Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

Peter Berressem · Jul 15, 2005

Keith Hogan said:
Keith Hogan said:

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

Click to expand...

Frankly, I have no desire whatsoever to understand the
irrational motivations of psychopathic killers.

You might have no desire, others get even paid for doing so, called ' profiler '. Acknowledged as most important in modern criminal investigation. For a reason.

Keith Hogan said:
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.

Widespread misconception of German history. There already was a history of a democracy since the 19th century and an elected parliament in the 20th (the later so called ' Weimarer Republik'), even Hitler's party (the NSDAP = the Nazis) was elected by a democratic majority. For Japan, IMO, the political and cultural developement in the aera of WWII was ripe to overthrow feudalism. A democratic system did not have to be forced on Japan against the will and the ability of the population.

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

David Hughes124436 · Jul 15, 2005

I can' help thinking that we have every sympathy for people in events where the media coverage is good and unfettered.

Conversly, we seem to ignore events that don't have a lot of pictures and video tape used on them.

This could be because the first thing that oppressive governments do is ban the media from the war zone and bomb the local TV and radio stations. Then they put out their side of events and their labels on people. And people start believing it because there is no other view point or version.

Hard luck on farmers who have their land destroyed and their homes bulldozed and their families shot as they run from the rubble as they are terrorists and the people doing the damage are merely trying to secure a safe zone...

I often wonder how people would feel about it if it was happening to them, then I remembered that they won't hear about it until long after the event. By then the farmers will have fled the area and you'll only get the official version. And nowadays, when a country is occupied (as I see it) th official line is that the troops were bringing freedom and democracy and were met by terrorism (several miles inside the occupied country from the owners of the land). A great pity they don't bring freedom, democracy and justice but the latter would be a double sided weapon.

From time to time in the occupied countries a soldier will go too far (like shooting babies and children at play) and then, after months of ignoring the matter, the authorities will charge him with wasting ammunition. And then claim justice was done and that the babies and children were mistaken for terrorist...

And they keep getting away with it. And will continue to do so all the time people believe what they are told without thinking. (Luckily, there is a policy in place to stop people thinking for them selves - from time to time it is spotted and labelled "dumbing down". Don't say I didn't warn you.)

Just my thoughts. David

_sojourner · Jul 15, 2005

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

That report was from the Lancet, the respected British medical journal. Or didn't you read that far? And you dismissing the Guardian as a "leftest (sic) rag" is just another form of an ad hominem argument.

Kenneth Margulies said:
no threat=no significant threat--okay, the kuwaitis were dancing in
the streets

I already said that I wasn't saying that they weren't pleased to see him go.

Kenneth Margulies said:
because sadam was "no significant threat."
would kuwait call for saddam's removal with him sitting on their
border?

[snip]

What you are overlooking is that relations between the two countries were improving. In March 2002, Saddam officially recognized Kuwait as a separate nation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1899048.stm

They would also have been aware of what the Israeli military intelligence was saying :

http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/iraq/article/peace114.html

Kenneth Margulies said:
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.

So what happened between the time that he made that quote and when he changed his mind? A massive military and weapons buildup, it would have to be. But where is the evidence to support that? There is none. See what the Israeli general said above.

What actually happened was that the hawks applied a lot of pressure on him to make him change his mind. In early 2003, he was presented with a report making the case for war, to which he threw several pages up in the air in disgust and said, "I'm not reading this, this is bullsh!t."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030609/9intell.htm

Kenneth Margulies said:
speaking of which--the world court's decision is an example why the
us does not support it.

LOL. Now that is a real gem! Maybe I should make that my sig. Unbelievable! That's just like Nixon sacking the judge during the Watergate hearings.

Kenneth Margulies said:
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.

Haven't you heard anything about the Downing Street memo? I posted the link earlier, looks like I'll have to do it again:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

Now try and tell me that that is not a smoking gun.

And you forgot (?) the one before:

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Kenneth Margulies 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...

Please respond. I would be interested to hear why you believe it is so important to impose American style "democracy' (at least I think you believe that) when it has left so much to be desired back in the USA.
And that's putting it mildly, others would say it's been a dismal failure.

--
Ian Shanahan

_sojourner · Jul 15, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
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?

What a childish response! (though I was kind of expecting it)

You're grasping at straws.

--
Ian Shanahan

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 15, 2005

[U] sojourner said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

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

Click to expand...

That report was from the Lancet, the respected British medical
journal. Or didn't you read that far? And you dismissing the
Guardian as a "leftist rag" is just another form of an ad
hominem argument.

geez. are you saying the guardian is not leftist? it does not have a bias?

does not cull through various magazines to make a case? today the nyt quoted numbers up to 100,000 at the high end, but as low as under 20,000. debate also about fighting between groups, those killed by suicide bombers, etc. the new york times puts the figure at the extreme end.

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

no threat=no significant threat--okay, the kuwaitis were dancing in
the streets

Click to expand...

I already said that I wasn't saying that they weren't pleased to
see him go.

we agree. yahoo! but then you again go astray....

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

because sadam was "no significant threat."
would kuwait call for saddam's removal with him sitting on their
border?

Click to expand...

[snip]

What you are overlooking is that relations between the two
countries were improving. In March 2002, Saddam officially
recognized Kuwait as a separate nation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1899048.stm

saddam could be trusted at his word? naive. a dictator says he will never more do such bad things as invade/kill kuwaitis. where was the kuwaiti dancing then? do you think they did not dance because maybe they harbored some doubts?

_sojourner said:
They would also have been aware of what the Israeli military
intelligence was saying :

http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/iraq/article/peace114.html

nice you have access to the full spectrum of israeli intelligence...or is it just the leaked documents that support your contentions that catch your attention? remember, the israelis also bombed an iraqi nuclear power station (thank goodness). they were not sanguine about saddam. remember, saddam dropped scud missiles on israeli. where is your intelligence on israel's calling saddam a trustworthy neighbor?
and since when are you such a fan of israeli intelligence?

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

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.

Click to expand...

So what happened between the time that he made that quote and when
he changed his mind? A massive military and weapons buildup, it
would have to be. But where is the evidence to support that? There
is none. See what the Israeli general said above.

What actually happened was that the hawks applied a lot of pressure
on him to make him change his mind. In early 2003, he was presented
with a report making the case for war, to which he threw several
pages up in the air in disgust and said, "I'm not reading this,
this is bullsh!t."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030609/9intell.htm

note the theme did not bother him--we had to strike saddam--he just disagreed with specific aspects of the report.

powell would have, if not before, then definately now, condemned the war and told the world he was forced to speak lie and after lie. to date, he has not done so. he supported both wars. ; )

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

speaking of which--the world court's decision is an example why the
us does not support it.

Click to expand...

LOL. Now that is a real gem! Maybe I should make that my sig.
Unbelievable! That's just like Nixon sacking the judge during the
Watergate hearings.

the world court has no power, no clout, and dare i say, little respect. it's "decisions" run the gamut from logical to bizarre. the bizarre ones get ignored.

_sojourner said:
_sojourner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard anything about the Downing Street memo? I posted
the link earlier, looks like I'll have to do it again:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

read it prior to your posting. but you ignore the debate on what the word "fix" means. william safire had a wonderful article in the new york times which discussed the context. in sum, the guy writing the memo was a low level brit gov official with no special access and there was no evidence of lying.

_sojourner said:
Now try and tell me that that is not a smoking gun.

hey buddy, just did.

_sojourner said:
And you forgot (?) the one before:

_sojourner said:

_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...

Click to expand...

Please respond. I would be interested to hear why you believe it is
so important to impose American style "democracy' (at least I think
you believe that) when it has left so much to be desired back in
the USA.
And that's putting it mildly, others would say it's been a dismal
failure.

where did i say american style democracy? there are many forms of democracy.

_sojourner said:
--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 15, 2005

and while you are quoting u.s. news, why not include this:

Patrick Lang, a former top DIA and CIA analyst on Iraq said "I don't think [administration officials] were lying; I just think they did a poor job."
say it again--not lying, not lying, not lying.
a different view from yours.

you can also see that powell spoke only the charges he felt most substantiated at the un. there were hardliners who advocated throwing in everything but the kitchen sink--and powell held his ground.

Keith Hogan · Jul 15, 2005

Peter Berressem said:
Widespread misconception of German history. There already was a history of a democracy since the 19th century and an elected parliament in the 20th (the later so called ' Weimarer Republik'), even Hitler's party (the NSDAP = the Nazis) was elected by a democratic majority. For Japan, IMO, the political and cultural developement in the aera of WWII was ripe to overthrow feudalism. A democratic system did not have to be forced on Japan against the will and the ability of the population.

I agree that Germany had a previous short history with a democratically elected federal government, although it didn't really happen until after WWI with the abdication of the Kaiser. Japan had no history of democratic institutions of which I am aware.

Regardless, in both cases, a democratic system did indeed have to be forced upon both nations. The populace of those nations did not rise up and institute democracies on their own -- the dictatorships which ran those countries were defeated by the Allies first, and the Allies had to occupy both countries for a significant amount of time before they were able to stand on their own as representative democracies. Sounds kind of like Iraq today, doesn't it?

Regards,

Keith

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

Kein Problem. Dein Englisch is zwar besser als mein Deutsch!

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 15, 2005

thank goodness for tony blair!
this, plus Chris Hitchen's wonderful articles in slate.com, are wonderful...
Sunday, Jul. 10, 2005
... Why That's Ridiculous
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

For the next decade, whenever there is a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, there will be those blaming it on America: if only America had not been distracted from the war on terrorism by the war in Iraq, if only America had not stirred Muslim resentment and increased al-Qaeda recruitment by invading Iraq.

Nonsense. The "distraction" argument is the most obvious nonsense. What exactly is the U.S. not doing in the war on terrorism that it would be doing if it weren't in Iraq? We are supporting a fiercely antiterrorist democratic government in Afghanistan, hunting al-Qaeda in the impossible terrain on the Pakistani frontier, coordinating with just about every secret service in the world to disrupt terrorist communications, movement and funding. What is it about Iraq that "distracts"?

As for the recruitment claim, when was the seminal period of al-Qaeda recruitment--indeed, the period during which it created its entire worldwide infrastructure? The 1990s. No invasion of Iraq. No invasion of Afghanistan. The Clinton years saw the most open, accommodating, apologetic U.S. foreign policy since World War II. In fact, the 1990s was the decade of Muslim rescue: the U.S. intervened militarily, and decisively, to save three Muslim peoples--the Bosnians, the Kosovars and the Kuwaitis--from conquest and catastrophe. Yet it was precisely during that era of good feeling that al-Qaeda not only recruited for but also conceived, planned and set in motion the worst massacre of Americans in history. So much for the connection between American perfidy and anti-American terrorism.

Al-Qaeda always invents some excuse, some historical injury to justify its barbarism. Today Iraq, yesterday Palestine and, when all else fails, Andalusia, a bin Laden staple that refers to the Muslim loss of Spain to Ferdinand and Isabella (in 1492!). Various casus belli are served up as conditions change. Only the gullible and the appeasers buy them. Now we're told that the Iraq invasion has increased al-Qaeda recruiting.

The first thing to be said is that no one knows. Unlike the Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda does not hand out numbered party-registration cards. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are Muslims energized by Iraq--who were not energized by Western colonialism, American imperialism, Hollywood decadence, the Roosevelt-Saud alliance, the Afghan war, Zionism, feminism or other alleged outrages against Islam. They were living contentedly, tending their shoe shop in Riyadh, and all of a sudden they discovered the joys of jihad and the lure of heavenly posthumous sex awaiting them at the other end of a suicide bombing.

The fact is that the war on terrorism is a very long war. It is not decided by a battle here or there. It would not have been won by stopping in Afghanistan and spending the rest of our lives going cave to cave looking for bin Laden and his henchmen. Kill him and shut the cave, yet jihadism would continue.

It would continue because it is a sickness incubated within Arab/ Islamic culture, a toxic combination of repression, corruption, intolerance and fanaticism, fed by tyrannical regimes eager to deflect popular anger from themselves onto the American infidel. Until that political culture changes fundamentally, jihadism will thrive.

Transforming that political culture begins with the liberation of Iraq. Not just replacing a murderous thug regime with a popularly elected, pluralistic government but also creating a catalyst for similar transformations elsewhere. We have already seen such an effect in Lebanon--a democratic uprising that even Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, no friend of the U.S., admitted was a domino effect from Iraq. Similarly, Iraq's transformation has helped advance women's suffrage in Kuwait, competitive elections in Egypt and even democratic stirrings in so inhospitable a place as Syria.

On 9/11, the U.S. was rudely injected into a Muslim civil war--the jihadists are intent on conquering the entire region and re-establishing an ancient caliphate--except that only the jihadist side was really fighting. By taking the fight to the Arab/ Islamic heartland, the U.S. has forced Muslims to commit. The most remarkable effect of the wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq is that, whereas on 9/11 we stood alone against the terrorists, today there are two large and energized Muslim populations--with legitimate governments building armed forces--engaged in the same struggle against jihadism as we are.

It is those allies who are critical in ultimately winning the war on terrorism. The terrorists may have recruited their new Atta, now splattered on the walls of the Baghdad mosque he has suicide-bombed. We have recruited tens of millions of Afghan and Iraqi Muslims--with Lebanese and others to follow--opposing that Atta as they attempt to build decent, moderate, tolerant societies.

I'll take our recruits.

Peter Berressem · Jul 15, 2005

Keith Hogan said:
Regardless, in both cases, a democratic system did indeed have to
be forced upon both nations. The populace of those nations did not
rise up and institute democracies on their own -- the dictatorships
which ran those countries were defeated by the Allies first, and
the Allies had to occupy both countries for a significant amount of
time before they were able to stand on their own as representative
democracies. Sounds kind of like Iraq today, doesn't it?

In respect of the fact that this isn't a forum on politics and history I'd like to disagree, though in short.

As for Germany, a perfect dictatorship was established by dishonest means. Without starting their agressive wars Hitler's thugs had not made it on the long run.

As for Japan, it just was 'ripe' for a kind of representative Gouvernement, maybe in the style of a ' representative royalistic democracy ' (as e.g. Sweden, GB, Belgium etc).

The Arab world, in the opposite, is a totaly different society, still ruled by family clans (sheiks) and Muslim clergymen ( Ayatollahs). Though I'm certain they will develop democratic and republik systems IF history is allowed to take it's time.

Such a system has to grow out of the population to be more than a puppet theatre. So far I don't hear it sounding from the middle east

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

Chato · Jul 15, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
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!

Well, here's another cliche you reached for. "guess cliches come up on both sides."

But if you read below, I say exactly that...

As far as what others say. Clearly some think our invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Can you remember what I posted on that? If no one disputed my post, other than you, than it is you I respond to.

We seem to agree on Rove, at least in the sense that IF he is guilty of what he is charged with, he should go. I note that others, who basically AGREE with you, dispute that. To your credit - you hold firm!

As for the election. It was a free election in which Shites voted for Shites, Kurds voted for Kurds, and the few SUnni's who voted, voted for Sunni's. It no way does it resemble what we call democracy. They didn't vote for parties, they voted for sects.

Anyone can stage an election. We did. Does this mean that we are creating a democracy? Hardly.

Let me point out that we oppose the secular forces in Iraq because they are all leftists. Keep in mind that the Baathists are not leftists, they are fascists, and always have been. SO we actually oppose those whom WE should be supporting because they are on the left. They oppose BOTH the Baathists and the Fundamentalists.

We were wise enough to support Yugoslavia in the cold war, we are not wise enough to oppose the enemies of Fundamentalism in this one.

dave

Kenneth Margulies said:
Chato said:

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:

Click to expand...

Chato · Jul 15, 2005

A coupla of more thousand years and you will be up to modern times....

dave

BobHaverford said:
and am pleased to say that I did not run into a single
whistle-brained gaseous galoot. You must have been out of the
country.

_sojourner · Jul 15, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
geez. are you saying the guardian is not leftist? it does not
have a bias?

I meant not to dismiss the report simply because it appeared in the Guardian. The Lancet is a well respected journal.

Kenneth Margulies said:
does not cull through various magazines to make a case? today the
nyt quoted numbers up to 100,000 at the high end, but as low as
under 20,000.

So let's meet halfway and say 50,000. Still acceptable? I think not.

[snip]

Kenneth Margulies said:
saddam could be trusted at his word? naive. a dictator says he
will never more do such bad things as invade/kill kuwaitis.

Invade with what? He was incapable of terrorising anyone outside his own country.

Kenneth Margulies said:
nice you have access to the full spectrum of israeli
intelligence...

It's another piece of evidence which shows the Americans were making false claims about Saddam's threat.

Kenneth Margulies said:
or is it just the leaked documents that support your
contentions that catch your attention?

The Bush administration has a long record for listening to the sources that tell them what they want to hear, and either ignoring everyone else or smearing them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm

[snip]

And speaking of Israel, did you know that Israel is in breach of many more UN resolutions than Iraq ever has been? No country has ever been in breach of as many as Israel.

So why was Bush so keen on war when there so many independent sources that were extremely skeptical about the claims? Why not deal with known threats, like North Korea, for example? Why the rush to invade Iraq? And Bush had been planning it for quite a while, like since about 1999:

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Kenneth Margulies said:
note the theme did not bother him--we had to strike saddam--he just
disagreed with specific aspects of the report.
powell would have, if not before, then definately now, condemned
the war and told the world he was forced to speak lie and after
lie. to date, he has not done so. he supported both wars. ; )

As I said, the hawks applied pressure. Must've been a lot too. Actually, it wasn't just Powell. There was Clark, Tenet, and many others:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html?sub=new

Kenneth Margulies said:
the world court has no power, no clout,

That may be so, but that doesn't mean its rulings are unjust. If the World Court rules that the USA is guilty of supporting international terrorism, then the USA is guilty of supporting international terrorism. Period.

Kenneth Margulies said:
and dare i say, little
respect.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html

"The judges must possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or be jurists of recognized competence in international law. The composition of the Court has also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world."

So because the USA doesn't respect it, the rest of the world should do likewise?

Kenneth Margulies said:
it's "decisions" run the gamut from logical to bizarre.
the bizarre ones get ignored.

And the guilty will agree with the judge that finds him guilty? Unfortunately for the USA, international legal bodies cannot be disbanded with the ease that Nixon sacked the judge. So the USA has to try other things:

"No one should have impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity" Amnesty International said today, submitting a petition to all governments urging them not to enter into impunity agreements with the USA."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engior400252002?OpenDocument&of=THEMES \INTERNATIONAL+JUSTICE

Kenneth Margulies said:
read it prior to your posting. but you ignore the debate on what
the word "fix" means. william safire had a wonderful article in
the new york times which discussed the context.

The NYT would have something like that, wouldn't it? After all, it is a "rightist rag".

The memo said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Now if you translate "fixed" into colloquial southern British English, you come up with the meaning as in "fixing a horse race". This distinction is precisely what British web surfers have been emailing in to weblogs, by their hundreds. Not the Washington explanation of as in "bolt on".

Kenneth Margulies said:
in sum, the guy
writing the memo was a low level brit gov official with no special
access and there was no evidence of lying.

I don't know where you got that from. Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, hardly low level, wrote the memo. Blair has since confirmed the memo as authentic, he's just been dismssing it.

I think you had better read the original breaking news from the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533385,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Now try and tell me that that is not a smoking gun.

Click to expand...

hey buddy, just did.

No you haven't. Anyway, I'll continue tomorrow. It's Friday night and I'm outta here.

--
Ian Shanahan

adamM · Jul 15, 2005

I'm watching this from the sidelines...

Kenneth, you've not answered the questions, you return with corrupt logic and emotional empty statements, and you don't research the links and evidence. Why should we listen to you?

I understand your passion, but it would come across with more merit and substancel if it was backed with truths instead of blind faith and hollow notions.

Regardless, the US has some tough times ahead with a plummeting dollar, stratospheric debt and uneducated workforce. Checkout where Toyota built their giant new plant (Canada) and why, it's interesting. The very core of the USA is being bought up by China.

The world will become multipolar. The US empire is crumbling just like the Romans. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're under 50, you'll get to see it. Is it going to die? of course not. But things will become multipolar. It's just the way things have gone, and will continue to go.

--
cheers,
adamM
(gear in profile)

krusadr · Jul 15, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
you mean after they martyr themselves, the suicide bombers will not
get to have their 72 virgins? this is a key motivating factor for
young men.

: )

I note your smiley but really this is as far from a joke as I can imagine.

The pure EVIL of the manipulating creators of islam who inserted this little piece is unspeakable.

Aside from all the killing, what about the oppression of women by islam?

It is time that the west no longer recognise islam as a religion, it is time for people to stop having respect for islam. It is time to recognise islam as a thouroghly nasty ideology, even when practiced by physically non-violent muslims.

Islam is a religion of violence. The koran is filled with hate. There is no forgiveness or love thy neighbour in the koran. It is filled with talk of 'infidels' and rewards for killing them.

Let's stop being apologists for a hideous dogma which causes oppression and suffering all over the world.

The argument that the viloence is only perpetrated by a fanatical few is only the part truth. The real truth is that it is islam itself that is to blame for this. It is the indoctrination from an early age about nonesense like the 72 virgins that makes it possible for these stupid young men to be conned into suicide.

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'

Peter Berressem · Jul 15, 2005

krusadr said:
It is time that the west no longer recognise islam as a religion,
it is time for people to stop having respect for islam. It is time
to recognise islam as a thouroghly nasty ideology, even when
practiced by physically non-violent muslims.

Islam is a religion of violence. The koran is filled with hate.
There is no forgiveness or love thy neighbour in the koran. It is
filled with talk of 'infidels' and rewards for killing them.

Let's stop being apologists for a hideous dogma which causes
oppression and suffering all over the world.

Hmmm, I start to get a glimpse where your nick comes from...C
--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(English - not my native tongue)

zigg · Jul 15, 2005

Keith Hogan said:
Keith Hogan said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

What about "understand" in a forensic sense - how else do you expect to "win the peace", the "hearts and minds", the "psychological war"?

Keith Hogan said:
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.

It's not just the perceived morality, it's more like in that tired old story about nurturing a snake - don't be surprised if later it bites you in the .

Keith Hogan said:
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.

You seem to regard bin Laden as some super-human mythological entity! Much like Mr Glodstein out of "1984" - a single individual responsible for all evil - but perhaps Hydra is a more appropriate mythological beast...?

Keith Hogan said:
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.

Why should the reasons for war be mutually exclusive - can't anybody accept that oil is one and revenge another etc etc - a combination of reasons - to me that's more than probable - it's obvious...

Keith Hogan said:
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.

Point taken - in principle - but the situation is so different today - nature of warfare has changed for one thing and I cannot begin to list all the differences. Has there been a proper study of a probability for similar success in Iraq? By a credible agency?

but "enough of my yakkin'!" - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y might be an interesting article - it's pro-American - although it does make some of the same points as the "loony left conspiracy theorists" do.

Keith Hogan said:
Regards,

Keith

--

zigg · Jul 15, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

"try to understand irrational hatred"?

Click to expand...

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.

No offence intended - but, by definition, one cannot understand something that one perceives as irrational.

Kenneth Margulies said:
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)

I actually do accept that the US has shown more altruism on a greater scale than other nations - but I am very uneasy about the wisdom and motivation behind its current adventures - and future consequences.

Kenneth Margulies said:
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.

Well, I have a problem with the simplistic "good vs evil" rhetoric - has it come back to haunt the current administration?

--

zigg · Jul 15, 2005

actually - it's impossible not to:

http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/FAQ/paradise_hell/FAQ_paradise_hell.html

A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like a red wine in a white glass.
She is of white color, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child bearing and the related pollution.
She is a woman characterized by modesty and flexing glances; she never looks at any man except her husband and feels grateful for being the wife of her husband.
A houri is a young woman, free from odium and animosity. Besides, she knows the meaning of love and has the ability to put it into practice.
A houri is an immortal woman, who does not age. She speaks softly and does not raise voice at her man; she is always reconciled with him. Having been brought up in luxury, she is a luxury herself.
A houri is a girl of tender age, having large rising breasts which are round, and not inclined to dangle.
Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.
If a houri looks down from her abode in Heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be filled with light and fragrance
A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror and one can see one's image in her cheek. The marrow of her shins is visible to the eyes.
Every man who enters Paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he enters Paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old and he will not age any further.
Their glances, with big eyes (Of wonder and beauty)
when a man turns his face away from her, she will become 70 times more beautiful in his eyes
if she were to spit in the salty water of the seven occeans, then all the seven occeans would turn sweater than honey.

--

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 15, 2005

thanks for your best wishes! i have heard talk of the usa's demise for quite some time.

also, the multi-polar world is not something i fear. in fact, if you read kissinger's ph.d. thesis, he wanted to set the world up with 5 power centers (japan, china, europe, russia and the us)--hence our recognition of china and work to bring it into the world community.

toyota has built its giant new plant in your country (i am basing this on your self description), but it has several new plants here in the usa. i am not sure of your point. they invest in america's south where right to work laws are stronger.

but this is another "off topic" topic. all i can say is multi-polar is coming, but time will tell regarding the usa's demise.

also, though my arguments may not live up to your expectations, i suggest the basic truths hold up. i also point to more eloquent writers to make the same points and have posted such remarks. they have yet to be refuted.

please check slate.com (chris hitchen's pieces) and the latest taime magazine article by chas k.

adamM said:
I'm watching this from the sidelines...

Kenneth, you've not answered the questions, you return with corrupt
logic and emotional empty statements, and you don't research the
links and evidence. Why should we listen to you?

I understand your passion, but it would come across with more merit
and substancel if it was backed with truths instead of blind faith
and hollow notions.

Regardless, the US has some tough times ahead with a plummeting
dollar, stratospheric debt and uneducated workforce. Checkout where
Toyota built their giant new plant (Canada) and why, it's
interesting. The very core of the USA is being bought up by China.

The world will become multipolar. The US empire is crumbling just
like the Romans. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're under
50, you'll get to see it. Is it going to die? of course not. But
things will become multipolar. It's just the way things have gone,
and will continue to go.

--
cheers,
adamM
(gear in profile)

David M. · Jul 15, 2005

Support our troops;

BRING THEM THE HECK HOME!
--

Hitch Hikers´Guide to the Universe - EARTH> > Interesting and diverse cultures, still a primitive planet with inhabitants struggling to understand themselves.... don´t buy a computer there!

Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts