'Islamising' the war ?

[Joe DeFuria]

Me a proganda agent? You must be out of your mind and are going to far.

That's just my honest opinion of you on these matters pascal.

As I said...you read the news "sources", and their presentation of the comments with their slant. (And the SAME news sources again and again.) Have you actuallay witnessed those comments being made first hand?

Because it's quite shocking to me, how every time I get to personally hear such comments being made....and then see the "press write-up" of those comments, the tone and context is significantly different.

 

[pascal]

Pascal,
You do realize that the French did the same thing when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin began a three-day tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- the three African members of the U.N. Security Council to persuade them not to vote in favor of the US position at the UN? You do realize that this form of diplomacy has been going on for centuries, that it's not uncommon. Why is it that some people act as if the US alone in this practice? Why no condemnation of other countries? Joe is correct. This is how the world works

I agree and I am not denying it. In fact I used this info to show what is a friend and a "friend".

 

[Silent_One]

I agree and I am not denying it. In fact I used this info to show what is a friend and a "friend".

the point is that you portray the US as "wrong" to influence countries in this manner yet don't mention any other countrys whom do the same. Again, why no condemnation of other countries?

 

[pascal]

That's just my honest opinion of you on these matters pascal.

As I said...you read the news "sources", and their presentation of the comments with their slant. (And the SAME news sources again and again.) Have you actuallay witnessed those comments being made first hand?

Because it's quite shocking to me, how every time I get to personally hear such comments being made....and then see the "press write-up" of those comments, the tone and context is significantly different.

Then I advise you to rethink your position.

The guardian article is an editorial, it has a line of thinking about the danger of some actions. In same way it is pertinent to the subject of this thread.

Using Google you can find the Powell words quoted everywhere. CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, USA Today etc... just chose the site and see the quotes are the same. See this one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-powell-iran-syria_x.htm

In a strongly worded speech to a pro-Israel lobby, Powell bracketed Iran and Syria with Iraq as promoters of terrorism and suggested they faced grave consequences.

His tough words matched those last week of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and served to signal unity within the Bush administration on the anti-terror front.

Both Iran and Syria have shown no inclination to bend to the Bush administration's growing rhetorical campaign against them.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said Sunday that "Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq."

Rumsfeld on Friday accused Syria of supplying military technology to Iraq, a charge Syria denied. He also said the United States would hold Iran responsible for the entrance of Iran-sponsored forces into Iraq.

Carrying the threat a step forward, Powell on Sunday demanded Iran "stop its support for terrorism against Israel" and said Tehran also "must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

Turning to the regime in Damascus, Powell said "Syria now faces a critical choice" of whether to "continue its direct support for terrorism in the dying days" of President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

"Syria bears responsibility for its choices and consequences," Powell said sternly at the 44th annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yes I read the full text of Powell speech somewhere. He additionally talked about a Palestinian state, etc... But the message to Syria and Iran was loud and clear. Now you are in the begining of a war with some Islamic countries and then you do this message/warning twice (Powell and Rumsfeld)?? IMHO is like giving fuel to the enemy and make things worse.

 

[pascal]

the point is that you portray the US as "wrong" to influence countries in this manner yet don't mention any other countrys whom do the same. Again, why no condemnation of other countries?

In this specific case what other countries are doing? And I was not condening it but showing the diference of friends and "friends". How much money are the French asking from you to go to war if Sadam use any WMD? AFAIK nothing.

Do you want some French porblems to feel better? Than see this about French oil executives. It is not related but maybe you will feel better: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,917932,00.html

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Then I advise you to rethink your position.

Rethought it...hasn't changed.

The guardian article is an editorial, it has a line of thinking about the danger of some actions.

Correct. The article is not a news source that can be "trusted" to give an objective and simply factual look at the comments.

Using Google you can find the Powell words quoted everywhere. CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, USA Today etc... just chose the site and see the quotes are the same.

Right...because senbsationalism sells. How boring it is to just post the contents of the speach...pick and choose the few comments than can be blown out of proportion.

<snip the press snippings of quotes>

Yes I read the full text of Powell speech somewhere. He additionally talked about a Palestinian state, etc... But the message to Syria and Iran was loud and clear.

Right. They have choices to make. And if they make the wrong ones, there will be consequences. Problem? Hopefully, they believe we are serious now about the war on terror.

...and then you do this message/warning twice (Powell and Rumsfeld)?? IMHO is like giving fuel to the enemy and make things worse.

As opposed to what, telling the enemy that "everything's OK....just keep what you're doing?"

Some people just have issues hearing the truth? Oh yeah...."diplomacy" again, right? F*ck the truth...

 

[Nagorak]

In referance to the cultural disparities between the West and Islam .. I would like you to point out just where it is exactly that they are not hateful of the West.... I can find plenty of information to say that indeed they are hostile towards the Western culture. Islam and Western culture are like oil and water. They don't mix well.

The point is this sort of xenophobic bullshit is what the problem is on both sides? What do you suggest, just nuking the middle east?

Even Bush isn't so blunt and naive to think that would work.

Joe:

The problem with your viewpoint is you just support everything the US is doing, and assume we're "the good guys". The truth is, (except in George W. Bush's eyes), nothing is black and white.

You don't try to see the other side at all. You don't try to understand why other countries might oppose the war. You don't try to understand the different cultures involved at all. That's what diplomacy is, realizing that not everyone agrees on everything, and just because they disagree that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. A skilled diplomat doesn't have to sacrifice his morals, he just has to speak more carefully so that he can convince others to go along with him, rather than just charging in and pissing everyone off.

It's like if there's a bomb in someone's house. The police can either a) kick the door down, grab the people and wrestle them out of the house. Or b) ring the door bell (or call on the phone) and let them know there's a bomb, in which case they'd leave on their own. Case b) might seem like it would take more time, but the truth is the people would probably put up a fight if you just grabbed them and tried to drag them off, so a) really wouldn't be any faster. But, in the case of b) the people would be happy, and in the case of a) they'd be mad as hell.

Especially when there's a situation that isn't as urgent as a bomb (like Iraq), it doesn't make sense not to ring the doorbell. Unless you're not sure there is a bomb, but you want to go in anyway.

I have to ask, how many countries will we have to invade before you start to grow tired of it? By the way, if you're so gung-ho to liberate the Iraqis, why the hell aren't you over there fighting? That goes for everyone who is so gung-ho for this war?

It's easy to send someone else to fight for you, and put their life on the line, isn't it? Have you actually served in Vietnam or the first Gulf War? If not, why not put your money (and life's blood) where your mouth is.

 

[Sabastian]

In referance to the cultural disparities between the West and Islam .. I would like you to point out just where it is exactly that they are not hateful of the West.... I can find plenty of information to say that indeed they are hostile towards the Western culture. Islam and Western culture are like oil and water. They don't mix well.

The point is this sort of xenophobic bullshit is what the problem is on both sides? What do you suggest, just nuking the middle east?

Even Bush isn't so blunt and naive to think that would work.

Hrm, yeah thats it nuke em..... No one said anything about a nuclear solution but you. What is naive is to suggest that we ought not to do anything about terrorism. lol xenophobic, I can assure you that it has little or nothing to do with any fear. It is simply an observation. My suggestion is that Islam has some real sole searching to do. Only an idiot could not see that the real problem stems from the Islamic Jihad movement since there is no such social mechanism in western culture that produces hate the way that Islamic Jihad does. Just shove your head back into the sand on this point as you don't have a leg to stand on. The fault of Islamic Jihad and terrorism is really an internal issue.

Not to cut in on your bone with Joe but the US military seems more then adequate for the liberation of Iraq. You assume that the US in this matter are not the "good guys" .... how are they not? Why do you have such a phobia of the US military activities in Iraq? Certainly you imply that those over in Iraq do not have faith in their own participation in the war on Iraq, where do you get this sense? While I support the military action I am not a US citizen, I suppose that makes it even easier for me? I think only a coward would want to not do anything and if the military would have taken me as a soldier (they won't because I have a back injury BTW) I would be there.

I currently have a brother in the UAE as a part of the Canadian Air force. Canada is supporting the US by relieving US military from other duties also we do have "some" forces in Iraq. To do nothing about Saddam and his regime is absolutely a poor choice. But you don't really want to send everyone whom thinks Saddam is a bad leader for Iraq there to liberate the Iraqi people. Soon you will start to see that the Iraqi people really didn't like Saddam and that the coalition solution of a free democratic government is a far better choice. As we speak the dieing Baath party is kiking out Al Jeezera journalist whom would report the jubilance of the people of Iraq to the rest of the Islamic nation and stifling Jihad movement against the coalition. It is sad when intelligent men defend the removal of such a monster. Sad and sickening.

 

[Silent_One]

Sabastian wrote:

......the real problem stems from the Islamic Jihad movement since there is no such social mechanism in western culture that produces hate the way that Islamic Jihad does.

In an interesting article written in The New York Times Magiazine on March 23, 2003, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" the author Paul Berman wrote of the etiology of the current terrorists philosophy. The philosopher, named Sayyid Qutb, wrote, while in Egyptian prison, what has come to be the guide, if you will, of Al Qaeda: he is their Karl Marx.

Sayyid Qutb wrote that his social idea for muslims was "Islamist". He wanted to turn Islam into a political movement to create a new society to be based upon ancient Koranic Principals. This is the "social mechanism" that the Islamic Jihad and others operate by. There is a differance between Islam, the religion, and the Islamist, which is a political movement. The religion is peacefull. The Islamist is not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe:

The problem with your viewpoint is you just support everything the US is doing, and assume we're "the good guys". The truth is, (except in George W. Bush's eyes), nothing is black and white.

1) Since when do I just support everything the US or Bush does? I do support this war.
2) Correct, nothing is black and white. Tell that to Pascal.

You don't try to see the other side at all.

Yes I do, I just don't agree with it.

You don't try to understand why other countries might oppose the war.

I know why other countries say the oppose the war, and why Pascal says he opposes the war. I disagree with it, and I see many arguments as hypocritical and just as "self serving" as the accusations are put on the "pro war" folks.

You don't try to understand the different cultures involved at all.

I don't need to understand the other cultures. I can respect other cultures without fully understanding them

and just because they disagree that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

Agreed.

A skilled diplomat doesn't have to sacrifice his morals, he just has to speak more carefully so that he can convince others to go along with him, rather than just charging in and pissing everyone off.

As I've said before, this goes both ways. A skilled diplomat on the other end doesn't have to sacrifice his own morals to go along with someone else, rather than just bitching and moaning.

It's like if there's a bomb in someone's house. The police can either a) kick the door down, grab the people and wrestle them out of the house. Or b) ring the door bell (or call on the phone) and let them know there's a bomb, in which case they'd leave on their own. Case b) might seem like it would take more time, but the truth is the people would probably put up a fight if you just grabbed them and tried to drag them off, so a) really wouldn't be any faster. But, in the case of b) the people would be happy, and in the case of a) they'd be mad as hell.

Unless, haven taken course b for 12 years, the people say "yeah, another crank call...no bomb here, we'll stay, thanks.", after which point they blow up. I'd say that's worse off than being as mad as hell.

Especially when there's a situation that isn't as urgent as a bomb (like Iraq), it doesn't make sense not to ring the doorbell. Unless you're not sure there is a bomb, but you want to go in anyway.

Right...you know better than U.S. intelligence how "urgent" something is. How "urgent" would it have been to aggressivle go after Al Qaeda on say, Sept 1.

I have to ask, how many countries will we have to invade before you start to grow tired of it?

??

I don't grow "tired" of any conflict I feel is justified. I don't go looking for fights. But I don't back down from them either.

How many 9/11's are you willing to put up with before you grow tired of it? How many stories of Sadam's opression are you willing to ignore before you grow tired of it?

By the way, if you're so gung-ho to liberate the Iraqis, why the hell aren't you over there fighting? That goes for everyone who is so gung-ho for this war?

Um, because we have a military (that I willingly pay for) to protect our freedoms on our behalf. I can say this though: if the government instituted a draft and I was eligible, I would not be dodging it.

It's easy to send someone else to fight for you, and put their life on the line, isn't it?

It's even easier to not be grateful for the men and women dying for our freedom, while at the same time taking full advantage of that freedom that they are protecting. See "peaceniks."

Have you actually served in Vietnam or the first Gulf War?

Nope. Have you ever lived under Sadam's regime?

If not, why not put your money

I do...it's called taxes.

(and life's blood) where your mouth is.

If you are so opposed to the U.S. liberating Iraq....why don't YOU go over and stand with the Republican guard as Sadam asks, and fight the "infidels" that is the coalition.

Put your money where your mouth is indeed. Get real.

 

[Sabastian]

In an interesting article written in The New York Times Magiazine on March 23, 2003, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" the author Paul Berman wrote of the etiology of the current terrorists philosophy. The philosopher, named Sayyid Qutb, wrote, while in Egyptian prison, what has come to be the guide, if you will, of Al Qaeda: he is their Karl Marx.

Sayyid Qutb wrote that his social idea for muslims was "Islamist". He wanted to turn Islam into a political movement to create a new society to be based upon ancient Koranic Principals. This is the "social mechanism" that the Islamic Jihad and others operate by. There is a differance between Islam, the religion, and the Islamist, which is a political movement. The religion is peacefull. The Islamist is not.

Hrm that is interesting. I don't think I would dissagree with that sort of conclusion. The formation of Fundamentalist Islamic States is a very anti democratic mentality AFAICT.

 

[Gollum]

I am not comparing the two wars directly. What I am saying is that there were not massively organized pacifist protest to the slaughter in Chechnia and to protest the US action based on pacifism is hypocrisy.

Re-read what I wrote, I tried to point out for you how dramatic the difference between these two situation is. If you need me to spell it out: you didn't see a huge outcry about Chechenia because the two conflicts are on an entirely different scale of international impact. Iraq is not only much larger than Chechenia, it is also much more widely known, a lot more people live there, many countries (in fact an entire region) are directly affected by this war and it is its own souvereign country. Chechenia is a part of Russia, its much more of an internal affair, a much smaller area, fewer people are affected and no nation's rights of souvereignity are violated. Last but not least, who the heck constantly claims that people are demonstrating against the war purely for pacifistic reasons?

The implication was directed at the governments not the people directly. You ought to get a little sharper with your reading comprehension.
To dismiss the vast incursions of significant others and to focus on the US is hypocritical. The fact that they supported US military action before shows that it is not a matter of concern for life but rather that this time they have something to loose. If you think for a second that the states opposing the military action in Iraq are doing so because of altruistic concern for the well being of the Iraqi people you are fooling yourself.

I never said there were altruistic motives behind the governments who are against a war, same goes for your government I might add. I took it for granted that everybody in this discusion knew that self interest plays a vital part in any country's foreign politics.

To give you only a few examples. One major point would probably be less than enthusiasm for Wolfowitz' neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, which seems to be the basis for many of the new trends and recent actions in American foreign policy. Since it primarily focuses on how to re-arrange the geo-political worldmap to serve the future interests of the US of A you might understand why some goverments outside the US are not too fond of "some" of its doctrine. Others are probably remaining economical interests, although they are probably too small to risk angering your most important strategic and economic allies over (at least in case of Germany these interests are pretty negligable, can't say for sure if that's the case for France or Russia). Another example could be simply that despite Saddam's obvious viciousness, invasion of a souvereign country and removal of its regime by war are not exactly your everyday politics and not something you want to become common practice. Additionally, it may lead down a dangerous road for the entire region; the war's legality in light of international law is still questionable; political means were posibly not fully exploited; some people are just plain pacifists.... note that those are only a couple examples and they do not neccesarily all represent my opinion.

Nice rebuttal.. I would like for you to explain just how it is not. Since there would be no removal of his regime without this action. That is ... a very bad argument you got going there. Lets hope this reply causes you to be more ... thoughtful with you next reply.

Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly (4am here, I should be sleeping!). I was and still am opposed to this war, it never should have happened. The reasons for that could fill an entire thread and I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate them here. I have to say though that now that this war has started, I do hope that coalition forces win this war as fast and with as few casuaties as possible. Like I said before, the end result - Saddam out of power - is desirable, that doesn't mean I agree with the means, timing or circumstances of this removal.

Obviously the US no longer supports the Saddam regime and has not for well over a decade.

Obviously.

My sakes ..... thanks for that.

Cheers... now I need some sleep!

 

[Sabastian]

Re-read what I wrote, I tried to point out for you how dramatic the difference between these two situation is. If you need me to spell it out: you didn't see a huge outcry about Chechenia because the two conflicts are on an entirely different scale of international impact. Iraq is not only much larger than Chechenia, it is also much more widely known, a lot more people live there, many countries (in fact an entire region) are directly affected by this war and it is its own souvereign country. Chechenia is a part of Russia, its much more of an internal affair, a much smaller area, fewer people are affected and no nation's rights of souvereignity are violated. Last but not least, who the heck constantly claims that people are demonstrating against the war purely for pacifistic reasons?

What a pile of crap. The simple matter I am addressing is that the Russian military directly targeted the civilian population and it was a massive slaughter. It does not matter that it was an "internal matter" or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that it was a war and massive civilian casualties were suffered. You keep going into the logistics of it all. The peace protestors were not concerned with the slaughter going on there. They are more interested in attacking the US because it stands for capitalism.

The war protest in Europe were organised by loosely associated left wing groups for the most part and their protest amounts to hypocrisy considering all the other wars and loss of civilian life as a result. They focus on protesting the US military activity and turn a blind eye to others and my case in point is Chechnia. War is War - Death is Death there is no reason to be discrimanent about it, such as you suggest, if that is what you are protesting. It amounts to unadulterated hypocrisy.

I never said there were altruistic motives behind the governments who are against a war, same goes for your government I might add. I took it for granted that everybody in this discusion knew that self interest plays a vital part in any country's foreign politics.

lol OK. First you make the moronic implication that I am insulting 1.5 billion people and that I ought to get some sort of award for it... I want you to elaborate on the "very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US" are you talking about governments or people? Just what are these "very specific and good reasons"? It seems that all you do in that is suggest there might be some reasons. Sounds a bit more like you are talking out your ass. Further more garbage implications in this line here. "And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas." Then what the hell is it then? Come on now explain this mistery out to everyone so that we can understand exactly why France supported Saddams regime.

To give you only a few examples. One major point would probably be less than enthusiasm for Wolfowitz' neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, which seems to be the basis for many of the new trends and recent actions in American foreign policy. Since it primarily focuses on how to re-arrange the geo-political worldmap to serve the future interests of the US of A you might understand why some goverments outside the US are not too fond of "some" of its doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Others are probably remaining economical interests, although they are probably too small to risk angering your most important strategic and economic allies over (at least in case of Germany these interests are pretty negligable, can't say for sure if that's the case for France or Russia).

Yeah the oil for food scam. I don't know what the numbers are on it but it likely was the single largest UN legitimized pork barreling scam ever.

Another example could be simply that despite Saddam's obvious viciousness, invasion of a souvereign country and removal of its regime by war are not exactly your everyday politics and not something you want to become common practice. Additionally, it may lead down a dangerous road for the entire region; the war's legality in light of international law is still questionable; political means were posibly not fully exploited; some people are just plain pacifists....

What about a countries "right" to defend itself? Clearly in the wake of 9/11 there are forces that were aligned against the US. But it is more then just that one instance and the US has suffered attacks from the same organisation over and over for the last decade. There is a perfectly good defencist agument that will work with regards to the legality of the war. Particularly where the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist would potentially kill millions of people in a city like NY. Unfortunately for the terrorist they didn't realise that everything can change in a New York minite.

Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly (4am here, I should be sleeping!).

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.

I was and still am opposed to this war, it never should have happened. The reasons for that could fill an entire thread and I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate them here. I have to say though that now that this war has started, I do hope that coalition forces win this war as fast and with as few casuaties as possible. Like I said before, the end result - Saddam out of power - is desirable, that doesn't mean I agree with the means, timing or circumstances of this removal.

Great.... while you are all for the removal of his government you offer no other solution. Indeed it really does look as though this military action is the only way to remove him and his war machine that was aiding terrorist activities. Thus you support the regime to remain intact indirectly.

There was one other solution I thought would do the job just great. Europe could pack up all of their social activitist as some sort of UN action and send them down to Iraq. It wouldn't be long before there was all out war in Iraq. This would have been a great boon to the world in one foul swipe we could rid ourselves of many of these social enginers and remove Saddam. I figured the casualities would be extremely high but the shear numbers of left wing socialites would be overwelming even for the republican guard. Then the Iraqi people once they realise that these European invaders sent by the UN are a bunch of nut bars the Iraqi people would finally rise up and form their own government.

My sakes ..... thanks for that.

Cheers... now I need some sleep!

Dido.

 

[Saem]

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Who is providing this "evidence" and why should we trust the source?

 

[pascal]

See this one: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.html

Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 3:18 AM EST (0818 GMT)

Former CIA director James Woolsey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA director James Woolsey said Wednesday that the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

Are Egyptian and Saudi Arabia on target too?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

See this one:

I saw that one already, and overall it makes pretty much complete sense, and similar to what the administration has been saying.

The war on "terrorisim" is much more like the cold war, ("World War III") than other traditional "wars." It will be a long fight, not without its own risks.

 

[Gollum]

What a pile of crap. The simple matter I am addressing is that the Russian military directly targeted the civilian population and it was a massive slaughter. It does not matter that it was an "internal matter" or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that it was a war and massive civilian casualties were suffered. You keep going into the logistics of it all. The peace protestors were not concerned with the slaughter going on there. They are more interested in attacking the US because it stands for capitalism.

I don't belive this, you can't seem to wrap your brain around the simple concept of differentiation, can you? I'm not trying to make up excuses for the russian military here you know. I don't know how it was where you live, but here there were quite a lot of people upset about what happened (and is still going on to a degree) in Chechenia. It was quite a topic of discussion and protest in media and in public, it just wasn't on the same scale. As for the governemnts, there is only so much you can do. You claim there is no difference wether its an internal matter or not when that is simply not true. Internal affairs are the matters of the goverment of that souvereign country, outsiders have no direct say on what this goverment does. Oh they can protest (which several did) and in extremely serious cases threaten with sanctions or the like, but in the end that's it unless you go to war.

I explained the most glaring differences compared to the current conflict to you. I also explained some of the other motivations against this war. Together these should begin to paint you a picture why we have a much larger amount of people protesting on the streets now all over the world, at least if you are willing to be just a little bit more open minded about this. Don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion, just stop acting so offended over it and balming everyone left and right based on some commie-scare level paranoia of left wing socialists.

The war protest in Europe were organised by loosely associated left wing groups for the most part and their protest amounts to hypocrisy considering all the other wars and loss of civilian life as a result. They focus on protesting the US military activity and turn a blind eye to others and my case in point is Chechnia. War is War - Death is Death there is no reason to be discrimanent about it, such as you suggest, if that is what you are protesting. It amounts to unadulterated hypocrisy.

Thanks for letting me know who organized what over here, I'm sure from your little spot overseas you have a much better view over what is going on here than we do. Sure there are protests organized by left wing activists, but that's not all there is to it. Event he right wing here is surprisingly anti war. But oh I forgot, every European government is solialist left wing in your world, right...

The problem with your hypocrisy argument is that you keep implying that the only motivation for a peace protestor is pacifism. Well, if that were indeed the case, you might be right, but as I explained in my last posts there are many different motivations besides pacifism why people are against the war. Just because YOU don't agree with or understand them doesn't make them any less valid for THEM! Would you please take a step back and stop putting them all in the same mental drawer?

As for War is War and Death is Death, that's certainly true to a certain degree, but as you should know perfectly well there are still different levels of atrocities, different scales of conflicts and different kinds of suffering. Simplifying things for the sake of an argument every now and then is fine, just don't let it cloud your judgement.

You seem to be so eager to find hypocrisy in the ranks of the opposition, why don't you turn your attention towards your own side of the argument for a second? A people needs to be liberated from its opressive dictator right? Well there are probably a couple dozen countries out there that need "liberation" just as much as the Iraqi people, why isn't the US showing the slightest intention of "liberating" any of them? Help, hypocrisy! As long as you insist on this kind of one-eyed argumentation we'll be forever caught up in circular arguments and not accomplish anything.

lol OK. First you make the moronic implication that I am insulting 1.5 billion people and that I ought to get some sort of award for it... I want you to elaborate on the "very specific and good reasons why some or all of these people are not backing the US" are you talking about governments or people? Just what are these "very specific and good reasons"? It seems that all you do in that is suggest there might be some reasons. Sounds a bit more like you are talking out your ass. Further more garbage implications in this line here. "And no, its got nothing to do with some meager existing oil contracts or anti-capitalist agendas." Then what the hell is it then? Come on now explain this mistery out to everyone so that we can understand exactly why France supported Saddams regime.

I could swear I did just that a little further down my post ... <re-reading my post> ... oh yes I did, you just don't seem to want to get it, do you?

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Saem already questioned this comment of yours. The issue is that the case linking Saddam to the global terrorist network has been extremely weak in many respects. There is proof linking Saddam to the palestinian terrorist movement, but proof linking Saddam to Al Quaeda or other global terror organizations is still very weak. You posted a picture of the twin towers, nice PR spin, just that it has nothing to do with Iraq. Even leaked CIA papers say that no link between Saddam and 9/11 could be found, even that any such link would be unlikely. This is confirmed by an overwhelming majority of interational experts. If any regime should be targeted for 9/11 besides Afghanistan it should probably be Saudi Arabia. This is not a war on Terrorism, it is a war on Iraq, or rather a war on Saddam...

As for that "roadmap", its nothing mysterious you know, its not like its a top-secret government agency. Just head over to http://www.newamericancentury.org and do a search on the net for yourself to learn more on this topic, don't constantly ask me to babysit you through every step of the process of finding information. I think there's a lot of stuff on that site alone that you will like very much, especially if you're a Reagan fan. But maybe you will understand that others are not so enthusiastic about the visions of these neo-conservatives. Signing members include Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, L. Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush and many more. A rough outline of some of their goals:
- significant increase in defense spending (short term at least 3,8% of GDP, long term higher)
- termination of demobilisation treaties
- Star Wars or comparable missile defence system
- maintain nucler superiority
- complete military control of space
- regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nordkorea, Libya
- shape a world favorable to American principles and interests

What about a countries "right" to defend itself? Clearly in the wake of 9/11 there are forces that were aligned against the US. But it is more then just that one instance and the US has suffered attacks from the same organisation over and over for the last decade. There is a perfectly good defencist agument that will work with regards to the legality of the war. Particularly where the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist would potentially kill millions of people in a city like NY. Unfortunately for the terrorist they didn't realise that everything can change in a New York minite.

The right to defend yourself is a given, but no matter how you twist it, never since the first Gulf war Iraq has presented a danger to the US. Maybe to US interests, but certainly not to the US territory or people. Could you people please make up your mind as to why exactly you want this war? Is it because of WDM? To kill Saddam? Or because of self defence? Or is it to liberate the people, which is by far the best reason? Why didn't the administration use that from the beginning, it would probably have been FAR more successful in gathering allies and sympathy than anything else! These constantly changing reasons for the war, along with the obvious position of the Bush administration that this war has already been decided upon long before ever going back to the UN security council, is one of the primary reason why so many people are pissed off at the moment....

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.

You confuse me with the GeForce FX I guess.

Great.... while you are all for the removal of his government you offer no other solution. Indeed it really does look as though this military action is the only way to remove him and his war machine that was aiding terrorist activities. Thus you support the regime to remain intact indirectly.

Duh, my point was that with that kind of logic you end up with everybody "indirectly" supporting anything you want. Example: I take that by not actively fighting or at least protesting against the dictatorships and puppet goverments in central america, you are in "indirect" support of them yes? Come on, at least offer me a solution of removing them and liberating their people, I mean other than ignoring their atrocities, doing business with or even installing them. See, anybody can bend the truth until it fits the picture they'd like to present, only if you stop doing this can we continue a discussion.

As for offering solutions, you know perfectly well that depends on what the problem is. The initially claimed goal of disarmament and/or containment could very well have been met by political means instead of war, there just wasn't enough patience. Heck we had a decade of half-hearted efforts, we could have waited another 3 months for Blix to finish his inspections. But then the climate would have hindered the war, so we had to rush into it anyway. Your popular argument of "liberation" of an opressed people has hardly been used other than in recent months before and after the beginning of the war. If you constantly re-define your goals it is hard to really find an alternate solution...

There was one other solution I thought would do the job just great. Europe could pack up all of their social activitist as some sort of UN action and send them down to Iraq. It wouldn't be long before there was all out war in Iraq. This would have been a great boon to the world in one foul swipe we could rid ourselves of many of these social enginers and remove Saddam. I figured the casualities would be extremely high but the shear numbers of left wing socialites would be overwelming even for the republican guard. Then the Iraqi people once they realise that these European invaders sent by the UN are a bunch of nut bars the Iraqi people would finally rise up and form their own government.

Aaaalright... I know this is supposed to be some kind of humor, but this and other examples just confirmy my impression that you are caught up in a serious case of paranoia, blaming socialists and anything left wing for everything you don't like. Add to that your anti-islamic rants from another thread here and your hurling insults around at me ("What a pile of crap", "moronic", "talking out your ass"), I begin to wonder why I even bother to continue discussing with you. I am sure you feel the same way, so why don't we just end it here...

 

[pascal]

Now I remenber where I saw the full text of Powell speech. In the "second class" journalist source: guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,926276,00.html

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Right, thanks for proving my point.

Now, read that full text, and look at the singular "sound bites" taken out of that speech and the presentation by the bbc. And notably, quotes that were NOT reported on by BBC, such as:

These are sobering issues and sobering realities. We live in difficult and sobering times. But I am an eternal optimist. And as I think about the challenges, as I think about these crises, I also try to take time each day to think about the soaring opportunities that we see throughout the world to bring liberty and fresh hope to men, women, and children on every continent.

The spread of democratic and economic freedoms, combined with breathtaking advances in technology, opens unprecedented opportunities to lift millions out of misery - to help people put roofs over their heads, good food on their tables, and clean water on their parched lips.

Just a year ago, President Bush saw the need to come forward with a bold new initiative and to capitalize on these opportunities to kindle hope in people's hearts. He called it the Millennium Challenge Account, the most exciting thing we've done in foreign assistance in many years.

It will put large funds of American money behind those countries that make a real commitment to democracy, to ruling justly, to investing in people, and embracing economic freedom -- use our assistance to spur economic growth, and attract not more aid, but attract investment that is needed to further these nations along the road to prosperity.

As we move ahead, we must not lose sight of why we are doing this. We are working so hard for peace because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken too many lives - Jewish, Muslim, and Christian - and ruined far too many more. We must find a way to ensure that Israeli children, Palestinian children can grow up in peace and dignity and live in mutual respect of each other. We must recommit ourselves to making a better future for men, women, children, and generations yet unborn.

 

[Sabastian]

Sorry for the belated response Gollum I have been working..

I don't belive this, you can't seem to wrap your brain around the simple concept of differentiation, can you? I'm not trying to make up excuses for the russian military here you know. I don't know how it was where you live, but here there were quite a lot of people upset about what happened (and is still going on to a degree) in Chechenia. It was quite a topic of discussion and protest in media and in public, it just wasn't on the same scale. As for the governemnts, there is only so much you can do. You claim there is no difference wether its an internal matter or not when that is simply not true. Internal affairs are the matters of the goverment of that souvereign country, outsiders have no direct say on what this goverment does. Oh they can protest (which several did) and in extremely serious cases threaten with sanctions or the like, but in the end that's it unless you go to war.

I explained the most glaring differences compared to the current conflict to you. I also explained some of the other motivations against this war. Together these should begin to paint you a picture why we have a much larger amount of people protesting on the streets now all over the world, at least if you are willing to be just a little bit more open minded about this. Don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion, just stop acting so offended over it and balming everyone left and right based on some commie-scare level paranoia of left wing socialists.

Well Gollum, why you still don't understand the point I make is perplexing. Really it isn't nearly as complex as you make it out to be. My example of the Russian slaughter house that Chechnia is just that. Why was the protest "not on the same scale"? If it was the US conducting some sort of internal slaughter, which BTW is a totally preposterous suggestion but for the sake of argument, there would be massive protest, yes even in Europe. lol I am not acting "offended" what I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left wing pacifist movement and their focus on US activities when the Russians got away with far worse activities right in their own back yard. I am also curious just how many civilians were killed in Chechnia and why there are not massive protest against this Russian action?

Now we have the US taking out an unjust regime in Iraq and the left organizes protest across the world. Also their are elements from within the left that fully and outwardly supported Saddam. Further the Muslim protests largely supported Saddam.. They are two very unlikely allies. What it amounts to is hypocrisy in that the protestors for the most part were just anti war/pacifist, but ask them what their politics are and for the most part you would have found a considerably higher number of left wing thinkers but they are not protesting the ongoing slaughter in Chechnia.

What if the US were to turn its military on ..... the state of Main killing civilians and any whom fight back indiscriminately slaughtering tens of thousands of people? The world would have condemned its leader and no one would support that president. But we get not only a dash of hypocrisy with Putin and his leadership. There are not millions of pacifist or anti war protestors opposing the slaughter in Chechnia non here in North America scant protest in Europe and absolutely no protest anywhere else. So why is it that the US and UK receive such harsh critique for removing Saddam and his regime at considerably less cost to the civilian population for a considerably better cause that being the liberation of the Iraqi people from a regime that refuses to give up any WMD, uses chemical weapons on its own people, threatens and attacks its neighbors on and on...While the military action is not an internal slaughter such as we have in Chechnia it is most certainly a considerably more noble cause then the Russian action was. No I don't understand why the US gets the bum rap here while Russia gets off scot free for the most part. Your explanation of why is not really good enough, to simply say that it "just wasn't on the same scale." is not good enough. The loss of civilian life was on a much larger scale there compared to what will amount to a considerably smaller number in Iraqi civilian casualties. Chechnia looks far worse yet. This is a result of hypocrisy on the left, not of the protestors in general but the organizers of the events. Here are a few references just for example. It is fu*king hypocrisy.

http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/Iraq20030321.html

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/news/internationalmillions.htm

http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/editorial.shtml

Thanks for letting me know who organized what over here, I'm sure from your little spot overseas you have a much better view over what is going on here than we do. Sure there are protests organized by left wing activists, but that's not all there is to it. Event he right wing here is surprisingly anti war. But oh I forgot, every European government is solialist left wing in your world, right...

The progressive nature of the welfare state pulls very hard on the right to move to the left. This is not a silly argument but rather simply a matter of fact. As the state implements government programs that employ the populous it forces the all parties to support the government employment role. But it is far more distructive to the political process then that. After the government becomes responsible for the employment of the people it breaks down the options of cutting government spending. It creates a heavy tax burden and forces the government to keep spending high.... oh, I really don't want to explain all of this again and I am sure you are not interested in that theory. But it is logical and seems that it corresponds to what we see, particularly with a number of Socialist European countries.

The problem with your hypocrisy argument is that you keep implying that the only motivation for a peace protestor is pacifism. Well, if that were indeed the case, you might be right, but as I explained in my last posts there are many different motivations besides pacifism why people are against the war. Just because YOU don't agree with or understand them doesn't make them any less valid for THEM! Would you please take a step back and stop putting them all in the same mental drawer?

Well what other reasons are there? Please explain the mentalities of these protestors please as for the most part they do really seem to fit the boot of leftist pacifist. I suppose there are some whom joined in for the free pot and so on but that doesn't really jive with the rest. Also consider the massive Muslim support for Saddam elsewhere in the world. For the most part we could simply write off these as being a part of the religious movement that irrationally feels threatened by the West. I can't really say that they were all leftist protestors that would certainly be... a bit much but for the most part I do believe that the protest were organized by left wing thinkers and organizations, which really isn't the stretch you make it out to be.

As for War is War and Death is Death, that's certainly true to a certain degree, but as you should know perfectly well there are still different levels of atrocities, different scales of conflicts and different kinds of suffering. Simplifying things for the sake of an argument every now and then is fine, just don't let it cloud your judgement.

I am afraid the kinds of atrocities that the Russian government passed on the people of Chechnia are quite... bad and it looks as though the coalition effort in Iraq will not be as miserable a predicament. BTW my judgement is not clouded. You are the one making excuses for the protestors for the most part ignoring the Russian slaughter you shouldn't let the simplicity of my argument cloud your judgement???!

You seem to be so eager to find hypocrisy in the ranks of the opposition, why don't you turn your attention towards your own side of the argument for a second? A people needs to be liberated from its opressive dictator right? Well there are probably a couple dozen countries out there that need "liberation" just as much as the Iraqi people, why isn't the US showing the slightest intention of "liberating" any of them? Help, hypocrisy! As long as you insist on this kind of one-eyed argumentation we'll be forever caught up in circular arguments and not accomplish anything.

lol, well if Wolfowitz gets his way over Powell then there would not be any real problem with this. First you say that it they are being hypocritical by not taking out these other oppressive state then later on you attack these same ideals as something that is undesirable. Hrm let me see here seems you are the one willing to make any sort of argument no matter if you are contradicting yourself. Some sort of inner struggle going on there.

I could swear I did just that a little further down my post ... <re-reading my post> ... oh yes I did, you just don't seem to want to get it, do you?

Oh ... these were your reasons? My sakes man I thought you were holding back something the way you were going on. I did address them BTW but let me pick at them a little harder this time.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has close ties with terrorism. This was yet another good reason to go after Saddam and his regime. So far I think the work done was appropriate and needed. Why don't you let us in on this roadmap? Wolfowitz was right about the terrorist network being linked to Saddam and the evidance is already coming out.

Saem already questioned this comment of yours. The issue is that the case linking Saddam to the global terrorist network has been extremely weak in many respects. There is proof linking Saddam to the palestinian terrorist movement, but proof linking Saddam to Al Quaeda or other global terror organizations is still very weak. You posted a picture of the twin towers, nice PR spin, just that it has nothing to do with Iraq. Even leaked CIA papers say that no link between Saddam and 9/11 could be found, even that any such link would be unlikely. This is confirmed by an overwhelming majority of interational experts. If any regime should be targeted for 9/11 besides Afghanistan it should probably be Saudi Arabia. This is not a war on Terrorism, it is a war on Iraq, or rather a war on Saddam...

OK lets get this straight.. you are saying that while he is training terrorists he is not interested in attacking American interest? I would suggest to you that indeed he does have an interest in causing as much grief for the US as possible. Also, while I can't prove that he is responsible for anything, it does make sense that he would be allied with Osama Bin Ladin. They had a common enemy. Given the proximity of these countries and the common goal of causing serious collateral damage to the US it makes sense, indeed good sense, that they did share reasorses. It was highly suspected by Wolfowitz that Osama watched the collapse of the World Trade Center from within Iraq. I would suggest that this is not such an outlandish conclusion. Wolfowitz is a fairly brilliant man IMO. I don't know if indeed he was right or not all I do know is that the conclusion that Saddam and Osama worked together in the past is not such a stretch of imagination.

I beg to differ on your assumption that it is not a war on terrorism. Clearly he was involved in the training of terrorist. While the prospect of removing the piss ant from power is far more impressive and desirable then removing some training camps I would suggest to you that it was the threat of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam could provide to the terrorist that was the real concern. While it was a war on Saddam it was also a war on terrorism surely a devastating blow to mid east terrorist over all.

Now the US can figuritely hang Saddam in the town square and put some real teeth behind what they say with regards to aiding terrorism... that most definitely includes Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. But lets hope that this does not go to the point where the US must go into these other states to remove terrorist. Possibly the Muslim world will begin to do some real sole searching with this wake up call. The suicide bombers coming into Iraq are really not much a worry to the coalition right now as it is not likely they will be live to see Baghdad.

It seems that no matter if they coalition forces find some WMD or not it looks as though the paranoia towards the US will override the matter and people will dismiss any findings as something other then legitimate. That figures. What is worse is that this is symptomatic of the left wing paranoia directed towards the US. I live in Canada often when you bring up matters of the US when there are liberals in the company you will hear the most outrageous suggestions. Stuff like "America just wants to rule the world" or "Sometime the Americans will invade Canada and just take over" stupid comments in general but when you confront these same people they become irate and irrational because they really can't back up their conclusions. When I attended a Liberal Arts University I was able to witness the left wing parinioa first hand. I would suggest to you the ignorance and parioia in Europe could only be worse and wide spread. I am not impressed by this and think the US is being pigeon holed by the left on a massive scale. Not surprising really but it is pathetic.

As for that "roadmap", its nothing mysterious you know, its not like its a top-secret government agency. Just head over to http://www.newamericancentury.org and do a search on the net for yourself to learn more on this topic, don't constantly ask me to babysit you through every step of the process of finding information. I think there's a lot of stuff on that site alone that you will like very much, especially if you're a Reagan fan. But maybe you will understand that others are not so enthusiastic about the visions of these neo-conservatives. Signing members include Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, L. Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush and many more.[/qoute]

Well I think in light of the 9/11 attacks these sorts of planing and works need to be done. After all you are only talking about the US military administration. I guess that it is good to see they are doing their job in a sense. It appears their convictions are there.

[qoute]A rough outline of some of their goals:
- significant increase in defense spending (short term at least 3,8% of GDP, long term higher)
- termination of demobilisation treaties
- Star Wars or comparable missile defence system
- maintain nucler superiority
- complete military control of space
- regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nordkorea, Libya
- shape a world favorable to American principles and interests

-Considering the scope of removing the terrorist threat to the US that doesn't seem overly extravagant. Granted if I actually knew how much the GDP of the US at present it is likely some substantial contribution.

-The termination of the demobilization treaties makes sense particularly if they are going to increase spending on military.

-The missile defence system ought to be put in place, nothing wrong with a good defence.

-Nuclear weapons have really changed. For example the US now has "low yield" nuclear weapons that leave an area intact but its inhabitants die. They already have nuclear superiority.

-Control of space... that is ambitious.

-While I do agree that these countries are in need of change simply because they are recommended does not necessarily mean they will particularly if Powell has anything to say about things. AFAICT though it does seem that Wolfowitz has got his way for now. I think now though it is Powells at bat.

It sounds as though these countries (France, Germany etc..) in question don't like the idea or the action of the US against terroristic states. They don't want the US to defend itself against terrorism by the US taking on these countries. In doing so what has happened is that countries are exposing themselves as less then compassionate towards the US. Indeed it sounds as if they are interested in seeing the US fail and not lead. Russia and China are particularly upset with this development. China wants to take back Tiawan and god knows why they have not been more helpful with North Korea seems they are sympathetic to the North Korean government.. Russia is actively working in Iran to cause as much grief for the US as possible. Russia was giving the Iraq regime high technology during the course of this war... What else was Russia doing that is not in the interest of West? What other technologies are they selling to terrorist organizations? Again you sight these guys from the defence department and while some of what they have worked on has come true I wouldn't necessarily conclude that they will get just what they want exactly they are doing their jobs and it seems they are doing it quiet well. The US is already the most advanced military in the world what are you worried about? The continuance of that?

The right to defend yourself is a given, but no matter how you twist it, never since the first Gulf war Iraq has presented a danger to the US. Maybe to US interests, but certainly not to the US territory or people. Could you people please make up your mind as to why exactly you want this war? Is it because of WDM? To kill Saddam? Or because of self defence? Or is it to liberate the people, which is by far the best reason? Why didn't the administration use that from the beginning, it would probably have been FAR more successful in gathering allies and sympathy than anything else! These constantly changing reasons for the war, along with the obvious position of the Bush administration that this war has already been decided upon long before ever going back to the UN security council, is one of the primary reason why so many people are pissed off at the moment....

There is no way that you can prove that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US. There are many good reasons for the removal of Saddam and his regime. I don't think it really matters which one he would have tried to capitalize on with regards to garnering support from the opponents of the US, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference. France would not approve of the action no matter what. The action in Iraq is to do all the above and more. The defencist argument will give licence for the war this talk of the war being illegal is ridiculous.

I will thank you for the computer analogy. I am curious about this smoke screen thingy you are talking about could have sworn I just cleared the air you clogged up.

You confuse me with the GeForce FX I guess.

heh .. GEEK JOKE! [action]begins laughing through nose, pocket protector falls out of front pocket of shirt, fixes glasses.[/action]

As for offering solutions, you know perfectly well that depends on what the problem is. The initially claimed goal of disarmament and/or containment could very well have been met by political means instead of war, there just wasn't enough patience. Heck we had a decade of half-hearted efforts, we could have waited another 3 months for Blix to finish his inspections. But then the climate would have hindered the war, so we had to rush into it anyway. Your popular argument of "liberation" of an opressed people has hardly been used other than in recent months before and after the beginning of the war. If you constantly re-define your goals it is hard to really find an alternate solution...

Aaaalright... I know this is supposed to be some kind of humor, but this and other examples just confirmy my impression that you are caught up in a serious case of paranoia, blaming socialists and anything left wing for everything you don't like. Add to that your anti-islamic rants from another thread here and your hurling insults around at me ("What a pile of crap", "moronic", "talking out your ass"), I begin to wonder why I even bother to continue discussing with you. I am sure you feel the same way, so why don't we just end it here...

I am not so sure about the possibility of Saddam complying fully .....ever. 12 year is a long time and other countries whom have indulged in this sort of disarmament don't frig around normally it is a simple process. The simple fact of the matter is that there are multiple good reasons for the removal of Saddam and his regime which ones the president uses to get approval from the people of the US or the European block are not really important as I believe that the president was willing to act unilaterally from the beginning. I don't blame socialist for everything I don't like stop elaborating. My anti Islamic Jihad "rants" were reasonable. The insults come as the table turns..... one good turn deserves another.

Oh okay, so I suppose since you are not actively pressing for a removal of the dozens of other dictators around this world, you are actually a supporter of theirs right? Congratulations, you have become the perfect binary thinker! Black and white, with us or against us, you seem to dig this stuff eh? Now, with this smokescreen of yours out of the way let me elaborate my position quickly

Your paranoia of the US is rather disconcerting and it seems symptomatic of matters I suggested before. The US is not an evil country nor are its leaders and all this anti-Americanism is founded mostly on paranoia coming from left wing "intellectuals" whom are less then interested in seeing the US lead the world into the 21 century and would rather their favorite political mechanism usurp that leadership on a global scale..


Good day to you.