Can you believe this nutjob?

[TheTramp]

...Churchill devotes his LIFE to fighting injustice and the suffering it causes. Giving of yourself and your time is priceless.

I was with you till this. He may or may not devote his life to fighting injustice but his idea that Al Quada really gives a dam about Iraq is very flawed and in fact moves us dangerously in the wrong direction.

His insistance on that point shows that he's just as far from reality as the people you mentioned in the post above.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Nobody is saying he shouldn't have the right to say what he wants to say. However, with every right comes responsibilities and reprocussions of exercising said right.

We should put together a "combat team" and go knock on his door..

...

So people have a right to free speech, but if they say the wrong thing they should be killed?
The sad thing to me is that this isn't even a rare or original thought, but a way of thinking that has been aruound for 200 years.


Tha author in question sounds to be a professional protestor, and as a member of AIM probably doesn't identify with or hold any love for the USA. His basic idea may hold some truths, but he has not done a very good job of communicating them, it seems.

[matt-o]

I was with you till this. He may or may not devote his life to fighting injustice but his idea that Al Quada really gives a dam about Iraq is very flawed and in fact moves us dangerously in the wrong direction.

His insistance on that point shows that he's just as far from reality as the people you mentioned in the post above.

then what does al queda care about? we havnt even looked at what these people want. they want us out of the middle east, we should leave the middle east to its own. they arent invading and interfereing here so why should we invade and interfere there (pre 9/11)? these people arent just trying to kill innocent people. they want somehting reasonable, but dont know how to get it in a reasonable way

[Lohman446]

then what does al queda care about? we havnt even looked at what these people want. they want us out of the middle east, we should leave the middle east to its own. they arent invading and interfereing here so why should we invade and interfere there (pre 9/11)? these people arent just trying to kill innocent people. they want somehting reasonable, but dont know how to get it in a reasonable way

I call BS on this statement. Pre 9/11 we were only in the portions of the Middle East where we were welcomed by the governments.

[Kevmaster]

No, but i think in a more broad sense, the following is true:

An agressive American foreign policy in the Middle East will cause terrorism against Americans. Thats not to say its justified nor that we shouldnt try to stop it, simply that it is going to be cause and effect relationship.

When we push our weight around (properly or improperly) in other countries, people will begin to resent it. Throw in a volitile region with billions in oil money, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[Hasty8]

Typical narrow-minded conservative viewpoint. Incapable of even simple logical analyses if they go against their beliefs. But in reality, it's not too far-fetched that a third party witnessing perceived injustice can seek to get involved. In fact it's fairly common with politically motivated violence.

Funny that the distinction between the "regime" and "people" of Iraq that the right labors so hard to preserve is so quickly muddied when it is convenient for an argument.



How telling that you consider the only measure of "help" to be money. A typical example of corrupt right-wing values. Instead, Churchill devotes his LIFE to fighting injustice and the suffering it causes. Giving of yourself and your time is priceless.

Okay, let's get it on.

Simple facts on facts.

1 - Saddam invades a soverign nation and gets beaten down for it.
2 - The UN, NOT the US, imposes ecomonic sanctions on IRaq allowing them to sell oil for purely humanitarian needs.
3 - Saddam diverts funds from the aforementioned Oil-For-Food program to maintain his military capital.
4 - Result of this diversion of funds is the citizenry not getting food or medical care that it needs. Citizens die.

Saddam has time and again shown that he cares not for his citizens. Rapings, murders, disfigurements were par for the course for Saddam and his henchmen.

1 - As a condition of the cease-fire Saddam must dis-arm and account for all his weapons.
2 - Saddam forcibly ejets the weapons inspectors from Iraq, leaving the rest of the world wondering what he is up too.
3 - 17 US resolutions are passed about Saddam. I'll say it again. 17 resolutions are passed in which the UN openly states their displeasure with how Sadam is conducing himself.
4 - The US warns for over 14 months that if Saddam does not allow inspectors full access he will be removed from power.
5 - Saddam continues to thumb his nose and the US finally acts. As a result, numerous weapons sytems are found that Saddam was not allowed to have as per the UN brokered ceasefire. Among them are missille systems and UCAV's that have a far greater range than the one specified by the UN.

Again, Saddam had the responsiblity to hold up his end of the bargain after his unjust invasion of Kuwait. He fail and was punished for it.

I find it so odd why so many liberals hate America so much. Or is it that they just hate "conservatives".

And by the way drg, I voted for Clinton, both times and Gore so please don't call me right-wing.

I sat in disgust after American interests were bombed with relish from 1993 on. American Embassies and hotel towers that were in no way military targets. In response, Clinton strikes an asprin factory?

A joke. A nauseating one but a joke none the less.

Add to that the insult that Clinton was "too busy" to visit the WTC after the 1993 bombing and you begin to get an understanding into my dislike of the "Carter-Kennedy-Clinton-Kerry" gang.

Simple and plain.

Saddam invaded a country, got beat down for it and was forced to uphold his end of the bargain.

Now, in Iraq we have more and more citizens with power, running water, access to medical and educational facilities.

I wonder, DRG, did you rail as loudly against Clinton invasion of a soverign nation?

Fact is, terrorists never attempt to attack military target. Their bread and butter is attacking public, lightly guarded centers to cause the most civilian damage possible.

Trying to rationalize that the innocent workers in the WTC were "military targets" is just your pathetic attempt to explain your hatred of America. I assume the janitors and security guards in the WTC were a real threat to IRaq and other Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

[Hasty8]

No, but i think in a more broad sense, the following is true:

An agressive American foreign policy in the Middle East will cause terrorism against Americans. Thats not to say its justified nor that we shouldnt try to stop it, simply that it is going to be cause and effect relationship.

When we push our weight around (properly or improperly) in other countries, people will begin to resent it. Throw in a volitile region with billions in oil money, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Really Kev?

Then take a look at all the bombings that went on against America insterests in the Middle East? Remember the Khobar Towers? How about the USS Cole? What about Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombings?

With the exception of the Cole the vast majority of those killed were not even Americans.

Then look into the "aggressive American policy" going on in the Middle East during that time.

In each and every instance of those events, and others, Clinton refused to act or acted with minute strength.

This only showed the terrorists, like Bin Laden, that America was a paper tiger.

And for all those billions of oil dollars you are talking about, America leads the way in regards to support programs for Middle Eastern, and worldwide, poor.

[Hasty8]

I call BS on this statement. Pre 9/11 we were only in the portions of the Middle East where we were welcomed by the governments.

Not entirely true lohman.

We were in areas where there wasn't even a government.

Remember Somolia?

America was there as part of a UN peace-keeping force. Sadly, Clinton happily gave control of those forces over to the UN. He also denied them armor.

When the "Black Hawk Down" scenario happened we were dependant on other nations armor to protect our soldiers.

It's was Clintons weakness that killed 18 American soldiers and wounded almost 100 more.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Apparently, the Arabs believe that the USA is attempting to force Western culture and values on them via our commercial and diplomatic ties. They also strongly resent the USA's continued support of Israel. It hasn't been America's military policies that have been aggressive.

[Hasty8]

then what does al queda care about? we havnt even looked at what these people want. they want us out of the middle east, we should leave the middle east to its own. they arent invading and interfereing here so why should we invade and interfere there (pre 9/11)? these people arent just trying to kill innocent people. they want somehting reasonable, but dont know how to get it in a reasonable way

What the want is absolutely NOT reasonable.

What they want is a world, not country, a WORLD that follows their religious doctrine. Their mullahs and priests have said this numerous times, in numerous ways.

Think about it. For his "Satanic Verses" Salman Rushdie got an eternal death threat on his head.

Is that how we all should live?

No.

Should America promote it's democratic ways?

Absolutely.

Why.

Becuase choice is better than no choice.
Because freedom is better than no freedom.
Becuase opportunity is better than no opportunity.

Becuase our system is better than theirs.

It may not be the best. There may never be a best.

But it certainly is better by leaps and bounds than anything else currently on the earth.

And before anyone even thinks to say otherwise, answer me this.

After WWII there were maybe a dozen democratic nations worldwide. Today there are over 125. If democracy is not the best format then why are so many switching?

[RevBrown]

Hasty,
Kev is right.
We could be doing nothing but sending out soup wagons and the extemists still wouldnt like us.
We could stop a maniacal dictator from slautghering his the people and the extremists won't like it.
Sorry but I think you missed the point of Kev's post.


As for this proffesser all I can do is shake my head. This seeems to be a case of only wanting to hear his own idealism. Did anyone remind him that the victims werent all American.
This guy has decided that he wants to hate his freedom in order to either seem more intellectual or show Al-Quaida sympathys, so what do you tell him.

He is free to have his wacko idealism( yep the greatness of this country at work again) just not force them on his students.

[TheTramp]

I call BS on this statement. Pre 9/11 we were only in the portions of the Middle East where we were welcomed by the governments.

The key word you used here is "Government." Osama wants to overthrough the "decadent monarcy" in his home country of Saudi Arabia and start another Taliban style government.


To answer a different post:
Al Queda wants 1) the West out of the middle east (osama specificly wan't us out of Saudi where the most important muslim cities are) and 2) to reinstate the Califate (sp?) which was the Muslim empire that started to decline in the middle ages. Not very reasonable objectives IMHO. Remember, they held Spain for many years.

[Rooster]

Its unfortunate we are not as evil as the terrorists and the bleeding heart liberal morons would like everyone to believe. I would make them suffer.

[drg]

Its unfortunate we are not as evil as the terrorists and the bleeding heart liberal morons would like everyone to believe. I would make them suffer.

It is unfortunate that we are not as blameless and pure of intent as the [edited] conservatives and neo-conservatives would like everyone to believe. I would educate them, if it was possible. It's not.

[Lohman446]

You know.. this is why we can't have political discussions - I vote any adjective used in a flaming manner be dealt with according to board rules on flaming... this could be a good discussion if anyone (some of you have) could get over the flames in response