Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
hi sojourner,
calls for impeachment, i said. you give links to calls for an
investigation.
keep digging. i am sure you can get one or two loonies.
and that will prove my point.
it may be true someday, but right now, such calls for impeachment
are from the fringe.

Why do I have to spell things out for you?

Sigh...you won't get any calls for impeachment from the democrats yet. They're not stupid, you know.

It's too early for that. But what you will get, and are getting, are calls for an investigation. And then if the investigation comes up with something substanial then things will proceed in accordance with law. It won't happen overnight.

Kenneth Margulies said:
keep excusing the terrorists--what a point of view you have.

Show me where I have defended the terrorist-supporting activities of the USA.

Kenneth Margulies said:
did you take a moment to remember the innocent british killed today?

I haven't seen the news yet, what happened?

--
Ian Shanahan

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

let's review as you are a bit slow (not your fault)
i note that there are no calls for impeachment.
you post three web sites in response.
i review the sites and i note that these are calls for an investigation.
you whine that i need things spelled out.

again, i note that calls for impeachment are coming from the fringe, vice the mainstream opposition--my original point.
sigh...why are you so nasty? where is the love? please take a prozac.

you call the usa a supporter of terrorism (btw, what magical country are you from?) while silent on the recent crimes committed in london.

please, i beg of you, express your views and hatred of the usa in the media--any large media outlet. please! i am sure that you will persuade no one who does not already share your hatred and you will alienate most others.

[U] sojourner said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

hi sojourner,
calls for impeachment, i said. you give links to calls for an
investigation.
keep digging. i am sure you can get one or two loonies.
and that will prove my point.
it may be true someday, but right now, such calls for impeachment
are from the fringe.

Click to expand...

Why do I have to spell things out for you?

Sigh...you won't get any calls for impeachment from the democrats
yet. They're not stupid, you know.

It's too early for that. But what you will get, and are getting,
are calls for an investigation. And then if the investigation comes
up with something substanial then things will proceed in accordance
with law. It won't happen overnight.

_sojourner said:

keep excusing the terrorists--what a point of view you have.

Click to expand...

Show me where I have defended the terrorist-supporting activities
of the USA.

_sojourner said:

did you take a moment to remember the innocent british killed today?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the news yet, what happened?

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

you can read his both pro and anti adminstration writings at slate.com
whether pro or con, he is logical and provocative, as is the entire web site.

slate.com also has a great news summary that they can e-mail to you--just summarizes the press without comment.

BobHaverford said:
of Leftists - he actually seeks the truth. And for that he has
been tossed aside by the Left. The odious Left's only concern is
that the corrupt and impotent UN be involved. What utter poppycock.

You Leftists on the board - read Hitchens.

zigg · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
i am trying to keep an open mind on issues like rove.

...so by definition a closed mind on other issues...

Kenneth Margulies said:
i will never be convinced, and neither will they.

Is that how you approach a polemic? With both sides equally stubborn and spiteful - there can never be any progress or peace. This is exactly the problem USA faces internationally - "An eye for an eye" will surely make you blind.

Kenneth Margulies said:
i do try to understand
why there is such irrational hatred for the usa though.
most countries have done worse, some better. but there is
tremendous jealousy of the us and it influence. it consumes these
people.

"try to understand irrational hatred"?

Kenneth Margulies said:
for me, it is a way to unwind before i sleep.

Dare I suggest you read a book on logic? You are intellectually much closer to your enemies than you like to think!

--

Ed Sinclair · Jul 14, 2005

Lets put emotions aside for a while and use plain cold logic.

Due to a population increase one can expect that resources will become more and more valuable. Cynic would say that price of commodities will go up and price of people will go down (cheep blood). It would be unrealistic to expect that we will relinquish control over oil. Further more I would expect that due to instability in Russia (and vast resources they possess) it will be necessary for regime change over there too.This however will have to be done far more delicately than our dealings with Middle East.They can bite back much more fiercely than Middle Easterners ever could. After all for Russians it will make no difference who will dominate them: Chinese or us.
Future might not be too kind to some of us.That's just a reality.

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
let's review as you are a bit slow (not your fault)
i note that there are no calls for impeachment.
you post three web sites in response.
i review the sites and i note that these are calls for an
investigation.
you whine that i need things spelled out.
again, i note that calls for impeachment are coming from the
fringe, vice the mainstream opposition--my original point.

I thought it would be clear to you that, although calls for impeachment may be coming loudly from certain weblogs, the Democrats, because they are experienced politicans, would approach it differently.

Kenneth Margulies said:
sigh...why are you so nasty? where is the love? please take a
prozac.

Nasty? I don't think so. But I am starting to get a little impatient because you keep avoiding the issues I've raised.

Kenneth Margulies said:
you call the usa a supporter of terrorism

That is a fact. Did you not read the World Court's ruling?

Kenneth Margulies said:
(btw, what magical
country are you from?)

If you must know, I was born in Ireland and raised in the UK, southern Africa, Australasia (or Oceania if you prefer) and Hong Kong.

Kenneth Margulies said:
while silent on the recent crimes committed
in london.

Which means?

Kenneth Margulies said:
please, i beg of you, express your views and hatred of the usa in
the media--any large media outlet.

There you go again, accusing me of hating the USA where all I'm doing is pointing out America's hypocrisy and double standards.

I wonder if any other posters will ask you to take your views elsewhere too. You came into this thread before me.

Kenneth Margulies said:
please! i am sure that you
will persuade no one who does not already share your hatred and you
will alienate most others.

I'm not so concerned about "persuading" others, only correcting false starements. You made comments like:

Kenneth Margulies said:
what of chirac, and the un itself, which concluded that saddam had
weapons of mass destruction?

and zig and myself disagreed with that.

--
Ian Shanahan

zigg · Jul 14, 2005

And I think you're right - after a disaster such as iraq is turning out to be - there really is a possibility of major realignments and changes.

However,

instablility in Russia? I don't know what your propaganda is telling you, but in reality Russia is much more stable now than 10 or 20 years ago. It's also ethnically closer to the US and the effectiveness of their armed forces has been deliberately downplayed in the West - their WMD's definitely exist and it would be on the bottom of my list of countries to mess with.

Russia is also a "godless satan" to the muslim extremists - something else in common. And don't forget that Russia already was a US ally once - unlike China...

I know this is a photography forum but the messaging system is so well implemented here that i find it difficult to use the special "politics" boards.

--

Chato · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
well, to be blunt, you are not doing the asking. many conflicts in
our past would not pass the "dave" test of "would i fight for that
cause." like the "ask a mother whether iraq was worth the life of
her son" argument. the answer would be "no." but most mothers
would answer "no" for even wwII. what mother would sacrifice a son
willingly for any cause? (one exception is the mothers of suicide
bomber who praise their sons sacrifice--i see this as cultures
having very different values and perhaps cultural pressures to say
such things.

A democracy can force its citizins to face war only under extrodinary circumstance. In the entire war in Vietnam only 50 or so members of the Guard died - and these were men with unique speciaties. In Iraq we are dependant on those same National Gurads, men and woman who should not be there fighting a luxury war against a country that never attacked us. This of course is my opinion. The law disagree's. But it is the country that will ultimately suffer from this misuse of our troops. Those in the Guard never expected to be sent overseas.

You can respond, "that they should have read the fine print." - But once again, history will continue long after Bush is gone. The consequences are far reaching...

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Kenneth Margulies said:

have elections (did that move you at all?) and hopefully, in the
time we have left, we can set up a decent government.

Click to expand...

"We." Always a revealing statement.

Click to expand...

and the elections??? the iraqi wish and desire to vote?
no comment on that? very revealing!!!!
by we, i mean the usa. if we fail, then hopefully the iraqis, or
the un??? can do it...

Many people "want the vote." I would be happy to ship them arms so that they can fight for what they want. The world is a big place, and your demands for killing and dying stop with a few select places. It's not a reasonable argument.

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

snip>
We have installed MANY brutal dictators. In fact, Sadaam wouldn't
even be around without our aid.

Click to expand...

uh-huh. so we have changed policies. we
encourages democracy in taiwan, korea, and enforced it on germany
and japan. and so when we try to do the right thing in iraq, you
say "but the usa did bad things before, wah! wah!" you should say,
"thank goodness we are not supporting a tinhorn dictator like
roosevelt did in the past."

First of course US policy has not changed. We instigated and supported the overthrow of Democracy in Venezualla. As for Roosevelt, his policy was that the US does not have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. This is "support?" This sounds like a reasonable attitude. We bolster up dictatorships all over the world.

Let me pause and point something out. We created Islamic Religious Fundamentalism. In order to fight Communism, we choose to attack anyone who was secualar. In some countries we failed, in some we succeded. Our most shinning success was Afghansitan - But the Saudi's are in power because of us. We CHOOSE to support them because of their anti-communist religion. And Wahabbi Islam was born. They wouldn't exist except for us. Now of course, some of us see the danger, this administration doesn't.

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

I am in favor ofn the RIGHT to bear arms. If one reads the words
and intent of the founding fathers - that's what they meant.

Click to expand...

with SINGLE SHOT MUSKETS!!!!!

I do believe that history shows that arms, whether swords and spears, let alone single shot musketts, make the difference.

Let me pause again - this is an elementary truth. Read Thucydides, Herotodus. You bet, arms keep dictators in power - a free people is an armed people. Damn right singel shot muskets. Arms are arms. If you have them, and your opponenet doesn't - you win.

Kenneth Margulies said:
if your point was so clear, where are the calls for impeachment?
are democrats idiots? political cowards?

I agree - Both!

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

snip rove

Click to expand...

if rove did what is alleged, he should go. your point is well taken.

And I agree with your proviso of "if." I suspect he did - but I agree, no one should be hung on the basis of a mere press report.

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Since, we are fighting the "expendables," people whom one might say
are designed to die and become martyrs - what are you talking
about? They seek death, because twenty will replace each one that
we kill. THAT IS their plan. You don't get it, and you don't see
high crimes and misdemenors when it stares you in the face.

Click to expand...

my point on high crimes is above. you a so "out there" in your
thinking that your usual cohorts won't even join you.
i also don't believe that there are many willing to be suicide
bombers. your "one killed and twenty replacing him" is terrorist
propaganda,

I was not referring to suicide bombers - I'm referring to all who die fighting us. They are a relative handful, in relation to the potential millions that they seek to reach by "setting an example of courage." Their words.

but lets assume it true, and if you believe another

Kenneth Margulies said:
poster's comments about 100,000 iraqi's killed so far by us troops,
we sure killed a lot of suicide bombers! maybe when the 2 million
arrive as replacements, we can nuke 'em???

They are not interested in Iraq, either it's people or the country as a whole. AL Qaeda thinks big - they think worldwide. They know that we can't invade the world. Their attack is aimed at the Worlds Muslim population - they seek to turn ALL Muslims into their sect of Islam.

Kenneth Margulies said:
ouch!
well, never claimed i was a deep thinker. clearly you consider
yourself one. but remember, although you didn't convince me of
anything and i did not convince you, you are writing on one of the
most influential sites for political thought...

LOL! Yes indeed, thanks for pointing that out.

However this site IS interesting becasue so many from all over the World post here!

dave

Kenneth Margulies said:
ciao,
ken

zigg · Jul 14, 2005

Yes - I feel the same as sojourner - I take time and effort to write a thorough and detailed response to kenneth's posts and the next thing - we're back to square one with him ignoring what I've said and just repeating the same statements and calling me bitter and negative...

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

sigh...why are you so nasty? where is the love? please take a
prozac.

Click to expand...

Nasty? I don't think so. But I am starting to get a little
impatient because you keep avoiding the issues I've raised.

--

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

Speaking of Russia, it would've been a much more intelligent use of resources to hunt for "loose nukes" in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, like Pakistan, than to invade Iraq looking for those mythical WMDs. Those loose nukes pose a serious threat to the world.

But then we all know that WMDs weren't the real reason for invading Iraq, don't we...

--
Ian Shanahan

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

zigg said:
Yes - I feel the same as sojourner - I take time and effort to
write a thorough and detailed response to kenneth's posts and the
next thing - we're back to square one with him ignoring what I've
said and just repeating the same statements and calling me bitter
and negative...

Hi Zigg,

Yep, frustating isn't it? And he has completely ignored the points I raised here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14240417

and instead started splitting hairs about some links that I posted.

--
Ian Shanahan

Chato · Jul 14, 2005

It seems to me that Kenneth has memorised a number of cliches. Most of them, come from SOME person on the left. It's not hard to find someone mouthing off, not critiques, but anti-american statements. It's a big world...

Nor is it hard to find the opposite. But Kenneth seems to have all these hate statments memorised, and if you critique anything, why then you MUST have said the following:

List of cliches, would follow, but I'm a slow typer...

Now to be fair, Kenneth, dropped most of his obvious cliches, with me at least, and limited himself to an honest disagreement. But I note that when it doubt, he seems to reach for a cliche...

Dave

[U] sojourner said:
zigg said:

Yes - I feel the same as sojourner - I take time and effort to
write a thorough and detailed response to kenneth's posts and the
next thing - we're back to square one with him ignoring what I've
said and just repeating the same statements and calling me bitter
and negative...

Click to expand...

Hi Zigg,

Yep, frustating isn't it? And he has completely ignored the points
I raised here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14240417

and instead started splitting hairs about some links that I posted.

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

zigg said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

i am trying to keep an open mind on issues like rove.

Click to expand...

...so by definition a closed mind on other issues...

i believe "on issues like rove" encompasses all issues in the world!

zigg said:
zigg said:

i will never be convinced, and neither will they.

Click to expand...

Is that how you approach a polemic? With both sides equally
stubborn and spiteful - there can never be any progress or peace.
This is exactly the problem USA faces internationally - "An eye for
an eye" will surely make you blind.

somehow, i don't see my views changing by the arguments you and your buddies have raised to date. i also get the sense that if democracy breaks out in iraq and the people live in a state of bliss, you would still be citing traffic deaths in baghdad and tying it to us policy.

zigg said:
zigg said:

i do try to understand
why there is such irrational hatred for the usa though.
most countries have done worse, some better. but there is
tremendous jealousy of the us and it influence. it consumes these
people.

Click to expand...

"try to understand irrational hatred"?

thanks for the insult, but i am a voracious reader of web sites that are critical of us policy--michael moore's being one. apologists for the usa are an interesting group.

zigg said:
zigg said:

for me, it is a way to unwind before i sleep.

Click to expand...

Dare I suggest you read a book on logic? You are intellectually
much closer to your enemies than you like to think!

i have and also studied it. i appreciate calm, rational arguments no matter the view. but i dislike arguments inwhich people have decided the usa is evil and even attack our efforts to prevent hunger, prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, provide aid for tsunami victims as being part of some evil plan. (note you did not say these things, but some have)

can you name a just u.s. adminstration from the past? some on this site say they all were evil, that the us is an evil entity.

like i said, i will not be convinced of that and i am also sure they will not have a moment of enlightenment.

zigg said:
--

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

Hi Chato,
thanks for noting my drop in the use of cliches!

some of the people on the site have made some very strong anti-us statements and opposed such usa policies as our trying to prevent nuclear proliferation. one claimed that the usa never had a moral policy at any time. others have accused us of being the greatest supporter of terorism in the world today (not cause, as some would argue, but an active supporter).

i respond with cliches of noting how moving it was to see iraqis vote (dismissed as "well, who wouldn't want to vote?")
guess cliches come up on both sides!

Chato said:
Nor is it hard to find the opposite. But Kenneth seems to have all
these hate statments memorised, and if you critique anything, why
then you MUST have said the following:

List of cliches, would follow, but I'm a slow typer...

Now to be fair, Kenneth, dropped most of his obvious cliches, with
me at least, and limited himself to an honest disagreement. But I
note that when it doubt, he seems to reach for a cliche...

Dave

[U] sojourner said:

zigg said:

Yes - I feel the same as sojourner - I take time and effort to
write a thorough and detailed response to kenneth's posts and the
next thing - we're back to square one with him ignoring what I've
said and just repeating the same statements and calling me bitter
and negative...

Click to expand...

Hi Zigg,

Yep, frustating isn't it? And he has completely ignored the points
I raised here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=14240417

and instead started splitting hairs about some links that I posted.

--
Ian Shanahan

Click to expand...

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

well....as i mentioned:
guardian=leftest rag with an agenda.

no threat=no significant threat--okay, the kuwaitis were dancing in the streets because sadam was "no significant threat."

would kuwait call for saddam's removal with him sitting on their border? he really raked that country over the coals--doesn't that make them a wee bit wary on verbally calling for saddam's removal prior to the war? they did not openly do so, because he was viewed as a threat! (get it?) that's why they assisted the usg in letting our military operate there (duh!). and, after saddam was removed, dancing in the streets! but by your view, this must be because of the kuwaiti's natural love of dance....

old quotes from powell and rice--why not use newer ones from powell and rice--like powell at the un? his quote was wrong about saddam being no threat....and he was wrong at the un about wmd. lots of bad quotes out there--look at actions and policies. powell believed in the war and argued for it at the un.

speaking of which--the world court's decision is an example why the us does not support it. another example of international organizations sometimes going off track. what did you think of syria talking the helm 2 years ago of the un's human rights commission? any irony in that?

as for your final question--yes, a war based on lies is wrong. but, as i have stated, i don't believe that it was based on "lies." the un and france all had independent sources of intelligence saying saddam was in possession of wmd. that may have been highlighted by the us, especially after the experience of 9/11, but i have yet to see proof of an intention to lie. no smoking gun as it were. AND, the result is....saddam is gone!

[U] sojourner said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

100,000 deaths? nonsense!

Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

but if you can do it, why not me?
saddams' removal saved 3 million lives.

Click to expand...

But no, you cannot do it now, can you?

_sojourner said:

middle eastern countries did not advocate saddam's removal?

Click to expand...

Firstly, don't take me out of context. I said, "Kuwait and Iran,
two countries that were actually invaded by Iraq, were not calling
for the overthrow of Saddam like the US was." The key phrase being,
"like the US was". Now do I have to spell that out?

_sojourner said:

i literally saw dancing in the streets in kuwait.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that weren't pleased to see him go.

_sojourner said:

those countries
could not advocate his removal prior to the war as he was a threat.
remeber, we used those countries terroritories to invade iraq.
explain that. EXPLAIN THAT! how does that jibe with they view
saddam as no threat!

Click to expand...

Secondly, and this should've been clear from the context, "no
threat=no significant threat". They knew that Iraq's military never
recovered from defeat in the Gulf War and was in no shape to fight
wars of aggression.
They would've also been aware of what Colin Powell and Condoleeza
Rice said, which I quoted earlier, and which you seem to be
ignoring:

"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect
to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Colin Powell, February 2001

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have
not been rebuilt." - Condoleeza Rice, July 2001

_sojourner said:

USA supports terrorism and evil regimes?

Click to expand...

How many times do I have to say this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1237
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1484631,00.html

What is the only nation in the world to have been found guilty by
the World Court of supporting international terrorism?

The United States:
http://www.virtual-institute.de/de/wcd/wcd.cfm?dec0102.cfm

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Contras

_sojourner said:

i suggest that you are so blinded by hatred for the us you are not
rational.

Click to expand...

You keep on accusing me of hatred of the USA but you won't answer
my question:

_sojourner said:

_sojourner said:

_sojourner said:

and only see evil where none exists.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Answer please.

_sojourner said:

what countries past is without mistakes?

Click to expand...

So therefore we should ignore present day violations of
international law?

_sojourner said:

the overwhelming majority of us policy is honorable.

Click to expand...

If you believe that then there is a bridge in Manhatten that I
would like to sell you.

And answer this please:

_sojourner said:

_sojourner said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And this:

_sojourner said:

_sojourner said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

so you are from "Ireland and raised in the UK, southern Africa, Australasia (or Oceania if you prefer) and Hong Kong."

ireland--isn't that where the bombings started? did you support that? were these justified acts or immoral?

south africa--ahhh, the historical model of enlightenment. a model for the goverment dealing with aids (aids being perhaps another usa plot??)

oceania--oppression of locals by cultural imperialists like yourself--apologize to the aborigines now...

hong kong-land where people sell out their ideals to make a buck and placate beijing and deejays quit jobs over death threats for speaking out.

love to hear your comments on these places, too. or are you fixated only on the usa? any of the above unfair...perhaps too simplistic to describe a region?

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

sorry you see things differently, but basic truths prevail...

saddam is gone--this is a good thing (zigg and sojourner may actually hold different views on this)

u.s. policy is not evil (again, i think one of you leans toward "it is always evil", but that may have been your cohort "atomic." one person on the site argued that the usa's work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons was wrong because it was not fair to other countries.)

the iraqi people voting was a positive step (not a "well, who wouldn't like to vote" moment)

bosnia was a great example of us military stopping a muslims slaughter (though some of you will not take the "brave" stand that stopping the genocide was good)

wonderful that you all see eye to eye, and refuse to comment on some of your cohorts more outlandish statements. all in lockstep?

zigg said:
zigg said:

zigg said:

sigh...why are you so nasty? where is the love? please take a
prozac.

Click to expand...

Nasty? I don't think so. But I am starting to get a little
impatient because you keep avoiding the issues I've raised.

Click to expand...

--

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
zigg said:

Kenneth Margulies said:

Kenneth Margulies said:

sigh...why are you so nasty? where is the love? please take a
prozac.

Click to expand...

Nasty? I don't think so. But I am starting to get a little
impatient because you keep avoiding the issues I've raised.

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

New York Times article on an international poll that there has been a shift away from supporting suicide bombers and confidence in Bin Laden declining in some Muslim countries. perhaps the usa's and uk's policy supporting democracy and the terrorists' extremism is causing the trend of moderate muslims against the radicals?

some USA and UK bashers on this site may be numb to these events. anything positive will be twisted in some way to condemn the west and its values.

as mentioned, if iraq were turned into an athenian democracy, the bashers would complain that the west screwed up the traffic in baghdad.

Keith Hogan · Jul 15, 2005

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

Of all the utter nonsense propogated by fuzzy-headed liberals, this has to be my favorite. If we somehow could just try to understand why the poor terrorist wants to blow up women and children, he would stop. Frankly, I have no desire whatsoever to understand the irrational motivations of psychopathic killers.

As for the US causing resentment by supporting despotic regimes, I agree and cringe at the way my country sometimes rationalizes this support. Of course, as others have mentioned, the US is hardly alone in this behavior.

One other point -- ignoring evil never, ever works. The world allowed the Taliban and their ilk to turn Afghanistan into a fundamentalist muslim playground, and we were rewarded with thousands of deaths on Sept. 11. With the advantage of hindsight, perhaps things would have turned out better had we pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan a year earlier since we knew they were harboring terrorist scumbags like bin Laden. But I suspect that such a pre-emptive attack would have been denounced just as loudly as your denunciation of the US attack on Iraq.

As for Iraq, I agree that the Bush administration made a mistake in believing, as did the intelligence agencies of many other countries, that Iraq had significant quantities of at least chemical weapons and had active programs to develop other nuclear or biological weapons. After all, Iraq had shown both the ability and willingness to use chemical weapons in the past. With that belief, it would have been irresponsible to allow Sadam Hussein to stay in power, particularly in light of what had just happened to our country so recently.

Please note my choice of words. I think the Bush administration believed Iraq had significant amounts of at least chemical weapons. You choose to believe instead that the Bush administration lied to the world and knew all along that significant quantities of chemical weapons no longer existed in Iraq. You and your liberal peers, however, never seem to quite be able to articulate why Bush lied. First it was for oil, or perhaps because Hussein tried to assassinate his father, and finally it seems to be that Bush is generally just an evil warmonger. I suppose a US president simply making a tough decision to try to protect his country just isn't as much fun to protest.

Lastly, our "imposition" of democracy on Iraq is flat out the best hope for that part of the world. The fact of the matter is that democracies tend not to make war on each other. If there is ever to be any sort of lasting peace in the Middle East, it will only come when the governments of the Middle Eastern countries are held accountable by their own citizenry. To those naysayers who opine that democracy cannot be instituted within a country by force, I can only point to Germany and Japan as two examples of how wrong you are.

Regards,

Keith

Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts