What the Rest of The World Thinks of America

[Trump]

I'd say the average high school focuses on the history of the more influential countries. The US (which includes some bits about Canada during the revolutionary period), most of Europe, some of the middle east and parts of Africa and Asia (Russia, Japan, China, India).

I was lucky and we also spent half a year studying Canada and the rest of the Americas (South and Central), but in all fairness I was in a very advanced program.

Most Colleges and Universities offer courses in any history you want to learn, from South Africa to Finland, science to film.

[ruaidhri]

Psychochink, I totally agree with your assessment of U.S. foreign policy. It’s not what you did for us yesterday, it’s what you’re doing for us today. We are fair weather friends. Not only will we be angry if you don’t follow our lead, we’ll denigrate you in every possible manner even to the point of calling you cowards. Oh, you won’t, for the most part, hear such despicable public comments coming from the State Department or the President (regardless of party) but all it takes is a few overreacting Representatives or Senators attempting to change direction of the debate and a reactionary news media concerned more about advertising dollars and furthering their own political agendas to begin the spewing forth of all sorts of injurious statements.

Yes, I do love my country. That doesn’t mean I have to support everything they do both here at home or abroad.

Yes, the U.S. did help save the world during WWII. The key word is “help”. We didn’t and couldn’t have done it by ourselves. Without Russia on Germany’s Eastern front, we would have had little chance of success on D-Day. Without England holding on against all odds, we wouldn’t have had a base from which to bomb German military production. And, without the resistance in many countries, we wouldn’t have gathered the intelligence necessary to prevent the Germans from furthering their development of rockets and jet plains and ultimately developing the first nuclear bomb.

The same holds true for the Pacific War against the Japanese. While, I believe, without our eventual participation, the Axis would have won, I don’t believe we were or even could have been the lone saviors of the world. Remember, before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. wanted no part of world politics or wars. We were isolationists.

As for the French. I do remember and value their role in the creation of the United States. I do appreciate their gift of the Statue of Liberty. And, I do respect their culture and absolute right to determine their own destiny without the intervention of the U.S. and its immediate political and (let’s not forget) economic objectives.

[Aras]

I think USA is just another big country with a lot of problems, not very bad but not very good. And USA foreigns policy makes interesting news.
Now i see that usa is ruled by big corporations and theyr interests, right now china, india and eu has much more potencial for progress and overall goodness then usa.

[Trump]

I wonder how many people outside of the US follow these debates that go on before the presidential election.

[japanat]

I wonder how many people outside of the US follow these debates that go on before the presidential election.
Probably more people outside the US than in...

[Radiance]

To be honest, not much to follow right now. Liberal vote is scattered badly from Hillary and Obama, Then Guliani shows up out of nowhere and throws a wrench in Hillary's plans of taking New York. Man she must be pissed, I mean she has clearly been planning this for like twelve years. She specifically moved to New York so she could take one of the four major ones. So it will be Hillary or Obama taking New York & California, or Guliani taking New York and Florida. (o.O odd combination) As best I can tell no one really have a chance in Texas, unless republicans actually decide to back Guliani. Either way, its going to be an interesting election.

[Plekto]

I'd have gladly done it to keep Hillary out of the running. The last thing we need is another Clinton in power. What's next? Jeb Bush after Hillary and then Clinton's Cousin and then... Might as well stomp the Constitution into the dirt and have kings and queens again.

Only Feinstein scares me more than Hillary.

[Y.T.]

On some gun boards, I've noticed that a lot of people would like to see Ron Paul as president ..
Maybe in a paralell universe, where they had enough sense to strip semi literates and other mouthbreathers of franchises..

I'll quote uncle Joe..

Those who cast votes decide nothing, those who count them decide everthing

As long as Diebold or Sequoia counts the votes, the outcome is clear. They who rule over the maintenance techs of electoral machines get to win ... *

If I had any money, I would be tempted to bet if they don't throw those crappy pieces of kit but by 2008 ..

*call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find it highly implausible that Diebold machines have been only accidentally designed in a way that enables anyone with a usb key and a screwdriver to hack it
with preloaded software in 3 minutes..

[Plekto]

true. Basic QA/QC would catch that vulnerability in the first testing cycle.

It would be like making a safe that the door pops open if you drop it a foot onto a hard surface. You *know* they test that sort of stuff early in the process.

[ruaidhri]

I'm sure everyone knows that I am a Liberal. I normally vote for Democrats but I have, on several very rare occasions, voted for a Republican. I also often vote for the platform rather than the individual.

Personally, I would have no problem voting for any of the Democrats currently running for President. Conversely, I would not feel comfortable voting for any of the Republicans currently running.

I believe that outside his dalliance that Bill Clinton was an excellent President. He certainly was one of our most educated Presidents. I also like his wife Hillary and would vote for her in a heartbeat. But, she is not my favorite candidate.

I would rather not see Hillary get the nomination because there appears to be a lot of men that don’t like her simply because she is a smart, strong willed, and powerful woman. I worked in a very conservative corporate headquarters before I retired. The majority of my coworkers were very conservative Republicans. The only person they hated more than Bill Clinton was Hillary and that was while she was only the first lady. I remember back when another strong woman was hated, Eleanor Roosevelt. It always made me wonder if strong women threatened some men.

I know that most women would vote for Hillary. But, truthfully, most women would vote for any Democrat. What I fear is that many men (even Democrats) would not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. While it’s entirely possible she could win the Democratic primaries I serious question if she could win the general election. And, if she did, I fear she would be a target of any number of crazies. It’s sad because I believe she would make an excellent President.

Politically, I like Joe Biden. The problem is both his mouth, and his persona. I don’t believe he’ll get to first base in the primaries. I wouldn’t mind Obama but I’d really prefer John Edwards. I believe he’d get elected.

So, when it comes down to my selection it’s based on who I believe has the best chance of winning the election against a Republican. Often, the problem with Democrats is that they select candidates that appeal only to themselves. They lose the independents, the crossovers and the elections.

[Radiance]

You know, I was thinking about the slip of the tongue our most elloquent president had a week or so ago when the queen was visiting and he was speaking. For those that don't know, he thanked her for coming and crassly reminded her that she has visited white house dinners for near ten decades. He reminded her she helped us celebrate our bi-centenial in "17---" Now, I may be young but I am fairly certain she isn't that old.... I mean two hundred years old? You would think he would try his best to atleast not let something stupid come out of his mouth just once.

However, that got me to thinking. That woman has seen near half of our country's history herself. She is half as old as our country.... just think about that in terms of how much can change in one persons life. Now think about where our country might be at the end of a newborn's life. Its just something interesting to think about. I mean, hell.... england and france have both fought wars that lasted longer than we have been a country. Look at china's dynastic period... how many people died in those wars and they're still around. There have been wars that have lasted so long, generations later they can't even remember what they were fighting for other than to kill someone they knew to be their enemy.

So... the fact that the world has improved from that sort of a state is actually a very hopeful thought. I wonder how life will change while i'm on this planet. When you look at it in those terms, one bad president isn't such a horrible thing.

[Jetsetlemming]

There are plenty of other reasons people don't like Hillary clinton besides her being a woman.
Personally, my favorite candidate is Guliani.

[Josh]

Personally, I like all of the Democratic candidates and wouldn't have a problem voting for any of them. As for the Republicans, John McCain is the only one I'd even considering casting a ballot for. But that more than likely won't happen.

For some reason, Giuliani just doesn't appeal to me as a candidate. Sorry, Rudy. :(

[ruaidhri]

Jetsetlemming, of course there are a number of reasons people wouldn't like Hillary. The same could be said about anyone. I believe the difference with Hillary is that her gender and her persona (the way she carries herself) are the primary reasons. For many, the other reasons would not be significant if she were a man. I know many solid male Democrats that loved Bill but hate Hillary and claim they wouldn't vote for her. Why, if not her gender?

Regardless, I won't vote for her in the primaries because I want a candidate that could win. If she were nominated then I would most cerainly vote for her. And, I would be happy with my choice.

[Jetsetlemming]

Jetsetlemming, of course there are a number of reasons people wouldn't like Hillary. The same could be said about anyone. I believe the difference with Hillary is that her gender and her persona (the way she carries herself) are the primary reasons. For many, the other reasons would not be significant if she were a man. I know many solid male Democrats that loved Bill but hate Hillary and claim they wouldn't vote for her. Why, if not her gender?

Regardless, I won't vote for her in the primaries because I want a candidate that could win. If she were nominated then I would most cerainly vote for her. And, I would be happy with my choice.
While my attention span for such things is fairly low, I found this list in short time. It should give you ideas for why besides her gender. *shrug* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies

[ruaidhri]

Jetsetlemming, I have to leave shortly to lead a meeting of Weight Watchers but I get back to you on this. Again, I believe the degree of dislike for Hillary is gender based. The rest is just attempting to justify. But, I will respond to every one of the charges when I have time.

[Jetsetlemming]

I completely forgot! Reading the comments on that article reminded me of something from a little awhile ago that caused me to dislike Clinton, her pro-censorship opinions on videogames and other media, in the guise of "protecting the children". She alligned herself with that nutjob Jack Thompson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Video_ga mes
There's a disturbing number of politicians trying to drum up support with pro-censorship policies to extend the FCC's power, particularly to video games and premium cable television. They propose pointless laws that would be an incredible burden to the videogame and television industry, cost millions on tax payer dollars creating review boards, and do absolutely no good whatsoever. Germany for example already has these policies in place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespr%C3%BCfstelle_f%C3%BCr_jugendgef%C3%A4hrde nde_Medien) and they've got the same crime rates as any other country.
I'm just not a fan of any kind of censorship in general. >_>
Also, the charges on that page aren't actually accusing her or anything. It's just a list of the controversies she's been involved in. :P

[Campion]

IRT JetSet.

I am not criticising you and I respect your right to vote for any candidate for whatever reasons you see fit, but you're pro-first amendment rights and you are prepared to vote for Giuliani? The only recipient of a lifetime Muzzle (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2000/) award by the Jefferson Centre?

Would you mind elucidating for me? How does his approach to the first amendment tally with your preferences for less control over the media you consume?


Campion.

[Jetsetlemming]

IRT JetSet.

I am not criticising you and I respect your right to vote for any candidate for whatever reasons you see fit, but you're pro-first amendment rights and you are prepared to vote for Giuliani? The only recipient of a lifetime Muzzle (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2000/) award by the Jefferson Centre?

Would you mind elucidating for me? How does his approach to the first amendment tally with your preferences for less control over the media you consume?


Campion.
I don't see withdrawing public funds from "art" composed of elephant shit and magazine cutouts of vaginas to be quite the same as Indexing. He didn't actively censor the art- he just refused to pay for it.

[Hatsumomo]

I hate pro-censorship under the guise of "protecting the children." Somebody put it succinctly that when these children we are going out of our way to protect have grown, all the privileges enjoyed by adults will no longer be an option for them.

[Campion]

I don't see withdrawing public funds from "art" composed of elephant shit and magazine cutouts of vaginas to be quite the same as Indexing. He didn't actively censor the art- he just refused to pay for it.

Sorry JetSet.. my bad - that's the wrong link. I was laughing at that and must have cut and pasted it by mistake. Try this one (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-1999/) instead.



Campion.

[Plekto]

The Problem with Hillary is that she's the typical career politician. Has been since the day she graduated college - just back then, women couldn't run and win. But she has that socialite double-speak down pat and it just.. it feels slimy and a bit greasy.

Obama is at least being honest and trying Of course, he's so far out of the typical power structure in the party that he almost would be better off running as an independent. there's just no way that the DNC will allow him to win.

[Jetsetlemming]

Sorry JetSet.. my bad - that's the wrong link. I was laughing at that and must have cut and pasted it by mistake. Try this one (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-1999/) instead.



Campion.
Some of those are a bit more serious. Still lesser so to me than Clinton's censorship plans, but worth mulling over. Dunno if I trust that source, though, considering they count charging license fees to sidewalk performers as a free speech attack. O_o

[stsparky]

I'm no fan of politicians. To 2nd guess a process I'd have to say - Bill Clinton's kissyface with the Bush Crime Clan makes Hillary look bad as the front runner. She faces the problem that Kerry and anyone who got suckered into voting for the Iraq War does. Obama is clean there. I'd love to see John Murtha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha) as his running mate. And to sideline Hillary is an easy thing. She is too polarising a candidate. She'll must see that 3/4s of America doesn't want her as boss. Ideally I want to see Bush and Cheney impeached. I want any Justice that voted for Bush in 2000 striken from the Suprume Court. And let's put Hillary there. Or give her a Cabinet position. Then again, the DNC may simply draft Gore and say go away to the 'frontrunners' and wannabe dark horses.

[Dennis nist]

Everbody hates you. Not the citizenz but the country.
The truth is people view America like any other country. And they will judge America as any country.

Many americans try to point out the good of their country. The democracy, the diversity, etc, etc. How much America gives to the world and all that.
But the truth is that nobody cares. Communist russia gave a whole lot of things to poor countries too. Nazi germany did alot of groundbreaking scientific inovations that we use today. But nobody remembers them in a balanced way. It's the same way with USA. Why should they care about the good stuff you do when you at the same time do so much disgusting shit, like vietnam, congo, south america, Iraq?
You are judged just as imbalanced as anybody else.

America will have alot of trouble in the future. The youth today, the world leaders tommorow hate you and see you as a threat to this world. this will color of to politics later. I don't know if you can do anything to stop it, I think it's too late now.

[Jetsetlemming]

At least we have cheesesteaks, Dennis. I think I can console myself with that.
Thinny sliced good quality steak on an Amoroso roll with cheese, fried. It's not fancy, it does not take long to cook, and it is not expensive, but it is the food of the Gods and proof God loves me more than you. ;)

[Dennis nist]

At least we have cheesesteaks, Dennis. I think I can console myself with that.

AND, The Dave Matthews Band. They rock!!!!

People should see 'Noam Chomsky- world after iraq invasion', on google, an eleven part lecture(?) about this. Kinda good.

[Y.T.]

A lot of people can't stand Hillary ..

Particularily, I remember this quote from Transmetropolitan, a superbly funny comic book written by Warren Ellis..

Gary Callahan this morning registers the lowest ever approval rating for a sitting president since President Rodham was caught fisting kittens in the streets of Brooklyn..

Though she isn't there with her full name, we all know whom he meant ..

Anyway, the whole issue of political leaders.

The infamous Mencken quote sums it up best ..

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

- H. L. Menken, Baltimore Evening Sun, 26 July 1920


Until the franchise is taken away from people who can't even spell, much less think, or *gasp* have an attention span longer than ten minutes, the political arena'll be one of demagogues.

[Ichisan]

Until the franchise is taken away from people who can't even spell, much less think, or *gasp* have an attention span longer than ten minutes, the political arena'll be one of demagogues.

Nice quote from Mencken!

But I do believe the founding fathers walked into democracy with open eyes (some were quite reluctant to enfranchise all men equally for just the reasons you outline above). And even if they didn't we should: we should all realise that democracy is ...

...probably the worst system of government. Except for all the other ones.

We don't have democracy because human nature is so good everyone can be trusted to be responsible citizens but because human nature is so bad noone can be trusted to be a responsible leader. For any great length of time at least.

[Y.T.]

Well .. If just we exchanged the defined of "the people elect" as "the smart people elect", and let's say let the smartest %20 of a nation decide who's the leader, we would be better off.

There are easy way to find out who is more suited to making informed decisions on such matters.

All laws are written, so therefore only people who are able to understand written information (read) and think logically should have votes-

Both of these things are unproblematic to test... and would certainly weed out at least
the functional illiterates (people who knew how to read, but only read traffic signs)...

It's interesting, but in my home country I'm probably technically commiting a felony.
(propagating ideas which lead to supression to fundamental human rights* .. though
I'm not entirely sure whether the bit to elect represenatives is a human right ).

[Roxie]

But I do believe the founding fathers walked into democracy with open eyes (some were quite reluctant to enfranchise all men equally for just the reasons you outline above).
not just those reasons.

Zakalwe, I disagree with your assesment. I mean if you think about it "those" people you describe aren't really the ones going to be hard core, fired up voters, are they?

Besides it's much too dangerous--and not in the good way--puts power in the hands of too few who are destined to feel entitlement to the position and power (much like they do now).

[Y.T.]

Zakalwe, I disagree with your assesment. I mean if you think about it "those" people you describe aren't really the ones going to be hard core, fired up voters, are they?


Umm. No. Unless they hear at the church meeting that those who'll vote for candidate X will go to hell, since candidate X isn't a foaming at the mouth anti-abortionist ..

And that sort of thing.

[Roxie]

Unfortunately, those were not the people you described.

still, that would be a very different kind of "democracy"

[Ichisan]

Well .. If just we exchanged the defined of "the people elect" as "the smart people elect", and let's say let the smartest %20 of a nation decide who's the leader, we would be better off.

The smartest 9620? Aren't those the people we need working in research laboratories or doing math? IQ isn't everything and certainly doesn't equate to political smarts.

In fact I rather think your nerdocracy would be a screwed up place to live in as the nerdocrats totally failed to understand how ordinary people think and behave. They'd soon be knocked out by jocks from the military anyway.

Oops. Wait, you said smartest 20%. Well I like the idea of a nerdocracy so I'll leave my post in anyway.

[mawande]

E-hem. I suspect this has been covered already, but I'll give it a try anyway.

Republic? Democracy? What's the Difference? (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388)

We are a Republic, full of people who want to control the country and try to make it a Democracy.

[Ichisan]

I disagree with your link. Democracy is not government by the majority - unless you go back to ancient Greece. Democracy, i.e. modern representative democracy, is government elected by majority vote, which is exactly what America is.

Yes, I know there's a two stage process where you elect electors who then elect your President, but the principle is the same. Perhaps one day the electors will completely ignore the party tickets they got elected on and choose whoever they want for President instead (has that ever happened?) but that choice, for now, remains possible in theory only.

[羽之助]

So who gets to decide what qualifies as "smart" and make you eligible to vote? Would I make it? Would you?

Taking a test to see if you were eligible to vote would be fun, to see if people understand the basic workings of government. But then , who decides what goes on the test?

This is why crafting a utopia is hard work.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

I don't mind American chaps. Though there's one thing I want you to understand:

If somebody asks 'how are you'; you just have to say that you're 'fine' and that's it. The heavenly god gave us this phrase as a way to create small talk. It's a handy phrase; but the problem is here.

Most people on earth will respond "yeah, im ok, you?" Which is the correct answer. Why is it whenever I ask an American how they are...they actually tell me how they are?(I.E - A 5 minute lecture about their boring day) :D

I mean, come on, generally when you ask how somebody is; you couldn't really give two craps unless they're unwell or you haven't seen them in years.

So yes; take heed folks. Just say you're fine! :D

[Micah the Great]

I hate that bullshit. America is full of small talk. When i'm asked that crap i just say the quickest thing to shut them up or ignore them. I HATE that question. I hate small talk.... fuck, it's not like anyone cares!

Also, when my friends call me on the phone they always says, "Hey, what are you doing?" I mean, wtf? I'm talking to you on the phone! Otherwise i'm just sitting on the fucking couch for no reason... or at work if you've called me during work hours, obviously.

I hate questions in general.

[Roxie]

Usually when I am asked "how're you?" I say "I'm alright. How's it going for you?" But this is for strangers..if I feel someone is trying to be a friend I will tell you exactly--although I'll try and it keep it light.

What I truly despise is when people ask me the question and do not wait for answer. That pisses me off.

Moral of the story? Don't ask a question you don't want the asnwer to.

fuck, it's not like anyone cares! I care. I'm always hoping someone will say something more interesting than "fine"

Also, when my friends call me on the phone they always says, "Hey, what are you doing?" I mean, wtf? I'm talking to you on the phone! Otherwise i'm just sitting on the fucking couch for no reason... or at work if you've called me during work hours, obviously. With that attitude I wonder, are they calling at all anymore?

I hate questions in general. Well that makes life a lot more difficult than it needs to be..doesn't it?

ha.

[Digital Masta]

I hate that bullshit. America is full of small talk. When i'm asked that crap i just say the quickest thing to shut them up or ignore them. I HATE that question. I hate small talk.... fuck, it's not like anyone cares!

I think of small talk like "Hey, how are you" "I'm good" the same way I think of holding the door for someone...its just a polite thing to do and as the receiver of that just respond with a "I'm fine/good, etc" or a "thank you" in the case of having someone hold the door for you...it's just polite, they didn't have to do it but they wanted to just be polite.

[Hatsumomo]

I also hate small talk. It has two uses: 1.) Making crappy conversation with a person who you don't want to talk to and who doesn't want to talk to you and 2.) beating around the bush.

One of many reasons why I try to avoid parties where Vodka/Beer Pong isn't being played, 12 bottles of liquor aren't decorating the counter, shitty music isn't being played on the PS2, it's only casual dress (shoes optional), and I don't know at least five people well enough to have a conversation. If the party does not contain at least three of those elements, then it's some stuffy formal affair where I feel like a fucking feeb and all I want to do is be at home in my pajamas with a pizza covered in toppings, a 2L bottle of Classic Coke, and a Law & Order: SVU marathon on USA.

[Micah the Great]

What I truly despise is when people ask me the question and do not wait for answer. That pisses me off.

Moral of the story? Don't ask a question you don't want the asnwer to.

Yeah, since i don't like small talk anyway... it's confusing when this happens... lol.


With that attitude I wonder, are they calling at all anymore?
Unfortunately.. ....i'm a popular guy i guess! ;)

I think of small talk like "Hey, how are you" "I'm good" the same way I think of holding the door for someone...its just a polite thing to do and as the receiver of that just respond with a "I'm fine/good, etc" or a "thank you" in the case of having someone hold the door for you...it's just polite, they didn't have to do it but they wanted to just be polite.

Holding doors seems to be different to me... but i see what you mean. I'm all for holding a door open for people (especially when elderly, handicapped, holding a baby... etc.) ..but when people are walking in front of you and open the door and hold it.. i'm like.. wtf! Just go in! FUCK! I'll be in the door by the time it closes from you opening it.

I also hate small talk. It has two uses: 1.) Making crappy conversation with a person who you don't want to talk to and who doesn't want to talk to you and 2.) beating around the bush.

One of many reasons why I try to avoid parties where Vodka/Beer Pong isn't being played, 12 bottles of liquor aren't decorating the counter, shitty music isn't being played on the PS2, it's only casual dress (shoes optional), and I don't know at least five people well enough to have a conversation. If the party does not contain at least three of those elements, then it's some stuffy formal affair where I feel like a fucking feeb and all I want to do is be at home in my pajamas with a pizza covered in toppings, a 2L bottle of Classic Coke, and a Law & Order: SVU marathon on USA.

Sound like my life for some reason... Beer pong = win; Liquor decorating counter = win; Shitty music = win; it's only casual dress (PANTS optional) :)

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Generally; for us chaps. "arite?" Is both hello and how are you. You just get the "arite" back to symbolise that they're "arite" and that's that. Done and dusted.

Here; I think its a way to show compassion to others yet, ironically, we all know deep down that we're a cold, hateful set of people who frankly don't really care if you're fine or not.

Of course small talk is bad; but that's if you talk to boring folk. If you talk to a chap with a greater sense of humour then you'll have much more fun!

So yeah, if a Brit ask how you are. Respond with just "yeah im ok"...because if you explain your day by using more than 4 words, then you've made a cultural faux pas! :D (False step)


If you wanna improve your parties; then get talking to people. Chuck some confidence in your head and make more minds. 難しくない！

[Jetsetlemming]

I always answer "How are you?" with "normal". :O

[Hatsumomo]

If people ask me, "Hi, how are you?" I usually answer, "Good, how are you?" Unless it's a friend and we're starting an actual conversation, then I get a little more specific.

[Radiance]

Oho! You fail to have a positive enforcer! The best answer to the question "How are you doing?" is "Its the best day of my life." If you say it, then you have the ability to make it so. Why is it the best day of your life? Do you actually need a reason other than being alive? NO! YOU DON'T!

It will do one of two things, put a smile on your face, or make you and everyone around you bust into laughter. Thus actually making it the best day of your life.

[羽之助]

What you all fail to realise is that the correct answer to ANY question is "I'mfinesankyuandyou?"

I've just spent two years telling kids that there IS more than one possible response to the question "how are you" and now the Brits are telling me it's wrong!

[Daishikaze]

Yeah, Britain is cold like that ;)

[Matt W]

I agree a lot with what ruihadri said about Hillary Clinton. I won't vote for her in the primaries, I prefer Edwards right now too, but I think she would make a good president and I think that the real reason so many dislike her is her gender.

That wikipedia site of her controversies Jetslemming posted was full of the most insignificant, laughable nonsense. I agree with him that I don't like her first amendment stand when it comes to media and flag burning though, but she is right on most issues in my mind. Maybe Jetslemming doesn't like her for these reasons, but I think that they are not the reason most people don't. I still think she would beat Guiliani, that guy is the only with as much if not more baggage than her.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Haha! Whoa...

Last night someone asked "how are you?" and my response wasn't "I'm fine thanks, and you?" but "I'm fucking pished!!!!" (Champions League Night) So yeah...only if you're drunk, then you have authorisation to answer the question without sounding like a cold bastard, ironically.

[Ichisan]

I agree a lot with what ruihadri said about Hillary Clinton. I won't vote for her in the primaries, I prefer Edwards right now too, but I think she would make a good president and I think that the real reason so many dislike her is her gender.

You may be right in that the degree of loathing she inspires would not be the same if she were a man. But the fact remains, no matter what the reason is, she is a deeply divisive figure. She could inspire people who ordinarily wouldn't bother voting to go to the polls just so they could vote against her. And put a lot of swing voters off voting Democrat.

I think the Democrats would really be shooting themselves in the foot by making her their candidate. In the head, even. They made a retarded choice of candidate before - Kerry, I'm-nobody-but-at-least-I'm-not-Bush - so hope they don't do it again.

Maybe I'll be eating my words come next election, but I don't think so.

[Digital Masta]

Holding doors seems to be different to me... but i see what you mean. I'm all for holding a door open for people (especially when elderly, handicapped, holding a baby... etc.) ..but when people are walking in front of you and open the door and hold it.. i'm like.. wtf! Just go in! FUCK! I'll be in the door by the time it closes from you opening it.




I (and my dad too) hate it when I hold the door for people and they don't say "thanks". I didn't have to hold it but I did for your sake...a simple thank you would suffice.

My dad does the whole annoyed "You're welcome".

[Hatsumomo]

^^Agreed. I hate that. Any simple courtesy deserves a thank you.

[Y.T.]

Hillary Clinton seems like an avatar of insincerity. Some people think the late Barbara Jordan would be a far better candidate.. but sclerosis multiplex had other ideas.

If I were in Clinton's place, I wouldn't hold my mouth and would gladly say how I believe most people are stupid (this is true. Most people don't evenr realize issues around which campaigns revolve are purely virtual). At least, despite being rude, insulting, overly intellectual and so on, no one would be able to brand me a hypocrite. Not one politician has ever attempted this approach to my knowledge... who knows, it might work. After all,
rank and file republicans are so used to being fucked up the arse that they probably wouldn't complain.

The important things, that is the interconnections between big business and gov't .. no politican'll go into that territory.
I wouldn't have anything against corruption, if it didn't produce inefficiencies
(around here, every state contract is maybe 20% over budget. It's usually executed superbly, with an almost German attention to detail, but someone, somewhere, squirreled away 15%. 5 % went on into some bureaucratic pockets.

We have a saying here.. You can't expect carp to drain their own pond.

So, almost everywhere in the world they have this elaborate, multimillion drama
staged for the benefit of the public, even though it matters very little who wins,
because the really important players back both sides.

.. though I don't believe there has been one successful politician

BTW. Anyone heard of Ron Paul ? Over there on some 2A boards they seem to hold him in high regard, I would like to know whether people 'round here are even aware that he's intent on running for president and'll attempt to obtain republican nomination.
He seems to have a good voting record when it comes to not increasing spending, which goes against the spirit of the Bush administration, whose spending has been called "most reckless in history".


I (and my dad too) hate it when I hold the door for people and they don't say "thanks". I didn't have to hold it but I did for your sake...a simple thank you would suffice.

You people hold doors ? IF it's not a frail, 60 year old person, I have been known to sweep around , make them stop. I don't even hold doors for young women.
Though I'll let old people sit if they ask nicely, or look really uncomfortable.

[Matt W]

You may be right in that the degree of loathing she inspires would not be the same if she were a man. But the fact remains, no matter what the reason is, she is a deeply divisive figure. She could inspire people who ordinarily wouldn't bother voting to go to the polls just so they could vote against her. And put a lot of swing voters off voting Democrat.

I think the Democrats would really be shooting themselves in the foot by making her their candidate. In the head, even. They made a retarded choice of candidate before - Kerry, I'm-nobody-but-at-least-I'm-not-Bush - so hope they don't do it again.

Maybe I'll be eating my words come next election, but I don't think so.


I agree that Hillary would be a risky choice, and that there would be people that would come to the polls just to vote against her, and it would probably be a nasty election. That's why I won't support her in the primaries, however, I still think she would make a good president if elected, and that she would have a good chance in the general election against any of these Republican candidates.

[Roxie]

BTW. Anyone heard of Ron Paul ? Over there on some 2A boards they seem to hold him in high regard, I would like to know whether people 'round here are even aware that he's intent on running for president and'll attempt to obtain republican nomination.
could you be a little less insulting please? Yes, he's quite popular, just look at youtube.
He seems to have a good voting record when it comes to not increasing spending, which goes against the spirit of the Bush administration, whose spending has been called "most reckless in history". :rofl:
Not that you're wrong, you're right...but it's just funny to me cause I know the first thing I think of when discussing the Bush administration isn't the spending.


You people hold doors ? IF it's not a frail, 60 year old person, I have been known to sweep around , make them stop. I don't even hold doors for young women.
Though I'll let old people sit if they ask nicely, or look really uncomfortable.
Wow...no hospitality at all.

There have been several times I've held doors open for men and women of all all ages, given up my seat on the train for those who look more tired, and times when I have been offered a seat.

Is it really something southern?

[Jetsetlemming]

Wow...no hospitality at all.

There have been several times I've held doors open for men and women of all all ages, given up my seat on the train for those who look more tired, and times when I have been offered a seat.

Is it really something southern?

I do it, too, and I'm in the northeast. I see a lot of people at least holding open doors for people coming in buildings behind them, too.
I feel like making a virgin joke at Zakalwe's expense, but I'm sure the point would be lost on him. "Who wants to waste time impressing girls and having sex? I'm too busy pretending to be someone cool and smart on the internets!"

[Y.T.]

Not that you're wrong, you're right...but it's just funny to me cause I know the first thing I think of when discussing the Bush administration isn't the spending.

Well. It should be. The war, Al Qaeda and everything are utterly insignificant when you compare them to the prospect, say of massive inflation, caused by many factors.

Furthermore, there is some evidence the GDP growth and other indicators are being cooked. For example, microprocessor contribute to the GDP not accordingly to their market value, but some multiply of it (derived from its clock speed. As if today's computer were really that more useful than say 8 year old one with 1/10 of its clock speed..

You certainly know that the Federal Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air*.
That might be the reason why today's dollar would be only worth 12 cents in the 1950s.
And guess what for is all that money used for? Probably to pay defense contractors The $ fell a lot against local currency in the past ten years .. from 50 crowns to a $ to 20 to a $.


I do it, too, and I'm in the northeast. I see a lot of people at least holding open doors for people coming in buildings behind them, too.
I feel like making a virgin joke at Zakalwe's expense, but I'm sure the point would be lost on him. "Who wants to waste time impressing girls and having sex? I'm too busy pretending to be someone cool and smart on the internets!"

Make another one. I've spent six years of my life with people who tried to taunt me. I managed to acquire a reasonably thick hide.
The point is *lost*, so why did you make the joke , Mr. IQ 150 ?
The time I spend on this forum is negligible. More of a problem is finding women who don't want to be impressed, who are non-stupid, and have compatible interests.

Is it really something southern?

It's not. I live in a city that lies on the latitude of Newfoundland ..

[Roxie]

It's not. I live in a city that lies on the latitude of Newfoundland ..
I wasn't asking if your inhospitality was southern, I was asking if the hospitality I experience was southern.

[Y.T.]

Hmm. Obviously I need more sleep...

Such hospitality is nearly universal in western countries, I believe.
(Apart from Russia. People reportedly elbow each other getting on the bus and so on)

Though I have heard that Americans are exceptionally civil drivers. (mostly from locals who lived there.
(unlike European ones. Italian roads sometimes resemble a race, and around here
SUV drivers (1/2 of them are bleached blonde twenty something airheads. No one knows why) sometimes even don't give right of way when they should, if the other vehicle is a small car (such as VW Polo, Smart, etc).

[japanat]

More of a problem is finding women who don't want to be impressed, who are non-stupid, and have compatible interests.Hmmm. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places. That was never a problem for me. All the women I ever dated (except for one memorable air-head!) were self-confident, very intelligent (the ultimate in sexy) and shared interests - or we wouldn't have dated in the first place.

[Roxie]

Also, open doors. It so rude when anyone who walks in before you doesn't hold the door a bit so it doesn't slam in your face.

[Radiance]

You know... guys that hold doors open are seriously becoming rare. I get comments from women all the time saying "Oh, there are none of you left." or if my lady is standing near by the make envious comments to her. I don't even think anything of it but it always makes my day when I get the comments because they appreciate it. I don't need them to compliment me on it, its not like I do it for some kind of validation. I do it because it makes me happy. I feel proud that despite how others may act or treat their fellow people, I always make time to be courteous.

Just for the record, I don't just hold doors for the elderly or for females. I hold doors for anyone, even the jackass guys who are too important for everyone in the general area. Though I'll gladly toss them a rather loud "You're Welcome." Especially if they're on a phone or just self-absorbed. Generally they don't have the ego to continue and will turn around and apologize before continuing on.

Though I will say there are benefits to being the nice guy. I get free lunch or coffee all the time. :D It makes workers smile to deal with a genuinely friendly person at least once in their day as opposed to the self absorbed, in a rush, no time for anyone else other than me people that give them so much trouble day in and day out.

[Dennis nist]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?
Personally, I really could careless what someone from another country thinks about my country of origin. A country is nothing more than a politically-organized body to me. I care what they think about me as an individual, and if their opinion is colored (either positively or negatively) by perceptions of me as some part of the larger body, as opposed to actually getting to know me as a person and develop their opinions of me as an individual, I don't hold their opinion in high regard.

As an abstract example, I was watching the one Canadian channel we get here (I think it's called the CBC), and there was a show with a female host, whose name I can't remember at the moment. She was discussing with her guest the implications of Canadians' perceptions of Americans, and how many Canadians (according to her) develop their sense of national identity as a counter-reaction to the perception of what an American is. While her guest was trying to explain to her that you can't accurately assign certain traits to Americans, because Americans like anyone else, are individuals. He was making the point that Canadians shouldn't worry about what an American or a Canadian is, because regardless of the stereotypes and perceptions, we're all people. I think that's an important point.

Nationality is about as important to me as race or sexual orientation, and by that I mean very little. People focus too much on grouping people together, and too little on accounting for the fact that we're all individuals.

[Beowulf]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?
Because they say so. A lot.

[Jetsetlemming]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?
I get the feeling that the average citizen of the world doesn't give a toss about America more than any other country. The difference is, there's a seperation between the average person at large, and the average non-American standing up in public and voicing their opinions on America. Obviously we hear those people's voices more than the people who don't care to talk at all.
I hear the French just elected a pro-American prime minister recently.

[Angelyne]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?

Because our foreign policy sucks and has affected many countries in negative ways. This makes the dislike, in most cases, justifiable.

RE Doors: I stopped holding doors for most strangers on my campus because of the sense of entitlement people have developed about it. Rarely when I hold a door open do I ever get a thank you or some sort of acknowlegement--they act as if it's my damn job to keep the door open for them. So I just stopped being polite and let the door slam in their face. The look of confusion they get is priceless; especially if they're on a cell phone and weren't paying attention in the first place.

I'm not quite as mean about it elsewhere.

[Ichisan]

Nationality is about as important to me as race or sexual orientation, and by that I mean very little. People focus too much on grouping people together, and too little on accounting for the fact that we're all individuals.

Ah, you just think that because you're American! ;)

"We are all individuals!"
"We are all individuals!"
"We are all individuals!"

[Plekto]

Absolutely they have a good reason to hate us.

We are doing exactly what England did 200-300 years ago. Trying to take over the world either by might or by trickery to advance our economic goals. And, like them, a day of reckoning will surely come if we don't change what we are doing. Eventually everyone will have access to weapons that can level entire cities, and I don't care how big your military is, reducing Washington D.C. into a pile of rubble isn't something you can just fix in a few years. In other words, the people we piss off will eventually be able to do permanent harm to us and a bigger stick won't work anymore. I just hope our idiot leaders figure it out before we lose a dozen cities.

P.S. I give the U.S. 20 years. By 2025-2030, the technology will readily exist to permanently cripple us physically and economically - or any nation for that matter. If we don't get a grip on things by then, it's going to hit the fan hard.

[Psychochink]

Unfortunately, the U.S. has always subscribed to the M.A.D. philosophy. If it does come to anything like the situation you describe above, I strongly suspect that the U.S. will happily fuck over the rest of the world/its perceived enemies by destroying everybody else as well.

The whole 'bat and ball' thing - "Well, if we can't have the world, then nobody can. Take that, nyahhhhh!"

[Plekto]

True... But the problem is what happens when a tiny nation in BFE Asia or someplace in Central America that we pissed off one times too many decides to cripple our economy for half a century? We can bomb them into the stone age, but exactly how much damage could you actually do to a country the size of Grenada or even Crete?

Or worse yet, some group of terrorists that aren't part of any country?

The giant nerf bat of doom just doesn't happen as there isn't a viable target.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?

I'm not American.

I'm Californian. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-colbert.gif



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-ca-1.gif

[Jetsetlemming]

Absolutely they have a good reason to hate us.

We are doing exactly what England did 200-300 years ago. Trying to take over the world either by might or by trickery to advance our economic goals. And, like them, a day of reckoning will surely come if we don't change what we are doing. Eventually everyone will have access to weapons that can level entire cities, and I don't care how big your military is, reducing Washington D.C. into a pile of rubble isn't something you can just fix in a few years. In other words, the people we piss off will eventually be able to do permanent harm to us and a bigger stick won't work anymore. I just hope our idiot leaders figure it out before we lose a dozen cities.

P.S. I give the U.S. 20 years. By 2025-2030, the technology will readily exist to permanently cripple us physically and economically - or any nation for that matter. If we don't get a grip on things by then, it's going to hit the fan hard.
:rofl: Silicon Valley is more important to this country than Washington is.

[Plekto]

True. They will either target the financial centers and port cities or just bio-engineer a bacteria or virus that destroys our corn and wheat crops. Since 3/4 of the corn in the U.S. now is the same 3-4 strands of genetically modified corn - from two major companies, this isn't as farfetched as it might at first sound.

See, the stockpiles of old non GMO corn are very small - and there's not enough to go around. No corn means no beef, no pork, no chicken.. and all it takes is a few years of near zero production to cripple us at this point.

They don't even have to destroy us. All they have to do is hurt us enough so that our economy tanks for a decade or so - which instantly removes us from the top position for at least half a century.

Oh - and it is possible. Take Japan. 75 years ago, they were among the most vicious and downright evil of all nations on the planet. They had more power and less morals than Germany or Italy. Everyone hated them.

Today I can think of three nations that don't like them - and it looks like China is burying its grudges a bit, finally - so distrust is probably a closer description. Of course, N. Korea is its own special thing - but once that psychopath dies, it'll change a lot I bet - for the better. South Korea is on pretty good terms lately, though he Emperor visiting that shrine and other incidents keeps setting things back.

But what a turnaround in not even 75 years(and the majority of it in the first 50)

[Psychochink]

Or worse yet, some group of terrorists that aren't part of any country?

What, you mean like al-Qaeda and its 'links' to Iraq?

You'll find somebody to blame/bomb, never fear.

[Y.T.]

They had more power and less morals than Germany or Italy. Everyone hated them.


Hardly. Chinese hated them, but the west thought they were scarcely better than Africans. Not a nation to be feared .. (and what a shock it was once the war started)

Of course, N. Korea is its own special thing - but once that psychopath dies, it'll change a lot I bet - for the better.

From what I have read about Koreans, they have lots of psychos. Don't forget that the people in their state party aren't very nice or sane guys.

True. They will either target the financial centers and port cities or just bio-engineer a bacteria or virus that destroys our corn and wheat crops.

I'm not quite sure whether someone could engineer a virus so discriminating as to target a particular variety. Organisms mutate, so something that targeted a particular strain could create a worldwide famine if it mutated ..
Only a psychotic dictatorship would attempt that, and then, those aren't known for attracting top scientific talent...

[Plekto]

What, you mean like al-Qaeda and its 'links' to Iraq?

You'll find somebody to blame/bomb, never fear.

The problem is - when a group of 20 people can nuke a city with impunity - exactly how other than a worldwide police state liek something out of Farenhieght 451 or Judge Dredd(the comic, not the movie) can you possibly control or even adequately target them?

The answer is that you can't. You must address the causes that they are fighting for and mad at you for. Of course, our contry has too much ego - no, open-faced hubris - to ever do that - so it's doomed unless a miracle happens.

Me? I'm planning to get my affiars in order over the next decade or so and leave for a better place to weather it out.

[Beowulf]

Me? I'm planning to get my affiars in order over the next decade or so and leave for a better place to weather it out.
Agreed. The country is fundamentally broken short of inducting massive reforms (that will never happen)

[Psychochink]

If you're talking 'after the bomb', come to Australia. Our natural resources per capita are stupidly high, so we can be self-sustaining for a hell of a long time. It's all in a basic form, too. Our cattle/sheep stations are grass fed and make extensive use of horses for mustering, lots of coal/LNG and other easily utilised power sources, lots of space for other food production (although the drought is starting to take a toll).

Combine that with good physical separation from the really densely populated landmasses, and I'd want to be here in a post-apocolyptic scenario.

Edit: You can hang with me if you want, but be aware that if the end of the world is due to a zombie infestation, I have planned for such an eventuality and will machete you without a second thought if you get infected.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I read 'On the Beach', that doesn't appeal to me.

[japanat]

I read 'On the Beach', that doesn't appeal to me.Just get a sports car and get in that last race...

[Y.T.]

Combine that with good physical separation from the really densely populated landmasses, and I'd want to be here in a post-apocolyptic scenario.

What about water shortages ? If Down under climate gets drier, your agriculture is fucked.

[Angelyne]

I always wanted to know. Americans, why would you believe that the world disslikes your country? Is the disslike justified?

Stuff like this doesn't help our world reputation, either:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1858/1180498297132fg2.jpg

Just felt like posting this picture somewhere.

[Radiance]

Stuff like this doesn't help our world reputation, either:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1858/1180498297132fg2.jpg

Just felt like posting this picture somewhere.

That makes me sad, now I feel the need to investigate that dude further, I have a feeling he has a long standing record of being bat-shit insane.

[chad mullet]

Take Japan. 75 years ago, they were among the most vicious and downright evil of all nations on the planet. They had more power and less morals than Germany.

Utter Bollocks.

[Plekto]

I'm sure there are a lot of peolpe in SE Asia at the time that would have disagreed. We just didn't see them as the threat that they were at the time.

But in any case, how evil they were or weren't, they were very high up on the list during WWII and yet - 50 years later, it was almost all gone. My original point was that if we tried really hard, even we could regain a lot of our lost credibility in the world. The litmus test will of course be what the next President does about the war in Iraq. If the new one doesn't withdraw everyone almost instantly and apologize to the world for Bush's warmongering behavior, it's definately hit the point of no return - and you better start preparing for a very rough time in a decade or two.

[Trump]

If the troops stay we are accused of meddling in affairs that are none of our concern. If the troops leave the insurgents turn their attention on the current government and we are accused of abandoning people who need help. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

[Plekto]

History though tells us that the only way to deal with a problem like this properly is to leave and then work through diplomatic channels.

Yes, it's hard, and we have to swallow an almost impossibly huge mountain of pride, but removing the causes for the terrorists to be going after us is far more effective than playing global whack-a-mole with limited success.

[Trump]

Wait, so terrorists now care about diplomacy? Actually, I heard a few days ago they did have talks with some of the insurgent leaders. I found that rather surprising though.

[manrush]

Why are we even debating what the world thinks of America? The countries of the world can go screw themselves. But I digress. I'll give you the reason as to why the world thinks so low of us. It's very simple

Those fuckers are jealous of us. They are jealous of our economy, our power, and our freedoms. Jealousy easily transforms into hatred. Those terrorists on 9/11 attacked us because of who we WERE!!!! Do you actually believe a fanatic like Bin Laden disagreed with our policies? No, he would want to wipe us out off the face of the Earth even if the DemocRATS were in charge!!! Why can't anyone get that through their heads?

Personally, I believe that critics of the government and the war need to be shot. Maybe the National Guard could do a little "cleaning up" when another anti-war rally starts.

[Plekto]

Actually, Bin Laden specifically DID attack us because of our policies. That, and having our armed forces in Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, not a very good reason, I'll grant you...

Almost all terrorists are motivated by problems that can actually be solved by political means. For instance, if Israel would grow up and stop pounding on the Palestineans so hard and agree to the peace plans that the rest of the world is okay with(except for them and the U.S. which block it every time - go figure), they would stop. Now, that doesn't make either side right, but then again, what the Palestineans want isn't unreasonable, either.

See, people decide to take such actions when all normal means have failed them and they are out of viable options. (barring the odd bombing or political statement). If we went around the world putting out tiny fires and trying to solve problems peacefully without resorting to turning it into a huge conflagration, we wouldn't have to deal with a fraction of the terrorists that we currently do.

[manrush]

Why don't you tell it to the 3000 victims and their families "hey guys, it's your fault that you died" see how happy they will be. And what about bin Laden's fatwa against Australia, Canada, and Norway? They had nothing to do with the Middle East.

If Israel stops pounding on the Palestinians, its existence will be ended. The Palestinians have sworn to not rest until they DESTROY Israel!!! Is it wrong for a nation to defend its existence? Wait, you're a terrorist loving leftie, so it's wrong to you.

You just can't seen to face the fact that the terrorists want to destroy us because we are from the WEST!!!! Western civilisation is on the line here, people. These monsters want to destroy us because of who we are!!! Comments made by people like Plekto only place us in greater danger.

To Plekto, be careful what you say. Loose words embolden the enemy.

[Jetsetlemming]

Why are we even debating what the world thinks of America? The countries of the world can go screw themselves. But I digress. I'll give you the reason as to why the world thinks so low of us. It's very simple

Those fuckers are jealous of us. They are jealous of our economy, our power, and our freedoms. Jealousy easily transforms into hatred. Those terrorists on 9/11 attacked us because of who we WERE!!!! Do you actually believe a fanatic like Bin Laden disagreed with our policies? No, he would want to wipe us out off the face of the Earth even if the DemocRATS were in charge!!! Why can't anyone get that through their heads?

Personally, I believe that critics of the government and the war need to be shot. Maybe the National Guard could do a little "cleaning up" when another anti-war rally starts.
:rofl: Fantastic parody.

[manrush]

:rofl: Fantastic parody.

Parody? You think everything I just said was a parody?

[Jetsetlemming]

The line about having the national guard shoot anyone who disagrees with the government gave you away. ;)

[stsparky]

... if Israel would grow up and stop pounding on the Palestineans so hard and agree to the peace plans that the rest of the world is okay with(except for them and the U.S. which block it every time - go figure), they would stop. Now, that doesn't make either side right, but then again, what the Palestineans want isn't unreasonable, either. ...
Actually, Israel under Ehud Brarak offered Arafat 97% of what the peaceful so-called Palestinians wanted back in 2000. Arafat chose to fight instead. Some folks think it was so he wouldn't be outed as a homosexual and stripped of power.

Arab-Israeli Conflict

It was during his tenure as Prime Minister that Israel withdrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_%28Lebanon%29) from Southern Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Lebanon) and the bodies of three dead Israeli soldiers were stolen by Hezbollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah). He inaugurated peace negotiations with Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) and took part in the Camp David 2000 Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit) which meant to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict) but failed. Barak, Prince Bandar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bandar) of Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), and US president Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) put the blame on Yasser Arafat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat). Barak claimed he exposed "Arafat's true intentions". Following this came the eruption of the al-Aqsa Intifada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada). He also took part in the Taba Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit) with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority), after his government had fallen.
Thus the problem is more complex than you think. And daily rocket attacks from Gaza don't smell like roses. And you can actually trace the cause of this conflict to the collapse of both the Ottoman and British Empires. The wily Turks sold duplicate land deeds to lands they didn't really own to both Arab and Jew starting in the late 1870s.

[japanat]

Parody? You think everything I just said was a parody?
If it's not, then you are truly ignorant of int'l affairs.

We bankrolled and provided weapons to many of the mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan 1980-'89 (sound familiar, there?), including groups with which Bin Laden was involved and where he first became famous among the faithful. He didn't like us, but 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. But the thing that set him actively against the US was when Saudi Arabia allowed the US to base units there during the 1st Gulf War, and keep them there after it ended. Now, while I personally think he would have managed to find a reason, anyways, this is the reason HE espoused. He said there would be no need for jihad if we left the holy lands.

The 3000 dead didn't do anything wrong, it was US gov't policy that he hated, and adding that little dig to your argument is cheap and unfair. Study first, then scream and rant!

[Plekto]

Still, the real solution is a political one. If both sides were talking and Israel actually respected the people's democraticaly elected choice for their leadership instead of rounding them up because they aren't the right "side" in Israel's mind... You'll note that since Israel started cracking down on them lately, two Israelis have died from rocket attacks. Something over a hundred Palestineans have died. It's completely one-sided. Given that sort of pounding by the other side who clearly wants to wipe you all out, I'm not that surprized at their tactics. Make no mistake - Israel's leadership does want to wipe out the entire West Bank if it can or at least make it such a pit of squalor that it ceases to be a viable entity.

And Arafat is dead. Since then, though, miraculously Israel can't seem to be bothered to bring the idea up again. That our leaders seem to want Israel to wipe them out isn't helping, either.(they of course can't SAY so, but it's pretty clear that they'll keep pounding away as long as Bush and company keep the U.N. out of their hair)

P.S. :
Why don't you tell it to the 3000 victims and their families "hey guys, it's your fault that you died" see how happy they will be.
***
No, I'd tell them that it's our government's fault that they died. Rampant imperialism leads to such things(note how they attacked the WTO and the Pentagon specifically). We've killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people in small unofficial wars over the last 30-40 years and frankly I'm amazed that we don't get bombed every other week as a result.

Of course it sucks and there's nothing good about 9/11 - but to say that we were blameless is awfully shortsighted. Plus, our government knew about it and did nothing. Security was incredibly lax - and that they can't keep from taking blame on.

[Trump]

ALL of you are far oversimplifying the Israel situation. I do not believe I can do the issue justice either.

First, if Israel could just completely pull out of the West Bank and Gaza, they would do it in a heartbeat. Israel is the only Jewish state, and as time passes the percentage of the population that is Jewish keeps shrinking. Now consider that Israel claims to be democratic and you realize how it doesn't really work. By getting rid of those predominantly Muslim areas they really help the balance, though it is only a temporary solution. And they have tried, but then the extremists in the area started launching rockets and capturing soldiers. Remember, the extremists want to see Israel completely obliterated. It isn't the majority, but it is enough that there are serious saftey concerns for everyone living in Israel. So how does meeting with the head of countries who cannot or will not control these extremists help the situation? So yes, it is Israel's fault for putting such importance on the existence of their state and the saftey of their citizens. But would you be willing to compromise on either of those two items? Personally, I can't blame them for holding their ground. And you can't just blame Israel since it is also the fault of all the other countries in the region for letting things get to this point. I can't really think of any way out of the current impass.

The US support for Israel draws so much hatred from the region is isn't even funny. I still don't know if that support is justfied or not.

[manrush]

The US support for Israel is justified many times over. Israel is the only demcracy in the Middle East. People, including Arabs, get more freedoms in Israel than any other country in the region. Which nation has the freest Arabic-language press? Why Israel, of course. Israel has stood behind everything we did 100% They have not voted against us or critisised us even once. It is our best, and possibly, only friend in the region. We should have asked them to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And think about it, both the US and Israel are alone in this world. A majority of UN resolutions have been aimed at Israel while other countries get off scot-free. The UN (and the EU for that matter) also hates America. I'm telling you, wake up. The UN and the EU is already run by terrorists who want to see both America and Israel destroyed. We had no choice but to turn to each other.

[manrush]

If it's not, then you are truly ignorant of int'l affairs.

We bankrolled and provided weapons to many of the mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan 1980-'89 (sound familiar, there?), including groups with which Bin Laden was involved and where he first became famous among the faithful. He didn't like us, but 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. But the thing that set him actively against the US was when Saudi Arabia allowed the US to base units there during the 1st Gulf War, and keep them there after it ended. Now, while I personally think he would have managed to find a reason, anyways, this is the reason HE espoused. He said there would be no need for jihad if we left the holy lands.

The 3000 dead didn't do anything wrong, it was US gov't policy that he hated, and adding that little dig to your argument is cheap and unfair. Study first, then scream and rant!


Bin Laden specifically stated that he wanted the entire West to die. It does not matter if we did not support Israel or if we did not get involved in the Middle East. HE WOULD STILL TRY TO KILL US!!!! These monsters cannot be reasoned with. They only understand violence. So to say that the 9/11 attacks were a result of US policy in the Middle East is a bit intellectually dishonest.

[Roxie]

are you serious?

[manrush]

Yes, I am serious. Do you have a problem with that?

[Roxie]

It's just hard to believe someone sounding so myopic isn't being sarcastic.

[manrush]

Myopic? How am I sounding myopic? I'm stating the truth.

[Campion]

The US support for Israel is justified many times over. Israel is the only demcracy in the Middle East. People, including Arabs, get more freedoms in Israel than any other country in the region. Which nation has the freest Arabic-language press? Why Israel, of course. Israel has stood behind everything we did 100% They have not voted against us or critisised us even once. It is our best, and possibly, only friend in the region. We should have asked them to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And think about it, both the US and Israel are alone in this world. A majority of UN resolutions have been aimed at Israel while other countries get off scot-free. The UN (and the EU for that matter) also hates America. I'm telling you, wake up. The UN and the EU is already run by terrorists who want to see both America and Israel destroyed. We had no choice but to turn to each other.

The Arabic press to which you refer, I presume, is the Nazareth based Christian daily called Kull-al-Arab, which through religious sentiment would be substantially more pro-west than most of its peers. Al-Jazeera is the media with the greatest degree of freedom in the Middle East, but as they sometimes criticise America (how dare they?) the administration pours derision on their efforts.

The UN and the EU hate America and are terrorists? That's news to me! I hope you have proof, because it looks to me like this is just another load of pathetic jingoistic rhetoric.

EDIT: I apologise, this is clearly NOT jingoistic at all.. America is one of the five permanent members on the council of the UN (which is why Israel usually get's off 'Scot Free', America wherever it can just vetos any resolutions which so much as critisize Israel.) So with America playing a central role in running the UN, it's hardly patriotic to call the UN a terrorist institution, because basically you are accusing America of being complicit in a terrorist organisation.

Of course Israel has never criticized the US, what a ridiculous assertion, if Israel lost the $3 Billion a year in 'Aid' from the US it would crumble economically (not to mention the Billions of dollars in 'loans' that have been waived), so you tell me what Israeli politician in their right mind would take the political risk of hanging America out to dry? It would be political and economic suicide. Suggesting that Israel is America's only friend in the region is also vexing me; what about Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

As for Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East? Just where the hell do you get your opinions from exactly? Fox News? Last time I checked Palestine was a democracy; it just didn't elect the party that the American administration wanted, that doesn't change the fact that it is still technically a democracy.




Campion.

[Jetsetlemming]

And think about it, both the US and Israel are alone in this world. A majority of UN resolutions have been aimed at Israel while other countries get off scot-free. The UN (and the EU for that matter) also hates America. I'm telling you, wake up. The UN and the EU is already run by terrorists who want to see both America and Israel destroyed. We had no choice but to turn to each other.
Except for the UK and Australia, which are just as much allies, and a number of other countries that like us pretty well like Canada and Japan?

[Plekto]

Don't forget Ireland and New Zealand. ;)

But it looks like it will all be moot - the government in Iraq just voted to essentially not renew our "contract" the net time it came up. We essentially have 5-6 months and then we're officially kicked out by them.

Technically, they voted to require the leadership/president/etc to consult with them - and that means Bush's agenda hit a huge brick wall.

[Jetsetlemming]

Don't forget Ireland and New Zealand. ;)

But it looks like it will all be moot - the government in Iraq just voted to essentially not renew our "contract" the net time it came up. We essentially have 5-6 months and then we're officially kicked out by them.

Technically, they voted to require the leadership/president/etc to consult with them - and that means Bush's agenda hit a huge brick wall.
If the Iraqi government actually says "we're ok, thanks America, you guys can go home now, we'll take it from here" that's a pretty fucking PERFECT ending. :watson: We get to leave without abandoning anybody. Hell, I'd imagine we're ENCOURAGING the Iraqi government to reach that point.

[Plekto]

Exactly right. :)

They say no, we say okay, and we go home - we lost but we saved face because it was the Iraqi's fault we left, not because we ran away.
(this is technically called a strategic withdrawl instead of a loss)

Here's the article:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230/

We just got our loophole we've been looking for. Bush can save face somewhat and the whole issue becomes moot in the upcoming Presidential debates.

[Chris]

Plekto, how exactly can you compare us to the British 200 years ago? Sure, we do a hell of a lot to exert our influence, but I don't see us taking over colonies. Had the same Britain that we went to war with back in the 1800s attacked Iraq, they would have raped the country of its resources and practically put the population into an economic slavery. We also exert a lot of pressure to keep our oil interests in check (and why wouldn't we? Its the key to our survival, as well as yours).

I won't disagree that we haven't made some fucked up moves, like the backing of the Shah, our various support and funding for different governments and groups in south America that resulted in the perpetuation of civil wars.

However, we also try to do good things. I hate to play this card, but its true enough when someone says that theres a lot that we're doing in Iraq that helps that doesn't make the news. I can't remember the last time I saw anything on CNN regarding how our Army engineers are helping rebuild schools.

Thats part of the reason I'm not so sure about packing up and leaving. It's not about staying the to the course that we know isn't working and eradicating terrorists, we know that'll never happen. What it is about is helping out that country the best that we can, and working more towards building a stable government with at least a somewhat happy populace. Right now if we abandoned Iraq it'd turn into another Bosnia. Or Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Somalia, take your pick.

That's my main problem with leaving Iraq, we're committed. Rebuilding a country is never an easy and quick task, especially when you have different groups with their own motives like the Sunnis and Shi'ites. It also doesn't help that we made a lot of mistakes along the way. We fumbled the ball early on pretty badly. A lot of that was the fault of our civilian leadership too, the military leadership was attempting to follow the ideas from institutes like the Army War College, where senior level officers are taught how to deal with the local populations to help rebuild a country, to get things running and return some state of order, and mostly to keep peace. (heh, ironic that thats the Army's main objective aside from defense) Unfortunately a lot of these ideas that we known to have worked we disregarded by the civilian leadership, before and after the war. It wasn't until a lot of these generals started resigning so they could voice their opinion and how they were dealt with by the Bush administration.

There's definitely been a lot of mistakes made in Iraq, but I still not sure we should leave yet. If we do commit to stay though, we'll be there for awhile, look at Korea, Japan, and Germany.

[Plekto]

The thing is, we don't physically occupy *most* countries anymore. We install some dictator who for a decade or so is our whipping boy or we do like they are trying to do in Iraq right now - grab their oil right out from under them.

But the premise is exactly the same. Read some non-U.S. papers for a change and learn exactly how often we mess with the rest of the world.

The simple fact is that we either leave now or we leave later. In military terms, you have one and only one solution to a population that's in a general revolt against you(if you want to win). You kill them all to the last person.

Any other outcome at all does not work. Never has, never will.

Since we can't do that in Iraq, we're screwed. We will leave. We will lose. The only question is how long before we actually do get out. Common sense says to leave as soon as possible to minimize the fallout and damage we are taking. typical military/government responses usually involve a 20-30 year occupation or DMZ or whatnot in an attempt to somehow hope and pray that this one time will be different than the rest of human history.

All we do when we stay long-term is provide a constant target to them. We're expecting well over 100 dead and at least a thousand injured this coming up month. 50 years of this is utter insanity, but it's what they seem to be thinking of currently.

Side note - our current situation is exactly what the French faced in Vietnam. It drug on for ten bloody years before they finally swallowed their pride and got out(technically they duped us into taking their place like we will eventually dupe the U.N. into doing I bet)

[Chris]

But the premise is exactly the same. Read some non-U.S. papers for a change and learn exactly how often we mess with the rest of the world.

Most of my information doesn't actually come from newspapers, I was most referring to past events that I've read about in a variety of books, but hey. Yes, we do fuck up the world, but you're making it sound like we go out there and swap random dictators daily. We don't.

The simple fact is that we either leave now or we leave later. In military terms, you have one and only one solution to a population that's in a general revolt against you(if you want to win). You kill them all to the last person.

A revolt against us? Not really. Thats not to say that there aren't insurgents trying to kill us, its pretty obvious there are people who really don't want us there. But it goes deeper than "lol Americans, lets go T and own sum n00bz"

A lot of the violence lately has been more focused on Sunni vs. Shi'ite. A large problem is that both of those have more than enough reason to hate the other given past context, so both are hellbent on revenge. This results in a lot of dead Iraqis. If this was a pure anti-American revolt as you stated there'd be a lot more dead Americans, not Iraqis.

As it stands now we've lost 3504 soldiers. There have been 37862 dead Iraqis (confirmed by their government) since April 28th. 2005 That's just over two years. These Iraqi's aren't just having shit luck where people try to attack the US somehow end up killing 10 Iraqis every time. No, this is an ethnic war.

As far as your predicition for 50 years of this insanity, you seem to think that 50 years of occupying and rebuilding any country equals constant American dead. In that case, given the last time the Japanese insurgents actually killed an American soldier. I mean hell, we're still there aren't we? Not rebuilding the country by any means, but we're still there.

Or the last time any Korean units actually killed a soldier (not just fired at). It's probably been awhile, I believe there might have been one a couple of years ago, but it's been a long while since any actual attack has occurred in either of those countries.

And the French swallowed their pride because it was shoved down their throats at Dien Bien Phu. And while comparing Iraq to Vietnam may be somewhat similiar, the situation itself is pretty different. Granted, you might actually have to do some research to realize that Iraq isn't a war over political lines as much as it is one over ethnic lines. Very very deep ethnic lines.

[ruaidhri]

I’ve been away for awhile. There was so much to catch up on that I basically thought “to hell with it”. If someone doesn’t like Hillary that is their right. I suppose you could find a reason not to like any human being especially when whatever they’ve done has been spun as much as Hillary’s reported actions. The truth be told, I believe it would be a mistake for the Democrats to nominate Hillary. I simply don’t believe she could win. Would I vote for her in a Primary? No. Would I vote for her in a General Election. Yes.

I agree that many people throughout the world hate the U.S. for a variety of reasons. The fact that some would want to kill innocent people shocks me especially considering they hide behind their religion.

I have no answers, only sorrow for us, for them and for the world. I stupidly believed the world would be better when communism fell. I was wrong. Today, we have invisible enemies. There is no way we can defend ourselves without harming more innocents.

As regards mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n’s wild statements, I can only hope it’s satire. However, I do believe he’s serious. He’s a lot like the terrorists that want to destroy anything that doesn’t conform to their own beliefs. But, like everyone else he does have a right to his opinions. I also have the right to not pay any attention to his ravings.

Well, I believe I am going to shut my computers down. We’re supposed to be clobbered with a dangerous storm. Big hail and damaging winds with the great possibility of a tornado. The best way for lightning not to zap your system is to unplug.

[Plekto]

With Japan, we beat them and they gave up. But only by nuking them.(this falls in line with the wiping them all out strategy). Short of this, they would have fought us for years.

The whole issue about bombing Japan aside(whole can of worms there), it's not feasible politically to use those sort of tactics anymore, so we're essentially FUBAR before we even start. That means out approach to conflicts in general has to be completely different than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

But it isn't. They assume that Iraq will just roll over and quietly give up. Our leaders fail to see that the Iraqi people are exactly like us in this way - they won't ever give up until we are gone. Ever. Eventually they will stop fighting each other and focus only on us. That's exactly what happened in Vietnam - everyone turned against us and what as a winnable conflict in theory turned into a bloodbath for us.

We're maybe a year from that turning point in Iraq.
If you look at the timeline of Vietnam, right now we are at 1967. Operation Cedar Falls. Massive troop "push".

"1968" will happen again if we don't get out before they stop fighting each other and turn their attention solely upon us.

So we make a DMZ like they are talking about. Um.. WHERE? There aren't two Iraqs last I checked. At best we'd have a military base surrounded by enemies who would take pot shots at us forever.

[Chris]

With Japan, we beat them and they gave up. But only by nuking them.(this falls in line with the wiping them all out strategy). Short of this, they would have fought us for years.

The whole issue about bombing Japan aside(whole can of worms there), it's not feasible politically to use those sort of tactics anymore, so we're essentially FUBAR before we even start. That means out approach to conflicts in general has to be completely different than it was 20 or 30 years ago.


Why or how would we even think of using those same tactics?

But it isn't. They assume that Iraq will just roll over and quietly give up. Our leaders fail to see that the Iraqi people are exactly like us in this way - they won't ever give up until we are gone. Ever. Eventually they will stop fighting each other and focus only on us. That's exactly what happened in Vietnam - everyone turned against us and what as a winnable conflict in theory turned into a bloodbath for us.

I doubt that unless we suddenly get much much more brutal that they're suddenly going to hold hands on their own grounds and start a joint effort to kill us. Remember that as much as they hate us, they hate one another just as much, if not more.

Vietnam also had nothing to do with an entire population turning against us. It was in part a failed South Vietnamese government with ineffective forces (until the Nixon administration anyways). The south, while poor fighters and poorly organized was still a fighting force, not a revolt against the US as you just tried to compare it to.

We're maybe a year from that turning point in Iraq.
If you look at the timeline of Vietnam, right now we are at 1967. Operation Cedar Falls. Massive troop "push".

How's that? Explain your logic.

"1968" will happen again if we don't get out before they stop fighting each other and turn their attention solely upon us.

I fail to see how they're simply going to lay down their arms in respect to one another and start holding hands while shooting at us. These two groups really don't like one another. So much that they've slaughtered over 60,000 of one another since Saddam's regime fell. Unless we drastically change tactics and turn brutal (if you argue that we're out there chopping up civilians, I'll slap you) they aren't going to all turn against us. It's possible, yes, but very unlikely. Most of the attacks lately have been focused on Iraqis, and not Americans.

So we make a DMZ like they are talking about. Um.. WHERE? There aren't two Iraqs last I checked. At best we'd have a military base surrounded by enemies who would take pot shots at us forever.

I haven't heard much talk about a DMZ. Dividing the country by the religious groups, sure. There's definitely regions where there are a majority of one group, however a division would be very complicated. That might also turn a large majority of the population against us, as we'd be moving families that had lived in certain areas for centuries. I did support the idea, but I doubt its truly feasible without causing more problems.

[whispering]

Bin Laden specifically stated that he wanted the entire West to die. It does not matter if we did not support Israel or if we did not get involved in the Middle East. HE WOULD STILL TRY TO KILL US!!!! These monsters cannot be reasoned with. They only understand violence. So to say that the 9/11 attacks were a result of US policy in the Middle East is a bit intellectually dishonest.

The irony is, that you could change the sides and it would still be just as true.

And yes, we are huge terrorists here. Just waiting for the moment to bomb US. Cause around here, we loved the past world wars so much, that we want to at least get a trilogy. The first had 10 000 000 deaths, second one had 70 000 000 deaths, so it will really take a lot to top the last ones. But hey, with the stupidity of todays world, anythings possible, right?

[c-rex]

mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n
You know really one of the best things the US could do for the world would be to cut off the 3 billion in aid we send to Israel every year.

As for Israel being our 'friends':

1. During the Yom Kippur war they gave the Americans the option of either bailing their asses out or said they would use their nuclear weapons against Egypt and Syria, which most likely would have included shutting the Suez Canal down with a nuclear strike, resulting in a major disruption of the West's oil supply. Henry Kissinger has confirmed that Israel made this threat.

Source: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
The nuclear blackmail part is down in Section III. You can also search for 144 aned 145 on the page for the cited notes by Farr.

2. Moving right we come the USS Liberty, an American navy vessel that the Israelis attacked. The USS Liberty was in international waters engaged in ELINT activities when it came under fire from Israeli jets, despite the fact that our vessel had an American flag and contacted the Israelis multiple times via radio. The Israelis killed 34 Americans and wounded 173 others.

Here's the kicker with this, the Israels claim they mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian vessel called the El Quseir, a civillian freighter. So even assuming the Israelis really mistook the Liberty for the El Qseir, why the hell were they strafing a civillian vessel with machine guns, napalm and torpedoes? It is the opinion of Admiral Kidd, Dean Rusk (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and Richard Helms (head of the CIA), that the Israelis knew damn well it was American vessel.

Wiki On the Liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

3. In more recent news we have our 'ally' has tried to sell technology based off American UAVs and AUW systems to China, despite agreements with the US that this technology would not be shared. In the case of China this was done under the table and Israel was only busted because the NSA caught them trying to do it. You can also look at the Chinese J-11 project, which shares avionics off the F-15 Eagle, which Israel illegally provided to China. Luckily the Chinese suck at making high performance jet fights and one a few J-11 prototypes have made it off the ground.

Global Security Info on Israeli Arms Trading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

4. We also have Israeli jets rehashing things along the Liberty incident by buzzing UN forces trying to stabilize Lebanon in 2006. They buzzed ground posistions and overflew German warships and dropped flares and decoys to annoy the vessels. This is a major no-no in international relations, as it is considered very polite to keep your fighter jets away from warships. I personally am a little confused while the Israelis are screwing with a UN operation.

Source: http://www.altermedia.info/anti-war/israel-fires-on-german-ship_117.html

Oh yeah and Israel is the third most active country in spying on America. Carl Cameron did a lovely three part series on TV about the Israeli spy rings in America.

In short Israel is basically the shittiest ally we've ever had and fairly shady to begin with, they're also one of the largest destabilizing influences in the Middle East due to their failure to actually adhere human rights standards and treaty. Personally I'm waiting for the day that Israel pushes us just a little too far and gets smacked down, hard.

[Trump]

They are only third? I thought they'd be higher than that! Israel has done a lot of really crappy things, but they also live in a different world than most first world countries, namely that every day is a struggle for survival. How can you compare the US or England or France to that? What would those countries do in that situation? Have any of you really thought about it?

And Ruaidhri, I hope you came out of those storms OK! I heard there were something like 15 tornados reported in that part of the country.

[stsparky]

... And Arafat is dead. Since then, though, miraculously Israel can't seem to be bothered to bring the idea up again. ...
Seriously? With whom? Any moderate on the Palestinian side finds himself dead from his own side which are fighting amongst themselves.

We can discuss the Roadmap to Oblivion in a different thread. - k?

[manrush]

What the fuck is it with blame-America-firsters on this board? Don't you realise that your careless talk will kill us all? Why don't you and your ACLU buddies just go to the Middle East since you like it so much. The United States, hell, the Western World is fighting every day for its survival. And yet you talk about the poor terrorists. Did they vote Hamas into power? Yes. Is Hezbollah popular in Lebanon, yes. Both of those events had nothing to do with America. Face it, they hate us and would love to see us destroyed. Remember Munich!!! Appeasement is not, never has been, and never will be the answer.

[Campion]

They are only third? I thought they'd be higher than that! Israel has done a lot of really crappy things, but they also live in a different world than most first world countries, namely that every day is a struggle for survival. How can you compare the US or England or France to that? What would those countries do in that situation? Have any of you really thought about it?

Hang on, are you using that as a form of justification? I'm sorry, but under that premiss, surely half of South America and most of continental Africa could use the 'Struggle for Survival' as a justification for spying on America.

How did England react to that, not how would England react to that would be have been the better question, I urge you to visit the history of Ireland if you want some relevant examples.

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick Trump, but if you would elucidate your position a bit I might not have to. Would you care to oblige?


Campion.

[manrush]

I’ve been away for awhile. There was so much to catch up on that I basically thought “to hell with it”. If someone doesn’t like Hillary that is their right. I suppose you could find a reason not to like any human being especially when whatever they’ve done has been spun as much as Hillary’s reported actions. The truth be told, I believe it would be a mistake for the Democrats to nominate Hillary. I simply don’t believe she could win. Would I vote for her in a Primary? No. Would I vote for her in a General Election. Yes.

I agree that many people throughout the world hate the U.S. for a variety of reasons. The fact that some would want to kill innocent people shocks me especially considering they hide behind their religion.

I have no answers, only sorrow for us, for them and for the world. I stupidly believed the world would be better when communism fell. I was wrong. Today, we have invisible enemies. There is no way we can defend ourselves without harming more innocents.

As regards mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n’s wild statements, I can only hope it’s satire. However, I do believe he’s serious. He’s a lot like the terrorists that want to destroy anything that doesn’t conform to their own beliefs. But, like everyone else he does have a right to his opinions. I also have the right to not pay any attention to his ravings.

Well, I believe I am going to shut my computers down. We’re supposed to be clobbered with a dangerous storm. Big hail and damaging winds with the great possibility of a tornado. The best way for lightning not to zap your system is to unplug.


It's okay. Not many people like hearing the truth. But I will not be silenced!!! I will continue to shed the clothes of deceit and bring people the naked truth!!!

[c-rex]

What the fuck is it with blame-America-firsters on this board? Don't you realise that your careless talk will kill us all? Why don't you and your ACLU buddies just go to the Middle East since you like it so much. The United States, hell, the Western World is fighting every day for its survival. And yet you talk about the poor terrorists. Did they vote Hamas into power? Yes. Is Hezbollah popular in Lebanon, yes. Both of those events had nothing to do with America. Face it, they hate us and would love to see us destroyed. Remember Munich!!! Appeasement is not, never has been, and never will be the answer.

Just wondering if you ever bothered to thinky WHY they want to kill us. After the vast majority of the world's peoples do not strap TNT to their bodies and blow up busses, slam 747s into the side of buildings and bomb trains. Oh and don't give me the crap that Islam makes them do it, Islam is pretty shitty overall right now, but none of the Muslims in Dearborn are blowing themselves up daily, although one is changing my oil right now.

The reason for the hate directed at us comes from a lot of reasons, the economic differences between the average American and average Arab Muslim (the poor always resent the rich), the constant meddling of America in internal politics of Middle Eastern Countries (see the Shah of Iran) and a dislike of Israel.

To defeat the terrorist threat we need to remove the factors that provide nuts like Bin Laden with a fertile pool of recruits. This means either altering our foreign policies to avoid giving them reasons to hate America or simply whiping them out so they can hate America all they want in their shallow graves. Personally I have no desire to back another American genocide, so I tend to go with the other option.

What will kill us is people who scream rote strawman attacks. You're creation of an us vs them viewpoint only leads to actions that breed more hate on both sides of the line. Chill out, do some research.

I'd suggest reading some work by Juan Cole, personally he is too liberal for my tastes, but he provides an excellent discussion on Islamic society and its current state. He is an America who spent part of his childhood growing up in Afghanistan and a top PhD at UMich.

[manrush]

Just wondering if you ever bothered to thinky WHY they want to kill us. After the vast majority of the world's peoples do not strap TNT to their bodies and blow up busses, slam 747s into the side of buildings and bomb trains. Oh and don't give me the crap that Islam makes them do it, Islam is pretty shitty overall right now, but none of the Muslims in Dearborn are blowing themselves up daily, although one is changing my oil right now.

The reason for the hate directed at us comes from a lot of reasons, the economic differences between the average American and average Arab Muslim (the poor always resent the rich), the constant meddling of America in internal politics of Middle Eastern Countries (see the Shah of Iran) and a dislike of Israel.

To defeat the terrorist threat we need to remove the factors that provide nuts like Bin Laden with a fertile pool of recruits. This means either altering our foreign policies to avoid giving them reasons to hate America or simply whiping them out so they can hate America all they want in their shallow graves. Personally I have no desire to back another American genocide, so I tend to go with the other option.

What will kill us is people who scream rote strawman attacks. You're creation of an us vs them viewpoint only leads to actions that breed more hate on both sides of the line. Chill out, do some research.

I'd suggest reading some work by Juan Cole, personally he is too liberal for my tastes, but he provides an excellent discussion on Islamic society and its current state. He is an America who spent part of his childhood growing up in Afghanistan and a top PhD at UMich.


And what should we do, abandon Israel to destruction? Apologise to Middle Easterners for saving them from a lifetime of servitude and misery that would have no doubt happened if we had let the communists conquer Iran? Not make our country's economical situation better? Shackle our troops with politically-correct rules of war, thus preventing them from doing their jobs and leading to more casualties?

That is absolutely insane!!!! I for one, love this country, and honour our friends. Appeasing the enemy will give them the message that the United States is weak and abandons its friends and its mission when things turn a bit sour. They will want to attack us even more. Did Spain's appeasement of Al-Queda work? No. Appeasement and political correctness will kill American troops and doom the country in the end.

By the way, I have nothing against Islam.

[manrush]

Just wondering if you ever bothered to thinky WHY they want to kill us. After the vast majority of the world's peoples do not strap TNT to their bodies and blow up busses, slam 747s into the side of buildings and bomb trains. Oh and don't give me the crap that Islam makes them do it, Islam is pretty shitty overall right now, but none of the Muslims in Dearborn are blowing themselves up daily, although one is changing my oil right now.

The reason for the hate directed at us comes from a lot of reasons, the economic differences between the average American and average Arab Muslim (the poor always resent the rich), the constant meddling of America in internal politics of Middle Eastern Countries (see the Shah of Iran) and a dislike of Israel.

To defeat the terrorist threat we need to remove the factors that provide nuts like Bin Laden with a fertile pool of recruits. This means either altering our foreign policies to avoid giving them reasons to hate America or simply whiping them out so they can hate America all they want in their shallow graves. Personally I have no desire to back another American genocide, so I tend to go with the other option.

What will kill us is people who scream rote strawman attacks. You're creation of an us vs them viewpoint only leads to actions that breed more hate on both sides of the line. Chill out, do some research.

I'd suggest reading some work by Juan Cole, personally he is too liberal for my tastes, but he provides an excellent discussion on Islamic society and its current state. He is an America who spent part of his childhood growing up in Afghanistan and a top PhD at UMich.

Wake the fuck up. It IS us vs. them. They want to destroy us. They made no doubt of that. We need to defeat them to protect the Western world.

[Roxie]

It's really that black and white to you?

[Campion]

What the fuck is it with blame-America-firsters on this board? Don't you realise that your careless talk will kill us all? Why don't you and your ACLU buddies just go to the Middle East since you like it so much. The United States, hell, the Western World is fighting every day for its survival. And yet you talk about the poor terrorists. Did they vote Hamas into power? Yes. Is Hezbollah popular in Lebanon, yes. Both of those events had nothing to do with America. Face it, they hate us and would love to see us destroyed. Remember Munich!!! Appeasement is not, never has been, and never will be the answer.

From ridiculous rhetoric to hilarious hyperbole in a matter of a few short posts. I'm impressed with your inability to react to any arguments put forward against your point and just mindlessly continue to chant more hatred. So you want to continue to revel in your ignorance regardless? Fine, please do so but do not attempt to question other Americans loyalty to their country just because they point out certain ambiguities in its foreign policies. This sort of argument is tantamount to a direct attack on other peoples freedom of speech and if you value it for yourself you sure as hell better value it for people who disagree with you; for as we well know in England it's a short goose-step from denying rights to the people we don't agree with to those same laws being applied to all of the population.

'Careless Talk costs Lives?' I haven't heard that for a while, you have to know that your argument is pretty baseless when you rely on an archaic propoganda from second world war Britain surely?

As for your point of continuing to tell the truth, which truth exactly? That Israel is the only democracy in the middle East or that Hamas were voted into power?


Campion.

[Plekto]

Why or how would we even think of using those same tactics?


Yes, this is exactly what our leaders are doing in Iraq. And why it is failing. They think they are back in the 1980s and they're invading a larger version of Panama or some other third world country.


I doubt that unless we suddenly get much much more brutal that they're suddenly going to hold hands on their own grounds and start a joint effort to kill us. Remember that as much as they hate us, they hate one another just as much, if not more.


Eventually, be it 6 months or 16 years, they will put their fighting aside and focus on the real problem - the U.S. invasion and occupation. We absolutely must not be there anymore for that to happen, because we will bleed a dozen times worse than Russia did in Afghanistan. Imagine 50 or more dead a day.

The only thing worse than being in the middle of a civil war is when they stop fighting each other and start a revolt against you. We only need to look at the U.K.'s history for numerous examples of this. There's a reason they are no longer being imperialistic on a global scale - because they got their butts kicked and learned to stop stepping into quagmires. We could learn something form them.


I haven't heard much talk about a DMZ. Dividing the country by the religious groups, sure.

Bush himself was discussing a 50+ year plan of occupation - which means a DMZ type arrangement or at least multiple military bases. I can't imagine a worse scenario. Permanent targets for terrorists to go after that are right in their own backyard.

Being sent over to Iraq to staff one of these bases would be the U.S. equivalent of being sent off to Siberia - you might as well put that red shirt on and beam down and get it over with.

P.S. The U.K. tried this, too, and consistently got their butts kicked as well. Fortified bases in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hostiles... can we say siege scenario?

[c-rex]

mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n
I'm guessing you might be trolling here, you don't appear to really consider your comments for logic before posting as many other people have pointed out.

Yes I do propose to hang Israel out to dry. Go back and read my post pointing out what a shitty ally Israel and then explain to me why Israel is deserving 3 billion dollars a year. They're shitty allies, shitty on human rights and an apartheid state. They do nothing to aid us in the war against terror. Personally I'll be the guy sitting there on my ass watching the Israeli Army crumble and humming the Navy Hymn as the USS Liberty gets her revenge at last.

The entire purpose of my post was to point out that simply screaming "OMG they hate us, attack" does nothing constructive to ending terrorism. I suggested terrorism on all levels, such as ending policies that help provide them with discontented young men to recruit. You do understand that without recruits Osama's operations will be crippled right?

Remember when the poor people black people rioted in Chicago, LA, etc back during the 1950s and 1960s? Back when we had groups like the Black Panthers preaching black militancy? Notice how as black economic status improves the riots decrease. It is a very simple and widely accepted social theory that when two groups interact in an unequal manner it breeds tension between the groups, when two groups interact in an equal manner it builds a common bond between them.

We are not locked into a fight to the death with Islam, explain to me eactly how the powerful Islamics are going to come and kill us all in our beds? Oh wait, they aren't. So long as we keep border security tight and the keep actively hunting down and killing groups like Abu Nidal, The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, etc then we'll be safe. To ensure those groups never respawn we must alter how we deal with home countries.

One last point, terrorism predates America ever touching the Middle East. During World War I the Arabs would murder Ottomans, blow up their supply dumps, etc. Between the wars they'd target the British, afterwards it was America when we began projecting influence on the region. You want the problem to go away? You stop giving them an outside enemy to unite against and they'll go back to happily butchering themselves over dumbass shit such as what kind of clothing a woman has to wear.

[Chris]

Yes, this is exactly what our leaders are doing in Iraq. And why it is failing. They think they are back in the 1980s and they're invading a larger version of Panama or some other third world country.

Will you stay on one point? You jump from the rebuilding of Japan to the invasion of Panama. wtf?

Eventually, be it 6 months or 16 years, they will put their fighting aside and focus on the real problem - the U.S. invasion and occupation. We absolutely must not be there anymore for that to happen, because we will bleed a dozen times worse than Russia did in Afghanistan. Imagine 50 or more dead a day.

The only thing worse than being in the middle of a civil war is when they stop fighting each other and start a revolt against you. We only need to look at the U.K.'s history for numerous examples of this. There's a reason they are no longer being imperialistic on a global scale - because they got their butts kicked and learned to stop stepping into quagmires. We could learn something form them.

In 16 years I'm sure we're have made a bit more progress. And seriously, do you even know your history? Russia was a bit harsher on the Afghan population than we were, and Britain was a bit harsher on their local populations than we were. I'm hardly saying we're perfect, but we're set a higher mark for ourselves.

Bush himself was discussing a 50+ year plan of occupation - which means a DMZ type arrangement or at least multiple military bases. I can't imagine a worse scenario. Permanent targets for terrorists to go after that are right in their own backyard.

Being sent over to Iraq to staff one of these bases would be the U.S. equivalent of being sent off to Siberia - you might as well put that red shirt on and beam down and get it over with.

P.S. The U.K. tried this, too, and consistently got their butts kicked as well. Fortified bases in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hostiles... can we say siege scenario?

Rebuilding can take awhile. And again, you're acting as if everyone over there has a vehement hate for us. Not a lot of Iraqis like us being around, I'll give you that much, but it'd take a hell of an incident to get them all to come after us with AK-47's. And again, you're comparing different scenarios, think.

Britain went into countries and sucked the resources dry, and put up a completely puppet government that totally screwed the population. Hell, most of the time they freely admitted that they were the ones in charge.

Now I'm not gonna say that the Iraqi government isn't under influence from the US, that's a complete lie. Hell, you might even be able to call them a puppet government, but it'd be hard to say that they are completely under our control. Sure, if we truly wanted it to be that way I'm sure we'd make it so, but that's not the case. Not when the Iraqi government can actually openly criticize us for our middle east policy in other regions (Israel).

Plekto, the reason one really can't compare us to the British colonial movement at this point in time is that we treat the locals differently. We say we're there to help, and we perform actions to back it up. The British really didn't, they really didn't care. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of the US as the caretakers of the world where we do good things all the time for everyone, we really don't, we serve our own interests like every other country on this planet. But you can't deny the facts that state they we do a better job at helping out those populations than the British you seem to want to compare us to did.

[manrush]

mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n
I'm guessing you might be trolling here, you don't appear to really consider your comments for logic before posting as many other people have pointed out.

Yes I do propose to hang Israel out to dry. Go back and read my post pointing out what a shitty ally Israel and then explain to me why Israel is deserving 3 billion dollars a year. They're shitty allies, shitty on human rights and an apartheid state. They do nothing to aid us in the war against terror. Personally I'll be the guy sitting there on my ass watching the Israeli Army crumble and humming the Navy Hymn as the USS Liberty gets her revenge at last.

The entire purpose of my post was to point out that simply screaming "OMG they hate us, attack" does nothing constructive to ending terrorism. I suggested terrorism on all levels, such as ending policies that help provide them with discontented young men to recruit. You do understand that without recruits Osama's operations will be crippled right?

Remember when the poor people black people rioted in Chicago, LA, etc back during the 1950s and 1960s? Back when we had groups like the Black Panthers preaching black militancy? Notice how as black economic status improves the riots decrease. It is a very simple and widely accepted social theory that when two groups interact in an unequal manner it breeds tension between the groups, when two groups interact in an equal manner it builds a common bond between them.

We are not locked into a fight to the death with Islam, explain to me eactly how the powerful Islamics are going to come and kill us all in our beds? Oh wait, they aren't. So long as we keep border security tight and the keep actively hunting down and killing groups like Abu Nidal, The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, etc then we'll be safe. To ensure those groups never respawn we must alter how we deal with home countries.

One last point, terrorism predates America ever touching the Middle East. During World War I the Arabs would murder Ottomans, blow up their supply dumps, etc. Between the wars they'd target the British, afterwards it was America when we began projecting influence on the region. You want the problem to go away? You stop giving them an outside enemy to unite against and they'll go back to happily butchering themselves over dumbass shit such as what kind of clothing a woman has to wear.

I wasn't trolling. I was trying to make a point by putting myself into the shoes of an irrational nationalist.

[Ichisan]

Plekto, the reason one really can't compare us to the British colonial movement at this point in time is that we treat the locals differently. We say we're there to help, and we perform actions to back it up. The British really didn't, they really didn't care. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of the US as the caretakers of the world where we do good things all the time for everyone, we really don't, we serve our own interests like every other country on this planet. But you can't deny the facts that state they we do a better job at helping out those populations than the British you seem to want to compare us to did.

Do you actually know a single thing about the history of the British Empire?

[Chris]

Do you actually know a single thing about the history of the British Empire?

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about British history as I am US but I do know that the Brits weren't too great at taking care of the locals.

[Plekto]

In 16 years I'm sure we're have made a bit more progress. And seriously, do you even know your history? Russia was a bit harsher on the Afghan population than we were, and Britain was a bit harsher on their local populations than we were.

Let's be clear here. Half a MILLION Iraquis are dead due to our actions, either directly or indirectly(starvation/disease/etc) since the end of the first Gulf War.

Our tactics have been brutal - as brutal as anything those two countries had ever done in the past. And we still do things like use white phosphorous and heavy artillery and rockets in heavily populated areas. Our press whitewashes it and we hear very low numbers.(as expected. Propaganda in a war is a given)


Britain went into countries and sucked the resources dry, and put up a completely puppet government that totally screwed the population. Hell, most of the time they freely admitted that they were the ones in charge.

And this is our MO this time as well. We want their oil. Or more specifically, to force them to pass a law giving 60% of their oil to foregn companies for the next thirty years, thereby making it harder for OPEC to pressure us.

That's the real reason we are over there - the oil. And as for installing puppet rulers, we're the #1 offender in the last, oh, hundred years.

To expect any change, given the hubris and myopia of our leaders, from this path of imperialism at this point is very naive. This *is* a repeat of Vietnam precisely because our leaders think that they can win it despite the generals and soldiers themselves saying the opposite. When your generals say "We can't win", and your leader says "I know better...", then you just defined quagmire.


Plekto, the reason one really can't compare us to the British colonial movement at this point in time is that we treat the locals differently. We say we're there to help, and we perform actions to back it up.

You mean like doing nothing to acutally fix their infrastructure, schools, hospitals... The list of things that we fail to do over there is astounding. We damage people's property and they have no legal recourse. That's so simmilar to what the British did in their colonies that it's like looking at a twin in a mirror.

We jsut put on a good bit of press and spin. The reality is that we are doing exactly the same level, no less than we did after Katrina. This is a very good litumus test, afterall. Our government won't help out own citizens. What makes you think that our leaders in a million years would spend more effort on people in Iraq? Right - they won't and don't other than a few examples that they parade in front of the U.S. media endlessly. Wartime propaganda at its finest.

[Chris]

Let's be clear here. Half a MILLION Iraquis are dead due to our actions, either directly or indirectly(starvation/disease/etc) since the end of the first Gulf War.

Yes, let's be clear. For one, show me those statistics. You could venture that it is indirectly our fault, and I won't lie, I don't agree with sanctions, however we gave Saddam many chances to make up for his mistakes. I'm not gonna say that we haven't made our own mistakes, but to say that we are the only ones who are truly responsible is absurd.

Our tactics have been brutal - as brutal as anything those two countries had ever done in the past. And we still do things like use white phosphorous and heavy artillery and rockets in heavily populated areas. Our press whitewashes it and we hear very low numbers.(as expected. Propaganda in a war is a given)

Brutal? Show me where we have intentionally massacred people. Show me where we have denied the Iraqis a right to vote, a right to take charge of their own future.

I won't comment on the use of white phosphorous or artillery in heavy populated areas, thats not something I'm knowledgeable on, however I do know we go to lengths to minimize civilian casualties in war.


And this is our MO this time as well. We want their oil. Or more specifically, to force them to pass a law giving 60% of their oil to foregn companies for the next thirty years, thereby making it harder for OPEC to pressure us.

That's the real reason we are over there - the oil. And as for installing puppet rulers, we're the #1 offender in the last, oh, hundred years.

Of course oil has something to do with it, what do you expect? Do you think any other nation that depends on a resource such as we do (or any other industrialized nation for that matter) would act any differently? If so, you're delusional.

To expect any change, given the hubris and myopia of our leaders, from this path of imperialism at this point is very naive. This *is* a repeat of Vietnam precisely because our leaders think that they can win it despite the generals and soldiers themselves saying the opposite. When your generals say "We can't win", and your leader says "I know better...", then you just defined quagmire.

Our President and administration did a shitty job at listening to its military leaders, I'll give you that. It's not so much that the generals are saying "we can't win" as much as they are protesting the administrations terrible handling of the entire situation.


You mean like doing nothing to acutally fix their infrastructure, schools, hospitals... The list of things that we fail to do over there is astounding. We damage people's property and they have no legal recourse. That's so simmilar to what the British did in their colonies that it's like looking at a twin in a mirror.

The only astounding thing in that statement is your lack of knowledge. We've done a lot to try and improve that country's infastructure.

http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/0929_woolley.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq.speech.5/index.html

You aren't going to hear a lot about it because it doesn't make a lot of news. The military does have its own civil affairs that put the information about their reconstruction efforts out.



We jsut put on a good bit of press and spin. The reality is that we are doing exactly the same level, no less than we did after Katrina. This is a very good litumus test, afterall. Our government won't help out own citizens. What makes you think that our leaders in a million years would spend more effort on people in Iraq? Right - they won't and don't other than a few examples that they parade in front of the U.S. media endlessly. Wartime propaganda at its finest.

Katrina was a different situation, though it came about from the same cause. We weren't prepared. And where's all this spin you're talking about? Seriously. I haven't see a news story on anything we're doing in Iraq as far as rebuilding in awhile, not unless you go to a site that's dedicated to seeking them out. Thus your rant about propaganda really doesn't hold water there.

[Ichisan]

You mean like doing nothing to acutally fix their infrastructure, schools, hospitals... The list of things that we fail to do over there is astounding. We damage people's property and they have no legal recourse. That's so simmilar to what the British did in their colonies that it's like looking at a twin in a mirror.

I don't think the situation in Iraq really compares to either Vietnam or British colonies. For one thing, the British actually built roads, railways, schools, hospitals, and, of course, a whole system of law and administration to run their colonies. You're most likely right that locals had no recourse if their property got damaged but otherwise it's totally different: the British thought they were there forever, but the Americans are there for...er, for...as long as it takes? I would guess for as long as it takes for some reasonably stable, pro-American, anti-Iranian government to be established, or until the American public can't stand it any more, whichever is soonest.

And in Vietnam, you were there until North Vietnam gave up or South Vietnam collapsed. Or alternatively until someone decided to commit the whole American army thus provoking China and Russia and kicking off WW3...

[stsparky]

mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n
...Go back and read my post pointing out what a shitty ally Israel and then explain to me why Israel is deserving 3 billion dollars a year. They're shitty allies, shitty on human rights and an apartheid state. ...

You do know Israel pays back its' loans? Their apartheid is different than South Africa for obvious reasons. And Israel has held back in the past when attacked per the request of the USA. I've lived there and every Jewish soul there loves the USA. Couldn't and wouldn't say the same about any of the others. The Egyptian refugees from Gaza were a political football used and abused by their brother Arabs for years. Those on the West Bank were considered thieves by the Jordanians. And three times within my lifetime I've seen Lebanon become a battleground due to the so-called 'Palestinians' ...

Case in point - what's happening in Lebanon now has nothing to do with Israel. And there would still be violence there even if we relocated Israel to Baja California.

[Chris]

I don't think the situation in Iraq really compares to either Vietnam or British colonies. For one thing, the British actually built roads, railways, schools, hospitals, and, of course, a whole system of law and administration to run their colonies. You're most likely right that locals had no recourse if their property got damaged but otherwise it's totally different: the British thought they were there forever, but the Americans are there for...er, for...as long as it takes? I would guess for as long as it takes for some reasonably stable, pro-American, anti-Iranian government to be established, or until the American public can't stand it any more, whichever is soonest.

And in Vietnam, you were there until North Vietnam gave up or South Vietnam collapsed. Or alternatively until someone decided to commit the whole American army thus provoking China and Russia and kicking off WW3...

Eh, you're right. I forgot that the British did build an infrastructure for their colonies. Though I still believe their governments for the colonies were less than friendly to the locals.

[japanat]

Eh, you're right. I forgot that the British did build an infrastructure for their colonies. Though I still believe their governments for the colonies were less than friendly to the locals.Perhaps the rules were harsh, true, but par for the course for at that time. They never openly tortured or killed, like you are insinuating, but the rules were different for 'the wogs'.

[Jetsetlemming]

Eh, you're right. I forgot that the British did build an infrastructure for their colonies. Though I still believe their governments for the colonies were less than friendly to the locals.
But they've been constantly building infrastructure in Iraq...

[Trump]

Hang on, are you using that as a form of justification? I'm sorry, but under that premiss, surely half of South America and most of continental Africa could use the 'Struggle for Survival' as a justification for spying on America.

How did England react to that, not how would England react to that would be have been the better question, I urge you to visit the history of Ireland if you want some relevant examples.

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick Trump, but if you would elucidate your position a bit I might not have to. Would you care to oblige?


Campion.

Justification? No, I am not justifying their actions. I am just responding to the people who keep going with "Israel did this, that, and this other crappy thing" when they have no idea what is really going on. Sure, Israel is engaged in tons of espionage (political and industrial) but if you think that is limited to just the US you are sadly mistaken. The company I work for always warns us about information protection, especially when dealing with Israeli companies. When you can prepare ahead of time for something, it is a lot easier to handle. I don't know what is going on, but if it was that serious the US would have done something about it. Now that I think about it, I'd bet Israel provides the US with a lot of intelligence too allowing the US to overlook many things.

Someone else mentioned black and white... and I definately agree this situation is shrouded in so many layers of grey I'm really not sure how anyone can feel strongly one way or the other.

[Campion]

You do know Israel pays back its' loans? Their apartheid is different than South Africa for obvious reasons. And Israel has held back in the past when attacked per the request of the USA. I've lived there and every Jewish soul there loves the USA. Couldn't and wouldn't say the same about any of the others. The Egyptian refugees from Gaza were a political football used and abused by their brother Arabs for years. Those on the West Bank were considered thieves by the Jordanians. And three times within my lifetime I've seen Lebanon become a battleground due to the so-called 'Palestinians' ...

I am sure that one of the greatest problems facing the Palestinian people is indeed that 'the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.' (Arab News - Oct, 2004 (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=53213&d=21&m=10&y=2004))

Israel does not to my knowledge pay back its American loans. That it's never defaulted on a payment is true however, but that is because they are converted in to grants prior to the first payment being due. If you have evidence to the contrary I would dearly like to see it. But for the mean time, most of my sources read like this;

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. (Dr. S. Zunes - WRMEA (http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm))

Justification? No, I am not justifying their actions. I am just responding to the people who keep going with "Israel did this, that, and this other crappy thing" when they have no idea what is really going on. Sure, Israel is engaged in tons of espionage (political and industrial) but if you think that is limited to just the US you are sadly mistaken.

Someone else mentioned black and white... and I definately agree this situation is shrouded in so many layers of grey I'm really not sure how anyone can feel strongly one way or the other.

Yes, there is an awful lot of Grey going on and Israel is I am sure spying on many parts of the world, as is my country, as is yours and I for one never suggested anything to the contrary. However if the facts are that Israel has done some 'crappy' things, why should they not be spoken of in the same manner as we speak of the crappy things the British did to maintain their dominion? Is it true that when we talk of Israel that we can only be comparing Apples and Pears do you think?



Campion.

[Chris]

Perhaps the rules were harsh, true, but par for the course for at that time. They never openly tortured or killed, like you are insinuating, but the rules were different for 'the wogs'.

Well, I don't know about killed, but if you do look at the British treatment of dissidents like Bagot Sing (yeah, I butchered that spelling) they did torture. Then again, to them, they were terrorists.

But they've been constantly building infrastructure in Iraq...

Oh yeah, I know they are.

[stsparky]

I am sure that one of the greatest problems facing the Palestinian people is indeed that 'the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.' (Arab News - Oct, 2004 (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=53213&d=21&m=10&y=2004))

Israel does not to my knowledge pay back its American loans. That it's never defaulted on a payment is true however, but that is because they are converted in to grants prior to the first payment being due. If you have evidence to the contrary I would dearly like to see it. But for the mean time, most of my sources read like this;Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. (Dr. S. Zunes - WRMEA (http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm))-Campion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Campiondvd.jpg
Are we the only two who have read Albert Campion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Campion) then?

To be blunt:
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs) is a magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.) that "focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#_note-AboutWRMEA) Critics have described it as anti-Israel.
WRMEA is biased and backed by enemies of Israel (very likely by the very folks that tossed the British out of Mesopotamia ages ago as well). Investigative journalist Lee Kaplan, writing in FrontPageMag.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPageMag.com), has claimed that "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine and Web site – indeed, the entire organization behind it – are funded by Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia). So I guess you have your answer. I know Israel pays the US back as that is the whole point of the Israel bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_bonds&redirect=no) I invest in every year. And I'll dispute there are actual 'Palestinians' - Prior to the British Mandate - the "Arab" owners were Ottomans who returned to Turkey as their empire shrank. The share cropper tenants who worked the farms there were temporary workers who'd return to Egypt where their homes were post harvest.

More later -

[manrush]

Word of advice, don't take what FrontPage Magazine writes too seriously. Some of their columnists include Ann Coulter, Fjordman (a very Islamophobic and xenophobic blogger), and Robert Spencer (of Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch fame)

[stsparky]

Maybe so - here's Lee's article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16242). Exactly how many of the 9/11 bunch came from Saudi Arabia. I've blogged about how I don't like Ann before. But even a busted clock is right twice a day.

[Decade]

^ I SO read busted cock :rofl:

I like that saying though. Keep the wisdom pouring :clap:

[stsparky]

Snippets from the blog circa last year — Sparky: Again we see the face of evil due to the crap spewing out of it's vapid blonde puppet's mouth.
http://static.flickr.com/19/162449302_ae27d56851_o.jpg
She is a bit uglier than above, and that's just the outside view ... inside she's an endless sucking void.
9/11 Widows, New York Papers, Respond to Coulter's 'Slander' (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002648990)
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/ann_coulter_card.jpg
“ ... Why do people keep giving Ann Coulter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Voter_fraud_investigation) air time? She is a horrible, putrid human being. Anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Lauer) who provides her with an outlet to spew her hate is just as guilty as her, as well just a whore for TV ratings. ...”
Brief transcript follows, and then a response from 9/11 widows.


LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?


ANN: No, of course I believe everything.

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out?

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?

COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.

LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.

COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.

LAUER: Yeah they have.

COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.

LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

COULTER: No, but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.

COULTER: Yeah, I did....That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can’t respond. It’s their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.

LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.

COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.

LAUER: No. I think it’s a dramatic statement. “These broads are millionaires stalked by stalked by grief-parazzies”? “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much”?

COULTER: Yes, they are all over the news.

LAUER: The book is called “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/kristenwidows.jpg
The five widows' statement is reprinted below (first appeared at crooksandliars.com - 9/11 Widows respond to Coulter (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8615)).

***
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings:

Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.--September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
http://kikuchiyo.blogspot.com/coulter.jpg

(I'm not really camping crooksandliars.com today - this is on our topic)
Kathy Griffin goes after Coulter (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8607)

Comedian Kathy Griffin comments on Coulter's appearance on the TODAY Show. Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/kathy4.mov)-QT (rough transcript)
Kathy: I'd like to go after Ann Coulter, I saw that nut-bag on the show earlier. What's she doing wearing a cocktail dress at seven in the morning. She got home from the party last night. Doesn't she just make stuff up Al? Who fact checks? You can't just let Ann Coulter...
I agree with Kathy, who fact checks? The media does just let her go on telelvision like she's a serious journalist. Check out her website (http://www.kathygriffin.net/). She also has a show called, " My Life on the d-List (http://www.bravotv.com/Kathy_Griffin:_My_Life_on_the_D-List/)

It's not work safe - Check this faux cover (http://www.annoy.com/covers/doc.html?DocumentID=100706) out ...
====
Anne Coulter - the 'Cher' of Evil!
" ... Howard Chaykin had a version of her in his Challengers of the Unknown book that sums up my feelings regarding this evil Zombie Queen ... "
— She was a post-op former he.
http://www.zanaducomics.com/08dcaugust04/ChallengersOfTheUnknow3-cv.jpg

PARDON AS WE RANT -
http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101050425_400.jpg
FUCKING EVIL ZOMBIE QUEEN OF THE FACIST POWER ELITE

... This inhuman so-called Paris Hilton of politics is despicable enough as it is. Is any living breathing male even intrigued for what lurking monstrosity that may substitute for her privates that is concealed under those white pantyhose of hers? WELL, IT MAY HAVE TEETH, BUB!

What was Time magazine thinking? What the hell has she accomplished other than getting herself anally satisfied by USA Today after turning in her first hate -spewed column of last summer's Democratic convention? ...
http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2005/0504/376_ncoulter0416.jpg
We Suspect She's Offering Blowjobs to Recruit Reagan Youth

~ Coat

Sparky adds: I could go into an anti-Christian rant but like there's two or three others who'll misunderstand ... and Coulter's the type who'd enjoy a 'Women in Prison' movie marathon.
http://www.cher-tickets.com/images/cher.jpg
I publicly apologise to Cher for an earlier remark re Ann Coulter. Coulter doesn't even come close to the brillance of a wonderful American like Cher. And lastly - never compare a fucked up neo nazi antiperson like Coulter to the Uzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uzi&redirect=no). That puppet head is given false celebrity so criticism is harder attach to her hate speech and fighting words.

[Chris]

heh, nice. Ann Coulter is so far right, along with a couple others (like hannity) that is downright scary sometimes.

[Jetsetlemming]

I like Ann Coulter. :box: We don't exactly see eye to eye, but I like her writing style :bwitch: I'm a fan of literature that offends the intellectual elite.

[Roxie]

Why?

WTF is up with ppl saying "elite" as if it is something to avoid? Like it's bad, something people shouldn't strive to be. Especially when combined with "intellectual", it just reminds me of the people who made fun of me b/c I read books and didn't speak AAVEE.

She offends the "intellectual elite" b/c she's incrediably idiotic and yet people keep letting her talk (in the media). She adds absolutely nothing of value and does nothing but make all Americans look like racist, homophobic, raving lunatics.

e·lite /ɪˈlit, eɪˈlit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-leet, ey-leet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.

Antonyms: common, low-class, lower-class, poor

I think I'd rather be elite any day of the week.

[Angelyne]

I've liked Ann Coulter ever since someone compared me to her in a class debate. I should have been insulted, but I found (find) it hilarious.

[ruaidhri]

Ann Coulter offers angry primarily older white selfabsorbed males and their often snobbish wives permission to ignore facts and remain comfortable in their million dollar homes.

I certainly am not suggesting that all older white males fit this mold. After all, I’m one. I’m also not suggesting that wealth alone makes a person uncaring as again I am not poor. What I am saying is that many of the people I know are closed minded and would rather listen to Ann Coulter obfuscate facts to suit their prejudices than attempt to find the truth, especially if that truth might cost them more in taxes.

But, people like Ann Coulter have always been a part of a democracy where you don’t have to speak from knowledge. In fact, it’s common to dislike, distrust and even hate people with education that try to offer advise. I remember in my youth when Adlai Stevenson ran for President against Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Republicans labeled Stevenson an egghead and won both elections with a popular but not nearly as intelligent war hero.

People are more likely to remember an outlandish statement from someone like Ann Coulter. She’s fun to listen to while people offering true facts are boring.

[Trump]

It is true, fiction is far more popular than fact. I could name at least one terribly important book that while based on many truths has enough embellishment to be considered fiction. Perhaps that is why it is so popular.

[Jetsetlemming]

Why?

WTF is up with ppl saying "elite" as if it is something to avoid? Like it's bad, something people shouldn't strive to be. Especially when combined with "intellectual", it just reminds me of the people who made fun of me b/c I read books and didn't speak AAVEE.

She offends the "intellectual elite" b/c she's incrediably idiotic and yet people keep letting her talk (in the media). She adds absolutely nothing of value and does nothing but make all Americans look like racist, homophobic, raving lunatics.





I think I'd rather be elite any day of the week.
Wrong definition of "intellectual elite". These are the elitist snobs who disdain at anything outside popular concept and thought, and despise anyone of an opposing viewpoint. People who think science is on their side and they are ultra-smart for parroting what they've been told instead of questioning pre-set knowledge and engaging in independent study. The kind of people who think that questioning global warming should be the equivalent of holocaust denial. The kind of people who look down on anyone who believe in God as simple minded retards. I'm really not a fan of your average closed minded asshole, ok? That includes those despise scientific viewpoints and want only biblical concepts taught to children, and those that believe anything their government and news source of choice tells them. Ann Coulter pisses off people that piss me off, and her style of insulting entertains me, and I like to read in general. It's a win-win deal for me. ;) At the very least, her writing is lightyears beyond Rush Limbaugh's. He's afraid to quote someone saying "bitch" for chissakes.

[stsparky]

I despise the 'muscular Christianity' s/he advocates - moreso as s/he is a coward who let others die fighting useless wars. An obvious greedhead who needs to spent time in Leavenworth with the other idiotic chickenhawks who are profiteering off the Iraq War.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Wrong definition of "intellectual elite". These are the elitist snobs who disdain at anything outside popular concept and thought, and despise anyone of an opposing viewpoint. People who think science is on their side and they are ultra-smart for parroting what they've been told instead of questioning pre-set knowledge and engaging in independent study. The kind of people who think that questioning global warming should be the equivalent of holocaust denial. The kind of people who look down on anyone who believe in God as simple minded retards. I'm really not a fan of your average closed minded asshole, ok? That includes those despise scientific viewpoints and want only biblical concepts taught to children, and those that believe anything their government and news source of choice tells them. Ann Coulter pisses off people that piss me off, and her style of insulting entertains me, and I like to read in general. It's a win-win deal for me. ;) At the very least, her writing is lightyears beyond Rush Limbaugh's. He's afraid to quote someone saying "bitch" for chissakes.

What? "Intellectual elite" isn't a synonym for "People that disagree with me."

[Jetsetlemming]

What? "Intellectual elite" isn't a synonym for "People that disagree with me."
There's a difference with "people that disagree with me" and "People that want me jailed or censored for disagreeing with them, and all concepts they disagree with stricken from any public acknowledgment". The people that get scientists kicked off boards or out of colleges and want laws against not believing in global warming scare the crap out of me. Totalitarianism through pseudo-science :duh: It's the Nazis all over again.

[Roxie]

those people aren't the intellectual elite.
They're totalitarians. They're more like Coulter than anything else.

[Jetsetlemming]

those people aren't the intellectual elite.
They're totalitarians. They're more like Coulter than anything else.
There are far more of them than there are of Coulters.
Here's one example of this kind of behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Enviromentalist#Anti-publication_pressures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#Accusations_of_scientific_disho nesty
For writing a book that disagreed with the standard dogma of global warming, Bjorn Lomborg was brought up on charges by a government organization of Denmark.
There are a number of instances like these. Systematic censorship of information that does not fit the rout beliefs.

[Roxie]

That's Denmark. This is the U.S.

[Beowulf]

For writing a book that disagreed with the standard dogma of global warming, Bjorn Lomborg was brought up on charges by a government organization of Denmark.
You're using an example from Denmark to something you've previously described as an American problem?

There are a number of instances like these. Systematic censorship of information that does not fit the rout beliefs.
Agreed, the simple fact of the matter is that there are equal numbers of these people on both sides of the fence.

Wrong definition of "intellectual elite". These are the elitist snobs who disdain at anything outside popular concept and thought, and despise anyone of an opposing viewpoint. People who think science is on their side and they are ultra-smart for parroting what they've been told instead of questioning pre-set knowledge and engaging in independent study. The kind of people who think that questioning global warming should be the equivalent of holocaust denial. The kind of people who look down on anyone who believe in God as simple minded retards. I'm really not a fan of your average closed minded asshole, ok? That includes those despise scientific viewpoints and want only biblical concepts taught to children, and those that believe anything their government and news source of choice tells them. Ann Coulter pisses off people that piss me off, and her style of insulting entertains me, and I like to read in general. It's a win-win deal for me. At the very least, her writing is lightyears beyond Rush Limbaugh's. He's afraid to quote someone saying "bitch" for chissakes.
Take a look at what you just wrote. Swap any instances of variations of the words "bible" and "science" and surprise! You just described Ann "The Man" Coulter and Rush Limbaugh...
Your description is just as applicable to ultra-conservatives as it is to ultra-liberals...

[Campion]

Are we the only two who have read Albert Campion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Campion) then?

Probably the only two old enough to have, yes.

To be blunt:
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs) is a magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.) that "focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#_note-AboutWRMEA) Critics have described it as anti-Israel.
WRMEA is biased and backed by enemies of Israel (very likely by the very folks that tossed the British out of Mesopotamia ages ago as well). Investigative journalist Lee Kaplan, writing in FrontPageMag.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPageMag.com), has claimed that "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine and Web site – indeed, the entire organization behind it – are funded by Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia). So I guess you have your answer. I know Israel pays the US back as that is the whole point of the Israel bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_bonds&redirect=no) I invest in every year.

Here is where the WRMEA got their information, it is a congressional report from the Federation of American Scientists and I will admit to being lazy in not chasing the original source from the get go. Your allegations about the political ideaology of the WRMEA may indeed carry some gravitas as they signally failed to mention that Egypt in the past has recieved similar 'loans'. However, the Congressional report does clarify that The United States has issued loans to Israel with the stipulation that the repayment is waived, it also elucidates as to why.

Loans with Repayment Waived - The United States has not canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, but the U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as loans. Following the 1973 war, President Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for Israel, including loans for which repayment would be waived. Israel preferred that the aid be in the form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program. Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2003, Israel has received more than $45 billion in waived loans. (Egypt also receives some of its U.S. military assistance in the form of loans with repayment waived. In 1990, the United States canceled $6.7 billion in past military debts that Egypt owed to the United States.) CRS - IB85066 - PDF Document (www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf)

Israel Bonds (http://www.israelbonds.com/faq.html) are different to the loans with repayment waived as far as I know. For one thing they are not issued by the American Government but by the Israeli Government and are similar to other bonds issued by governments to people throughout the world. It's an obfuscation methinks, but I will admit to not fully clarifying my statement, an error on my part which has allowed for this ambiguity to arise.





Campion.

[Jetsetlemming]

Take a look at what you just wrote. Swap any instances of variations of the words "bible" and "science" and surprise! You just described Ann "The Man" Coulter and Rush Limbaugh...
Your description is just as applicable to ultra-conservatives as it is to ultra-liberals...
Firstly, Ann Coulter can't censor jack shit of anybody else.
Secondly, because I am talking about the ulta-liberal examples of such doesn't mean I don't care about the actions of the ultra-conservatives in this manner. However, we were discussing why I enjoy reading Ann Coulter. She pisses off those censor-happy ultra-liberals. If she pissed off the censorship-happy ultra conservatives, that would be even better, but alas all she does is mildly swear on occasion in her articles. :(
Care to recommend someone as entertaining to read on the left that pisses off ultra-conservatives? The problem I've found in this category is that the liberal writers tend far too often to lean towards whiny, angry rants. There's sadly no humor to be gained from most. :( Calling someone "ultra-conservative" or some derivative just fails as an insult, really.

[manrush]

Global Warming Is Real!!! Accept It!!! Now!!! It is not dogma. Everything that's been said about global warming has been PROVEN by science!!!

But then again, you don't understand the crisis. Just put Ann Coulter down and THINK FOR YOUR SELF!!!!

I'm just sick and fucking tired of ignorant people saying that human-accelerated global warming is one big communist hoax or scaremongering, because it's FUCKING REAL. END OF STORY!!!

[Chris]

I don't think JSL ever said that global warming was fake.

And I haven't seen a whole lot of people saying global warming is entirely fake, at least not anyone who knows what they're talking about. Most of the debate seems to be how much of it has been caused by humans and whether its just gonna be "Fuck, this'll be a harsh winter compared to the last 30..." as opposed to "Damnit, now with Japan is serving as the world's largest waterpark for the next 100 years where will we get all our anime?"

[manrush]

I'm sticking by what I said

[Jetsetlemming]

I don't think JSL ever said that global warming was fake.

And I haven't seen a whole lot of people saying global warming is entirely fake, at least not anyone who knows what they're talking about. Most of the debate seems to be how much of it has been caused by humans and whether its just gonna be "Fuck, this'll be a harsh winter compared to the last 30..." as opposed to "Damnit, now with Japan is serving as the world's largest waterpark for the next 100 years where will we get all our anime?"
*nod* The world's average temp has gone up a single degree in the last one hundred years, and world history suggests that's exactly what it should be doing naturally. I'm quite doubtful of the average doomsday "The world's gonna die the day after tomorrow!" screamers, and the politicians who pander to these people with short sighted laws and policies that fuck over economies (and before anyone bitches about putting money before lives, people's lives DEPEND on profitable areas and countries to eat. No money, no food. If the US for example goes into a depression, do you think the amount of donated food and medicine to the third world from it will: a) Go up? b) Go down? c) Stay the same?)
I'm of the Michael Crichton view on Global Warming: "Hey guys, how bout we get some more information and plausible study and data before screaming our heads off that the sky is falling, eh?"
And no matter WHAT the belief or factoid the rabid angry reactions to disagreement of any kind and the censorship and the talk of outlawing dissent would scare the fuck out of me regardless.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chriton#.22Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming.22
:rofl:

[Beowulf]

Care to recommend someone as entertaining to read on the left that pisses off ultra-conservatives? The problem I've found in this category is that the liberal writers tend far too often to lean towards whiny, angry rants. There's sadly no humor to be gained from most. Calling someone "ultra-conservative" or some derivative just fails as an insult, really.
http://www.bigheadrob.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/al_franken.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/RSPOD/RS1013~Jon-Stewart-and-Stephen-Colbert-Rolling-Stone-no-1013-November-2006-Posters.jpg
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070115/070115_cohen_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
There that was easy. But you're right it's hard to find good liberal comedians when you don't actually look.
Ann "The Man" Coulter doesn't rant? I've only ever found her rants to be long-winded, bigoted, often racist, and generally offensive.
*nod* The world's average temp has gone up a single degree in the last one hundred years, and world history suggests that's exactly what it should be doing naturally. I'm quite doubtful of the average doomsday "The world's gonna die the day after tomorrow!" screamers, and the politicians who pander to these people with short sighted laws and policies that fuck over economies (and before anyone bitches about putting money before lives, people's lives DEPEND on profitable areas and countries to eat. No money, no food. If the US for example goes into a depression, do you think the amount of donated food and medicine to the third world from it will: a) Go up? b) Go down? c) Stay the same?)
I'm of the Michael Crichton view on Global Warming: "Hey guys, how bout we get some more information and plausible study and data before screaming our heads off that the sky is falling, eh?"
And no matter WHAT the belief or factoid the rabid angry reactions to disagreement of any kind and the censorship and the talk of outlawing dissent would scare the fuck out of me regardless.
I see you're a climatologist now. Congratulations. And JetSet it doesn't matter how many plausible studies, data, and what all else you require of them. They've done all the studies and they all point to human-induced global warming. The problem is that people like you say, "WE NEED MORE STUDIES!!"
A vast, huge, incredible majority (it's above 85% for gods sake) say that it's real and we're at fault. I'm not going to be one of the people who tries to pretend that I'm smarter and more knowledgeable then the vast majority of the scientific community.

To all those who say global warming isn't real (or that it's just nature), how much more proof do you need? Do you realize that the scientific community will never agree 100% one way or the other? What's the harm in preparing for the inevitable crisis that will result from global warming (human induced or not)?

[Jetsetlemming]

I can never remember that first guy's name, but I've read two books of his. Al something, I think. He focuses too much on Rush Limbaugh. He's pretty ok, but his humor delves into scatological too often for me. I hear he's running for some political office somewhere?
Have Stewart and Colbert wrote anything? >_>; I watch the Daily Show, it's good stuff. I catch Colbert's show less often, but it's almost as good.
No idea who the last guy is. His appearance suggests indie film director.

And sure, Ann Coulter rants all the time. She's a verifiable rant machine.
But she's entertaining about it. ;) At least, I find it funny.

[Roxie]

Al Franken. He's written more than one book, so get busy.

Didn't you see Jon Stewart on crossfire? The ownage was epic.

The last guy is the guy who plays Borat a.k.a. Sacha Baron Cohen

[Jetsetlemming]

Al Franken. He's written more than one book, so get busy.

Didn't you see Jon Stewart on crossfire? The ownage was epic.

The last guy is the guy who plays Borat a.k.a. Sacha Baron Cohen
Wow. o_o He looks amazingly different out of costume. >_>;
Ah, Franken. That's it. Like I've said, I've read two of his. :P
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

[RandomPasserby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Hehe, you crazy Americans eh? What will you try to invent next?

[Jetsetlemming]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Hehe, you crazy Americans eh? What will you try to invent next?
"It is not known whether this chemical has been developed further. The document also included many other off-beat ideas, such as spraying enemy troops with bee pheromones and then hiding numerous beehives in the combat area."
:rofl:
Note that this wasn't "trying to invent" the pheromone bomb. It was from a concept document thinking outside the box for alternative weapons research. There wasn't any actual study or manufactoring put into the gay bomb. AFAIK, the only human pheromone we know of is one that synchronizes female menstrual cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone#Human_pheromones
Looks like they didn't even find the menstrual cycle pheromone; just evidence of it's existence.

[manrush]

http://www.bigheadrob.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/al_franken.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/RSPOD/RS1013~Jon-Stewart-and-Stephen-Colbert-Rolling-Stone-no-1013-November-2006-Posters.jpg
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070115/070115_cohen_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
There that was easy. But you're right it's hard to find good liberal comedians when you don't actually look.
Ann "The Man" Coulter doesn't rant? I've only ever found her rants to be long-winded, bigoted, often racist, and generally offensive.

I see you're a climatologist now. Congratulations. And JetSet it doesn't matter how many plausible studies, data, and what all else you require of them. They've done all the studies and they all point to human-induced global warming. The problem is that people like you say, "WE NEED MORE STUDIES!!"
A vast, huge, incredible majority (it's above 85% for gods sake) say that it's real and we're at fault. I'm not going to be one of the people who tries to pretend that I'm smarter and more knowledgeable then the vast majority of the scientific community.

To all those who say global warming isn't real (or that it's just nature), how much more proof do you need? Do you realize that the scientific community will never agree 100% one way or the other? What's the harm in preparing for the inevitable crisis that will result from global warming (human induced or not)?


Actually, global warming is a natural phenomenon. But thanks to human activity, it came a little early. Humans are accelerating global warming rather than outright causing it.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

*nod* The world's average temp has gone up a single degree in the last one hundred years, and world history suggests that's exactly what it should be doing naturally.
A single degree can be a pretty big deal, you know.

I'm of the Michael Crichton view on Global Warming: "Hey guys, how bout we get some more information and plausible study and data before screaming our heads off that the sky is falling, eh?"
And no matter WHAT the belief or factoid the rabid angry reactions to disagreement of any kind and the censorship and the talk of outlawing dissent would scare the fuck out of me regardless.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chriton#.22Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming.22
:rofl:
There is already a slew of evidence supported by a multitude of geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, etc. Those scientists don't speak of imminent doom that you mentioned, but they recognize it could be a problem. Crichton isn't someone I'd take advice on topics such as this from.

Actually, no, forget I posted this. We've danced to this tune before, Jets.

[Roxie]

a convo

[Jetsetlemming]

I got the impression that the gay bomb WAS a sex bomb; it's just that the enemy soldiers wouldn't have anyone but guys around them. :P

[RandomPasserby]

I got the impression that the gay bomb WAS a sex bomb; it's just that the enemy soldiers wouldn't have anyone but guys around them. :P
HA! I caught you now! You said you Americans didn't even try to invent it but now you said it existed!
Anyway, wouldn't USA lose if amazon vixens attacked USA and USA would use a gay bomb?

[Jetsetlemming]

......Sure, RP. We have gaybombs. A whole battallion of bomber jets filled with them. WE'RE COMING FOR YOU OMFG HIDE UNDER YOUR BED.

[RandomPasserby]

My tinfoilhat will protect me!

[Chris]

My tinfoilhat will protect me!
It might protect you my friend, but I'm afraid you're butt is a different story in this case.

[Plekto]

Actually, if you think about this in another way, it could be a great motivator. Get the guys all worked up and then tell them they don't get to see their girlfriends/wives/etc until they kill every last enemy...

(slightly sic for the impared - lol)

[ruaidhri]

The mere concept of creating a "gay" bomb is sick. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. But, adding "gay" to describe the weapon gives it an insulting edge.

It doesn't please me that my country would seriously consider such a weapon. But then, all weapons that kill or maim people are, from my perspective, evil.

[stsparky]

The point of weaponry in war is to maim and hospitalize not kill. Killing only removes one person from war. Maiming removes the one and the medical team that cares for him. This was the logic behind the smaller caliber weapons used by the Japanese in WWII.

War is stupid and evil. That the Iraq war is enriching people is reason enough to impeach those who endorsed it. The bonus is that those who endorsed it are among those we should impeach.

As to addressing those who sponsor terrorism - it's a police matter not a global political one. The police simply need the proper tools.

[Chris]

War is stupid and evil. That the Iraq war is enriching people is reason enough to impeach those who endorsed it. The bonus is that those who endorsed it are among those we should impeach.



I agree, war is stupid and evil and is the epitome of human failure (not simply a 'last resort'). Sure, it may be needed in some cases, but if war is needed then a government has failed at its job of diplomacy.

However, while I'll admit Cheney is a bit off with his whole Haliburton connection, theres always gonna be someone who;s profiting off war.

[japanat]

The mere concept of creating a "gay" bomb is sick. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. But, adding "gay" to describe the weapon gives it an insulting edge.

It doesn't please me that my country would seriously consider such a weapon. But then, all weapons that kill or maim people are, from my perspective, evil.Don't forget that the gaybomb was an idea in a think tank dedicated to non-lethal weaponry. Idea being that the pheromone and its distractions would allow our troops to walk in and capture enemy troops without firing and without the risk of our own troops being killed.

[Trump]

And other groups have come up with ways to wipe out nothing but humans allowing troops to occupy an area with a completely in tact infrastructure without any enemy resistance. I just don't know what people are thinking when they come up with this stuff.

[stsparky]

DoD had plans for LSD bombs and then strobed lasers to blind soldiers ... as a means to win a war. Isn't that a mercy?

[RandomPasserby]

DoD had plans for LSD bombs and then strobed lasers to blind soldiers ... as a means to win a war. Isn't that a mercy?
Too bad they banned using lasers to blind. Can't remember which treaty it was.

[Roxie]

DoD had plans for LSD bombs and then strobed lasers to blind soldiers ... as a means to win a war. Isn't that a mercy?
So...Rave Army?

[Plekto]

Well, they now use directed sound. It's amazingly effective, since your ears channel information into your brain in a way that's almost impossible to block.(all you can do is lessen the effect, say, of a high-frequency sound that makes you dizzy)

We're talking about nearly 200db that can be projected something like half a mile almost like a beam. And they're experimenting with blinding light as well. They just changed their tactics a bit. Non-lethal weapons have always been a major goal.(and a good one, actually, IMO)

[japanat]

I like the sticky bomb, myself. It would basically turn small areas of the battlefield (and a smaller version could be used with a grenade launcher as well) into strips of instant flypaper.

If the infantry can't lift their arms, they can't fire their weapons. But I don't think it'd be real effective against an Abrams or a Bradley.

[stsparky]

Remember the "Hungarian Summer?" Soapy water can prevent tanks from generating traction. Kinda the opposite of the sticky bomb. There's this silicon-based lubricant that would do the trick in more arid areas.

[manrush]

Maybe it's time that the British and French step up an assume responsibility for the whole Middle East mess. It was THEIR fucking fault to begin with. Their idiotic colonialist policy is what started this shit. They basically divided the entire Middle East without paying attention to tribal and ethnic boundaries. Who upset the balance in Lebanon by favouring the Christian Maronites and pitting them against the Muslims in order to weaken potential revolts? The French. The Iraqis have a long distrust of foreigners. You know why? Because the British installed a Hashemite monarch who was born in Saudi fucking Arabia. The only reason the Brits made him the king of Iraq is because the Frenchies kicked him out of Syria. The Iraqis were sacked/conquered/ruled by foreigners before (rule by the Persians, the Mongol destruction of Baghdad, rule by the Safavids, rule by the Ottomans, rule by the British), and they sure as hell don't want to be ruled by foreigners again. Hence the insurgent attacks on American and British troops.

Don't believe me? see below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq

A blurb about the various conquerors/rulers of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq)

The British also share responsibility for transforming Iran into the fundie nation that it is today. They helped overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh, because he nationalised Iran's oil and was allegedly getting too chummy with the Soviets. The Brits, along with the CIA, overthrew Mossadegh and allowed Shah Reza Pahlavi to rule absolutely. As I'm sure most people know, the Shah abuses power, revolution breaks out, and Khomeini establishes an Islamic Republic. Then we fast-forward into the present day, where good ol' Mahmoud is threatening to build nukes and blow up Israel.

[Ichisan]

On behalf of the Brits I admit it.

[Plekto]

You'll note that officially, Brittan/the U.K. never lost a war. It's always termed as a strategic ithdrawl or some other face-saving nonsense.

So expecting them to take any responsibility... yeah, I'll bank on Japan coming clean about is record in WWII first.

[manrush]

Actually, I am insane enough to believe that Britain will apologise before Japan does. Just my opinion.

[ruaidhri]

The United States and the entire world are facing a new type of war where pitched battles are not the norm.

Yes, the U.S. has an entirely modern army that could walk over just about any other army in the world. Yes, non-lethal weapons of any sort are preferable to weapons that kill or even permanently maim. But, what happens after the major battles are won. Overrunning Iraq wasn’t a real challenge for the United States. Iraq didn’t stand a chance of winning. But, now we face an insurgency where our enemy doesn’t wear uniforms or openly carry weapons. Instead, they plant bombs along the roadside to kill and maim our troops or bombs in cars and even on their own bodies to kill and main both civilians and our troops.

Now, what’s happened in Great Britain reveals that anyone, even trusted medical doctors can be our enemy. How invisible is that? The only thing that prevented massive injuries and loss of life is luck.

We consider ourselves civilized. We care about our neighbors even when they hate us. We certainly wouldn’t want to unnecessarily kill or maim anyone especially their innocent families. But, they have no such qualms about harming us, our families, or even their fellow citizens. After all, if someone is prepared to commit suicide what respect do they have for anyone else’s life?

We’ve all heard it repeated many times that it’s just a matter of time before another massive attack is successful against the West, be it in the U.S., Europe, Australia or wherever. What would the U.S. do if a terrorist smuggled an atomic device into one of our cities? Who would we retaliate against? Heck, it’s almost been six years and we still haven’t captured Osama. All we can do is spend billions of dollars to protect ourselves by restricting the very rights and freedoms that represent our governments and cultures.

I’m 66 years old. I’ve lived through a lot of wars and a lot of fears but nothing so scary as what faces people today. We can’t win for losing. No matter what we do it’s wrong. In fact, even doing nothing is wrong.

Religion plays a gigantic role. The Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God. How can this breed so much hatred? Understand that I am not a religious person. I truly wish I could believe in a God because I do believe that faith in a God can offer individuals true comfort. But, I don’t. I don’t have faith. Maybe that’s a good thing because apparently people with faith, lots of faith, are occasionally misguided and willing and often even anxious to commit the most horrendous acts in the name of their God.

[Campion]

You'll note that officially, Brittan/the U.K. never lost a war. It's always termed as a strategic ithdrawl or some other face-saving nonsense.


Whilst Britain did indeed lose many battles, the wars we lost were termed losses, America won the War of Independence for example and Britain lost. There was no talk of Strategic Withdrawal then and none since, that's modernspeak for politicians and it's worldwide, it isn't peculiar to Britain.



Campion.

[Plekto]

I know that, but my point was that they don't say they "lost" so much as things like"We decided ti wasn't worth our time anymore"...

To expect them to ever come clean about the Middle East... yeah.. good luck with that one.

****
We consider ourselves civilized. We care about our neighbors even when they hate us. We certainly wouldn’t want to unnecessarily kill or maim anyone especially their innocent families. But, they have no such qualms about harming us, our families, or even their fellow citizens. After all, if someone is prepared to commit suicide what respect do they have for anyone else’s life?
****

But the sad truth is that our government, despite what we as citizens think, feels NONE of this towards the rest of the world. We pillage, exploit, bomb, assassinate, subvert, and destroy anyone that we find to be at odds with our plans for global economic conquest. Money is our current God, and we are also willing and often anxious to commit the most horrendous acts in the name of our God.

We are no different. That's the reality.

And as long as our government is doing things like that on our behalf, we'll always be a target. The only way to solve this in the long term is to stop doing those things and start using diplomacy.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, I certainly understand the point you’re making and much of what you say is true. The United States and the other Western Countries are not entirely innocent of creating terror both today and throughout their history.

Money is indeed our God. It directs much of what we do. I seriously doubt we would have cared about Iraq if they had not been in the Persian Gulf, with all its oil reserves. If human rights and democracy were truly guiding our actions we would have come to the aid of many of the African nations who’s citizens have suffered far worse than the Iraqis.

Our economy is capitalistic. The duty of our government is to protect both people and property. Today, property extends around the world. The question is: How far should our governments go to achieve that end? Personally, I don’t agree with preemptive attacks against sovereign nations no matter how corrupt and evil.

But, the U.S. did attack Iraq and thereby open up a can of worms. I believe far more people were harmed than helped by our actions. Did that create terror amongst the iraqi population? Yes, it did. But that was not our intent.

Our current administration and every administration following WWII were, I believe, at fault. We stuck our collective noses where they didn’t belong and created enemies we didn’t need. Today, with modern weapons and the the relative ease of delivery we have ourselves become the target.

But, we are a nation of laws. We don’t deliberately set out to harm non-combatants. Yes, many are killed and maimed but not by intent. We don’t seek to terrorize a population. We do prosecute troops that step outside the law. As a nation and as a people we do care about human rights.

Today’s terrorist seek what their name implies, to create terror amongst the populace. That means they don’t wear uniforms and they don’t attack or fight other armies. They are driven by hatred to inflict great harm against the most innocent and vulnerable. What’s especially disgusting to me is that they do this in the name of their God.

While the U.S. was the only country to ever actually employ a nuclear device against an enemy (Japan), the justification was to prevent an even greater loss of life on both sides. Now, you may argue with that conclusion but, I’m sure, at the time, it appeared entirely reasonable. The terrorists, however, would have no such justification other than to kill and main as many people as possible for the sole purpose of creating the most harm to our people and to our economy, which would take years to recover.

I asked in my previous post what the U.S. would do if attacked with a nuclear device. What would be a rational response? The first knee jerk reaction would be to strike back and strike hard. Would we find a scapegoat, a target, perhaps Iran?

Between 1934 and 1941, the United States did not employ its military forces. Since 1941, we have used our military 81 times http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html. I certainly believe a large part of our problem is that we’re the big guy on the block and we want our way and that doesn’t include the give and take of diplomacy.

As for our present situation, I did not support going to war against Iraq. But, again, we are a nation of laws. Bush is our President. Like it or not, he is the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. Short of impeachment and removal from office, the only way we can stop him is for Congress to take funding away from the military. Who would that hurt? If Bush played hardball (and I believe he would), we would witness our troops relegated to being mere pawns in a battle between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. No one would win that battle; there would only be losers, especially the American public. Oh, and let’s consider if Congress were able to impeach and remove Bush, who would replace him, Cheney? Would that be preferable?

Yes, these are indeed scary time in which we all live.

[Trump]

And as long as our government is doing things like that on our behalf, we'll always be a target. The only way to solve this in the long term is to stop doing those things and start using diplomacy.

Wow, how can you even consider using diplomacy? Let's look at what is involved in diplomacy, namely compromise. Would the US compromise? Perhaps. I'm not saying the US would just roll over but I do believe the US would at least listen to terms and decide what to do based on their goals of protecting their interests while infringing the least on other people.

But would the terrorists compromise? That is the most ridiculous thing I can think of. All they can talk about is killing people. Even if the US agreed to leave the area dropping everything they wouldn't change their stance. Terrorists would just use that opportunity to strengthen their base of operations so they could launch bigger attacks. We weren't in Iraq when the WTC was toppled, and we weren't in Afghanastan either. So what good is diplomacy to terrorists? Sure, they'll take whatever they can but they won't give up anything.

I even agree with Ruaidhri that the US is not willing to give up much, but compared to the terrorists the US would give up everything. To even think diplomacy has a chance is naive, ignorant, and just plain stupid. Just look at Palestine and you can see how well it works.

[Plekto]

Yet, look at it from their point of view. Imagine if we had a foreign country take over us. In the movie Red Dawn, guess what - they glorified the same tactics as patriotic that we denounce as being "terrorist" currently.

**
So what good is diplomacy to terrorists? Sure, they'll take whatever they can but they won't give up anything.
**

They could say "So what good is diplomacy with the U.S.?" "The U.S. takes whatever they can and don't give up anything in return.". The reality is that our leaders are just as inflexible and would rather stomp on your neck with their boots than give up a single penny of profits.

Human nature is pretty simple here. If nobody's kicking you in the face, 99.999% of people will just as soon go about their day to day lives. If we leave, guess what - they DO stop hating us and trying to do us in. Vietnam is a perfect example. It took nearly thirty years but they are now talking to us again.

In the end, when the bombs have all dropped and the place is a smoking ruin, diplomacy is all that is left. It's just a lot smarter to realize that before it gets to that point. But our leaders are quite honestly some of the dumbest people that their generation has turned out. They'll grind and grind and grind until there is a general revolt by the soldiers and public and they get voted out of office(Vietnam for example). THEN they'll talk diplomacy.

Too bad by then the people we are stomping on will have the means to do real damage to us.(which is the real reason diplomacy has to be used. Eventually they will have nukes and that's a big equalizer) This would be like beating the crap out of your 90lb weakling neighbor every weekend despite the fact that you know he is working on building a flamethrower in his garage. Eventually he'll get it working and then you both lose.

[Campion]

I know that, but my point was that they don't say they "lost" so much as things like"We decided ti wasn't worth our time anymore"...

To expect them to ever come clean about the Middle East... yeah.. good luck with that one.

Sorry Plekto but in Great Britain academia has never been reflective of the state. Even a cursory look through British military history will accurately detail our wins, losses and the atrocities we committed to maintain the British empire. The most qualified contemporary view is Lawrence James' The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'. If you read it you will find it surprisingly unbiased and you will certainly not find the words 'we decided it wasn't worth our time anymore' or any other such rhetorical obfuscation.

As for coming clean about the Middle East, our historians (and once more, particularly our military historians) have been remarkably frank and honest about our hand in the creation of the borders in the Middle East (and I don't understand how anyone could deny such a well known piece of history), God the most active agitator against the Franco-British plans was Lawrence of Arabia, who wrote myriad letters (and even drew a map) detailing how the political elite were wrong, this is just common knowledge.

Look in a history book on the Middle East and check out how many years Britain has been at war with, or occupying the country of Iraq, it's about fifty of the last one hundred years, this is pretty well detailed in any number of history books pertaining to the empire in that region of the world.

It doesn't take much more than a cursory glance at the history section in your local library to find any of this information, so I fail to understand where this impression you have of the British Empire 'not coming clean' has come from. What do you want us as a nation to do, shout it from the rooftops for people who are too disinclined to go to a library?

Sure we were the biggest bully on the block, by a country mile, and for a very long time. But that doesn't mean that the details of what Britain has done historically isn't actually rendered quite faithfully many times over.



Campion.

[雨]

Awesomely put, Campion.

[Chris]

Yet, look at it from their point of view. Imagine if we had a foreign country take over us. In the movie Red Dawn, guess what - they glorified the same tactics as patriotic that we denounce as being "terrorist" currently.

Pretty rash comparison, I don't remember the kids in that movie attacking their own to piss of the Russians/Cubans.



Human nature is pretty simple here. If nobody's kicking you in the face, 99.999% of people will just as soon go about their day to day lives. If we leave, guess what - they DO stop hating us and trying to do us in. Vietnam is a perfect example. It took nearly thirty years but they are now talking to us again.


Yes, but on the other hand, consider our occupation of Japan and Germany. I don't recall any major insurgencies, and we still maintain somewhat of a presence, though its for other reasons than watching over said countries, obviously. However we've proven that you can rebuild or at least help a country after invading it and have it work. By no means am I implying that this should be a regular tactic, or that we didn't completely botch this in Iraq, but at the same time I don't believe its impossible, then or now.

In the end, when the bombs have all dropped and the place is a smoking ruin, diplomacy is all that is left. It's just a lot smarter to realize that before it gets to that point. But our leaders are quite honestly some of the dumbest people that their generation has turned out. They'll grind and grind and grind until there is a general revolt by the soldiers and public and they get voted out of office(Vietnam for example). THEN they'll talk diplomacy.



I wouldn't call our leaders stupid, Bushmay appear that way, but from what I've heard if you look into his older election runs in Texas (the ones he lost) he was pretty articulate.



Too bad by then the people we are stomping on will have the means to do real damage to us.(which is the real reason diplomacy has to be used. Eventually they will have nukes and that's a big equalizer) This would be like beating the crap out of your 90lb weakling neighbor every weekend despite the fact that you know he is working on building a flamethrower in his garage. Eventually he'll get it working and then you both lose.


I think diplomacy should be used, but to be diplomatic to a terrorist group is pretty complicated. Few of them will actually try and compromise. Diplomacy to nations to prevent ill will and eventual terrorism, sure, but you can't always predict the future.

One also has to find a way to stop said groups from using their weapons if they can acquire them. If they see any gain in it, they'll use it regardless of how nice you've been if theres been any percieved harm done to their people according to their beliefs in the past. Sometimes even if there has been no logical harm done. They're just like countries.

[manrush]

Sorry Plekto but in Great Britain academia has never been reflective of the state. Even a cursory look through British military history will accurately detail our wins, losses and the atrocities we committed to maintain the British empire. The most qualified contemporary view is Lawrence James' The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'. If you read it you will find it surprisingly unbiased and you will certainly not find the words 'we decided it wasn't worth our time anymore' or any other such rhetorical obfuscation.

As for coming clean about the Middle East, our historians (and once more, particularly our military historians) have been remarkably frank and honest about our hand in the creation of the borders in the Middle East (and I don't understand how anyone could deny such a well known piece of history), God the most active agitator against the Franco-British plans was Lawrence of Arabia, who wrote myriad letters (and even drew a map) detailing how the political elite were wrong, this is just common knowledge.

Look in a history book on the Middle East and check out how many years Britain has been at war with, or occupying the country of Iraq, it's about fifty of the last one hundred years, this is pretty well detailed in any number of history books pertaining to the empire in that region of the world.

It doesn't take much more than a cursory glance at the history section in your local library to find any of this information, so I fail to understand where this impression you have of the British Empire 'not coming clean' has come from. What do you want us as a nation to do, shout it from the rooftops for people who are too disinclined to go to a library?

Sure we were the biggest bully on the block, by a country mile, and for a very long time. But that doesn't mean that the details of what Britain has done historically isn't actually rendered quite faithfully many times over.



Campion.


Excellent rebuttal, good sir.

[Plekto]

Good rebuttal. But my point wasn't what academia thinks, which is pretty good and accurate, but what the *politicians* actually will do. There seems to be a vast chasm between the two, just like we see in Japan over their past.

Most Japanese can easily find out about or know about their past. But to get an apology from their government? Yeah - I'd expect Bush to turn himself in for war crimes first.

And our current leaders ARE complete morons. When our generals are resigning and saying that our leaders are flat out wrong... You know it's very close to the truth. We needed 700-800K troops. Maybe a million. They sent in 250K and we got mired in a no-win situation. They gave us unarmored vehicles. They don't have a clue how to rebuild... the list goes on and on. Not that the U.S. doesn't have thousands of briliant people who have offered their advice, either. They just aren't listening. That's a true sign of being stupid as a leader.

[manrush]

I wonder if Bush is gonna pull a Chretien and catch the next train out while leaving his successor with a bit of a mess to clean up.

[manrush]

I wonder if the next president can sort out this Iraq mess. But looking at the candidates, that hope diminishes every day. I know it sounds cynical, but it is about time that Iran invade Iraq. At least the warring parties will stop killing each other and unite to drive away the invader. Because, judging by their history, Iraqis do not like invaders. And the fact that a Farsi-speaking nation would be invading them for a THIRD time will give them an incentive to unite.

[stsparky]

The thing is we Americans don't really care about what the rest of the world thinks. We're too paranoid the moderate Arab Islamists that Bush freaked out are being radicalized. And more and more - we lack the diplomats we need. We only have unskilled lackeys ...

[Campion]

Good rebuttal. But my point wasn't what academia thinks, which is pretty good and accurate, but what the *politicians* actually will do. There seems to be a vast chasm between the two, just like we see in Japan over their past.

Most Japanese can easily find out about or know about their past. But to get an apology from their government? Yeah - I'd expect Bush to turn himself in for war crimes first.


I find it remarkable that anyone can think that an apology would spew forth from the lips of a politician elected to represent the people. Can you imagine George Bush apologising for the deaths in Vietnam? The idea is risible and it is equally risible when applied to other nations historically, there are far too many people with a vote who will eviscerate any politician who stands up and argues that what the voters forefathers stood for is now considered morally wrong.

They're elected to represent the interests of the people, not to sit in judgement of them. That is what our historians do and British historians have done it pretty well. Winston Churchill once said that “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”, he was wrong. Our historians never forgot what he did to Ireland (for one), and as a result neither did we.


Campion.

[Beowulf]

Diplomacy works very well on terrorists. Terrorists do what they do to prove a point or to make themselves heard. When one or both of those conditions are met they have no reason to continue. They don't kill because they enjoy it, they kill because they feel that they have no other option available to them.

Since I know folks are gonna cry foul over this allow me to say this.

Ireland.

Look at how Ireland handled their terrorist problems. The Irish Republican Army was almost as bad as most major terrorist groups today, perhaps only limited by their older technology. How did they solve the problem of this terrorist group? They listened to them, and made them a political party. Now that they were part of the legislative process and could introduce their ideas into the public thought, they could legally push for the ideals they held. Now any wannabe IRA terrorists are quickly rounded up and stopped short due to their lack of training, funds, and support that they would have received once upon a time. Ireland shows that diplomacy works, and works well.

[manrush]

Yes, but the Salafists that make up Al-Queda are much different from the Marxist-Leninist nationalists that made up the IRA. Al-Queda is too blinded by its own ideals. They see us as an enemy and would never negotiate with us, lest they be exposed for the cowards and hypocrites that they are.

[Plekto]

Fine, then go after Al Queda.

To date we've not done a thing about them, not really. We lob some bombs at some hills in Afganistan and say we're taking care of it. That's about it, really.

When we use this as an excuse to create a state of perpetual war and to act like imperialists... We're just creating more of them.

[andrewt]

didn't think i'd bother, but oh well.
Take a look here - I think Tony Blair states the case for the current political situation quite well:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10244816

[Chris]

Fine, then go after Al Queda.

To date we've not done a thing about them, not really. We lob some bombs at some hills in Afganistan and say we're taking care of it. That's about it, really.

When we use this as an excuse to create a state of perpetual war and to act like imperialists... We're just creating more of them.



We tore Al Queda up in Afghanistan pretty badly. We did more than just drop bombs. Oversimplifications such as that have no place in a debate.


Diplomacy works very well on terrorists. Terrorists do what they do to prove a point or to make themselves heard. When one or both of those conditions are met they have no reason to continue. They don't kill because they enjoy it, they kill because they feel that they have no other option available to them.

Yes, but look at how some of these groups are going about making their point?

We've made efforts to give the Iraqi's power, yet a good deal of them are also putting a large amount of resources into killing Iraqis of other sects due to the bad blood that was created in the Saddam era and before. The average Iraqi has an opportunity to have some involvement in the community, if nothing else make themselves heard. They don't have to resort to car bombs, and a majority of them know this.

Granted, the process in Ireland also took decades before a peace was finally concrete (2005, when the majority of the PIRA finally agreed to disarm?). Iraq will be no different.




I wonder if the next president can sort out this Iraq mess. But looking at the candidates, that hope diminishes every day. I know it sounds cynical, but it is about time that Iran invade Iraq. At least the warring parties will stop killing each other and unite to drive away the invader. Because, judging by their history, Iraqis do not like invaders. And the fact that a Farsi-speaking nation would be invading them for a THIRD time will give them an incentive to unite.


They'd unite, and then we'd have a much larger war on our hands. If you think an insurgency is bad, another Iran-Iraq war, especially now would be a huge bloody mess that I don't even want to think about.

[Trump]

Pletko, how would you suggest we go about this diplomatic effort? Should we just leave and say "OK, we've left, feel free to keep killing yourselves" as another Sadam takes control? Yeah, because that makes the situation so much better. Should we sit there, put down our guns, and let them shoot us with them? Give me a freakin break!

No, what we need to do is take all of the little children by the scruff of their neck and force them to sit at a table to work things out. Then since there are people who think that is cowardly and that talking things out with the enemy is worthy of the death penalty we protect those who are willing to make the diplomatic attempt. Funny how diplomacy takes force to make it work... Pletko, you have such an idealistic view that you just don't understand how the world works.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I truly enjoy reading your posts. You are one of my favorites. We agree on most issues. I take it you are truly frustrated with our leaders and with human nature in general. You are correct. That is the way the world works.

Iraq. What to do or, more appropriately, what can we do that will have any real positive benefits? Maybe your solution would work (I believe it would) but, you know, it won't happen. So, short of that, what do we do?

I remember Vietnam. The arguments for continuing the fight were the same as we now hear for Iraq. But, we left and the world didn't implode.

True, with Iraq, we have a big investment in both money and more importantly in the many lost lives of our young men and women in uniform. I believe we do want to help the Iraqi people. But, I seriously doubt that the solution is to sacrifice yet more American. alliance and Iraqi lives in a situation where even if all sides did get together and talk and come to a agreement the fight would continue because all it would take is one person not accepting the compromise to plant a bomb in a car or on him or herself and we'd be back at square one.

Yes, Pletko is an idealist. We need people like him to help us sort out the truth. I'm not saying I agree with everything Pletko writes. But, he's not stupid and his heart is usually in the right place. If he's confused by the world today it's no more than I am confused.

edited for spelling

[Trump]

Sadly, I also know it will never happen because no politician has the chutzpah to do what needs to be done. I was fairly surprised Bush started the war in the first place because I thought he would be too afraid of losing political support to make any kind of move like that. While I may disagree with many of his ideas and policies I do somewhat admire that about him.

I do wish we could all be idealists. Wouldn't the world be so peaceful? Though with such absolute black and whites it wouldn't be as interesting a place to be. I'm all for absolutes, but only so you know what the extremes are and can choose some middle ground. Middle ground is where everything really is.

[stsparky]

Bush remains an idiot IMO. He attacked the wrong country. None I know had any problem with the invasion of Afghanistan freeing that country (for a while) from the Taliban hyprocrites.

Iraq was already vanquished, and his "coalition of the unwilling" simply made that country the poster boy for recruiting new Anti-West homicide bombers and wannabe terrorists. Now, Iran was a worthy target that somehow Bush and his puppetmasters missed. I know the 5 bases we put in Iraq are supposedly a deterrent - but we actually needed to stop them before they announced they had a secret nuke bomb plant. It would have been great to have taken them down before they triggered the destruction of Lebanon.
Odd aside (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/3gpp/) that I felt brillant:
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/3gpp/images/3gevolution_121703.gif
“... The GSM vs CDMA War (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q3.07/A7AE855A-5350-4CFE-A83B-19658178BC79.html).
European mobile phone hardware giants Nokia and Ericsson back the GSM standard, while Qualcomm has worked to push its CDMA technology in the US, Asia, and in Central and South America. ... In 2003, California Congressman Darrell Issa famously tried to advance Qualcomm’s interests by pushing a bill that would have rebuilt Iraq using CDMA, making it an incompatible island in a Middle Eastern sea of GSM users. ... Issa represented specific American financial interests by associating GSM with France at the height of Freedom Fry hysteria, but even Motorola advised that Iraq would be best rebuilt using GSM. ... Issa didn’t succeed with his bill, but the war between Qualcomm’s CDMA and GSM over mobile networks continues throughout the world, with reinforcements being delivered on each side at regular intervals....”end aside

So ... shame we can not quite deputize China to pacify Iran by offering them supervision of their oil fields. We need to think beyond the bounds of diplomacy.

[Plekto]

Pletko, how would you suggest we go about this diplomatic effort? Should we just leave and say "OK, we've left, feel free to keep killing yourselves" as another Sadam takes control? Yeah, because that makes the situation so much better. Should we sit there, put down our guns, and let them shoot us with them? Give me a freakin break!

Well, the situation in Iraq is essentially a civil war, so there's no way to resolve it. In any case, the U.S. method of doing things for the last half century has been to do exactly that - install another Sadam type dictator who we feel that we can control. Democracy is the last thing that ever happens anymore, because most of the time they vote to take back their oil and resources if they are allowed to. So we go with a puppet dictator who always turns on us.

What we need to do is to leave, put down our guns, and let them shoot each other. Deny them a target until they manage to at least work their internal conflict out amongst themselves. Then we can talk.

I find it mildly amusing that you think I'm an idealist, because most of the time, I'm more pessimistic. I think that while all of the above that I wrote would be good, it will never happen. Greed, hubris, and arrogance are the hallmarks of our government. And unfortunately, it will take a major economic collapse, being nuked, or the people revolting to make one iota of change at this point.

Yes, I'd love to see it happen... Not going to, anymore than it did with the Romans.(nice parallel, btw - only when the Huns came knocking their doors down did they even think that they were anything but invincible.)

[Trump]

You were being terribly idealistic about this topic. That is all. I understand about other things you have different view points.

Regardless... I disagree that the US thinks it is invincible. I feel it is quite the contrary. Why would the US work so hard to maintain a military if it was invulnerable to attack? Why would the politicians work so hard maintaining alliances in both the political and economic realms? No, I believe the government recognizes many of the problems the country is facing. Unfortunately, they are divided about how to resolve the problems and they are also so afraid of losing political face they won't act, so nothing ever gets done. And in that political arena, a tough front is imperative so I can understand why you might think that way.

[ruaidhri]

There never is an easy answer. On issues like Iraq, I believe, no side is totally wrong or right. Sometimes I can’t even decide which is which. So all I have left is my opinion, which is always subject to change. So here it is...

I was always opposed to invading Iraq. I believed that a prolonged occupation of any mid-eastern country would be counter-productive in our battle against terrorism. I feared it would smack too much of colonialism for a basically Christian country to occupy land in the Persian Gulf.

But, then we did invade with what was later discovered to be faulty intelligence. Now, we were there and we couldn’t just leave and let whatever happen, especially an oppressive Shiite regime aligned with Iran. At first, although I believed we should never have entered Iraq, I feared than a quick exit would be more dangerous as it might create the spark that set the whole Persian Gulf aflame. I realized that while the Sunni Muslims are the minority in Iraq, worldwide, and overall in the Mid East, they are definitely in the majority. If a new Shiite regime oppressed the Sunnis, the whole Persian Gulf could go up in flames. That would not be good for our economies considering the Persian Gulf countries supply much of worlds oil. So, we proclaimed our objective was to install and protect a democratically elected government (friendly, of course, to the Western Countries) that represented all the people of Iraq.

Well, it hasn’t worked. I don’t believe Iraq is ready for a democratically elected representative government. I don’t believe the people are ready to share power with the neighbors they consider their avowed enemies. I do believe we are witnessing a Civil War with three adversaries, the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. The Kurds add another threat to the area in that if they were to carve their own country out of Iraq, I fear Turkey would enter the fray.

So do we leave or do we Stay? If we leave, we could witness a conflagration that would be nothing short of Armageddon, although I question which side would be good. If we stay, I believe, we would continue to lose coalition troops and spend untold billions (needed at home) on a battle that can’t be won, only superficially contained. At the same time, I believe many Muslims associate us with the hated Christian Crusaders and support whatever opposition including Al-Qaeda, which poses an ever increasing threat of attack against America and other Western Countries.

So, no matter what we do, we’re fucked!

What shocks me is that considering Iraq’s history, how could we be surprised that many of it citizens would never accept a democratically elected government’s authority? Armed militias loyal to radical religious leader quickly formed. Roadside bombs and suicide bombers replaced pitched battles between armies. Iraq, is not, I believe, a country currently suited to being ruled by a democratic government.

I agree with Pletko, diplomacy is the best answer. Sometimes when you push people into a corner and they feel powerless against superior forces they come out fighting without regard for reason or their own safety and security. All that drives them is hate and a strong desire to bring pain to the adversary. Diplomacy would at least give them a voice an an opportunity outside of sacrificing their lives. Of course it won’t stop everyone from hating and killing but it would, I believe, have a better chance than continued military intervention. It would, I hope, reduce the number of terrorists. What we’re doing now certainly isn’t working.

Yes, it’s hard to give up the fight and to acknowledge that we can’t force our way of life on another culture unwilling to change. A considerable number of coalition and Iraqi lives have already been lost. Would staying give meaning to those lost lives? Would leaving say they died for nothing? For me, the answer is no to both questions. Those that died or were injured were representing their country and their people in the best way they could. They deserve all respect and honor.

Ultimately, we will leave Iraq. We will do it sooner rather than later. Congressional leaders from President Bush’s own Republican Party are deserting his side. They realize they won’t represent anyone if they are not reelected. Their votes together with the Congressional Democrats will bring the troops back home.

Then, diplomacy will be our only sane option.

[stsparky]

I think we need to take a 'Bond Villain' mindset to Iraq.

Give them a firm deadline - retreat and protect the Kurds who have been pretty staunch allies, retreat and defend the needy Kuwaitis, and establish bases in Jordan on the border near to Syria.

Inform Iraq's lackluster government in Bagdad that they are sitting on several clusters of neutron bombs hidden throughout the city; (though this need not be true - just appear so); and that the only way to prevent their use is to stop their civil war.

[ruaidhri]

stsparky. I don't believe anyone (in power) in Iraq has the authority or power to comply with any "deadline". The Kurds have always wanted their own country Kurdistan, which encompasses portions of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Turkey, especially, would object if we supported the Kurds. I doubt we would want to jeopardize our alliance with Turkey.

I haven't heard reference to "neutron" bombs for quite awhile. Supposedly, they are bombs that don't damage property but kill all living things within their range. You suggest we should plant several clusters of neutron bombs hidden throughout the city; (though this need not be true - just appear so); and that the only way to prevent their use is to stop their civil war.

Do you believe that would be effective? I don't! First, even if we had such "neutron" bombs the idea that they would leave all property for us or someone else to claim would only inflame sentiments. Second, there are radicals that would like nothing better than for the West to actually use such a weapon. Al-Qaeda wouldn't have thousands of recruits, they'd have millions. Which brings to mind the old warning not to threaten unless you're willing to carry through on that threat. We aren't and we wouldn't.

As I wrote their is no easy answer. No matter what we do, we're fucked.

The only think that might help is talking instead of shooting. That is the basis for diplomacy.

[Chris]

Then, diplomacy will be our only sane option.

Diplomacy is always the only sane option. Unfortunately, when humans fail, diplomacy fails, and wars are started.

This isn't to say that war isn't always avoidable, in any situation there comes a point where one decision or set of decisions causes an effect that makes war the only truly viable option when considering the safety of ones country. But that doesn't make it any less of a failure on the part of our politicians and diplomats, and in a way, us countrymen.

So do we leave or do we Stay? If we leave, we could witness a conflagration that would be nothing short of Armageddon, although I question which side would be good. If we stay, I believe, we would continue to lose coalition troops and spend untold billions (needed at home) on a battle that can’t be won, only superficially contained. At the same time, I believe many Muslims associate us with the hated Christian Crusaders and support whatever opposition including Al-Qaeda, which poses an ever increasing threat of attack against America and other Western Countries.

In this way, I think its like Bosnia. It's gonna take time for the Iraqis to figure out that blowing one another up isn't always the best option. The option of staying is viable, I'm afriad if we leave we, or someone else would have to go back and treat the situation like Bosnia.

[Beowulf]

Diplomacy is always the only sane option. Unfortunately, when humans fail, diplomacy fails, and wars are started.

This isn't to say that war isn't always avoidable, in any situation there comes a point where one decision or set of decisions causes an effect that makes war the only truly viable option when considering the safety of ones country. But that doesn't make it any less of a failure on the part of our politicians and diplomats, and in a way, us countrymen.
What the hell are you talking about? Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of our country and we had no real reason for going there. And don't give me any of that "Saddam was a bad guy!" bullshit. Yes he was a bad guy, but compared to the other bad guys currently ruling in other countries Saddam was a damn kitten. And also don't bother posting up things that Saddam allegedly did, I've heard them all, yes they are terrible, and yes I can post worse things from the genocides in Africa.

[Plekto]

So do we leave or do we Stay? If we leave, we could witness a conflagration that would be nothing short of Armageddon, although I question which side would be good.

Not really, though. I will be similar to Lebanon(bad but somewhat survivable). Years of warfare and lots of people dying, but in the end, they make their own future. Then we can start to negotiate.

Keeping Iran from interfering is easy by comparison as they still are willing to use politics. In fact, they've been practically begging to talk with us lately. The same is true for Turkey.

[manrush]

Ah, Turkey. Almost forgot that country has its own issues, that if not worked out, would not make a good birthday present for MidEast peace. Time for another boring lesson on current history, courtesy of your truly.

Recently, there has been a rise of nationalism in Turkey. This is a country known for its staunch secularism. The army, which considers itself the vanguard of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's secular republic, staged coups against any leader that it perceived to be a threat to that legacy. The latest coup was in 1997, against then-prime minister Necmettin Erbakan. They accused Erbakan, and his mildly Islamist party, the Milli Selâmet Partisi (National Salvation Party), of trying to turn Turkey into an Islamist country. At that time, Erbakan was the boss of the current PM, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In 2002, Erdoğan's newly-formed party, the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party), won the parliamentary elections. Abdullah Gül became prime minister. And in 2003, Erdoğan replaced him as prime minister.

A little something about Erbakan, Erdogan and Gul here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erbakan), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan), and here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_G%C3%BCl)

As you know, the whole EU clusterfuck began. The EU made demands on Turkey to make its human rights record better as an incentive for membership. Of course, there were some EU members, like Austria and Germany, who did not want Turkey in the EU even if it did everything that the EU demanded. Meanwhile, back in the land of Atatürk, nationalism was growing. The secularist generals hated how Erdoğan's government had plans to legalise the hijab and their recognition of the Kurdish language. These generals felt that this was destroying Turkey's national unity and secularism.

Turkey starts to backtrack on its reforms. A bill criminalising adultery was passed and only repealed because of outcry from the EU. Two Turks became victims of political persecution. One was Orhan Pamuk, a famous novelist and Nobel laureate, who had made a statement about Turkey's role in the massacres of Kurds and Armenians. Charges of "insulting Turkishness" were brought against him. The other paid for his views with his life. Hrant Dink, a Turk of Armenian ancestry and an editor of an Armenian-language newspaper, was an outspoken critic of Turkey's denial of the genocide comitted by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people. In 2007, Dink was killed by a young man by the name of Ogün Samast, who was from a province known for being a hotbed of ultranationalism. Dink's crime? He insulted "Turkishness" Dink death was mourned, with many Istanbulers declaring that they were all "Armenians." His death led to moves to change the "insulting Turkishness" law.
Here is a little on Orhan Pamuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamuk) and here is a little on Hrant Dink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink)

[stsparky]

Sparky ... No matter what we do, we're fucked. ... The only think that might help is talking instead of shooting. That is the basis for diplomacy.

Ah, I didn't say the USA should be the Bond Villain but think like one. It should be a ploy done without our military but by our so-called 'Intelligence' chaps. Done by people that they can't trace back to us. Perhaps they should be identified as Iranians or Syrians for this to work best. Saddan did try to warn his 'people' about the Persians.

So pretend for a moment we can pull off creating a mock Iranian T.H.R.U.S.H. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_from_uncle) (Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity), and that it's goal is to embarrass us so we leave in shame. We retreat to spare the lives of innocents. Pressure is put on the Iraqi civil government. And we can allow them the show of destroying the pretend bombs.

I clearly have no desire to see real bombs in play - but want to make it appear the Iranians are being very nasty.

[Chris]

What the hell are you talking about? Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of our country and we had no real reason for going there. And don't give me any of that "Saddam was a bad guy!" bullshit. Yes he was a bad guy, but compared to the other bad guys currently ruling in other countries Saddam was a damn kitten. And also don't bother posting up things that Saddam allegedly did, I've heard them all, yes they are terrible, and yes I can post worse things from the genocides in Africa.

What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't referring to Iraq, I was referring to any and all situations where a war has or will result. Iraq was failed diplomacy (and strategy) on our part. There were much better ways to go about it than invade. And as you said, we didn't really need to invade, he wasn't the threat that the Bush administration perceived or told us that they were.

To be honest, I agree with you on most of that, I just don't believe we should back out now.

[Jetsetlemming]

Food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy - President of France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel - Chancellor of Germany
Both Germany and France have elected pro-American non-liberal politicians to their head recently (Sarkozy in May, Merkel in November 2005).
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_harper - Prime Minister of Canada, elected January 2006. Another pro-US politician replacing a liberal one.

[Trump]

Recent news...

Perhaps we shouldn't leave yet...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iraq.html?hp

[Campion]

You won't be leaving Iraq for a while regardless and nor will we, not while the rebuilding of infrastructure in Iraq is still a goldmine for American and English trans-nationals.

Of course how many more no-bid contracts Halliburton will win since they threatened to move their headquarters to Qatar remains to be seen.. But Dick Cheney is still making most of those decisions and he is unlikely to leave that particular company out in the cold.

What with the cost of electioneering, all politicians these days need a large corporate pot of gold to win, so my guess is your senate will breast-beat the issue until the corporates pull some strings and then the fuss will die down. You might not keep your seat in congress if people vote against you, but if you play ball you'll win a cushy position on some board if you lose and you'll get nothing if you don't, in fact you may not even be able to afford to compete in the elections next time around (You would essentially be a bad investment). Same thing applies for our political process here and I would wager much of the whole world.

For that reason I simply don't see the troops coming home anytime soon.


Campion.

[ruaidhri]

Will it cause problems if we leave Iraq? Yes!

Will it cause problems if we stay in Iraq? Yes!

So, as I wrote before, we're fucked no matter what we do.

I have no doubt that we will leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Most Americans today don't really care what's happening to Iraq as much as what's happening to our troops and the cost associated with staying. That's real and that's immediately measurable.

Could there be a regional war if we left? Absolutely!

Would that be bad for all the oil consuming countries? Definitely!

But, ask any American if they support keeping our troops in Iraq for the next 10 plus years to prevent the possibility (no matter how great) of a regional war and you would, I believe, get a resounding "No!" as your answer.

We will leave and it will be very soon. Hopefully, reasonable Muslim nations will fill the void because a regional war would be very dangerous to both their security and their finances.

Actually, I don't believe, we, a Western, Christian, nation ever could bring peace to Iraq. As long as we're there the problems would continue. I believe only other Muslim nations have any possibility of convincing the warring parties to end hostilities. That won't happen as long as we occupy Iraq.

[Campion]

I have no doubt that we will leave Iraq sooner rather than later.
Would that be bad for all the oil consuming countries? Definitely!

We will leave and it will be very soon. Hopefully, reasonable Muslim nations will fill the void because a regional war would be very dangerous to both their security and their finances.


I actually do agree with the majority of what you say Ruaidhri, the only thing causing me a modicum of concern being that which I have quoted above. If we leave Iraq it will not in my opinion be bad for oil consuming countries, it will be devastating; oil prices will launch further skywards and if the government doesn't do something to control the prices they may very well have protests on American soil. I would wager that it would be more politically damaging to have protests at home than a war overseas.

Yes, most industrialised countries, including America have oil reserves, but these are finite and if we walk away from the Middle East with the conflict unresolved we could well see them depleting quite quickly.

What moderate Middle Eastern countries do you expect to fill the void? the Saudi Arabian royal family already have a difficult juggling act to do to remain in power, Kuwait is tiny militarily and Syria and Iran may have ideas that don't quite correspond to ours.

This is I admit, mere postulation on my part and I would be very happy to be wrong in this instance.


Campion.

[stsparky]

Campion?

It can't be Turkey or Egypt as they're clear allies though maybe they'd be acceptable power brokers. I think Morocco, Indonesia, and several former Moslem Soviet satellites would be acceptable as a balance to the coalition of the (un)willing Bush the Crusader balckmailed together.

I've always wanted China to busy itself playing World Policeman on their western borders.

[manrush]

On whose side will Indonesia and the Central Asian countries be? Unless they would form a new Nonaligned movement.

[Chris]

On whose side will Indonesia and the Central Asian countries be? Unless they would form a new Nonaligned movement.

Probably the side that ensures them that the oil flow is resumed quickly.

Actually, I don't believe, we, a Western, Christian, nation ever could bring peace to Iraq. As long as we're there the problems would continue. I believe only other Muslim nations have any possibility of convincing the warring parties to end hostilities. That won't happen as long as we occupy Iraq. that be bad for all the oil consuming countries? Definitely!

I think we could, partially because a good majority of the other Muslim countries don't like Iraq all that much. Iraq was seen as a pretty big bully when Saddam was still in power. I think that other Muslim countries can definantly help us out, they can push the peace process along just like we can't, but I'd rather we have some say in it to help balance it out between Iraq's interests, our interests, and the rest of the Middle East's interests.


After Iraq, I also I think we need to just stay the hell out of the Middle East. That's a large part of why they're so ticked at the west. Because in their view we're in their lands, whatever reason we think we're there for, good or bad, to them its occupation.

[Campion]

Campion?

It can't be Turkey or Egypt as they're clear allies though maybe they'd be acceptable power brokers. I think Morocco, Indonesia, and several former Moslem Soviet satellites would be acceptable as a balance to the coalition of the willing Bush the Crusader.

I've always wanted China to busy itself playing World Policeman on their western borders.

Good point Santos, China would be a massive political and military ally if we could convince both their leaders of the benefits and our own populations that communism is now nothing we should fear (and perhaps convincing our corporations not to worry about the implications of Sinopec suddenly appearing in Iraq).

I'm more concerned about the economic implications of further inflaming the Middle East than I am of the military implications, I admit I haven't done enough research on the subject but I don't think we can afford to upset too many applecarts in oil producing nations at the moment without it having a severe affect on oil distribution and prices.

Again, I'm happy to be wrong, and I will admit that at best this position is merely speculation on my part.


Campion.

[ruaidhri]

Campion, it's nothing more than speculation on all of our parts.

As always you make very good points. I too am worried about the economic implications of any increased military activity in the Persian Gulf. Oil is way too necessary to support the economies of the U.S. and other Western Countries.

In response to an earlier post of yours, yes a major increase in oil prices would result in huge protests. But, that's a "what if?", even though it's a damn good "what if?".

From my experience Americans react more to the immediate than the potential threat. They won't consider the possible threat to the oil supply until the threat becomes real. The war is real. The dead troops are real. The cost is real.

As to Cheney, yes I can see the government attempting to protect American investments in Iraq. I agree, that could slow but I don't believe it will stop our exit.

As to China, I'll have to think about that for awhile.


edit spelling

[manrush]

When I ended my explanation about Turkey's nationalism, I knew that I had left people wanting more. So here it is, the juiciest story so far. In January of this year, the race for the presidency of Turkey began. The current (and, so far, the acting president) Ahmet Necdet Sezer was due to step down after his term was supposed to expire in May. So both the AKP and the major opposition parties (including the Republican People's Party, which ruled the republic for most of its existence) named their own candidates. There were hints that Erdogan himself was going to run for president. General Yasar Buyukanit, the Chief of General Staff and an avowed disciple of Kemalist secularism, opposed the move, and even threatened to stage a coup against the government. Sezer, who himself was staunchly secularist, warned the nation about Islamist fundamentalism penetrating to the nation's highest echelons (the President of Turkey has the power to appoint and accept the resignation of the PM, and he/she can also declare martial law). Here's more info on the Turkish Presidency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Turkey) In Ankara, there was a protest organised against the possibility of Erdogan becoming president. Nearly 1.5 million people gathered outside the Anitkabir, the mausoleum housing the remains of the father of the Republic. They protested against what they saw was the Islamicisation of Kemal Ataturk's secular republic. Within Turkey, the protests received little media coverage (some say due to political pressure). In April, the AKP named foreign minister Abdullah Gul as their presidential candidate. There were also proposals by Erdogan to allow a president to be elected by popular vote. Later that month, another rally was held in Istanbul's Cagyalam Square, this one was protesting against Gul's candidacy. Because of the political crisis, the National Assembly was unable to select a president, thus leaving Sezer in the presidency past his date of abdication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Protests

Meanwhile, nationalism in Turkey was growing. Many more Turks became anti-American. Feelings against Greece, Israel, and Armenia were also high. Nationalist gangs (militant members of the Grey Wolves, the Turkish nationalist youth movement) beat up Kurds and other ethnic minorities. All the while, the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) announced that they had restarted their campaign for an independent Kurdistan. There were clashes with the military. And some hawkish generals even proposed invading Northern Iraq in order to flush out the PKK and their sympathisers. So, as you can see, changes in Turkey could affect us in Iraq as well.

[ruaidhri]

mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n, very interesting!

Turkey is an ally yet ever dangerous. They could very easily make things worse. Meanwhile, the Western Nations must walk on eggshells because Turkey is better as an ally then an enemy.

[Plekto]

Especially since I read today that they have 140,000 troops on the border just "sitting there". I suspect that if they wanted to take over the Kurdish areas, nobody could stop them, or would care much. But they want in the E.U. and want our money and military equipment, so we have leverage. ie - they still can be talked to(which is why I included them on the list with Iran).

[stsparky]

Turkey is a member of NATO in good standing. We have bases there. They want to be part of the EU. I'd say that they define a moderate Moslem nation.

I have to give Kudos to Egypt which did not give into extremism when Sadat was assassinated. While they claim to be democratic — we know it isn't true.

But they're tainted in many eyes as being too 'pro-west' - we need leadership from elsewhere.