ancient blood feuds between peoples - that's a major cause of attacks on US - they're not blowing themselves up out of boredom or envy.

If I were the president - I'd try to understand my enemy.

Z

Hi Ziggy!
i do follow the links. the guardian is a leftest rag which
occasionally has a good article.

oh, the guardian are liars and only right-wing "rags" count...?

i don't believe in massive
conspiracies. you do. usless to argue.

No, I don't believe in massive conspiracies - but I can see how
convenient it is to apply that label to uncomfortable truths.

so -saddam being gone is a negative?

Cancelled out by the disproportionate cost in casualties on all
sides, damage to international relations and resulting rise in
extremism.

tell that to the tens of thousands he murdered and those he tortured.

How many years since he was actually gassing the Kurds and killing
his opponents - why didn't you intervene then? Oh, you were
actually supporting him at the time of the atrocities and punish
him only after he mellows out? He had become perfectly docile and
life in Iraq was peaceful at the time of "shock & awe" - why do you
think there's so much dismay and incomprehension in the
international community?

to push out thugs like these costs us dearly, but i believe in taking a stand against evil.

Stand against evil? I would be convinced if USA didn't encourage
and support the same thugs when it suits their interests - please
get off the high horse.

one could argue that less people would have died if only no
one opposed hitler. (or any other conflict situation--why not just
surrender!)

You created this particular conflict situation. And you can't
compare Saddam of 2003 with Hitler of 1939.

would another un resolution have gotten rid of saddam?

no, but so what?

did europe's hand wringing over bosnia do anything? or did u.s.
military intervention?

US conducted a bit of precision-bombing and took two casualties in
Bosnia - sound similar to Iraq?

do you believe in isolationism?

more than i believe in ill-conceived aggression.

do you believe military force is
ever justified?

Ever? Yes - but not when it's a dangerous gamble with far-reaching
consequences.

why don't you answer those questions?
thanks

--

 

[zigg]

Oh, I'm not falling into the trap of defending the Muslim extremists and you won't see me weeping unconsolably on the tarmac if this government decided to deport them, but I suspect that the US has been suckered into going down a very dangerous and foolish path. It hasn't gone to plan, has it?

Z

I am not defending the Muslim fanatics - but what are you doing...?
it's like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

Hi Ziggy,
thanks for your comments.
i guess if we just stopped opposing them they would go away.
except they advocate the destruction of western civilization and
values that are anathema to them. freedom of speech, equality of
the sexes. these ideas are repugnant and those who hold them must
be destroyed. look at muslims in southern thailand beheading
buddhist monks. why? certainly thailand does not have an
aggressive anti-muslim policy. it's the non-muslim ideas that are
being opposed by these radicals.
and mentioning the saving of bosnia has much to do with iraq and
u.s. policies toward totalitarian states. you do agree, we did a
good thing in bosnia by stopping the slaughter of muslims, no? or
are you totally in support of isolationism?

--

 

[Kenneth Margulies]

if you do not defend muslim extremists and only disagree with the us's methods, then i have no major disagreement with you. i support us policies to date, but am not wedded to them. i will give it some time, but we cannot stay in iraq forever.

what angers me is the defending of the terrorists. and the fanatical attacks on us policy that fails to recognize any good intentions or results.

i believe that u.s. troops may be drawn down in iraq starting in 2006--according the news reports. then it will be up to the iraqis to make a democracy work, in the meantime, i hope that there will be some foundation for them to build upon. i still believe this goal is good. and i don't believe in a passive reaction to terrorism.
it's late here.
good night!
zzzzzzzzzz

Z

I am not defending the Muslim fanatics - but what are you doing...?
it's like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

Hi Ziggy,
thanks for your comments.
i guess if we just stopped opposing them they would go away.
except they advocate the destruction of western civilization and
values that are anathema to them. freedom of speech, equality of
the sexes. these ideas are repugnant and those who hold them must
be destroyed. look at muslims in southern thailand beheading
buddhist monks. why? certainly thailand does not have an
aggressive anti-muslim policy. it's the non-muslim ideas that are
being opposed by these radicals.
and mentioning the saving of bosnia has much to do with iraq and
u.s. policies toward totalitarian states. you do agree, we did a
good thing in bosnia by stopping the slaughter of muslims, no? or
are you totally in support of isolationism?

--

 

[DavidMaven]

Forum subject lines recently:

"Out hearts go out to London" or something like that

"Baghadad Does Not Count"

At least 4 died in Netanya in Israel from a suicide bomber, but nobody mentions it (except me). And the suidicide bombing in Israel has been going on for years.

Maybe I should search the forums, but I dont' have time right now. But I'm wondering, are so many people here so inured to the deaths of Israelis by suicide bombing that 4 recently and hundreds or even a thousand in recent years is no big deal?

Or are deaths of Israelis and Jews simply worth less than others? Or worth nothing at all?

Just curious
--
[email protected]

 

[DavidMaven]

I totally agree with your rhetorical questions. Everybody's blood is valuable, but either people are so used to Israeli deaths or the Jew-haters write the headlines and forum subject lines.

At little extreme, my comment, I admit. Probably the former, not the latter. But sometimes I wonder...

David

in my book everyones blood is just as valuable

As anyone can see, only U.S. or European cities count as far as
terrorist bombings are concerned.

Don't get me wrong, the Iraq war is a huge tragedy. My daughter has
noted that deaths that are 'not here' are not a big deal and are
written off as 'collateral damage'.

It is a dual standard that hurts us all.

Thanks for posting this about Baghdad. They really, really need our
prayers. A London type bombing happens to them weekly.
--
Rick

--
beam me up scotty

im giving it all shes got captain

--
[email protected]

 

[Peter Berressem]

At least 4 died in Netanya in Israel from a suicide bomber, but
nobody mentions it (except me). And the suidicide bombing in Israel
has been going on for years.

I think it is similar to someone who gets slaps on his face. And a next and a next...after a while he 'somehow' gets used to it. When he suddenly gets a kick in his back he again feels the pain...
--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(Pardon my English - not my native tongue)

 

[jk]

that bombing last night didnt even make the papers at all here

it was in natanya

Forum subject lines recently:

"Out hearts go out to London" or something like that

"Baghadad Does Not Count"

At least 4 died in Netanya in Israel from a suicide bomber, but
nobody mentions it (except me). And the suidicide bombing in Israel
has been going on for years.

Maybe I should search the forums, but I dont' have time right now.
But I'm wondering, are so many people here so inured to the deaths
of Israelis by suicide bombing that 4 recently and hundreds or even
a thousand in recent years is no big deal?

Or are deaths of Israelis and Jews simply worth less than others?
Or worth nothing at all?

Just curious
--
[email protected]

--
beam me up scotty

im giving it all shes got captain

 

[_sojourner]

sorry, i thought i did answer your question.

Where? I must've missed it.

if a counjtry invades another to free its people and allow
democracy, it is a good thing.

I don't believe that democracy can be imposed on a people. It has to come naturally. And anyway, are you talking about American style "democracy"? Because if you are, that certainly leaves a lot to be desired, doesn't it:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp

(like **** germany, bosnia) if they
invade to impose a totalitarian government, it is evil.

Certainly, but what about, as Bush said, invading any country that harbors terrorists? This is a good thing, isn't it?

now answer my questions:
what country is without sin and has never acted in its own national
interest?

A country can act in its own interest, ie. protecting its people, without giving support, (in the case of America, worldwide support), to brutal dictators.

why do you condemn are throwing out saddam

I thought I made it clear that I have objected to invading Iraq as the means of dealing with the problem. A means which has resulted in the loss of over 100,000 innocent lives.

yet condemn us for
supporting "some of the world's worst human rights offenders"? are
you adovcating we overthrow other regimes?

I'm certainly advocating stopping supporting them.

what are your policies to eliminate terrorism and totalitrian
regimes besides "stop supporting them."

Besides? Come on now, that's the commonsense starting point. That's like asking, 'how can we help a battered wife?" - well, we can start by getting the husband to stop battering her.

There can be no doubt that an easy way to reduce terrorism is to stop participating in it. America should stop fostering it, close down the terrorist traning camp in Fort Benning, Georgia. It should stop vetoing humanitarian resolutions in the UN. Admit that US foreign policy has been the cause of so much worldwide suffering. That's a good place to start and to work from. I don't think that'll happen though, at least not under the present government.

saddam survived for a long time
under un condemnation.

It's interesting to note that Kuwait and Iran, two countries that were actually invaded by Iraq, were not calling for the overthrow of Saddam like the US was. Why not? Because they knew that he wasn't much of a threat. Even the head of Israeli military intelligence, in 2002, and they watch Iraq pretty closely, admitted that, at the time, Saddam posed no nuclear threat to the region.

you hate america

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards.

and only see evil where none exists.

Is it not evil to wage a war based on lies?

you are too
biased to be objective.

No, the burden of proof lies on those who advocate violence. And when that proof could not be found, then it had to be manufactured:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

--
Ian Shanahan