# OT: WMD found in Iraq



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has revealed on Radio KOGO in San Diego that WMD has been found in Iraq.



> "I was with the Polish minister of defense this weekend in Istanbul, Turkey at the NATO Summit. And in the course of that, he pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across – I’ve forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 – warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas.
> 
> Now these are weapons that we always knew Saddam Hussein had that he had not declared and they have tested them and I have not seen them and I have not tested them, but they believe that they are correct that these, in fact, were undeclared chemical weapons -- sarin and mustard gas -- quite lethal and that is a discovery that just occurred within the last period of days. If you think about -- most people remember the image of where Saddam Hussein was captured in that hole -- that pit that he was living in. That pit, that hole in the ground was probably big enough to hold chemical and biological weapons sufficient to kill tens of thousands of people. And therefore, it is not hard to hide things in a country the size of California. It’s quite easy to hide things. In fact, we finally found a bunch of jet aircraft that they’ve buried underground."


http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040630-secdef0949.html


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

*Two Things...*

1) Why hasn't this made big headlines? (or has it?)

2) If true, what effect will this have on Bush's re-election?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Because sarin and mustard gas are not weapons of mass destruction. Some people out there are really grasping for straws. They are chemical agents that have been around, and used in wars, for hundreds of years. I'd like to know the country that doesn't have sarin and mustard gas.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Why hasn't this made big headlines?"


1) The press is against the war. They are very reluctant to announce ANY kind of good news from Iraq. 

2) The press is anti-Bush and does not want to help him get re-elected.

3) The weapons may not have been fired against coalition troops.

4) The weapons are not nuclear, and therefore not quite as "scary"


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not going to be surprised if they find something big in Octobober


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Sarin and mustard gas are not weapons of mass destruction."


Wrong. Any kind of weapon that spreads over a wide area and wipes out a population indiscriminately is a weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong. Any kind of weapon that spreads over a wide area and wipes out a population indiscriminately is a weapon of mass destruction.



True. They said it was enough to kill 500,000 people that they found. Is that not mass destruction? That means everyone can kill about 31,250. Is that not mass destruction?


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I went to CNN and saw nothing about this interview. This surprises me as last night on OPB there was an interview with both a republican & democratic strategist and the democrat stated that there #1 issue in the up-coming election was WMD and the fact none have been found. It makes me wonder if the link is a fraud.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I found the Department of Defense website through Google and found the exact same interview, so I believe the interview is legit.

http://www.defenselink.mil/
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040630-secdef0949.html

Why this hasn't been all over the news? Um. I don't know. I'm curious about that myself.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Yep, it sure is. That's for the link.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

This is not news because we already knew they had mustard gas and sarin gas. Back when Iran was our enemy, we (the united states) gave Saddam chemical weapons to invade them. You guys forget that 20 years ago, Saddam was an allie of the US. Its kind of like the saying, "my enemy's enemy is my friend"


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

If its a big deal and can help Bush Fox will report it so don't worry about it talkhard.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NorthSideHatrik</b>!
> This is not news because we already knew they had mustard gas and sarin gas. Back when Iran was our enemy, we (the united states) gave Saddam chemical weapons to invade them. You guys forget that 20 years ago, Saddam was an allie of the US. Its kind of like the saying, "my enemy's enemy is my friend"


Yes these are weopons that per the sancrions following the Iraqi issue in the early 90s was supposed to have been destroyed by Iraq, not hidden.

Remember the UN Weopons inpectors? That's the kind of thing they were looking for.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, nothing is stated about the condition of the weapons. We've already found several warheads/barrels with chemicals in them, but they were Iran/Iraq war era weapons. There's no indication of the ge of these weapons. 

If they've been rotting out in the desert for 20+ years, this 'discovery' is basically a non event. More archaeology than anything.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Remember the UN Weopons inpectors? That's the kind of thing they were looking for.



Yes i do. They were looking for Uranium and attempts at making nuclear war heads.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Yes these are weopons that per the sancrions following the Iraqi issue in the early 90s was supposed to have been destroyed by Iraq, not hidden.
> 
> Remember the UN Weopons inpectors? That's the kind of thing they were looking for.


hey, we've lost plenty of our own weapons. Up at the Umatilla depot, there are several tons of weapons we've simply misplaced. 

I would think that, eventually, a few warheads WOULD be found that had simply gotten lost in the shuffle. 

Just think...it only took 3 years, 800 American lives and the lives of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis to find 16 or 17 warheads that should have been destroyed...Is this what 800 Americans have died for? 

Pathetic.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Just think...it only took 3 years, 800 American lives and the lives of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis to find 16 or 17 warheads that should have been destroyed...Is this what 800 Americans have died for?
> 
> Pathetic.



We went there for oil. It could be very destructive to our economy if the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world was not freindly with us. Is that worth 800 lives, depends who you talk to. 800 out of 280million is a pretty small price.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> hey, we've lost plenty of our own weapons. Up at the Umatilla depot, there are several tons of weapons we've simply misplaced.
> ...


What's pathetic about what I said? Is it not true of what the sanctions were against Iraq? Did I in any way try and justify the military activity? 

Well forgive me for clarifying a misinterpretation of something for someone.

Jeesh people get a grip we're all friends here.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

It's also not a major media event because it's not new news.

Who still believes that Iraq had no undeclared WMD's?

People that really believe it and would deny it just to make Bush look bad. 

and

People that have their head buried in their bong and only listen to the above people. 

As for an Octobober surprise? The vast right wing conspiritators vs. the Kerry divorce records. Anyone bothered that a republican congressional is forced to reveal his records while Kerry dismisses it out of hand? It makes me wonder.

Sometimes Kerry just makes it too easy.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Just think...it only took 3 years, 800 American lives and the lives of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis to find 16 or 17 warheads that should have been destroyed...Is this what 800 Americans have died for?"


--Saddam Hussein, the father of terrorism in the Middle East, has been deposed, captured, and put on trial in front of the whole world

--Saddam's evil murderous sons have been killed and buried

--Hundreds of children have been freed from Saddam's prisons

--Schools, hospitals, clinics and universities are all up and running again

--Electricity and water supplies have been restored

--Iraqi women can now vote, go to college, and work outside the home

--Iraq has formed a new military and a new police force to help make sure that Saddam and the Baathists will never come back to power

--As of 2 days ago, Iraq has a new democratic government that represents the will of the people

--For the first time in 30 years, the Iraqi people have a sense of hope about their lives and their future

Those are just a few of the things that 800 American soldiers have died for


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> --Saddam Hussein, the father of terrorism in the Middle East, has been deposed, captured, and put on trial in front of the whole world
> ...



The problem is that, Those reasons are not the ones they gave the american public. Granted i do agree with those items you listed, however you have to agree Bush has spun this entire situation. We went over there to find attempts at making nuclear war heads. Only once that completely failed, did bush start talking about the United States as great liberators. The American public did not agree to go to war to liberate Iraq. They argreed to go to war to find Nuclear war heads.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I'm sure Rumsfeld wouldn't _exaggerate_ or anything. And far be it for the Bush administration to claim they had already found weapons of mass destruction when in fact no such thing had ocurred.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "The problem is that, Those reasons are not the ones they gave the american public. Granted i do agree with those items you listed, however you have to agree Bush has spun this entire situation. We went over there to find attempts at making nuclear war heads. Only once that completely failed, did bush start talking about the United States as great liberators. The American public did not agree to go to war to liberate Iraq. They argreed to go to war to find Nuclear war heads."


So getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not part of the reason for going to war?? Give me a break.

As for WMD, some has already been found, and more will probably turn up as time goes by. Or we may discover that most of the WMD was shipped to Syria. But to say that the war is a fraud because massive amounts of WMD have not been found yet is quite premature

And NUCLEAR warheads were not the only reason we went to war. I listened to Bush's speeches, and he was very clear that Saddam posed a threat in many different ways. We know, for instance, that he gassed thousands of Kurds to death. Bush mentioned that specifically as a sign of his abuse of power. And Saddam WAS a source of terrorism. There is no denying that. This war is part of a larger war on terrorism and those who support it. THAT is what most Americans understand.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> --Saddam Hussein, the father of terrorism in the Middle East, has been deposed, captured, and put on trial in front of the whole world
> ...


Not to mention, we got to strip some innocent (and some guilty) arabs down and point at their genitalia while snapping photos as keepsakes. Then, we got to post the pictures on the internet so we can generate an entire generation worth of hatred toward our country.

Sweet!

I can't wait to reap the benefits of this war for years and years to come.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>:
> 
> --Saddam Hussein, the father of terrorism in the Middle East, has been deposed, captured, and put on trial in front of the whole world


He's the father of terrorism in the Middle East? Wow, impressive. I bet he's pissed not to have had anything to do with 9/11.



> --Saddam's evil murderous sons have been killed and buried


Wasn't that their middle names? Uday Evil Murderous Hussein. Qusay Torturing Rapist ******* Hussein.



> --Hundreds of children have been freed from Saddam's prisons


"Go now: you are free to roam the streets! Watch out for American cluster bombs, though - nobody said freedom was free..."



> --Schools, hospitals, clinics and universities are all up and running again


Oh really. I'm quite sure the majority of Iraqis would be very surprised to hear that.



> --Electricity and water supplies have been restored


...to *all* buildings inside the green zone. 



> --Iraqi women can now vote, go to college, and work outside the home


Unlike their condition under Saddam, when they could go to college and work outside the home (and vote, actually, although admittedly there wasn't much choice of candidate). Fact is, Iraqi women under Saddam were (apart from when they were being raped by the junior Husseins) better off than women in Saudi Arabia (our pals). Of course, the minute there are GENUINE elections, that'll all change, because Sharia law will probably be instituted.

Incidentally, I wonder how women are doing in Afghanistan. Remember that place? Actually had something to do with 9/11?



> --Iraq has formed a new military and a new police force to help make sure that Saddam and the Baathists will never come back to power


You mean the one that's full of ex-Baathists? Like Falluja, which the US just handed over to an ex-Baathist?



> --As of 2 days ago, Iraq has a new democratic government that represents the will of the people


Strange, I don't think any of them will remember voting for it. Oh that's right - they didn't. Must be a more extreme form of that Republican form of democracy where if you get fewer votes than the other guy you get to be President.



> --For the first time in 30 years, the Iraqi people have a sense of hope about their lives and their future


Yeah, you go over there and tell them to screw on a happy face, Talky-boy. I imagine they'll greet you as warmly as the vice president likes to greet people in the senate.



> Those are just a few of the things that 800 American soldiers have died for


What are the others? Halliburton's profits? A neocon dream gone sour?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> What's pathetic about what I said? Is it not true of what the sanctions were against Iraq? Did I in any way try and justify the military activity?
> 
> ...


Sorry, there were at least a couple separate thoughts in my post. 

The pathetic comment was directed at the idea that we even went to war when all we've managed to find are a few dusty bomshells that may or may not have been simply lost. 

Sorry if that was confusing/insulting. Not at all my intention.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> --Saddam Hussein, the father of terrorism in the Middle East, has been deposed, captured, and put on trial in front of the whole world
> ...



How could we do things like that. The horror. 

Hey Fork, 12 idiots do not make up all the men and women over there. Just because they chose to be stupid doesn't mean everyone else over there is too.

NorthSideHatrik, those are the benefits of what we did.

And we did not lose 800 soldiers in Iraq. More around 650, *I THINK*.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. A sound government.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

This sounds fishy. I find it a bit convenient that the Republicans found this stuff right after the huge buzz the Democrats were getting over the movie Ferenheit 911. Now I'm an Independent so I hope this doesn't come across as me being bias either way. The movie painted such a bad picture of Republicans.....and Bush in general that marketing speaking anyway it would be a great thing for the Republicans to "find" evidence all of a sudden supporting Bush and his actions.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>:
> 
> As for WMD, some has already been found, and more will probably turn up as time goes by. Or we may discover that most of the WMD was shipped to Syria. But to say that the war is a fraud because massive amounts of WMD have not been found yet is quite premature


But you forget, WMD were found a long time ago! Don't you remember Bush's response in Poland (I think it was) that they'd been found in those two trailers? Of course, everyone who'd actually LOOKED at those trailers concluded they were probably for exactly what the Iraqis claimed - weather balloons - but, to quote Richard Pryor "who you gonna believe - me or your lyin' eyes?"



> I listened to Bush's speeches


You're kidding, right? Nobody actually *does* that, do they?



> We know, for instance, that he gassed thousands of Kurds to death. Bush mentioned that specifically as a sign of his abuse of power.


Actually, apparently there's some debate about that. But let's suppose he did (as there seems to be plenty of evidence). It's strange Bush's father didn't object at the time. But I'm sure you were right there with Human Rights Watch lobbying for humanitarian intervention, weren't you Talky?



> And Saddam WAS a source of terrorism. There is no denying that. This war is part of a larger war on terrorism and those who support it. THAT is what most Americans understand.


Oh, I didn't know there was no denying it. Thanks for the update. Of course, seeing as you never give any examples, it's hard to deny anything. You wouldn't be referring to the rewards paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers would you?

By the way, love that "war on terrorism" stuff. Of course, coming from someone who trumpeted, apparently without any trace of irony, that Reagan "won" the Cold War, it's hardly surprising. How's the War on Drugs going, by the way? Have we taken in any enemy combatants?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Did you realy think they would never find anything? I've been saying all along that if after a certain amount of time they found nothing, they would all the sudden find something out of nowhere.

This is pure BS. Whos to say the didnt plant it themselves?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Did you realy think they would never find anything? I've been saying all along that if after a certain amount of time they found nothing, they would all the sudden find something out of nowhere.
> 
> This is pure BS. Whos to say the didnt plant it themselves?


And even if they find something legitimate, I at least want solid proof saying that Hussein was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, going to use them on us.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Zach</b>:
> 
> And we did not lose 800 soldiers in Iraq. More around 650, *I THINK*.


Hey, you're not a sixteen-year-old - you're Paul Wolfowitz!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> --Iraqi women can now vote, go to college, and work outside the home


You're rather confused. Iraqi women could already do that. *Islamic states* are the ones that commit the greatest offenses against women, but Iraq was decidedly not an Islamic state. In fact, Saddam Hussein was very anti-Islamic and anti-fundamentalist (a fun fact which also explains why Hussein was highly unlikely to form an All-Star team with Al Queda who are the definition of fundamentalist Muslims).

Of course, assuming Iraq is truly free then the people will now form the government that the majority of them want. And polls show that the majority of people want an Islamic state.

I hope your deep (and, until now, misguided) concern for women in Iraq will continue if *that* comes about.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> It's also not a major media event because it's not new news.
> 
> Who still believes that Iraq had no undeclared WMD's?


Erm, David Kay? Remember him? Weapons inspector appointed by Bush?



> As for an Octobober surprise? The vast right wing conspiritators vs. the Kerry divorce records. Anyone bothered that a republican congressional is forced to reveal his records while Kerry dismisses it out of hand? It makes me wonder.


Ooh dear, we wouldn't want you wondering. Might shake your secure world view. And who (or what) are these giant conspiritators? 

Incidentally, apparently the Kerry records are already public so that's one fewer thing for your mighty brain to wonder about. (Sorry, no mention of allegations that he pressured his wife to have sex in public.)



> Sometimes Kerry just makes it too easy.


It depends on what the meaning of "it" is...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

(I promise this will be my last post in this thread. I really REALLY have to get a life. Or at least, start a thread about the Blazers' Summer League squad.)

It's interesting to note how divided Iraqis are about the trial of Saddam Hussein. As Juan Cole (Professor at the University of Michigan, in favour of the Iraq war because of the brutality of the Saddam regime) notes:



> Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was legally surrendered to the Iraqis by the Americans. Since the US is no longer in international law the Occupying power, it has little right to continue to hold Saddam. Since the Americans do not, however, trust the Iraqis to guard him properly, their surrender of Saddam is just as much a sham as their surrender of sovereignty. A new opinion poll in Iraq suggested that over forty percent of Iraqis want him executed, while a similar proportion want him just to be let go. This sign of the extreme polarization of the Iraqi public over this issue is a very bad omen. By the way, it seems that Salem Chalabi, nephew of disgraced Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, is still in charge of trying Saddam, according to the Arabic press. Salem has strong ties to Israeli interests, which may undermine his effectiveness in this role with the Iraqi public.


Watching Saddam on TV today also elicited a mixed response:



> On the streets of Iraq, that potential ethnic chasm was still little more than a crack, with viewpoints differing among those who stood to gain from Saddam's regime and those who say they suffered excruciatingly under it.
> 
> In the central Iraqi city of Ramadi, a Sunni Muslim area where support for Saddam has been strong, Odai Faleh voiced doubts that the former president was guilty of much beyond punishing those who deserved it.
> 
> ...


So even though Saddam was a psychopathic *******, it seems like Iraqi's distrust of the US is on a par.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

We went to war to protect ourselves and the world. Period. WMD were a major issue, still may be, they have either gotten rid of them or we will find them. We have taken an evil man out of power. Minus the unfortunate loss of innocent lives, everything that has happened has made the world a better place.

Loss of life is part of war, check your history books. If people don't want to risk their lives for the sake of protection and freedom then don't enroll in the military. I for one am glad this war is being fought in Iraq and not in our country on our streets.

Some of you have obviously only watched network news and are very good and regurgitating their perspective. I challenge you to look at both sides. An awful lot of good has come from this war. 

After reading this and previous threads, I can't help but think that the negative people posting and ripping our government are the same people that rip their bosses and their kids coaches. Glass half empty people...we all know 'em. They hate life, they don't understand joy, they are bitter. What a horrible way to be. 

It's always easy to second guess and coach from the bleachers. Truth is, none of us have the depth of knowledge necessary to accurately assess the situation in Iraq. Why try? Have faith in the people we have elected, if you don't like what they're doing, vote for someone you believe is better when it is time. In reality that's all the power we have...thank goodness.

In this case it is definitely wise to NOT believe the hype. As your man Rasheed would say, "Good night and God bless."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> You're rather confused. Iraqi women could already do that. *Islamic states* are the ones that commit the greatest offenses against women, but Iraq was decidedly not an Islamic state. In fact, Saddam Hussein was very anti-Islamic and anti-fundamentalist (a fun fact which also explains why Hussein was highly unlikely to form an All-Star team with Al Queda who are the definition of fundamentalist Muslims).


Saddam actually gave local leaders more ability to follow shari’a in the early 1990's, I think. 

Hussein might have been more secular than many states in the region, but following the first Gulf War he started to understand that he needed to pander to more fundamental Muslims to gain popularity. And women's rights were one of the areas that suffered.



> Of course, assuming Iraq is truly free then the people will now form the government that the majority of them want. And polls show that the majority of people want an Islamic state.


This is the most frightening aspect of the whole situation to me (and I am generally in support of our intervention with Iraq): the Iraqis might make some decisions that we (whether the US or the world at large) just can't let them make.

We *can't* let the Shiite majority cleanse the Sunni or the Kurds. We *can't* let the Iraqi regime become a puppet to Tehran. We *can't* let Iraq stop exporting oil.

I don't know what we do to prevent these things from happening... I guess we have to give the new government some rope and hope they don't hang themselves.

Ed O.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, you're not a sixteen-year-old - you're Paul Wolfowitz!



THere is a reason I put 'I THINK' in bold letters.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> It's always easy to second guess and coach from the bleachers. Truth is, none of us have the depth of knowledge necessary to accurately assess the situation in Iraq. Why try? Have faith in the people we have elected, if you don't like what they're doing, vote for someone you believe is better when it is time. In reality that's all the power we have...thank goodness.


It's always easy to second guess and coach from the bleachers. Truth is, none of us have the depth of knowledge necessary to accurately assess the situation of the Blazers. Why try? Have faith in the people Paul selected, if you don't like what they're doing, cheer for a team you believe is better when it is time. In reality that's all the power we have...thank goodness.

barfo


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Zach</b>:
> 
> THere is a reason I put 'I THINK' in bold letters.


To prove that *you am*?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> To prove that *you am*?


Er ... go meru!

(A little bad latin joke for the kids.  )

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> This is the most frightening aspect of the whole situation to me (and I am generally in support of our intervention with Iraq): the Iraqis might make some decisions that we (whether the US or the world at large) just can't let them make.


Isn't that a tough moral position for us to take? The reason du jour for the war is that we're liberating the Iraqi people. Then we turn around and say, "Well, you're free...as long as you don't make decisions we disagree with."

That seems to lend credence to the belief that we're doing not-so-subtle colony-building.



> We *can't* let the Shiite majority cleanse the Sunni or the Kurds.


I agree with this simply because no people should be allowed to rob others of their rights and/or lives. Whether that's Iraq, England or the US.



> We *can't* let the Iraqi regime become a puppet to Tehran. We *can't* let Iraq stop exporting oil.


Aren't these issues up to them? Unless we're saying that Iraq is *our* vassel and they're obligated to do things that in *our* best interest.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

x


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Isn't that a tough moral position for us to take? The reason du jour for the war is that we're liberating the Iraqi people. Then we turn around and say, "Well, you're free...as long as you don't make decisions we disagree with."


It's absolutely a tough moral position to take. But morality is secondary to protecting the nation and its interests IMO. 

I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but that's the way I feel



> That seems to lend credence to the belief that we're doing not-so-subtle colony-building.


We're definitely trying to re-form (and reform) the nation. We're not doing it entirely for the good of the Iraqi people, and we're not doing it entirely for our own protection, and we're not doing it for purely economic reasons. I think it's a combination, but it's all at the root because it's in the American interest to do so.



> Aren't these issues up to them? Unless we're saying that Iraq is *our* vassel and they're obligated to do things that in *our* best interest.


They can try to do whatever they want. If they do things that are contrary to our best interests to the extent of the two things that I've listed, we should do something about it.

Iran is in the process of developing nuclear capabilities. We've encircled the country in the last couple of years--we have significant presences in Iraq and Afghanistan to go with our Turkey alliance and Russia's ability to come in through the countries north of Iran.

If Iran influences Iraq to the point of controlling their politics there will be Iraqi domestic issues (Sunnis would be in some deep doo-doo) but there would also be dire international repercussions.

With about 69 million people, Iran is almost three times the size of Iraq. While their leadership is more fragmented than the Hussein regime was, there appears (to me) to be fewer inherent factions inside the country (Shia make up about 2/3 of Iraqi population, but about 90% of Iranian citizens) and would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq was.

And why would we NEED to crack that nut? Maybe (hopefully) we never will... but an anti-Western Islamist state that is dedicated to developing nuclear capabilities that's controlling Iraq's large oil reserves would be a definite threat on American interests: either direct (controlling and limiting Iraqi oil exports; militarily intimidating other states in the region) or indirectly (exporting technologies and resources to fund attacks on US interests around the world).

Iraq must remain a counterweight to Iran in the region. They don't need to love the US, but they can't love Iran either.

Ed O.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> We went to war to protect ourselves and the world. Period. WMD were a major issue, still may be, they have either gotten rid of them or we will find them. We have taken an evil man out of power. Minus the unfortunate loss of innocent lives, everything that has happened has made the world a better place.


This is the essence of the problem with,your argument. You say we went to war "to protect ourselves and the world." However, you also admit that no WMD have been found, and this is despite EXTENSIVE efforts to find them. 

If Saddam actually had no WMD, which is the logical conclusion, then there was nothing we needed "protection " from, ergo, there was no need for the war.

It is hard to admit, but don't you see we were all duped? Not just the left or right, but ALL of us? Either our president knowinglly lied, OR the administration is amazingly incompetent. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from this fiasco, and this is from someone who supported both the first Gulf war and the Afghan war. 

And you cannot say, with any evidence, that we are safer. Iraq has become a haven for terror and terrorists. Our young men are dying (the number is in excess of 850 now, btw). This was not true before the war.

We got rid of a bad guy, yes. But a bad guy who is all bluff is not a threat. There are plenty of bad guys in the world who fund terrorists. The Saudis - now there is a threat. 17 hijakers were Saudi. Bin Laden is Saudi. Saudis teach radical Islam in schools all over the wotrl (called Wahabism).

Ask yourself, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> but it's all at the root because it's in the American interest to do so.


Well, at least you're direct and honest about that.



> They can try to do whatever they want. If they do things that are contrary to our best interests to the extent of the two things that I've listed, we should do something about it.


Do you feel we should live under a system where the only morality is defined by power? Countries, by doing what's in the best interest for *them* will often act in ways that are not in *our* best interests.

Now, if our national security is threatened, fine...I understand flexing our power then. But it seems like a pretty bad road to go down if we're going to countermand what countries do economically and politically that aren't in our best interests.

In this case, we toppled a tyrant to remove a government that wouldn't do as we wanted. In the past, we've toppled democracies that wouldn't do as we wanted. All we're really saying is that we don't much care what's going on in those countries, be it dictatorship or our own watchword of democracy; what matters is whether they'll do what they're told.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong. Any kind of weapon that spreads over a wide area and wipes out a population indiscriminately is a weapon of mass destruction.


Like cluster bombs landing in Iraqi neighborhoods?:uhoh:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Well if we found some mustard gas, I say this whole war was worth it! We should comb through ever nook and cranny of planet earth to find where the 'terrorists' are hiding their mustard gas. No no, first would should blow up and demolish the country, THEN go look for the mustard gas. For extra fun, we can spend our tax dollars to rebuild the country we just demolished for no reason. Maybe we can just leave with a smile and say "Opps, we thought you were someone else"


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Well, at least you're direct and honest about that.


I try to be honest... sometimes I don't like the sound of what I'm saying, and I need to figure out how to say it so it sounds better (not necessarily spinning, but articulating properly), re-think what I want to say, or admit that certain circumstances require choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils.



> Do you feel we should live under a system where the only morality is defined by power? Countries, by doing what's in the best interest for *them* will often act in ways that are not in *our* best interests.


The nature of world politics is and will always be based on power: military, economic, and information.

Every country on earth acts in accord with (what it perceives to be) its own best interests. If we fail to act in a similar way then we will backslide in relation to the rest of the world.



> Now, if our national security is threatened, fine...I understand flexing our power then. But it seems like a pretty bad road to go down if we're going to countermand what countries do economically and politically that aren't in our best interests.


I hear you, and I might be wrong... but I don't think there's any choice. Disengagement with the rest of the world (particularly the parts that hate us) is impossible. The next best thing is attempting to shape the rest of the world so they (a) don't hate us, or at least (b) aren't in a position to do anything to hurt us too badly.



> In this case, we toppled a tyrant to remove a government that wouldn't do as we wanted. In the past, we've toppled democracies that wouldn't do as we wanted. All we're really saying is that we don't much care what's going on in those countries, be it dictatorship or our own watchword of democracy; what matters is whether they'll do what they're told.


I don't disagree. Democracy is a great concept but it seems that populations unready or unable to act responsibly are doomed to implode and/or harm the neighbors around them.

England and France both saw initial republics aborted and each fell into states of despotism. Hitler rode popular votes to national prominence in Germany. 

We are a confident nation, and we should be. We are a good people. It is in our national interest to promote democracy not just for our economic or military goals but also for our ... um ... emotional goals (bad word, perhaps... not sure which one to use, but it's like the psychic income a corporation gets from donating to charity; it hurts the bottom line but the shareholders feel better about themselves; I dislike much of what _noblesse oblige_ is all about but perhaps the unironic use of that encapsulates some of what I'm trying to convey).

The thing is we can't promote democracy in every form, IMO, because the costs of allowing regimes to congeal that are overtly hostile to us are simply too high.

Should we support a democracy in Saudi Arabia if we knew that the first acts of the new regime would be (a) nationalization of all oil fields without reimbursement to oil companies, (b) massive increase in defense spending to defend and propagate the word of God, and (c) state-sponsored regicide for the Royal Family's close ties to the West?

What if the Saudi Republic decided to devote considerable resources to the development of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? And its allies?

I'm not asking these questions to be combative and I'm NOT saying that I think the Saudis are incapable of having a responsible democratic regime (I'm not saying they _are_, either; I don't know enough about their people)... I'm just wondering if you think that avoiding hypocrisy (by truly supporting democracy, rather than just supporting regimes that will play ball with us) is worth putting our economy, our allies, and potentially our country at risk.

Ed O.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Is it so hard for some of you to believe that we did the right thing? 

How long should we have expected Sadaam to change and show us these things we keep finding. 

I get the feeling you would have been happier if he'd have had a chance to use them on someone.

Again. 

Of course some people would still find a way to condemn what we've accomplished.

I think I see what it is. 

Call it an epiphany. 

You guys see Sadaam Hussein as some kind of romantic pariah. He's the underdog going up against the bigs. A Che Guevera for the modern liberal. Sadaam against the world. It doesn't matter what he's done or what his intentions are. He's been wronged and you're going to stand up for him. 

It's human nature to exploit power. 

Why don't you guys come out and say Bush has exploited his power more than Sadaam Hussein. Be honest. It's obvious you believe that to be true. Show your colors.

If you really believe Sadaam is more benevolent to the world than President Bush. Speak up. If you don't...

How many people die in your appeasement formula? We can all get along can't we? I mean, humans have stopped killing each other before... right?

Wrong.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I try to be honest... sometimes I don't like the sound of what I'm saying, and I need to figure out how to say it so it sounds better (not necessarily spinning, but articulating properly), re-think what I want to say, or admit that certain circumstances require choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils.


*nod* I understand. I just don't like it when people claim the US is doing almost a humanitarian thing here and then argue for limiting freedom for our purposes. Call a spade a spade...if we're there for our own interests, so be it. Don't dress it up as "liberation."



> The nature of world politics is and will always be based on power: military, economic, and information.
> 
> Every country on earth acts in accord with (what it perceives to be) its own best interests. If we fail to act in a similar way then we will backslide in relation to the rest of the world.


Many countries could enforce their will upon other countries. All countries don't do that, just because the other country doesn't act in the stronger country's interests.

I would say the US is fairly unique in how active they are enforcing their will around the world. it's euphamized as "world policing" or other such stuff, but it's essentially destabilizing any government that doesn't act in the US' interest.

Really, the US in empire-building every bit as much as the old British empire. Except they are generally not doing it with armies and flags. They are doing it with corporations and culture-planting. Any country that chooses to resist such subversion (as they would see it) gets special attention from the US state department. In Iraq, it's not about them resisting McDonald's and Disneylands, but about putting their oil fields as directly into US corporate hands as possible. Saddam Hussein just provides a loveable foil for the overarching mission.



> I hear you, and I might be wrong... but I don't think there's any choice. Disengagement with the rest of the world (particularly the parts that hate us) is impossible. The next best thing is attempting to shape the rest of the world so they (a) don't hate us, or at least (b) aren't in a position to do anything to hurt us too badly.


Disengagement isn't really the issue. One could argue what we did with Iraq *was* disengagement with the world, as we ignored the world community to do our own thing.

It's possible to protect our national security without being so draconian with the rest of the world.



> Should we support a democracy in Saudi Arabia if we knew that the first acts of the new regime would be (a) nationalization of all oil fields without reimbursement to oil companies, (b) massive increase in defense spending to defend and propagate the word of God, and (c) state-sponsored regicide for the Royal Family's close ties to the West?


I don't know the Saudi situation well enough to really answer your questions. (A) might be entirely reasonable if the population has been generally screwed out of the benefits of the country's natural resources until now. (B) seems fair, if we and all other countries are also going to bulk up our national defenses as much as possible. (C) should be blocked because, as I said earlier, no group or culture should be allowed to steal the rights or lives from others.



> What if the Saudi Republic decided to devote considerable resources to the development of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? And its allies?


That's an interesting question. Do we currently forbid or hamper Israeli nuclear weapon development? I don't believe we do. We certainly counsel them not to do anything rash. We could counsel Saudi Arabia similarly. I don't see why Israel is essentially allowed to do anything it likes while we say, "But we can't let X ever get the capability to fight Israel on even terms!"



> I'm not asking these questions to be combative
> ...
> I'm just wondering if you think that avoiding hypocrisy (by truly supporting democracy, rather than just supporting regimes that will play ball with us) is worth putting our economy, our allies, and potentially out country at risk.


I understand. And I see that from a practical standpoint, might does make right.

But if we're going to adopt that philosophy, what right do we have to be angry at Osama bin Laden? Countries and organizations always operate from a standpoint of what is in their best interests, as you said. Al Queda believed that striking at the military and financial centers of our nation was in their best interests. Are they monsters for operating by the same ideal you say we *must* work from to avoid backsliding?

I can at least respect the consistency of what you are saying, even if I disagree with it, if you say that bin Laden shouldn't be villified...he's simply doing what he believes needs to be done in this power-driven world anarchy. And in that same spirit, the US is doing what *it* believes needs to be done by invading and dictating to Iraq.

But I find it very inconsistent if bin Laden was "bad" or "evil" for doing what he did, but the US is simply pursuing practical measures.

And perhaps that serves to illustrate why I find this road the US travels a bad one: Yes, we benefit by making sure any inimical government is put down and replaced by a puppet regime, and one can argue that that's just the way the world works. But then we *will* pay the price of having those we damaged find ways to attack us in whatever ways they can. And that's also the way the world works. Big guys bully, little guys sneak up and do their damage by surprise...sometimes serious damage.

If you want to pursue the first "way the world works," then you just have to say "c'est la vie" when "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on which side you're on) retaliate.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Is it so hard for some of you to believe that we did the right thing?


This isn't a question of faith.



> Why don't you guys come out and say Bush has exploited his power more than Sadaam Hussein. Be honest. It's obvious you believe that to be true. Show your colors.


Bush has exploited his power more than Saddam Hussein.
In fact, Saddam has had very little power to exploit since The Big Bush went to war with him back in the early 90's. Certainly he hasn't conducted any preemptive invasions of other countries since then. Whereas the current Bush has. 

barfo


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> This isn't a question of faith.


How cynical. 

It actually is a question of faith. I believe we did the right thing. 

I noticed you didn't deny my accusation that Saddam is Che Nouveau for the left. In fact you rather justified it. 

Poor Sadaam, he didn't do anything wrong since he got kicked out of Kuwait did he? He learned his lesson didn't he? The UN and the US are just big bullies that shouldn't really have expected him to honor the terms that ended Desert Storm. He was just so powerless and weak that we should have just continued to let him ignore all those stupid rules. 

What's your idea of justification? Wait for him to use what we keep finding?

Again.

How many people have to die before you feel threatened?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> But if we're going to adopt that philosophy, what right do we have to be angry at Osama bin Laden? Countries and organizations always operate from a standpoint of what is in their best interests, as you said. Al Queda believed that striking at the military and financial centers of our nation was in their best interests. Are they monsters for operating by the same ideal you say we *must* work from to avoid backsliding?



Are you ready to adopt Islamic fundamentalism into your life? They aren't acting on a position of tolerance and appeasement. Should we adopt your ideal moral high ground and expect them to play along? Can we convince the Islamic world that our way of life is better by extending our hand? 

NO ****ING WAY.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> I noticed you didn't deny my accusation that Saddam is Che Nouveau for the left.


I'll deny it. He was the Robin Hood of the left. The daring, acrobatic and dashing thief for the masses. Ahh, Robin Hood. So good with a bo staff.



> How many people have to die before you feel threatened?


17 more. No...wait...18.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Many countries could enforce their will upon other countries. All countries don't do that, just because the other country doesn't act in the stronger country's interests.


Can you give an example of where a country has failed to act upon its own self interest? I can't envision a situation where a country has an opportunity to further its self-interest and fails to act. 

Note that external pressure (from allies as well as enemies) and internal pressure both are part of a country's self interest. 

The reason China doesn't take Taiwan is not because it's a nice country. And it's not because teh Taiwanese wouldn't like it or because they'd put up a fight. It's almost certainly because the U.S. might go to war over it and Taiwan's not worth risking WW III.

For the U.S., we haven't invaded Castro's Cuba in almost four decades. It's not because of Cuba's defenses nor, IMO, the international community... it's because our citizenry isn't willing to pursue it.



> I would say the US is fairly unique in how active they are enforcing their will around the world. it's euphamized as "world policing" or other such stuff, but it's essentially destabilizing any government that doesn't act in the US' interest.


I think destabilization is _definitely_ part of it. That's consistent with my perspective that certain regimes can't be allowed to mature.

Not all American international activities are destabilization efforts, however. I think that there are legitimate humanitarian reasons for why we do some of what we do around the world.



> Really, the US in empire-building every bit as much as the old British empire. Except they are generally not doing it with armies and flags. They are doing it with corporations and culture-planting. Any country that chooses to resist such subversion (as they would see it) gets special attention from the US state department. In Iraq, it's not about them resisting McDonald's and Disneylands, but about putting their oil fields as directly into US corporate hands as possible. Saddam Hussein just provides a loveable foil for the overarching mission.


I agree and disagree. I agree that we are culture-planting. I think that many aspects of our culture (general egalitarianism, tolerance, value on education) SHOULD be disseminated. It's not about a Christian God or Allah to me, but it's about basic values that will improve the lives of the countries we affect as well as make for a more consistent and friendly environment for us to deal with.

I disagree that a(n objectively) benign Hussein would have been targeted the same way as the real Saddam was. Anti-western views are one thing, but gassing his own people, invading neighboring countries and not living up to the terms imposed on him following Gulf War I all added up to a bad dude.



> Disengagement isn't really the issue. One could argue what we did with Iraq *was* disengagement with the world, as we ignored the world community to do our own thing.


One could argue that, but it's issue disengagement, rather than systemic disengagement. Regardless of whether Germany, Russia, China or France agreed with us regarding Iraq, they were going to continue to do business with us.



> It's possible to protect our national security without being so draconian with the rest of the world.


I don't think so. I think that if we let enough countries buy a gun, load it with bullets and aim at us, eventually we're going to get shot. To strain this analogy even more, we need to make sure that countries that buy guns are ones we can trust and we should never let another country aim at us.



> I don't know the Saudi situation well enough to really answer your questions. (A) might be entirely reasonable if the population has been generally screwed out of the benefits of the country's natural resources until now. (B) seems fair, if we and all other countries are also going to bulk up our national defenses as much as possible. (C) should be blocked because, as I said earlier, no group or culture should be allowed to steal the rights or lives from others.


I guess neither of us know all the facts, but I think that you either (a) missed the dangers in the scenarios I provided, or (b) don't mind a huge hit to our economy or Saudis massing on their borders to invade their neighbors.



> That's an interesting question. Do we currently forbid or hamper Israeli nuclear weapon development? I don't believe we do.


Nope. But they aren't committed to the destruction of any other state in their region or the world. Several arab states are officially in support of destroying Israel, and in my hypothetical they would be specifically targeted.



> We certainly counsel them not to do anything rash. We could counsel Saudi Arabia similarly. I don't see why Israel is essentially allowed to do anything it likes while we say, "But we can't let X ever get the capability to fight Israel on even terms!"


Again, it goes back to goals. If a country has said that they want to do something, you have to stop them from doing it or risk them actually doing it. Israel has had nukes for decades but has not used them. 



> I understand. And I see that from a practical standpoint, might does make right.
> 
> But if we're going to adopt that philosophy, what right do we have to be angry at Osama bin Laden? Countries and organizations always operate from a standpoint of what is in their best interests, as you said. Al Queda believed that striking at the military and financial centers of our nation was in their best interests. Are they monsters for operating by the same ideal you say we *must* work from to avoid backsliding?


If two men take a step, they aren't necessarily going to be stepping in the same direction. 

The Nazis exterminated Jews and other "_undermenschen_" as an extension of total war... while this display of power is consistent with my understanding of power in international politics, I do not find the acts, goals, or results acceptable (that's a serious understatement... it was evil).

Similarly, I do not find AQ's acts, goals or results acceptable. They exercised what power they had, but they are stepping in the wrong direction.



> I can at least respect the consistency of what you are saying, even if I disagree with it, if you say that bin Laden shouldn't be villified...he's simply doing what he believes needs to be done in this power-driven world anarchy. And in that same spirit, the US is doing what *it* believes needs to be done by invading and dictating to Iraq.
> 
> But I find it very inconsistent if bin Laden was "bad" or "evil" for doing what he did, but the US is simply pursuing practical measures.


Where is bin Laden trying to go? What is he trying to accomplish?

I simply reject that his goals are on the same moral plane as those of the U.S. I think that we must necessarily look out for our own interests first, but part of those goals and interests are for the dissemination of democracy/tolerance/liberty.

Juxtapose that with bin Laden is attempting to do: destroy western influences in the Arab peninsula and the middle east. Bring down our country, if need be, to return Islam (or perhaps _bring_ Islam) to shari'a. 

If you find those two goals on equal footing, then we're at a bit of an impasse on this part of the conversation.



> And perhaps that serves to illustrate why I find this road the US travels a bad one: Yes, we benefit by making sure any inimical government is put down and replaced by a puppet regime, and one can argue that that's just the way the world works. But then we *will* pay the price of having those we damaged find ways to attack us in whatever ways they can. And that's also the way the world works. Big guys bully, little guys sneak up and do their damage by surprise...sometimes serious damage.
> 
> If you want to pursue the first "way the world works," then you just have to say "c'est la vie" when "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on which side you're on) retaliate.


I don't disagree with what you're saying here. I DO understand that we're going to be hated by some. I accept that of that population of hate some will strike at our interests domestically and abroad.

There's no way to avoid that, though. No amount of reconciliation can assuage the hatred while maintaining anything approaching our current standard of living. We need to endeavor to maintain our dominance (directly and/or through relationships with other countries), spread our culture of democracy/capitalism/liberty, and minimize the threats that our enemies pose.

Ed O.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll deny it. He was the Robin Hood of the left. The daring, acrobatic and dashing thief for the masses. Ahh, Robin Hood. So good with a bo staff.
> ...


Is that what it is? Comedy to you? 

Death and dying mean nothing? I'd love to have the mindset that insulates you from what is happening to humans everyday in the Mideast. No wonder you have such lofty ideals for mankind. It's not real to you. It's a joke. Lets all hold hands and sing along with Minstrel.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> Are you ready to adopt Islamic fundamentalism into your life? They aren't acting on a position of tolerance and appeasement. Should we adopt your ideal moral high ground and expect them to play along? Can we convince the Islamic world that our way of life is better by extending our hand?
> 
> NO ****ING WAY.


It's funny that you and many other conservatives claim that these terrorist/freedom fighter actions have nothing to do with rationality and retaliation but are just religious fundamentlism.

And yet...other non-Islamic states like England, France, India, Australia, etc, are not being targeted.

Who has been targeted so far? First, the US...the country that stationed US military in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's home country. Second and third, the Spanish and South Koreans, who sent troops to assist in this misguided war.

Hmm, every target seems to have a military and rational relevance. If it were nothing but blind, religious fundamentalism, there are many other countries that Al Queda could have hit.

Therefore, yes...I *do* believe that if we stopped supporting dictatorships around the world and stopped destabilizing any government we disagreed with (and felt bold enough to attack), we'd be less of a target for resentful terrorists/freedom fighters from those countries.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> How cynical.
> 
> It actually is a question of faith. I believe we did the right thing.


Obviously you do. But just because you believe it doesn't make it so.



> I noticed you didn't deny my accusation that Saddam is Che Nouveau for the left. In fact you rather justified it.


You are right. I failed to deny one of your 'accusations'. I must therefore be guilty as charged. 



> Poor Sadaam, he didn't do anything wrong since he got kicked out of Kuwait did he?


Nothing substantial, no.



> What's your idea of justification? Wait for him to use what we keep finding?


Yes. Would it be justified for another country to attack us just because we posess far, far more WMDs than Saddam ever even dreamed of having?



> How many people have to die before you feel threatened?


Huh? Was I supposed to feel threatened by Saddam? He's going to take his mustard gas to Portland and gas me? Him and what army?

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that what it is? Comedy to you?
> ...


*clap clap* Your moving sermon has me ashamed for what I've done. I should never have trivialized your contemptuous comments for "the left," because they was so mind-bogglingly important.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Huh? Was I supposed to feel threatened by Saddam? He's going to take his mustard gas to Portland and gas me? Him and what army?


So if he uses it anyone besides you it's ok. How pleasant.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> *clap clap* Your moving sermon has me ashamed for what I've done. I should never have trivialized your contemptuous comments for "the left," because they was so mind-bogglingly important.


Your supposed cutting edge sarcasm demonstrates your romanticism. 

Personally, I'm disgusted that you can trivialize human suffering while claiming to be so enlightened.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> So if he uses it anyone besides you it's ok. How pleasant.


Sorry, Target, but that's not anything close to what was said or implied. You asked about feeling threatened. You didn't ask about whether I thought it was ok to kill people.

Try to pay attention.

barfo


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Oh..I see. So who exactly does he have to kill before you feel threatened? 

He's used them before. 

They exist. 

He claimed they didn't. 

Why? 

Because he intended on using them again?

It's not Spock logic.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Oh..I see. So who exactly does he have to kill before you feel threatened?


Mo Cheeks. If he killed Mo Cheeks at a Blazer home game I would feel threatened. That would prove he has the ability and desire to kill random people many thousands of miles from Iraq. At present, there is no evidence that he ever had such abilities or desires. Indeed, it is far, far more likely that some crackpot from Klamath Falls would travel to Portland and off some lefties. Even that threat, I think, does not justify invading Klamath Falls, destroying the city and killing the civilians. Not just yet, anyway.

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I disagree that a(n objectively) benign Hussein would have been targeted the same way as the real Saddam was. Anti-western views are one thing, but gassing his own people, invading neighboring countries and not living up to the terms imposed on him following Gulf War I all added up to a bad dude.


I'm not saying he wasn't a terrible person. What I'm saying is that wasn't the reason he became an issue to the US. If he were sitting on a worthless pile of sand with no oil beneath him, he'd still be in charge in Iraq.

Had Kuwait not been sitting on a large reserve of oil (and their leader not been a major stockholder in US corporations), I doubt the US would have bestirred itself to launch the first Persian Gulf War.



> I don't think so. I think that if we let enough countries buy a gun, load it with bullets and aim at us, eventually we're going to get shot. To strain this analogy even more, we need to make sure that countries that buy guns are ones we can trust and we should never let another country aim at us.


To continue straining that analogy, I don't think all these countries would keep buying guns and aiming them at us if we didn't mug them every so often.



> I guess neither of us know all the facts, but I think that you either (a) missed the dangers in the scenarios I provided, or (b) don't mind a huge hit to our economy or Saudis massing on their borders to invade their neighbors.


Are we going to involve ourselves in every war? The answer is no, because we already don't. The fact is, the Middle East is a never-ending pot of simmering resentments because England set it up that way with their usual hasty, ill-considered and arbitrary giving of land to various people, back at the time Israel became a state, and because the US keeps the pot stirred.

As much as the US claims to want peace in the Middle East, that peace would eventually come naturally, as it always does, if it weren't artifically kept away. So, no, I disagree that if the US left those countries to their own devices, the Saudis massing on their borders would be a serious problem.

There might be aggression to start with, but with no artificial peace-blockers in the form of the US, eventually an equilibrium would result.



> Nope. But they aren't committed to the destruction of any other state in their region or the world. Several arab states are officially in support of destroying Israel, and in my hypothetical they would be specifically targeted.


Israel has many elements that would like to wipe out the Palestinians. Netanyahu was one such. Right now, the Sharon leadership may not be committed to destroying the Palestinians...but there's no guarantee at all that different leadership in the future won't be sympathetic to such extremist goals.



> If two men take a step, they aren't necessarily going to be stepping in the same direction.


No, of course not. But they are each exercising the same philosophy. Obviously you will feel he's stepping in the wrong direction, because he's on a different side than you are, and he will see you as stepping the wrong direction.

You mention the Nazis as "exercising their power but in the wrong direction." Tell me, was installing Pinochet, as the US did, a "step in the right direction"? Keep in mind that Pinochet might be the third-bloodiest dictator of that century, after Hitler and Stalin. Do you think to the people of Chile, the US was any less evil than the Nazis, as friends and family were destroyed?

The fact is, when you go by that philosophy, you do great evil to someone. Every entity will try to rationalize *their* use of it and say the other guy was the one who used it evilly.

The US has ended up killing many more people via the dictators they've enabled or the death squads they've financed. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were monsters the US armed and trained...just the price of doing business, right? Until they attack *us*...then they're no longer such cute and cuddly freedom fighters. Now they're blackhearted terrorists. Where did the love go?



> Where is bin Laden trying to go? What is he trying to accomplish?
> 
> I simply reject that his goals are on the same moral plane as those of the U.S. I think that we must necessarily look out for our own interests first, but part of those goals and interests are for the dissemination of democracy/tolerance/liberty.


Toppling democracies that won't do as we say is disseminating democracy? Destabilizing governments and telling them what they can and can't do is dissmeninating liberty? Don't act like we stand for any of those things outside of our borders. Only within our borders do those things have *any* value to us. Outside our borders, those things are annoyances to be crushed because they make controlling people more difficult.

Maybe you'd *like* us to inhabit a higher moral plane for your comfort, but there's absolutely no evidence that we do, internationally. Internationally, we've probably caused as much misery to citizenry as the Nazis did or Stalin did (though over a greater span of years).

What is Osama bin Laden trying to do or accomplish? He's trying to dissuade the US from continually interfering in the governments of the Middle East, including his own country. How, exactly, is that a goal that you consider unacceptable and a lower moral stand than the US'?



> Juxtapose that with bin Laden is attempting to do: destroy western influences in the Arab peninsula and the middle east. Bring down our country, if need be, to return Islam (or perhaps _bring_ Islam) to shari'a.
> 
> If you find those two goals on equal footing, then we're at a bit of an impasse on this part of the conversation.


I think you're incorrect when you paint the US' international goals as such beautiful, shining idealism. The US has proven time and again that democracy and liberty are *not* things they want in other countries. Democracies are harder to control...you never know what those silly peasants will want. Install a friendly dictator and you just have to control one person to control the nation.

I think that our *true* goals (making sure that all opposition to our capitalism and corporate interests in other countries is crushed, no matter what the loss of life) is very much on equal footing with bin Laden's. Both are pure self-interest.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Your supposed cutting edge sarcasm demonstrates your romanticism.


Your linking of two unrelated concepts so that you can artificially continue your ranting demonstrates your deep love of Saddam Hussein.

Personally, I'm disgusted that you support (and even love) Saddam Hussein.



> Personally, I'm disgusted that you can trivialize human suffering while claiming to be so enlightened.


I'm not trivializing human suffering, I'm trivializing your absurd characterizations of the left. That only further demostrates my enlightenment.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Indeed, it is far, far more likely that some crackpot from Klamath Falls would travel to Portland and off some lefties.


Is that your attempt at humor? Why is it you guys seem to always pull some supposed humor out of your hat to defend your position. Can't debate your position seriously? I expect more, really. If you can't stay on topic I would suggest you be less opinionated. 

Say the UN inspectors actually found WMD's before the war. Would that have justified an invasion of Iraq? 

Apparently it was inevitable because the weapons were there. 

Do you believe the Bathist's had a plan to abdicate if the whole world demanded it? They wouldn't let their own people protest. Why would they listen to anyone anywhere?

Was Saddam contained? His tanks and air power were. His infantry was contained. Would he use his money and influence to provide aid to people that would attack our interests? Why not? 

This is the same guy that sent Scuds at Israel during Desert Storm and gassed his civil opposition. How soon some people would like to forget his past. Was he a changed man? No way.

He hid chemical weapons and apparently shipped them out to like minded people. He conspired to aid and abet enemies of the United States. 

How contained is that? 

Too bad Maurice Cheeks isn't here to share in this debate. It would be interesting to learn his opinion.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "As much as the US claims to want peace in the Middle East, that peace would eventually come naturally, as it always does, if it weren't artifically kept away."


Huh? What planet are you living on? The Protestants and Catholics have been killing each other forever in Northern Ireland. Certain tribes in Africa have been at each other's necks since time began. The Sunnis hated the Shiites long before Israel was created, and will probably continue to hate them after all this dies down. And Jews and Arabs will always find a reason to hate each other. It's the human condition, my friend. Peace is not a natural result of things; it's something that often has to be fought for and negotiated. And even then it doesn't always last.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I'm not trivializing human suffering, I'm trivializing your absurd characterizations of the left. That only further demostrates my enlightenment.


Or ignorance depending on how you look at it. Example?



> Who has been targeted so far? First, the US...the country that stationed US military in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's home country. Second and third, the Spanish and South Koreans, who sent troops to assist in this misguided war.


How about the Christian and Jewish populations of the countries that live under Islamic law. What about adulterers that live there? Aren't they targeted? Read this and then tell me that they are only after the US because we covet their oil.

And this 

And this 

And this

I'd suggest your bend your knee but in truth you already have


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I guess the terrorists must know there is no WMD in Iraq . . .



> "Terrorists may have been close to obtaining munitions containing the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that Polish soldiers recovered last month in Iraq, the head of Poland's military intelligence said Friday . . .
> 
> . . . "Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
> 
> "If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/international1018EDT0516.DTL


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Is it so hard for some of you to believe that we did the right thing?


Right and wrong are VERY subjective. VERY! 

There is rarely, if ever, a true right and wrong.

The US is romantic. We like to find good in everything we do. We went to a war that was about terrorism. That didn't stick, so we moved to threats and WMD. That really didn't stick, especially with Korea acting like brats. So, we moved to removing a terrible man. Now we continue with "freeing the people".

It is how the American mindset works. We need to "justify" our purpose. 



> I get the feeling you would have been happier if he'd have had a chance to use them on someone.


Well, using that logic - we should *DISARM ALL AMERICANS* before they have a chance to use them against someone. 



> You guys see Sadaam Hussein as some kind of romantic pariah. He's the underdog going up against the bigs. A Che Guevera for the modern liberal. Sadaam against the world. It doesn't matter what he's done or what his intentions are. He's been wronged and you're going to stand up for him.


I haven't seen ANYONE defend Saddam Hussein ever on this board. 

You always twist arguments and people's words to suit whatever purpose you want. 



> It's obvious you believe that to be true. Show your colors.


It's obvious you are sexually attracted to sheep. Be honest. Show your true colors!

That isn't an argument, man. Do you see the issue? 

Do I believe Bush overstepped his power boundries? Sure do. I think he has no regard for the constitution of this nation and has consistantly trend on our rights. 

Do I believe Saddam was a world class douchebag? Sure do. And as a matter of fact ... if Bush came on the air and said "We are attacking Iraq because Saddam is a douchebag and I don't want that man in control of 20% of the world's oil..." I would have supported the war!



> I mean, humans have stopped killing each other before... right? Wrong.


I guess we should just escalate that behavior then. 

I mean, babies have always cried and whined when they don't get their way ... I think we should continue that behavior pattern ... because it is socially responsible and proper.

Get over yourself.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "There is rarely, if ever, a true right and wrong."


Horse crap. Your moral relativism is tired, childish, and cliched.



> "I haven't seen ANYONE defend Saddam Hussein ever on this board."


And you haven't seen any liberals attack him, either, have you? That's the dirty little trick of the left. They ignore Saddam's atrocities, and focus on Bush's supposed evil-doing.



> "Do I believe Bush overstepped his power boundries? Sure do."


You conveniently forget that Congress overwhelmingly gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq. 



> "I think [Bush] has no regard for the constitution of this nation and has consistantly trend on our rights."


I'm assuming you meant Bush has "tread" on our rights? This is another lie that gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like Bush. The most important right of all is the right to life, which Bush is protecting by fighting the terrorists who are trying to kill us.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

I think that finding the WMD is definitely important. It will not only provide a scrap of evidence that America should have occupied Iraq, but it will also give President Bush an important boost to his approval rating. 

I don't think that it is any surprise that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, many other countries have weapons of much more power. I mean, Sarin gas is pretty scary stuff. The mustard gas...eh, well that’s REALLY common. Personally, it would be much more important if Nuclear, Atomic or Biological weapons were found, as they are all much more lethal (if you think Saddam was a threat, read "Biohazard" by Ken Alibek, who was in charge of Russia's biological weapons program near the end of the Cold War"). 


The fact of the matter is that it has taken a long time to find these weapons of mass destruction. At that, who knows how old these weapons are. Would they even be in useable condition? It seems that if there were legitimate, major developments of weapons, they would have to go somewhere.

Here's a thought. WMD aren't the easiest thing to make or manufacturer. It takes some pretty knowledgeable people in order to do that. Where did these scientists come from, and where were the facilities and manufacturing plants (you'd think there'd be some evidence...or at least suspected manufacturing plants). Sure, it is possible that the weapons were shipped other places, but that isn't an excuse for not finding out the place that the weapons were made. 

Which comes to another point. Did Iraq make weapons? With the ones that have supposedly been discovered, then I would probably think no, just because these types of weapons are fairly common and could have easily been picked up on the black market. That doesn't excuse them from having them....but still since details aren't clear, it is hard to know what Saddam's involvement with the weapons were. I don't want to say conspiracy theory, but it has been a LONG time without finding the WMD. It is quite possible that the government planted the evidence themselves just to save face. I mean, other then American's, who is there to prove that we didn't (granted, it would be hard keeping the people that planted the weapons to remain quiet...which is why I don't believe they could have been planted). 

I mean, sure they might have had mustard (bad) and sarin (very bad) weapons, but that doesn't imply the intent to use them. 

Ed O did hit on a point...that America went into Iraq looking in part because of Oil, Security, and freeing a nation. However, the main reason...our initial vindication for the war, was that they had WMD illegally. I'm sure that they probably did have some. However, when we couldn't find any, it suddenly became about freeing the Iraqis, which is a very different reason (and much worse in some ways). 

I mean, if our intent was to free the Iraqis, then why wouldn't the UN agree. Personally, I would be 100% for the war if it was UN-sanctioned. But it isn't. This was all about US. Not about THEM (Iraq). Whatever happened to the idea of Isolationism? Switzerland and Sweden seem to work it pretty well. 


I really am trying to keep this out of politics. Don't get me wrong. I think that Bush did have conflicting Interests with oil, but then again I don't think he would willingly endanger our troops lives and such if he didn't think there was a threat (of course, he has people around him in his cabinet that definitely wanted to go to war). I try to look at everything with a critical mind, looking at our actions like those in a chess match. Where you have to think three moves ahead if you want to win. 


One thing I'm really afraid of is the notion of the United "We'll put a boot up your ***" States. Of course I am referring to the Toby Keith song, 'Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue". Essentially, this is sort of like saying "Don't Mess With Texas", but applying it to the whole nation. This notion of America being so much bigger and better then other countries is NOT a good thing. It's WAY too cocky. How do you think people in other countries think when they hear "We'll put a boot up your ***, it’s the American way". Well, it isn't the American way. If I remember from History, America was founded as a place for persecuted people to immigrate to. 

I guess I just have to look at in from a European perspective though. My mother was born in Sweden and I'm just about to go over to Germany and Italy for 3 weeks....and believe me, I will not be highlighting the fact that I'm American. They are just loosing respect for our nation over there, and honestly I don't blame them. We're like the Kobe Bryant of nations. We know that were good, we overly-flaunt it, piss off our teammates [in the world] and assume more power then we really should have. 

Regardless, as I know I'm surely off topic WAY too far by now, EVERYBODY IS MISSING THE BIG PICTURE. Listen, we went to Iraq [in part] because Iraq supposedly had WMD and was a threat to our security [NOT our freedom....where are significantly different]. We all know that The Middle East has a problem with America. Otherwise they wouldn't be this threat. Is it jealousy? I don't think so. 

Honestly, the question that needs to be asked is why do people in the Middle East hate America so much. I mean, they seem to be such a big threat to us, and not to others, that we decide to invade Iraq while other countries want no part of it (don't show me "the list" of countries with troops in Iraq...many of them are supporting us as tokens so that they are in our good graces). 

Perhaps they hate America because we are so pro-Israeli. I mean, that is the biggest problem in the Middle East...the fight for the Holy Land. We are getting ourselves, unnecessarily into this big fight. All the while, Israel is not the kindest of nations either, as they built that huge freaking wall (which is an outrage....if Bush had any guts at all he'd cut any relations with Israel until they totally dismantle that atrocity) to keep out the Muslims. 

I mean, perhaps the problem does not entirely rest on them. I mean, YES, many people in the Middle East do hate America. That is irrefutable. But WHY???? WHY? WHY?

Maybe, if we actually asked, and changed our own behaviors (like not supporting Israel, which isn't our right or place) then we could help our situations with people in the Middle East. It won't give them a reason to hate us as much, and logically, they will not be our "enemy". 


Regardless of the outcome of the Iraq incident, there will still be many, many radical Muslims from nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan that will continue to plot and attack America. Even though the nations go through political reform, there is not way to change people's thoughts and motivations. Eventually America will have to leave these counties, and slowly we will see insurgent behavior continue to brew larger. 

If we really want to be secure, then we need to fix our relations with the Middle East. I mean, they didn't hate us because we didn't take out Saddam. They hated us for who WE are. Sure, some people will change their mind in these countries, but the radicals...the ones who carry out the terror anyways, will still have the hate in their hearts against us for our nation and who we are. If it wasn't for something WE are doing, why don't the terrorists hit many other nations, like Russia or Poland, or Argentina or Canada? 

I'm not to saying that we're totally at fault either. But, we have a fair hand in the problem. Until we can become in good graces of the Muslim community (as in not supporting Israel in their fighting against the Muslims), then we might see that the Muslim and Jewish communities can like us.



Anyways, I'm just trying to be a critical thinker. It's really a shame at where America is heading in the world. We are becoming so macho-istic and conceded that we are pissing off other countries in the world, which sort of goes against peace and harmony, which according to beauty pageant winners, is something that the world desperately wants. 

I really don't think that our invasion of Iraq was a good thing to do. Not because I am anti-American. In fact, I think that critical thinking and questioning our country's actions is what is needed to make it stronger. 



Overall, even with a "democratic" government in Iraq, does that mean there won't be terrorists. As long as we give the Muslims a reason for hating us, they will. So, that's why simply invading Iraq and Afghanistan were not supported by other countries, such as the majority of the UN Security Council. 

Ask the tough...correct questions that are needed to invoke real change and innovation. Think like a chess player....three moves ahead and exploring all opportunities and possibilities. It's the only way to keep the nation, which we are all a part of, on the right track.



Oh, but as for this:



> I'm assuming you meant Bush has "tread" on our rights? This is another lie that gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like Bush. The most important right of all is the right to life, which Bush is protecting by fighting the terrorists who are trying to kill us.



I guess millions and millions of people get their kicks out of lying then...huh? Granted, the word could be misinformed. But I'm more likely to listen to a combination of ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC.... then just Fox and Religous shows. Fox is anything but far and balanced. It's pretty obvious.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Is that your attempt at humor? Why is it you guys seem to always pull some supposed humor out of your hat to defend your position. Can't debate your position seriously? I expect more, really. If you can't stay on topic I would suggest you be less opinionated.


Target, things can be funny and true at the same time. As for staying on topic, you are the one who is having major problems with that. 

barfo



> Say the UN inspectors actually found WMD's before the war. Would that have justified an invasion of Iraq?
> 
> Apparently it was inevitable because the weapons were there.
> 
> ...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Horse crap. Your moral relativism is tired, childish, and cliched.


Is it now?

Is it "clearly right" to destroy a country and decimate a population in the name of a "just cause"? That's a moral debate. One in which you don't have the mind power to debate. 

There is NO clear right and wrong in this issue. One can see it through many different lenses and put it through the many prisms of personal morality. If you fail to see that - then you are no better then those you purport to hate.



> And you haven't seen any liberals attack him, either, have you?


Sure I have. They just don't believe that it was cause enough for us to enter war with them. 

There are other people on par with Saddam when it comes to "dirty deeds". There are other countries that pose a far greater threat to our safety then Saddam. 



> That's the dirty little trick of the left. They ignore Saddam's atrocities, and focus on Bush's supposed evil-doing.


Namely because Saddam is NOT the ruler of OUR country - BUSH is. They don't care about his atrocities because they do not affect our nation. No one ignores them - they just don't feel it is reason enough to relive the Vietnam war.



> You conveniently forget that Congress overwhelmingly gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.


I conveniently forgot nothing. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act without reading it - big deal. 

I've said this before - the nation's checks & balances have become corrupt and the different branches of government have colluded. 



> I'm assuming you meant Bush has "tread" on our rights?


You be assuming correctly.



> This is another lie that gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like Bush.


I don't dislike or like the man. I think he has done things in his presidency that are overstepping his bounds.



> The most important right of all is the right to life, which Bush is protecting by fighting the terrorists who are trying to kill us.


The "right to life" portion of our nation's rights were basically dealing with the right to life from our government or people within our country. Immediate threats were to be dealt with.

Terrorists are NOT, repeat NOT, being dealt with. Terrorism is a MINDSET. You cannot defeat a mindset with bullets, because all it does is produce more of the like-minded mindset.

Take for instance - Michael Moore. The more conservatives damn him and try to prevent his movie from being released - the more it looks like he is portraying an ACCURATE message and a message that the conservatives are scared of letting out. So, while they spend time defaming him and boycotting theatres and trying to coerce theatres from releasing it .... the more credence is leant. 

So - when it comes to killing a "terrorist" - what happens is you tell the people that this is a form of war that we are afraid of and that has tons of credibility. It works.

Besides - I would rather take my 1-in-300,000,000 chance of a terrorist boogyman getting me then give up ANY of my other rights. I have, statistically speaking, about the same chance as getting impaled on a bowl of oatmeal as getting struck by a terrorist inside of the domestic US.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!


And I thought I was longwinded. HEHE!


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

The problem here is one of symantics. Technically, a little mustard gas IS a WMD, but that was not what we were led to believe, that was not why people supported the war, and that is NOT WMD in the sense that it was sold to the American public. 

We were led to believe that Saddam had radiological, biolgilcal, chemical, and potentially NUCLEAR capabilities. Saying Mustard Gas counts (a substance used extensively in WWI) is like saying I could play in the NBA because I am human. Yes, humans play in the NBA, but those that do are QUALITATIVELY different than me. Mustard gas is not the same thing as a dirty bomb. 

850 men and women have not died, and upwards of $100 billion (!) was not spent, to find a little mustard gas.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Stevenson</b>!
> The problem here is one of symantics. Technically, a little mustard gas IS a WMD, but that was not what we were led to believe, that was not why people supported the war, and that is NOT WMD in the sense that it was sold to the American public.
> 
> We were led to believe that Saddam had radiological, biolgilcal, chemical, and potentially NUCLEAR capabilities. Saying Mustard Gas counts (a substance used extensively in WWI) is like saying I could play in the NBA because I am human. Yes, humans play in the NBA, but those that do are QUALITATIVELY different than me. Mustard gas is not the same thing as a dirty bomb.
> ...




Very good point! and very true. We were led to believe Iraq was trying to make and obtain materials needed for Nukes. Mustard gas may be a WMD, but it really was not what we were looking for or suspecting that they had. It's also not nearly as bad as Nukes, H-bombs or bioweapons.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Is that your attempt at humor? Why is it you guys seem to always pull some supposed humor out of your hat to defend your position. Can't debate your position seriously?


Sure we can. I've been debating seriously with Ed. There's little point to discussing anything seriously with a fanatic like you, who takes any chance he gets to insult those he disagrees with. Ed is not insulting, despite being a Conservative and disagreeing with me, so serious discussion is worthwhile.

With people like you, there's rarely much chance for productive dialogue, so we may as well get some humour value out of your extremist rantings.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> How about the Christian and Jewish populations of the countries that live under Islamic law. What about adulterers that live there? Aren't they targeted?


I was clearly refering to their choices of targets in international "terrorism." I've never denied that religion fuels governance of religious fundamentalist states. That's the definition of a religious fundamentalist state.

Some conservatives like to claim that they're attacking the US because they just don't like us, don't like our religion, hate our freedom, etc, etc. Well, there are many countries they *could* have attacked that also fit that profile of not being an Islamic state and having freedom, democracy and all the rest. And all of them probably "safer" countries to atttack, also.

The country they just *happened* to choose was the one that's been disrupting things in the Middle East for decades. Their next targets were countries who sent troops to help the US subjugate Iraq. I guess that's all just a big coincidence. The real way they picked us, Spain and South Korea was to throw all the non-Islamic countries into a hat and pick one at random.



> I'd suggest your bend your knee but in truth you already have


You'd make a good fake wrestler. At least in terms of silly bluster.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly my point (in the long-*** article that people probably didn't read).

Sure, the hate us. BUT, I'm sure there is a reason...and it isn't because we're free or because of our religion. Heck, some Muslims live in America after all. The main issue is becasue of our involvement in the Middle East, where we are sticking our nose into something bad [to begin with] and a place where it doesn't belong. If we were a more neutral country as opposed to taking sides, I'm certain that we wouldn't see the anti-American attitude being nearly as flagrant and widespread as it is.

I mean, to them, their reason for hating us must be good. But that's the point. They have a reason for hating us. Couldn't we just try to help make the reason go away...instead of bombing them to submission?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "The main issue is becasue of our involvement in the Middle East, where we are sticking our nose into something bad [to begin with] and a place where it doesn't belong. If we were a more neutral country as opposed to taking sides, I'm certain that we wouldn't see the anti-American attitude being nearly as flagrant and widespread as it is."


What did Hitler have to do with us in WW2? Weren't we sticking our nose into a place (i.e. Europe) it didn't belong? Should we have stayed on the sidelines during WW2, and let Europe fight Hitler on its own? And what if Hitler had won? How would Europe have changed for the worse? How many more Jews would have been put into concentration camps, or gassed to death?

I guess the Nazis developed an "anti-American attitude" because we stuck our nose into their business, but the rest of Europe was pretty darn glad to see us drop in. Most average Iraqis feel the same way.



> "I mean, to them, their reason for hating us must be good. But that's the point. They have a reason for hating us. Couldn't we just try to help make the reason go away...instead of bombing them to submission?"


We did NOT bomb the average Iraqi into "submission." We bombed the forces of Saddam Hussein and others who had been helping him perpetuate large-scale misery upon the civilian population for years. Your gross misrepresentation of the facts only serves to undercut your argument.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I guess the Nazis developed an "anti-American attitude" because we stuck our nose into their business, but the rest of Europe was pretty darn glad to see us drop in. Most average Iraqis feel the same way.


If you are going to make this analogy, then Nazis--> Baathists, and rest of Europe --> rest of the mideast. Trouble is, I don't think the rest of the mideast is quite as enthusiastic about our help as Europe was. Possibly because in WWII we waited until after Germany invaded it's neighbors before we acted. If we'd invaded Germany preemtively in 1938, how do you suppose the rest of Europe would have reacted? There is a big difference between the way we acted in WWII and the way we acted in Iraq. 

barfo


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> What did Hitler have to do with us in WW2? Weren't we sticking our nose into a place (i.e. Europe) it didn't belong? Should we have stayed on the sidelines during WW2, and let Europe fight Hitler on its own?


The difference is QUITE large. If you fail to see that then you are ignoring the historical significance of the war.

First, we were fighting a coalition of UNIFORMED soldiers. Part of the faction declared war on the United States of America. 

Second, we did not want to stick our nose into WWII. If Pearl Harbor did not take place, the people would have been VERY much like they are today. No one supported the idea of war in WWII before Pearl Harbor.

Third, Hitler was trying to expand an empire by using unprovoked attacks and the expansion territories were allies of the US. Come to think of it, most of the world let Hitler's expansion go unchecked at first.

The ONLY corresponding bit is likening the World Trade Center attack to Pearl Harbor ... but even then ... it's a stretch. 

Play.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> If you are going to make this analogy, then Nazis--> Baathists, and rest of Europe --> rest of the mideast. Trouble is, I don't think the rest of the mideast is quite as enthusiastic about our help as Europe was. Possibly because in WWII we waited until after Germany invaded it's neighbors before we acted. If we'd invaded Germany preemtively in 1938, how do you suppose the rest of Europe would have reacted? There is a big difference between the way we acted in WWII and the way we acted in Iraq.


I don't disagree with your point altogether, barfo. I don't have time to address Minstrel's latest rebuttal to my post but I do have an interesting question:

If we (the US, perhaps with the UK) *could* have invaded or otherwise derailed Germany after the Nazis were in power but before they killed millions of _undermenschen_, should we have? Say in 1938, to pull out a year.

If we could have saved all the people from the ovens and the gas and the starvation? And perhaps nipped WW 2 in the bud (since Japan and Germany and Italy didn't form the Axis until 1940) or at least dramatically reduced its scope?

Considering we (as a species) have emerged from the Cold War without destroying the world, I don't think we can argue TOO much with the way Germany got the fight taken out of it... but would it have been better to act preempitvely if we knew Germany would do what it did? 

I don't know myself and wonder what others think.

Ed O.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I don't know myself and wonder what others think.


I think you get into the territory that the movie "Minority Report" was trying to cover.

That's thought policing. If we knew with 100% certainty - and could prove it - then maybe we could have put up sanctions to end it peaceably. 

But, you can't willy-nilly declare war because a nation MIGHT do something.

Not just that, but I wouldn't want to risk society as it is today. So, if the question is - in 20/20 hindsight would you have changed things, knowing what you know today - I would say no.

I feel the world learned a lot about itself during that war. I think Hitler was a needed force in the world -- it is a horrible thing, but some good and lessons were learned. 

Play.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

"Hitler was a needed force.."?????

How so?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> "Hitler was a needed force.."?????
> 
> How so?


It depends on how you evaluate the world. 

We learned a lot about cooperation and the ability of the world to combine efforts to defeat that which one can truly label "unjust".

We saw just HOW awry things can get if we leave them unchecked. We saw what the face of evil looked like. 

A lot of current technology was borne of that era. 

Women were able to truly join the workforce and started to consider themselves as equals - thus prompting to further the "Women's Movement" .. although it was quelled when the men returned. 

Japan moved from a very military dominated society to a beacon of advancement. 

If you look at it from a purely emotional standpoint - then the loss of life was atrocious and no amount of "good" could ever fill the void.

But, if you evaluate things on a historical perspective - and are able to see what we learned about ourselves as human beings - then it served a purpose. 

Not all that seems to be "bad" ever is... there is always a way for mankind to evolve and grow from each experience. In all - Hitler was one hell of a good Hilter, wasn't he? 

Play.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> It depends on how you evaluate the world.
> ...


Now THAT is a unique perspective, one I have never considered before. Thanks. It is always good to look at things from a new angle. 

You are right, much good did result from WWII. The GI Bill helped create the middle class. The age of fascism ended. We saw how important it was to avoid appeasment. Knowing that genocide could really happen, and working to prevent it was another result. Products like teflon, silly putty, and the microwave came from WWII. Uniting with like minded democracies also was a result. 

Really, I had never looked at WWII/Hitler from that angle before. And I must say, "Hitler was one hell of a good Hitler" is maybe the most amusing thing I have ever read on the Web. Easy to take that sentance wrong, but if you "get it" it is quite interesting.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> If we (the US, perhaps with the UK) *could* have invaded or otherwise derailed Germany after the Nazis were in power but before they killed millions of _undermenschen_, should we have? Say in 1938, to pull out a year.


My answer is no - don't invade. There's no way to be sure of Hitler's intentions - in fact, Hitler probably doesn't know himself in 1938 exactly what he's going to do.

Even if somehow you had perfect intelligence (and our recent experience shows just how untrustworthy intelligence can be), you'd never convince the rest of the world that your intelligence was correct. The countries that ended up our allies might well have become our enemies instead. 

I don't think I accept Play's theory that things are better today because of WWII - things might be, but who is to say they wouldn't be even better if we'd killed Hitler in 1938? Maybe it would have prevented the war; maybe it would have made it much much bloodier. We'll never know.

If we should invade Germany in 1938, or Iraq in 2003, why not lock up US citizens that we think might be likely to commit crimes? Same principle applies.

barfo


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses...
> 
> ...If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.


Sounds a lot like saber rattling. George W Bush?

Nope


 Even President Clinton knew they were there. 

Where was the outrage?

Where did his resolve go? Bill Clinton could have done the right thing. He said the right words. 

It amazes me that someone who follows through with his promises is vilified by the same people that call this liar a great man. How hypocritical.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

As for the original post, it seems there were no wmd's after all:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20040705.txt 

Regardless of Hussein, if there are no wmd's found and no real connection to al-queda found, then the whole war was unjustified. Those are the conditions that got me on board, and those are the only things that can keep me there. Unless something new develops, I will consider this all done either under false pretenses or by incompetents.

Any notions of containing Hussein before he becomes another Hitler are, without the evidence, pure speculation; not the stuff of which responsibility is made. If the 'real' plan was to try some sort of weird experiment of forcing our government on the unwilling, I would take that as contempt for the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi people.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> As for the original post, it seems there were no wmd's after all:


Well, well, well. Imagine that. 

Now why would our Secretary of Defense make a boo-boo like this? 

And could it be that the newspapers didn't splash the story on the front pages because they suspected the truth was something other than what Rummy told them?

Darn, another justification for killing people shot to hell. Well, on to the next excuse. We had to invade because, um, because Saddam had all these rusting weapons from previous wars out in the desert and, um, somebody might have tripped over them and gotten tetanus or something. Yeah - we did it to protect the health of the Iraqi people. Yeah, that's it.

barfo


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I think a few have you, perfection, minstrel, ed o, play, have hit it right on the nose.

The reason we have these terrorists, is not because we are a democracy, free, equal rights, capitalists, etc, etc.

Its because the US sticks its nose in the middle east and has been for decades. 

Since 1983 there have been 20 UNANIMOUS UN security resultions passed against Isreal that the the US has vetoed. 10 of them were voted in favor of by EVERY SINGLE member of the UN security council, except the US with their veto power.

President Bush has shown no desire at all to change US support of Israel.

And Kerry.... well he probably won't act any differently with his wife behind him.

We're going to have the islamic terrorists for a long long long time. The war on terror has just barely begun.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

What do we do? Abandon Israel now? Take a hike and hope they are content?

More likely to encourage them. 

Best thing we could do is remove their power base. Make their water wells worth more than oil wells again. 



> I was clearly refering to their choices of targets in international "terrorism." I've never denied that religion fuels governance of religious fundamentalist states. That's the definition of a religious fundamentalist state.


So Christians and Jews that live in Islamic states are inconsequential? You only want to discuss international terrorism? From what I see you care more about what you perceive as the faults of the US and their allies than you do about human rights. That was my point that you missed. 


> You'd make a good fake wrestler. At least in terms of silly bluster.


 Bow to Mecca then. If all Americans thought like you they'd be here already.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> So Christians and Jews that live in Islamic states are inconsequential? You only want to discuss international terrorism?


When discussing international terrorism, yes, I tend to limit the scope of my comments to international terrorism. Funny that. I notice none of your posts in this thread address any sympathy to people being tortured in China. You have no sympathy for human rights violations like torture? You monster!



> From what I see you care more about what you perceive as the faults of the US and their allies than you do about human rights. That was my point that you missed.


I didn't miss it. Like human rights violations in China, it was simply irrelevant to what I was talking about. Doesn't make it unimportant, just means that I don't try to hit on every world issue in every post I write.

The point of my recent posts was the reason why Al Queda was attacking the US. How Christians and Jews are treated within Islamic countries had no bearing on that topic, in my opinion. You, as usual, were simply trying to muddy the waters with unrelated issues.



> Bow to Mecca then. If all Americans thought like you they'd be here already.


Yeah, good example of that unproductive, fanatical ranting that I noted you enjoy engaging in earlier.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> The point of my recent posts was the reason why Al Queda was attacking the US. How Christians and Jews are treated within Islamic countries had no bearing on that topic, in my opinion. You, as usual, were simply trying to muddy the waters with unrelated issues.


Is it unrelated? You questioned the motives of the US and their allies. You placed the blame for Arab hatred on what you perceive to be aggresive nation building by the west, specifically the US. 

Seems to me that you are awfully quick to dismiss any humanitarian motive as falsehood. 



> Funny that. I notice none of your posts in this thread address any sympathy to people being tortured in China. You have no sympathy for human rights violations like torture? You monster!


Whatever. The topic was Islamic hatred for the US. And the hatred of the US's involvement in the mideast. 

If you want to talk about China we can. IMO they will throw in with radical Islam before this is all over. They are as much opportunists as anyone. Not much difference in their philosophies relating to subjugation of their own people. 

As far as looking for parallels with present times and WWII I'd like you to consider the US isolationism before the war. If anyone had the forethought to intervene on the behalf of the German people when Hitler destroyed the government set up by the victors of WWI then Kristallnacht, Night of the Long Knives and even WWII would never have happened. 

But we did then as you suggest we do now. We didn't push our beliefs on the world. The US didn't begin intervening until people that spoke the same language as us were endangered. Rationalize that.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Seems to me that you are awfully quick to dismiss any humanitarian motive as falsehood.


Well, seems like if we went to Iraq on a humanitarian mission, our President would have said so, instead of telling a bunch of stories about terrorists. 

If Bush doesn't think that's the reason we went to war, why do you?

And by the way, how do you feel about our interventions in Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia? I guess you were a big supporter of President Clinton in those actions? 

barfo


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> What do we do? Abandon Israel now? Take a hike and hope they are content?


Yes. Israel should never have been created. 

Imagine, if you will, a foreign power coming to the United States and lopping off half of Texas and giving it to South America. Can you imagine the outrage? Texans from the east and west would be blacking up at night and hunting down everyone they could to remove them from "their lands".

Israel continues to unjustly expand it's borders. The rest of the Palestinians don't have a standing army, and thus fight through cells and small groups. They refer to it as terrorism. But, the Israeli government is also involved in it's own form of terrorism - military terrorism. 

When we blindly help Israel, we lose international credibility and respect. If you are going to portray yourself as the "world's police force" ... then you have to act unbiased. 



> Essay from Paul Findley (US Congress 1961-1983)
> 
> Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it unrelated? You questioned the motives of the US and their allies. You placed the blame for Arab hatred on what you perceive to be aggresive nation building by the west, specifically the US.
> ...


How Islamic countries treat Christians and Jews in their countries is unrelated to why Islamic terrorist groups like Al Queda hate America. That is what I'm saying.

As far as whether the US mission in Iraq had humanitarian motives, my belief is that *if* the adminsitration had humanitarian goals in mind, they were secondary. Which is no great stretch, since the administration never highlighted humanitarian concerns as the primary reason for the war *until* the WMD angle broke down and the Iraq/Al Queda link angle broke down.



> Whatever. The topic was Islamic hatred for the US. And the hatred of the US's involvement in the mideast.
> 
> If you want to talk about China we can.


Well, you fed into my point exactly. The reason you didn't mention China's human rights violations is because it's unrelated to what you were discussing.

Similarly, the reason I'm not commenting on the plight of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries is because I believe it to be unrelated to what *I* was talking about, which was why these terrorist groups attacked the US (and Spain, South Korea).

If you want to discuss the Jews and Christians in Islamic countries, we can. But as a *separate* discussion. It doesn't have much to do with the topic I outlined above: the reason *we* are targets and what Al Queda is trying to accomplish with international terrorism.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes. Israel should never have been created.


I agree that Israel shouldn't have been formed. And the way it was done was typical British incompetence, creating a mess as they left a former colonial area. They made a similar mess of the partition between India and Pakistan on their way out of that area.

But there's a problem with just pulling out of the Middle East and leaving them all to their own devices. The US has pumped so much aid into Israel to develop their military, Israel now has one of the most powerful armies in the world (which they wouldn't have had if the US hadn't irresponsibly picked sides in a conflict that didn't concern them).

If the US pulled out now and said, "Do what you will," Israel would slaughter its neighbours using it's US-inflated armed might.

Since the US cannot undo the damage it has already done, it seems like the US is now locked into the situation, though it would be nice if it started sending aid the Palestinians' way, instead of Israel's, while a peace accord was worked on.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I agree that Israel shouldn't have been formed. And the way it was done was typical British incompetence, creating a mess as they left a former colonial area. They made a similar mess of the partition between India and Pakistan on their way out of that area.


No doubt. Especially when you consider that the two peoples are historically mortal enemies. Of course, I can't quite figure out why.

It sickens me. I understand the desire to side with Israel, it's easy ... it makes one's heart go pitter-patter. I can even grasp the concept that denial of Israel could be considered anti-semetic. I just think that as a world power, that has a strong system of jurisprudence, we could be a little less biased in our actions when it comes to foreign policy.



> But there's a problem with just pulling out of the Middle East and leaving them all to their own devices.


I wouldn't advocate that either. I think we have placed ourselves in the role of "Earth Police", and we should begin to act like it.

When Isreal does something dumb, we should admonish them for it. If other countries, non-ally countries, come to us with issue then we should hear them out and react in accordance with the truth. We can't blindly take one side. 

Imagine how much international support we could muster if we did things properly. Imagine if we handled the whole 9/11 thing properly? The entire world was in support of the US ... bah! It's late and it frustrates me. 

Basically, I would think the proper move is to act like an impartial parent. 

If that means that Israel turns around and starts lambasting the Middle East, then they can meet the full power of the US Military too. 

And before you come at about turning our back on our allies Talkhard ... let me just remind you about how Japan was our enemy only 60 years ago. Now they are one of our staunchest allies. World politics is fleeting and moment to moment. 

We want to carry the big stick and call ourselves the world's police force --- we want to talk about moral superiority --- it is time we acted like it. 

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> I wouldn't advocate that either. I think we have placed ourselves in the role of "Earth Police", and we should begin to act like it.
> 
> ...


I agree with that. If we're going to take a hand in world events, we should at least be even-handed.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

This thread has become sickening.

I agree that Israel, "created" by an act of the United Nations, should not have been formed in this way. No people should be dependent on a vote of other nations (esp. non-democratic nations allowed to vote within the UN).

But that is not the point Talk and Minstrel are making. They seem to be saying that Jews should not be allowed to have a nation of their own -- even if it, alone among all its neighbours, seeks to have a liberal democracy and respect human rights. 

Either the US should promote democracy and liberty around the world -- in which case, supporting democracies like Israel and Taiwan and the new Iraq should be at the top of the list -- or the US should become insular and let *anyone* do *antyhing* outside America's borders. Any other position, IMMHO, is entirely inconsistent. 

Israel exists because there are Jewish people willing to defend it. Does anyone on this board question that any other people shold "cease" to exist? Does anyone think that Cubans or Italians or Tibetans should be murdered by their enemies simply because they may become inconvenient? Doesn't ever major ethnic group have a land it calls home? Even the Kurds, who have no nation, have a geographical area in which they are allowed to live. Why cannot Jews do the same?

But no -- the arab countries do not just want Israel to cease to exist -- they demand that every single Jew be ethnically cleansed. They did it to the Jews in Arab lands in 1948, and they are demanding that it be done to Jews in Israel and disputed lands. Do the people on this list who question Israel's right to exist believe that someone should be expelled or killed *simply because of their religion?* Is this really a position which can be defended by an intelligent liberal-minded person?

As for terrorism -- Israel does not practise terrorism. Here is a simple definition: Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Israel does not do it; at most it kills bad guys who hide in the middle of civilian areas. Heck the US in Iraq does the same and more. Syria has killed thousands of its own civilians -- so did King Hussein of Jordan. Saddam gassed his people. Israel has fought a bloody war against those who celebrate death -- who are willing to die just to kill some stranger. Even worse, they are willing to send their children to their deaths in order to kill someone they have no personal reason to dislike. Is this something any of you can really sympathise with?

I know this is going to start a flame war, but I am shocked that the existence of the state of Israel is something people debate. The country has plenty of faults, but these faults are by and large *caused* by the meddling of the internaitonal community (witness the billions of Euros spent by the EU which went to support suicide bombings). If you believe that the US should spread democracy, then Israel (along with Turkey, India, Taiwan and others) should be shining examples of what excellent things can be done with democracy even when surrounded by murderous dictatorships.

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK. I'll play. Tell me why the UN has had *hundreds* of resolutions condeming and criticizng Israel (some supported by the US), and NOT A SINGLE RESOLUTION, either by the full UN or by the Security Council, has EVER criticized the use of children as manned bombs to kill civilians?

You want even-handed? Then come down hard on those who dance in the streets to celebrate the killing of innocents. *Then* we can talk about criticizng Israel.

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> *nod* I understand. I just don't like it when people claim the US is doing almost a humanitarian thing here and then argue for limiting freedom for our purposes. Call a spade a spade...if we're there for our own interests, so be it. Don't dress it up as "liberation."


Democracy in Iraq is *very* good for the United States. And it also happens to be very good for Iraqis. I see no harm in saying both of these things. If Democracy and Human Rights are important, then they should be universally important. 



> In Iraq, it's not about them resisting McDonald's and Disneylands, but about putting their oil fields as directly into US corporate hands as possible. Saddam Hussein just provides a loveable foil for the overarching mission.


Sure. That is why the US has seized Iraqi oil, and the price of oil has plummeted. Crackpot ideas.




> That's an interesting question. Do we currently forbid or hamper Israeli nuclear weapon development? I don't believe we do. We certainly counsel them not to do anything rash. We could counsel Saudi Arabia similarly. I don't see why Israel is essentially allowed to do anything it likes while we say, "But we can't let X ever get the capability to fight Israel on even terms!"


Duh! Because Israel has had the bomb since 1974, and has never used it. And every Arab nation has publicly declared that if they could get their hands on a bomb, they would nuke Tel Aviv without hesitation. Children who cannot play nicely are not allowed to "fight on even terms". Or have you forgotten which countries in the Middle East take up 97% of the land mass? Or which counties have repeatedly launched wars on Israel? Or which counntries have the ethnic cleansing of Jews as their stated ambition, while millions of Arabs live (and VOTE!) as Israeli citizens?




> If you want to pursue the first "way the world works," then you just have to say "c'est la vie" when "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on which side you're on) retaliate.


Freedom fighters target military targets [After all, dictatorships never fall when civilians are terrorized]. Terrorists target civilians. Is this really no difficult a disntiction to make?

iWatas


----------



## Scipio (Feb 18, 2004)

Strong words and wise but some faults. 

Palestinian terrorist organizations do not use children to do their dirty work. They have enough camps filled with people with nothing to lose and are bitter because Israel has taken away the very basics needs for everyday life. Road-blocs, inspections, the wall...all these just make things worse.

Although Israel was given to jewish people I agree they deserve it. But expanding it outside of its borders is not acceptable. They have groups, religious groups who move to live in areas that should belong to them according the bible. That doesn't work in modern life and even Sharon has said it was the biggest mistake they made whe they allowed that to happen.

I read a book...don't remember the name anymore..but there Rabin told that when Intifada begin, it became as a total surprise to them. He said they were use to live like palestinians were lower class people and didn't mind being treated that way. Afterward he understood that they should've taught about it a bit better and should've learned something from their own history.

Where am I going with this? Just to point that there's two sised in this coin and both of them are dirty. US full support to Israel prevents UN and the world to anything to make this stop.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
> I think a few have you, perfection, minstrel, ed o, play, have hit it right on the nose.
> 
> The reason we have these terrorists, is not because we are a democracy, free, equal rights, capitalists, etc, etc.


On the contrary, this is precisely the reason. Israel is but an excuse, a way for Arab dictators to blame someone else for the failings of their leadership to provide them with decent lives. America is now moer targeted than Israel not *because* of Israel, but because of everything the US stands for:

democracy, freedom, materialism -- and critically, the fact that people have better lives when not under the thumbs of murderous dictators within an Islamic worldview. That is a very major threat. Islam itself is profoundly threatend by the fact of the existence and success of the USA. Everything else is just noise.

I recommend learning more about Islam; try the books by Bernard Lewis.


----------



## Scipio (Feb 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> Islam itself is profoundly threatend by the fact of the existence and success of the USA. Everything else is just noise.


NOw where did this come from? Islam itself is a peacefull religion is not threatened by any means. There has always been and there will be people who will use religion on wrong purposes.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scipio</b>!
> 
> Palestinian terrorist organizations do not use children to do their dirty work. They have enough camps filled with people with nothing to lose and are bitter because Israel has taken away the very basics needs for everyday life. Road-blocs, inspections, the wall...all these just make things worse.


Really? Then how come rural Chinese or Yemenis or Mongolians don't blow themselves up? Per capita income among Palestinians has often been higher than that of arabs in other countries, and MUCH higher than the truly poor in the world.


Can you explain to me why not a single one of the suicide bombers has been from the families of the leaders of Hamas or Al Aqsa or the PLO? Why do these organizations send "losers" dto their deaths?

It is a clear fact that children are sent to their deaths. The children are educated that this is good and noble, etc. Then they are given a bomb belt (they do not make their own). And, up to a year ago or so, the family was promised up to $20,000 cash for everychild blown up. Where in this do you see that children are not used as weapons?


BTW, attacks have lessened of late. Why? Because Israel starteted targeting the leader of Hamas, and because the US has removed Saddam Hussein as a funding source. 



> Although Israel was given to jewish people I agree they deserve it. But expanding it outside of its borders is not acceptable. They have groups, religious groups who move to live in areas that should belong to them according the bible. That doesn't work in modern life and even Sharon has said it was the biggest mistake they made whe they allowed that to happen.


Well, if we want to go according to the Bible, then Israel should hold *both* sides of the Jordan river. It does not. It shouyld hold parts of Lebanon. It does not. 

What establishes the borders of a country? For better or worse, war. This has decided the borders of Germany, France, etc. etc. Pakistan and India are even coming to peaceful resolution -- and both can show millions of refugees from the other dating back to 1947. If Israel is attacked, the loser gets to lose something. Israel's pre-1967 borders had Israel only 9 miles wide at a midpoint; does any other country have such limited strategic depth?




> US full support to Israel prevents UN and the world to anything to make this stop.


The UN is an illegitimate entity. Why should non-democratic tinpot dictators get to vote as equals with leaders of democracies? Why should Taiwan get excluded? If it were up to the UN, Israel would be destroyed -- 21 Arab votes, 1 Jewish vote. Simple numbers. 

I am not happy with the situation in Israel. It is dehumanising for one people to rule over another. But unlike some on the list, I do not think that simply having the Jews killed is such a brilliant answer. The answer lies instead in the spread of democracy and liberal political ideals. It lies in Arabs living and voting in Israel as Israeli citizens (which they do quite happily), and it lies in Jews being allowed to live and vote in Arab countries as well. It lies in encouraging democracy and freedom within the Arab world, and not having the incredibly racist position that it is OK for Arabs to live under thugs like Hussein and his famous plastic shredders.

Israel would be thrilled to live in peace with its neighbours. It would help if the neighbours would recognize Israel's right to exist. It would help still more if the neighbours chose democracy and capitalism instead of dictatorships, continued wars, and suicide bombings. Israel has failed to bring democracy to Palestinians, in part because of the belief that the Arabs were incapable of it.

But Bush has a higher vision. If he is right, and it is possible to have a pluralistic, liberal society in the heart of the Islamic and Arab world composed of Iraqis, then it will solved a lot of problems for the entire region.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scipio</b>!
> 
> 
> NOw where did this come from? Islam itself is a peacefull religion is not threatened by any means. There has always been and there will be people who will use religion on wrong purposes.


Oops. Try researching Islam. A religion in which it is an accepted mainstream position to kill unbelievers is NOT a religion of peace. 

A religion which converted unbelievers by the sword as it swept through North Africa and Spain is not peaceful.

Neither is it "peaceful" to assert that those who blow themselves up to murder innocent men, women and children are destined to go to the highest level of heaven.

When Muslims in London (the city in which I live) assault Jews in the streets, claiming they do it in the name of Islam, does that make Islam a religion of Peace? How about when, at rallies, signs are held up saying "Kill the Jews". Very peaceful.

Read Bernard Lewis.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scipio</b>!
> 
> 
> NOw where did this come from? Islam itself is a peacefull religion is not threatened by any means. There has always been and there will be people who will use religion on wrong purposes.


Now you really have got me wound up.

Are you a leading islamic scholar? If not, then how do you know whether or not Islam is a religion of Peace? I am not an Islamic scholar, so I read what Islamic scholars and leaders write and say. And what they do not say.

The 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 people in cold blood said that they were acting in the name of Islam. So does Osama Bin Laden. So do Wahabbist leaders. If you believe polls, most of the Islamic world thinks so as well!!!

So where are all the Islamic leaders and scholars who have, without reservation, condemned the 9/11 attacks as entirely at odds with Islam? 

The list is very small, and not growing. This is the time for moderates to be taking back their religion, but they are failing to do so. Radical Islam is setting the agenda. At the end of the day, Islam is defined by those who practise it. Osama claims he does what he does in the name of Islam. Are you the expert who can tell him that you know better than he does what the true nature of Islam is?

Pretending that Islam is a Religion of Peace does not make it so.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Iwatas,
Honestly, you must be one of the most ignorant posters on this board about Islam and it's followers. I haven't read all of your posts, because quite frankly they're not worth reading but I'd like to point out that while you harrass *Scipio* for what he believes in you're no better.
Just to give you a bit of background before you insist that I am an "Islamic Scholar" I have had the oppurtunity to live in 3 distinct cultures throughout my life. Malaysia (a Muslim nation), Australia and The Netherlands. I am *not* a Muslim, but I have spent 9 years of my life surrounded by them. I *do not* agree with many of their beliefs, just because of my upbringing, but I do not consider them all cold-blooded killers.


> The 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 people in cold blood said that they were acting in the name of Islam. So does Osama Bin Laden. So do Wahabbist leaders. If you believe polls, most of the Islamic world thinks so as well!!!


You must have no idea, and I'm surprised at your ignorance considering you're living in a diverse city. When we were posted in Malaysia, where I was during the 9/11 attacks not *one* Muslim that I talked to believed the attacks were justified, and contrary to your beliefs, most of the Islamic world *does not* believe that these are the acts of Islam. Do you not understand, or can you not interpret, that what a group states is not what a religion believes. Although Bin Laden and his followers believe it was an act for Islam, most Muslim's are ashamed by this and condem his actions just like the average European, Asian or American.
I have not met *one* Muslim that agrees with the attacks, and trust me I've travelled and lived in a large majority of the world. I honestly believe that your supposed facts are *horribly* wrong and that you're basing your view point solely on what you hear.



> Osama claims he does what he does in the name of Islam. Are you the expert who can tell him that you know better than he does what the true nature of Islam is?


Just because one person claims that his actions are in the name of Islam, again, does not mean that Islam agrees with it. You call Islam "radical" but really, the interpretation is the only "radical" aspect. Osama does not represent Islam, he is not the Pope of Islam, he is one radical individual with a cult following. You'd be surprised that, contrary to your knowledge, a large majority of Muslims are not actually part of Bin Laden's "radical Islam."

I hope that you don't actually believe that all of Islam is "radical" and that Muslims are all violent, because during my 9 years of living in a Muslim country I didn't feel threatened once. They could have easily targetted me if "all" Muslims were violent because, lets be realistic, I look different. 



> If you believe polls, most of the Islamic world thinks so as well!!!


 Can you show me these polls you refer to in your next post please?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Where to begin? Where to begin?



> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> I agree that Israel, "created" by an act of the United Nations, should not have been formed in this way. No people should be dependent on a vote of other nations (esp. non-democratic nations allowed to vote within the UN).


Why should non-democratic nations not be allowed as much say or power as democratic nations?

A democracy (which the US does NOT have) is one of the most inefficient forms of government. It sounds good on paper - but the truth is that there is no real way for a democracy to be safe, secure and most of all - efficient. Every choice, ruling and or law would have to be voted on by every person. Imagine the "junk mail" you'd receive. Anything would be open to vote. And that's the issue. Our forefathers were so petrified of true democracy, that they kicked around the idea of making another monarchy. 

We have a republic. A republic is but one form of government, and not necessarily the most efficient or just. In theory, it is a good system as long as the government does not collude and is truly representative of the populance. Our branches of government colluded a LONG TIME ago and they quit being representative quite some time ago too. 

So - I ask you why a country should be considered inferior in the world voting process when it has a government in contrast to our own?



> But that is not the point Talk and Minstrel are making.


Damn right it isn't. (also, you mean Minstrel and Playmaker)



> They seem to be saying that Jews should not be allowed to have a nation of their own -- even if it, alone among all its neighbours, seeks to have a liberal democracy and respect human rights.


No one has advocated that Israel should be abolished. What HAS been said is that it was unjustly founded and should not be supported blindly. 

You don't support a country just because of their systme of government - it removes your credibility. It doubly loses your credibility when you are considered the "world's police force". Supporting a country blindly, which we have done against Israel, is equivalent to a cop that won't arrest his friend even though his friend has commited a major felony.

Israel does ANYTHING but respect human rights. It may respect them within its borders and citizenry, but it does NOT respect human rights abroad. 



> Either the US should promote democracy and liberty around the world -- in which case, supporting democracies like Israel and Taiwan and the new Iraq should be at the top of the list -- or the US should become insular and let *anyone* do *antyhing* outside America's borders. Any other position, IMMHO, is entirely inconsistent.


You've given two options. I think there are more options then that. 

We should NOT enforce democracy abroad. We can have allies, but simply supporting them through any act is completely the wrong manuever ... and will garner us continued resentment across the globe.

We are known for being unfair judges. 

Your other option is completely incorrect too, IF you want the US to be the world's task force. If you don't, then yes become isolationist. I am slightly for this proposed method of governance. But, we have stepped into the role and the world is a LOT more "globally connected" then it once was.

The option you've either not thought about or did not consider valid is that we become an impartial police force. Yes, Israel and other democracies are our allies - but step over the line and you too will face swift justice. 

When America wants to posture and pretend that it has the biggest whipping stick and this moral superiority --- then it has to use these things JUSTLY or else it will cause global resentment. We see this resentment today.

George Bush could have become the best president this nation had ever seen - if he handled 9/11 differently. We had UNIANIMOUS support of MOST nations, including the middle eastern ones. The terrorists we condemned... we could have united the world in a cause through the use of democracy instead of polarized them through the use of "potentially unjust" military might.



> Israel exists because there are Jewish people willing to defend it.


Israel exists because of WWII and the appeasement process.



> Does anyone on this board question that any other people shold "cease" to exist?


No one has advocated that. If people infringe on the Israeli's then the US would act as the guardian of Israel --- the issue is --- that Israel invites and provokes a lot of the attacks.



> Does anyone think that Cubans or Italians or Tibetans should be murdered by their enemies simply because they may become inconvenient?


You seem keen on forcing the world to forms of government that they may not feel comfortable with and exterminating anyone in opposition.

Heck, the Taliban became inconvenient and I'm sure you were at the front of the classroom with your hand raised when it was asked whether we should trample those people down.



> Doesn't ever major ethnic group have a land it calls home? Even the Kurds, who have no nation, have a geographical area in which they are allowed to live. Why cannot Jews do the same?


What the hell does that matter?

It isn't that these "ethnic groups" have a geographical location base because of their ethnicity ... it is because of procreation. 

If you want to talk about a people that got a raw deal, let's talk Native Americans. We still steal their land and infringe on what they have. 

Why not offer up your home to them. Just get up and move. You'll get nothing in return. Just leave and give it to them. Thanks a lot.



> Do the people on this list who question Israel's right to exist believe that someone should be expelled or killed *simply because of their religion?* Is this really a position which can be defended by an intelligent liberal-minded person?


What the heck are you babbling about? You have taken the statements between Minstrel and I WAAAAAAAY out of context.

No one has said that hebrews/jews do not have the right to exist based on anything - including their religion. So, no ... you probably aren't going to hear either of us defend this.



> As for terrorism -- Israel does not practise terrorism.


I think I know how that statement ends ...
... and then they lived happily ever after.

Israel not practicing terrorism is a bed-time story to help you fall asleep at night. It is what we are told by our media, so that we can justify the terrible policies and acts committed by the Israeli government.



> Here is a simple definition: Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Israel does not do it; at most it kills bad guys who hide in the middle of civilian areas.


Wow, they must have that new kind of bullet ... the "bad guy seeker" bullet. It similar to the bullet that killed Kennedy ... except it only homes in on "bad guys".

The Israeli military DIRECTLY attacks the civilian population. They move in with bulldozers and workers ... with tanks over their shoulders and remove entire villages and populances. Then they build a complex ... and move Israeli's into it. They they do it to the next community nearby. 

If that isn't attacking civilians, I don't know what is?

The best part --- they use Palestinian terrorist acts as their position for the attacks. It's an awesome system ... they provoke an attack from an civilian population (which has no standing army and thus are forced to the most primitive form of war -- terrorism) and then complain when it happens... and then use it as justification for further expansion.



> If you believe that the US should spread democracy


The US should not. Each country will eventually form a governance that is in accordance with the will/thought of the people. It doesn't happen overnight and a lot of bad stuff happens while they make the transition. Do you honestly believe that Saddam was any different then the kings/church of old Europe?

The Europeans overthrew that form of government... and eventually the regime in Iraq would have been overthrown.

Play.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lachlanwood32</b>!
> Iwatas,
> Honestly, you must be one of the most ignorant posters on this board about Islam and it's followers.


I may be wrong, but I am surely not ignorant. I am highly educated, and stay very well informed. 



> I haven't read all of your posts, because quite frankly they're not worth reading


Then we cannot have a discussion. I am willing to read what you write, if you will afford me the same honour. Otherwise, we are merely wasting one another's time.

:sigh: 

If you will read what I write, then I am happy to do the same for you. Please also read my words carefully. For example, when I use a word like "most" I do not mean "all". 

iWatas

P.S. Regarding Islamic support for terror:


> Almost two-thirds of the people in Pakistan say they view bin Laden favorably ? a significant finding because U.S. troops are trying to find bin Laden in the mountainous region on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. More than half of those in Jordan and almost half of those polled in Morocco had a favorable view of the Saudi terrorist.
> 
> That echoed sentiments in last year's poll. In 2003, Indonesians, Jordanians, Moroccans, Pakistanis and Palestinians all ranked bin Laden among the top three world leaders they most trusted to do the right thing.


from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/16/world/main606651.shtml


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Play, it is nice to see that your politics are as hard-line as your basketball passions. 



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Where to begin? Where to begin?
> 
> 
> Why should non-democratic nations not be allowed as much say or power as democratic nations?


Ummm... gee.... because a non-democracy does not speak for a nation? Why should some dude who killed all his enemies get to speak for an entire people ???




> So - I ask you why a country should be considered inferior in the world voting process when it has a government in contrast to our own?


Because a VOTE is DEMOCRATIC. A dictatorship is NOT democratic. I cannot believe I have to explain this stuff. Giving the vote to a Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler or even a run-of-the-mill murderer like Mugabe does not mean you are giving the vote to their countries or a government representing their people.




> You don't support a country just because of their systme of government - it removes your credibility.


If you support freedom and democracy, then you support those who promote it. Who else in the Middle East is a candidate?




> Israel does ANYTHING but respect human rights. It may respect them within its borders and citizenry, but it does NOT respect human rights abroad.


What? You mean that Israel infringes on your human rights? Or that the International Zionist Conspiracy is to blame for the electric chair? This is simply incoherent.



> We should NOT enforce democracy abroad. We can have allies, but simply supporting them through any act is completely the wrong manuever ... and will garner us continued resentment across the globe.


That is your opinion. I think it is wrong, but at least it is not totally nuts. There are those who believe that the world's black people and Chinese people and Arab people are simply incapable of living in a democratic system. In America, we call those people intellectuals. In my world, I call a spade a spade: if you think that someone, because of their colour, or religion, or colour, is not capable of adapting to, or appreciating liberty, then you are guilty of the most patriarchal racism.





> The option you've either not thought about or did not consider valid is that we become an impartial police force. Yes, Israel and other democracies are our allies - but step over the line and you too will face swift justice.


Without a guiding principle, this is meaningless. Would the US send troops in to kill suicide bombers?




> If people infringe on the Israeli's then the US would act as the guardian of Israel


So why, when Israel has been under attack for the last decade, has the US not stepped in?




> Heck, the Taliban became inconvenient and I'm sure you were at the front of the classroom with your hand raised when it was asked whether we should trample those people down.


WHOAH!!!!

Do you defend the Taliban? Do you defend people's rights to treat women the way they did? Are you suggesting that the US should tolerate ANY culture as long as they only oppress their own people?





> If you want to talk about a people that got a raw deal, let's talk Native Americans. We still steal their land and infringe on what they have.


Really? The casinos are doing just fine.



> Why not offer up your home to them. Just get up and move. You'll get nothing in return. Just leave and give it to them. Thanks a lot.


Since I *am* a Native American, I suspect I wouldn't be doing much moving. 



> The Israeli military DIRECTLY attacks the civilian population. They move in with bulldozers and workers ... with tanks over their shoulders and remove entire villages and populances. Then they build a complex ... and move Israeli's into it. They they do it to the next community nearby.


Get your facts right. If this was so, there would be no Palestinians, instead of a population boom. Israel does not target civilians. They do not mow them down, they do not send in soldiers to kill civilians.... why is this so hard for you to grasp? 




> Do you honestly believe that Saddam was any different then the kings/church of old Europe?


Absolutely. Saddam killed 200 of his own people, on average, each and every day of his reign. Name a medieval king who did the same.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Now you really have got me wound up.


Oh jeez ... look out world ... Iwata is wound up. Tremble and fear your mortal existance. 



> Are you a leading islamic scholar? If not, then how do you know whether or not Islam is a religion of Peace?


I'm not a mathematical scholar, but I know 1+1=2. 

I'm not an english scholar, but I know how to read and write.

How can this be?! It must be a clever ruse. I must both be a mathematical scholar AND an english scholar ... there is no way for me to know anything unless I am a scholar.

Sorry pal. You're logic on this one baffles me. 

I am NOT a scholar but I can tell you this - there are MANY different forms of religion that base itself on the Qur'an. Lumping everyone into the same pot is the equivalent of lumping all Christians in the pot of say.... David Koresh or some fundamentalist southern baptist denomination.

In fact, the Qur'an does not only apply the word and title "enlightened" to its own followers - it is extended to ALL religions of the world. They consider all followers of god to be touched by god or _ahl al-kitab_.

See, to understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence, it is important to analyze this question - clearly remembering that the word _Islam_ itself means *"peace"* and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. However, it is the Islamic religion, in its principles and ideals, with which we are especially concerned and not particular events or facts relating to the domain of historical contingency belonging to the unfolding of Islam in the plane of human history, right?

Islamic Law opposes all uses of force except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the _shari'a._ Even in war, however, the inflicting of any injury to women and children is forbidden as is the use of force against civilians. Only fighters in the field of battle must be confronted with force and it is only against them that injurious physical force can be used. Inflicting injuries outside of this context or in the punishment of criminals according to the dictum of the _shari'a_ and the view of a judge is completely forbidden by Islamic Law. 

As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as _'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'_, as I mentioned above. If there is nevertheless a violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the "Divine Message". Man is man wherever he might be and no religion can neutralize completely the imperfections inherent in the nature of man. What is remarkable, however, is not that some violence in this sense of the word does exist in Muslim societies, but that despite so many negative social and economic factors aggravated by the advent of colonialism, overpopulation, industrialization, modernization resulting in cultural dislocation, and so many other elements, there is less violence as unjust exertion of force against others in most Islamic countries than in the industrialized West. 



> I am not an Islamic scholar, so I read what Islamic scholars and leaders write and say. And what they do not say.


I'm sure you do. I'm also sure you pick which scholars you'd prefer to listen to and disregard that which doesn't appease your sensibilities.

Why not go to the source? The Qur'an itself? Too much work, right? So, you'd rather take a couple of those catch phrases you hear people quote out of context and apply it to the whole of the Islamic faith ...

well here are some more that are among the most evil and grotesque ...

(Quran 7:28) _They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?" _

(Quran 5:87) _ ... and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors. _

(Quran: 7:199) _ ... You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant. _

(Quran 6:151) _ ... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand. _

(Quran 17:33) _ ... You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ... _

(Quran 5:32) _ ... we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people ... _

Yeah ... wow, this is one E-V-I-L religion. But, I have also read about how the Qur'an FORCES everyone to their religion and all non-believers should be exterminated ... 

(Quran 2:256) _ ... There shall be no compulsion in religion ... _

(Quran 60:8) _ .. GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable ... _

Yes, yes ... those evil, crazy kids that follow that kooky Islam... out to get you all the time ... 

But, let's examine some Christian tenets of peace brought to you by Jesus:

(Luke 19:26-28) _He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.' After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. _

(Revelation 2:22-23) [i["So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. *I will strike her children dead.* Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.[/i]

(Luke 14:26) _If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. _

(John 15:6) _If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. _

What about the other teachings?

(Exodus 21:20-21) _If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. _

(Exodus 32:27) _Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " _

(Numbers 21:35) _So they struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army, leaving them no survivors. And they took possession of his land. _

(Judges 9:45) _All that day Abimelech pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it. _

(Isaiah 49:26) _ I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; 
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD , am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. _

(Hosea 13:16) _The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, 
because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open._

Shall I go on? There are many more instances of senseless and condoned slaughter of innocent lives in the Bible of peace.

*ANYTHING CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!* Anything can be twisted and used to pervert a message ... ever heard of Hitler or the KKK?



> The 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 people in cold blood said that they were acting in the name of Islam.


The peoples who initially landed on this country and massacred thousands of Native Americans were acting in the name of God and Jesus. 

The crusades were started in the name of God. The Spanish Inquisition was done so in the name of Jesus. 

Shall I go on? Anyone can misinterpret or misquote or purposefully mislead others in the name of religion.



> So where are all the Islamic leaders and scholars who have, without reservation, condemned the 9/11 attacks as entirely at odds with Islam?


That doesn't even make sense. 

You expect the leaders of a religion ... who condemn the acts ... to turn their backs on their religion AND their people simply because there are a few nuts???

I guess all Christian leaders should abandon their posts because a few weirdos decided to molest children or a wacko decided to perpetrate the Oklahoma City bombing. 



> Radical Islam is setting the agenda.


No - it is the side that is getting publically aired. 

You have delcared that you are no scholar in religion and further, have proven your ignorance, so how can you claim to know what less-radical Islamic leaders are doing?

See - you fail to realize that a lot of the Islamic fundamentalist leaders have the same power that the Church once did. They don't want to give it up ... just as the Church didn't want to give it up. Power has the ability to corrupt. 



> At the end of the day, Islam is defined by those who practise it. Osama claims he does what he does in the name of Islam.


Yes, and the Christian faith should similarly be defined by its own terrorists and nutcases like:
Clayton Waagner, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, et al ... the list continues ... 

So, I guess since they feel they understand the message - then the message should be defined by them. 



> Are you the expert who can tell him that you know better than he does what the true nature of Islam is?


You obviously aren't, that's for sure.



> Pretending that Islam is a Religion of Peace does not make it so.


Yeah, and pretending to know what you are talking about doesn't make it so either, now does it?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Ummm... gee.... because a non-democracy does not speak for a nation? Why should some dude who killed all his enemies get to speak for an entire people ???


Not all forms of government that are not "democratic" are bad or wantonly kill it's citizenry.

Also, does our republic speak for us right now? Obviously not, since the vast majority of people are opposed to the war in Iraq, but we are still there. 

You don't understand democracy, my friend.



> Because a VOTE is DEMOCRATIC. A dictatorship is NOT democratic.


Jeez, you MIGHT have a shot at winning a pulitzer prize with that brilliant assertation.



> I cannot believe I have to explain this stuff. Giving the vote to a Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler or even a run-of-the-mill murderer like Mugabe does not mean you are giving the vote to their countries or a government representing their people.


Not every country that is non-democratic is run by Stalin or Hitler. 

I love this whole "government representing the people" thing keeps coming up ... our govenment quit representing us quite a while ago.



> If you support freedom and democracy, then you support those who promote it.


WHAT? That's just absurd.

So, because you support democracy - you should side with all democracies - even if they are wrong?

That seems quite counter-intuitive. If you want to support democracy then you set the shining example of it and try to get those to be other beacons --- instead of powers that can do as they will to other non-democratic nations.

Just so you know, democracy is a senseless form of government. It cannot and should not EVER exist. 

The US is NOT a democracy. Has never been one. Will never be one. 

Get over it.



> What? You mean that Israel infringes on your human rights?
> 
> 
> > Since we are about to discuss the Taliban below - I guess I'll bring them up here:
> ...


----------



## josephjcox (Jun 29, 2004)

Wow. Really Blazer's related.

About Islam as the religion of peace, the source materials are fun and all, but they don't represent the reality today. The vast majority of Christians are peaceful. They don't practice or preach the destruction or domination of other cultures or religions. Judaism is the same. While I'm sure the majority of Muslims feel the same way - the actions of the Muslim world sing quite a different tune. See the below poll for some numbers on 'feeling.' But see Sept 11th, the repeated existential threats against Israel, the funding of terrorists, Bali, Spain etc... The seventh day adventists did condemn Waco. The Wahabists have not done the same. Are these people not representative of their religion? Well then, perhaps the problem. The peaceful Muslims, due to the fact that they live in totalitarian societies, do not have any voice. Islam may be a religion of peace, but the warmongers dominate many of their societies. See www.memri.org

There was a great Reagan quote that came up during the whole funeral thing. To paraphrase, "We are a nation with a government, not a government with a nation." The Muslim world, for the most part, lacks this.

As far as democracy is concerned - people confuse it with liberal democracy. Democracy with the guarantee of certain freedoms. This is because the majority can be tyrannous as well as one man can. Liberal democracy might be inefficient - but inefficiency in government tends to lead to great efficiency in the private sector.

Personally I don't see why anybody cares about Israel. In a few weeks, the Sudanese killed more black muslims than Israel has killed Palestinians in its entire existence. Nobody seems to care. Heck, there were Palestinian refugees in the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and their Arab brethern did *nothing* to move them into normal lives. Almost as many Jews were displaced from Arab lands as Arabs from Israel - but Israel settled them and they moved on with their lives. The Palestinians are suffering terribly. But unless the removal of a roadblock or a closure results in something other than a terrorist bomber (a child in some cases http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601244/) Israel has little choice but to keep those roadblocks in place.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Sure. That is why the US has seized Iraqi oil, and the price of oil has plummeted. Crackpot ideas.


Just so we are expressly clear -

BEFORE the war in Iraq, we used ZERO tons of Iraqi oil. We had an embargo on Iraq, and thus imported -0- tons of oil from Iraq.

So, why did the price change during and after? 

Ah - price gouging.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> I may be wrong, but I am surely not ignorant. I am highly educated, and stay very well informed.


He didn't call you ignorant in all things or insult your intelligence - but instead said you are ignorant of the tenets of Islamic faith. This is abundantly clear. 

Play.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Pla --

Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion, it is clear that neither of us would make any progress.

We are both certain that the other person is not only misinformed and ignorant, but also profoundly and willfully stupid. 

We clearly live in differerent worlds. Judging by your non-native English skills, we don't even speak the same language.

So I am going to bow out. And I am very glad indeed that your positions are so clearly in the minority, far out on the lunatic fringe. 

I hope and pray that freedom and liberty can be extended to all peoples, and that the people of the United States do not abandon what is so wonderful about our Nation as quickly as you seem to desire.

Thank God for George W. Bush!!!

iWatas


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion, it is clear that neither of us would make any progress.


It's okay to tuck tail and walk away. No one will blame you. You just don't have enough information to make valid points, it is okay.



> We are both certain that the other person is not only misinformed and ignorant, but also profoundly and willfully stupid.


I don't think you are stupid in the least - especially not profoundly stupid. I just think you are incorrect.



> We clearly live in differerent worlds. Judging by your non-native English skills, we don't even speak the same language.


Non-Native English skills? 

I am assuming you are somehow referring to a grammatic slip-up on my part? I hardly think I could be considered "textually incompetent". In fact, I would go as far as to say I have a very strong grasp of the English language and a very broad vocabulary. 

So, if this is some slight, I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend and interpret long discourses in English. If it is not a slight, then what exactly are you referring to?



> So I am going to bow out. And I am very glad indeed that your positions are so clearly in the minority, far out on the lunatic fringe.


Go ahead and bow out. Again, I tend to think of it as not making a fool of yourself -- but that might be the whole language barrier thing again.

My position is not "clearly" in the minority. In fact, right now, one of the most pressing issues in world politics is our relationship with Israel. 



> I hope and pray that freedom and liberty can be extended to all peoples, and that the people of the United States do not abandon what is so wonderful about our Nation as quickly as you seem to desire.


Extend it - if they want it. I have no issue there.

I have never said that we should abandon our country's consititution ... which is what makes this country so unique and powerful. Name a place where I do so.



> Thank God for George W. Bush!!!


Whatever.

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> This thread has become sickening.
> 
> I agree that Israel, "created" by an act of the United Nations, should not have been formed in this way. No people should be dependent on a vote of other nations (esp. non-democratic nations allowed to vote within the UN).
> ...


Fairly weak attempt to try and cast a shroud of racial/religious intolerance on our comments. You need to work on your abilities to create unfounded accusations.

Nothing in what I (or Play) said suggested that we are against Israel having any nation of their own. In fact, I excoriated the British for *how* they did it, pretty obviously criticizing the circumstances under which the current nation of Israel was formed.

Sorry, your blind anti-Semite card failed. Want to try something else? Maybe I'm actually anti-British! Or the old standby, anti-American.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> Democracy in Iraq is *very* good for the United States. And it also happens to be very good for Iraqis. I see no harm in saying both of these things. If Democracy and Human Rights are important, then they should be universally important.


Imagine if this had anything at all to do with what I said. I said that humanitarianism (or liberty for the Iraqi people) was never identified as the primary reason for the war, until the WMD angle crumbled and the Iraq/Al Queda link crumbled.

So yes, democracy and human rights are good things. Great things, even. So are fluffy kittens. Nothing the Bush administration said suggested that any of those things were important to them in waging the war.



> Sure. That is why the US has seized Iraqi oil, and the price of oil has plummeted. Crackpot ideas.


That *is* a crackpot idea, that oil prices would plummet during a war and rebel activity in the region producing the oil. Good thing no one advanced that argument.

If one wants the real "oil" argument, it's that the US wants a foothold in the OPEC region so that it can be assured oil flow from the region will never be cut off and also so that they can prevent prices from ever being jacked up to the levels they were in the '70s.

So, sadly, your simplistic "oil prices didn't go down, so this had nothing to do with oil" argument carries no weight.



> And every Arab nation has publicly declared that if they could get their hands on a bomb, they would nuke Tel Aviv without hesitation. Children who cannot play nicely are not allowed to "fight on even terms".


Because the Arabs (the Palestianins, really) are the ones that had their land taken from them. It's easy to "play nice" when you are the children with the stolen toy in your possession (Israel) *and* the protection of the adults (first England, then the US), to extend your fascinating metaphor of the countries in the region being children.



> Freedom fighters target military targets [After all, dictatorships never fall when civilians are terrorized]. Terrorists target civilians. Is this really no difficult a disntiction to make?


First of all, Israeli troops have killed civilians in their bombings, plus they've destroyed civilian housing in searches. Israelis do plenty to civilians.

Second of all, again it's much easier for a country to claim military targets should be the only targets when they artificially have one of the most powerful armies in the world. Artificially because it's based almost entirely on the billions of dollars of aid pumped into Iraq by the US, including the latest military technology.

If the Palestinians were built into one of the most powerful armies in the world by the US, then sure, we could dispense with terrorism/freedom fighting altogether and have all the air bombing and tactical missile strikes you want.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Thanks Iwatas for your efforts. I find your posts well spoken and defended. 

I'd like to consider myself to be like minded and free thinking though the same people who attack your views consider me ignorant and brainwashed.

All I see from those people are criticism of the US actions for lets see...ever. I have yet to hear one of them say anything good about any american foreign policy event.

I've left off arguing specifics with them, going after ideals, ethics and morality and find that's where they lack substance. 

Sometimes I wonder if they believe Hitler's final solution would have been a decent long term solution to our current problems in the mideast. 

That might be a little extreme but I wonder. They don't seem to mind the palestinians blowing up civilians but they are quick to point the finger at the bulldozers and IDF as 'human right violators.' Of couse they say it's all objective but I'm siding with the people that don't seek to attack civilians as a strategy. 

Islam being a 'religion of peace' seems to have little concern about these infidels acting in their name. 

When Armenian Christians or Tibetan Buddhists attack the 'sheep' in the name of their God there was outrage in their church and it stopped, though their persecution remains. 

If a Christian kills indiscriminately in the name of God or a Buddhist blows up chinese farmers in the name of Bodhisavta they are vilified. 

Islam as a whole seems to have much more tolerance for such behaviours. 

Who speaks for peaceful Islam in the US? Louis Farrakhan? 

Until I hear some outrage from the community or even see a peaceful leader come forth I cannot consider Islam as a religion of peace. 

Yeah Iwatas these guys will point their fingers and say we should have and shouldn't have done this and that but offer no plan for the future other than to encourage Islamics through appeasement.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

are you guys really serious with this stuff about Islam? that bin laden represents the whole religion? 

come on now, did hernan cortes represent christianity?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Who does represent the whole religion? Is there a leader? Bin Laden's just a living martyr for a jihad.

That's most of their problem. Their leaders are concepts, not people. 

If they ever did organize, industrialise and mechanize as a united armed force they would have legitimacy.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> That's most of their problem. Their leaders are concepts, not people.
> 
> If they ever did organize, industrialise and mechanize as a united armed force they would have legitimacy.


that's kind of funny, haven't thought about that leader part. probably that's why the muslims haven't voiced that strong objections to osama's and other extremists' actions (at least I haven't heard them). come to think of it, might be better than one strong leader, I'm not too excited about the pope (who speaks with god's voice) at the moment.

but why, for god's sake, should they unite as an armed force?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

What can I say Target -- you got us. Sheesh, you are one clever ******* ...



> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Thanks Iwatas for your efforts. I find your posts well spoken and defended.


You would, wouldn't you - since you've never been able to advance a single argument without debasing it down to "you racally liberals" or "you crazy Bush haters". 



> I'd like to consider myself to be like minded and free thinking though the same people who attack your views consider me ignorant and brainwashed.


No one has ATTACKED his views. We have tried to present information to the contrary. 



> All I see from those people are criticism of the US actions for lets see...ever. I have yet to hear one of them say anything good about any american foreign policy event.


Not much good could be said currently. 

This country is no longer run "by the people, for the people and of the people" ... so, why should I support actions that run counter to this principle? 

The constitution expressly gives us the right and implores us to remove the government from power when they are no longer representative. What say you?



> I've left off arguing specifics with them


Because you aren't able to, without going on one of your patented "just admit it, you're a liberal and love Kerry" tirades.



> going after ideals, ethics and morality and find that's where they lack substance.


Ah. Yet ... I find it strangely amusing that you never discuss these things either. 



> Sometimes I wonder if they believe Hitler's final solution would have been a decent long term solution to our current problems in the mideast.


Ah, the final solution. Myth or fact? 

Let me just throw some counter-points out there just to play with you for a minute, okay?

Alfred Lilienthal, a prominent Jewish historian, calls this "Holocaustomania".

Current leading historical scholars (even those of Jewish decent) have come to conclude that the "final solution" wasn't really an edict declaring the mass extermination of the Jews. The Final Solution dealt with exporting and deporting the Jews after the war.

A document found after the war in the files of the Reich Ministry of Justice records Hitler's thinking on the Jews. In the spring of 1942, State Secretary Schlegelberger noted in a memorandum that Hitler's Chief of Chancellery, Dr. Hans Lammers, had informed him: "The Führer has repeatedly declared to him [Lammers] that he wants to see the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war is over." (_Nuremberg document PS-4025. D. Irving, Göring: A Biography (New York: 1989), p. 349. _)

And on July 24, 1942, Hitler emphasized his determination to remove all Jews from Europe after the war: "The Jews are interested in Europe for economic reasons, but Europe must reject them, if only out of self-interest, because the Jews are racially tougher. After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to the view ... that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state." (_H. Picker, Hitlers Tischgesprche im Führerhaupt quartier (Stuttgart: 1976), p. 456. _)

The extermination of the Jews happened, as all terrible tragedies happen ... when people take an idea to an extreme. Especially when they take a BAD idea to an extreme. A similar example, although miniscule in actual depravity to the holocaust, is the prison scandal that rocked Iraq. When you are told people are less then you, that you are to hate a set of people -- many will end up moving slowly toward a disgusting mindset.

The truth is, the 6MM Jewish death number is an exaggeration of the extreme and almost no serious Holocaust researcher considers this number to be close to accurate to the number of Jewish people that died.

In fact, they have placed the number at around 1.5MM including those who died of disease or malnutrition (_Baseler Nachrichten, June 13, 1946, p. 2._). I tend to think it was probably closer to 3MM, but that's just because it is somewhere near the low and the high. 

There are two letters from high that directly discuss the Jewish death rates. 

The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated Dec. 28, 1942, to every concentration camp, including Auschwitz. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps." Furthermore, it ordered: "The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants ... The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as possible." Finally, the directive stressed that "The Reichsführer SS [Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced." (_Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2; NC and A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834. _)

The head of the SS department that supervised the concentration camps, Richard Gluecks, sent a circular letter to each camp commandant dated January 20, 1943. In it he ordered: "As I have already pointed out, every means must be used to lower the death rate in the camp."(_Nuremberg document NO-1523; NMT green series, Vol. 5, pp. 372-373. _)

Anyhow, I felt like playing big cat for a minute and assaulting your sensibilities. I think that saying either myself or Minstrel would be happier with a Final Solution carried out is asinine and libel.



> They don't seem to mind the palestinians blowing up civilians but they are quick to point the finger at the bulldozers and IDF as 'human right violators.'


No one here has condoned the usage of "blowing up civilians". In fact, I have said, numerous times - that both sides are wrong and that both sides use individual forms of terrorism. 

One is military terrorism - kind of like what we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The other is domestic terrorism - 9/11 and its ilk.



> Of couse they say it's all objective but I'm siding with the people that don't seek to attack civilians as a strategy.


You're siding with people who don't seek to attack civilians? So you say. 

I guess poor little Israel is just a gentle nation of peace loving people --- that would love nothing more to exterminate the rest of the middle east and remove the Palestinians from the "promised land". But, deep down, they are really sweet people.

Also ... it is SUBJECTIVE ... not objective.



> Islam being a 'religion of peace' seems to have little concern about these infidels acting in their name.


You are such a fan of pointing your finger at the media for its biased portrayal of President Bush and the war effort ... yet you can't for the life of you make that same leap when it comes to religious leaders.

How many Imams have you contacted since 9/11 to find out their opinions? None, right?! Yeah, I thought so.



> Who speaks for peaceful Islam in the US? Louis Farrakhan?


That comment invalidates anything you will ever say about the religious of Islam ... ever.



> Until I hear some outrage from the community or even see a peaceful leader come forth I cannot consider Islam as a religion of peace.


Go see the movie Ghandi.



> Yeah Iwatas these guys will point their fingers and say we should have and shouldn't have done this and that but offer no plan for the future other than to encourage Islamics through appeasement.


I've given a plan that is just and fair -- and isn't just paying lip service to Islamic "appeasement".

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Why wouldn't they? They fight for the Palestinians don't they?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Who does represent the whole religion? Is there a leader? Bin Laden's just a living martyr for a jihad.


Your jihad comment is further evidence that you have no clue about that which you speak.

Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims . Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. 

The best translation known for such the word "jihad" is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfish striving for spiritual good. 

Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality. It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter. 

One can simply compare it to the Catholics and their "lent". Where you try to focus on something or give up something to show your devotion to the Lord.

The Jihad involves noticeable effort for righteousness. This means that the effort concentrated in the Jihad is a step in the true and ultimate path of Islam through the effort imposed on one's self. Thus Jihad is solely individual, self-centered and self-interested. This effort is only the doing of good for salvation and pardon of God. The Quran points this out in the following verse: 

(Quran 16:111) _The day will come when every soul will serve as its own advocate, and every soul will be paid fully for whatever it had done, without the least injustice._

(Quran 3:30) _The day will come when each soul will find all the good works it had done brought forth. As for the evil works, it will wish that they were far, far removed. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. GOD is Compassionate towards the people._ 

In respect to the above Quranic verses, God tells the believers that all acts will reflect the soul of their authors. Examples of this Jihad would be to exceed in the sincere act of good deeds (to frequent the mosques that worship God alone more often; to study the scripture in detail, to help the poor and the orphans, to stand for people's right for freedom, be equitable, never bear witness false testimony, frequent and stay in good terms with friends and neighbors, etc.) and the restraining of the doing of sins (to commit adultery, to steel, to lie, to cheat, to insult people, to gossip, etc.); 

*In Brief - the meaning the media gives to the word "jihad" is false. *

This word does not mean a holy war, for there is nothing holy about a war in Islam. There are times when war is tolerated, permitted and even, in some case, to a point accepted, but never considered holy. Islam is a religion of peace, no matter what certain media or deranged individuals say or claim. Islam revolves around the concept of peace. 

(Quran 8:61) _If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient._



> If they ever did organize, industrialise and mechanize as a united armed force they would have legitimacy.


So - because they don't have an armed military - they are not legitimate?

Please tell me that I am misquoting you here.

Play.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Why wouldn't they? They fight for the Palestinians don't they?


what are you talking about? all muslims in the world (that's how I understood the earlier post) or palestinians?

if you talk about palestinians, they are against one of the strongest armies in the world, and they should organize to get legitimacy? don't you mean they would be easier to kill if they wore uniform?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Again I have to ask if you actually read my post Play?

It clearly asks the question who will stand up for the huge majority of peace loving Muslims IF they exist. 

Ghandi died and apparently for little. His vision is fading fast in the Islamic middle east. It's too bad we don't have an Iranian or a Syrian Ghandi. How about a Palestinian Ghandi? Now wouldn't that be something?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Again I have to ask if you actually read my post Play?


Well, then in response I will ask if *YOU* read your own post --- 



> It clearly asks the question who will stand up for the huge majority of peace loving Muslims IF they exist.


Target's original post: _"Until I hear some outrage from the community or even see a peaceful leader come forth I cannot consider Islam as a religion of peace. "_

At what point in that text does it ask that? NO WHERE!

Using basic reading comprehension - you said that it cannot be considered a peaceful religion because you have never heard or seen a peaceful leader from that religion.

I pointed one out.

Shame on you for not knowing your own post.



> Ghandi died and apparently for little. His vision is fading fast in the Islamic middle east.


I'm glad you are over there with your pulse on the Islamic world. Oh wait ... you aren't? Man, how suprising.

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> The best translation known for such the word "jihad" is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfish striving for spiritual good.
> 
> Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality. It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter.
> ...


Sure...you've convinced me that's the Palestinians interpretation.  

Maybe you can be the spokesperson for peaceful Islam Play. You seem to have it all figured out.

I wonder if Al-Jihad has as much problem with my interpretation as you do. 


> So - because they don't have an armed military - they are not legitimate?
> 
> Please tell me that I am misquoting you here.


No I won't say that. They don't have legitimacy because they would rather kill than negotiate. Is it because no one listens? Maybe you can be the spokesperson for all of Islam. They are so misunderstood.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Target's original post: _"Until I hear some outrage from the community or even see a peaceful leader come forth I cannot consider Islam as a religion of peace. "_
> 
> At what point in that text does it ask that? NO WHERE!


No?

Who speaks for peaceful Islam in the US? Louis Farrakhan?

The questions from the same passage you ignored. I know you didn't miss it because you took it out of context once already. Notice TWO questions there. No accusations...inquiries. You can read can't you? 



> Using basic reading comprehension - you said that it cannot be considered a peaceful religion because you have never heard or seen a peaceful leader from that religion.
> 
> I pointed one out.
> 
> Shame on you for not knowing your own post.


Shame on you for misquoting my words and deflecting their meaning. 

Answer the question. Who is the spokesman for this supposed vast majority of peaceful Muslims everywhere. 

YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

first things first. 

it was a radical jew, who destroyed the best chance for peace in the area (yitzhak rabin). so they seem to have problems with peace too. and not all palestinians want to destroy israel.

first step should be getting rid of arafat and sharon, they'll never have peace with these guys, too much bad blood and history.

there is something for you:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/america05.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/06/1060145726466.html?oneclick=true

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/10/10/blair_mideast011010

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/11/gen.qatar.oic/

http://164.109.48.86/sa/Archive/2004/Jun/25-256764.html

http://www.maschicago.org/community/press_releases/2001/september2_11_2001.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001479.php

http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/008824.php


and on and on and on...


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

You know Play. I was wondering what happened to you. 

You were gone for what 2-3 weeks. I was hoping we'd see you back. Remember back when we got all the political threads removed to the EBB board? 

I bet if I go and post some cut and paste political humour that makes the Kerry campaign look like a bunch of idiots I can get it done again. 

Want me to try?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Sure...you've convinced me that's the Palestinians interpretation.


Religion is based on interpretation. If you followed the dialogue, you would have seen where I had pointedly said that mankind quite often perverts the message of religion. This doesn't mean that they are right. 

Besides, I'll convince you the moment that you can convice me that it isn't the mainstream belief. Not just that ... I'll convince you of it the moment that you can convince me that everyone in the US reads the same Bible and worships God the same way you do. 



> Maybe you can be the spokesperson for peaceful Islam Play. You seem to have it all figured out.


All religious/spiritual tenets are pretty easy to figure out, as they have one overriding guideline.

It was put forth and said numerous times by your Jesus Christ:

(Matthew 7:12) _So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. _
or
(Luke 6:31) _Do to others as you would have them do to you_
or
(Matthew 22:36-40) _Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." _

Yeah, I guess I have "figured it out". It isn't really that difficult a task.



> I wonder if Al-Jihad has as much problem with my interpretation as you do.


What an asinine and pointless question. 

I reply with a question:

I wonder if the KKK, Hitler, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and Jim Jones have the same interpretation as you do?

Heck, I wonder if your neighbor has the same understanding of God that you do? Why would you look at one sect of people and then try to compare them to the whole of society.



> They don't have legitimacy because they would rather kill than negotiate.


And you know this because???

There are numerous instances of the US vetoing and all out quashing any voice the Palestinians had during meetings wherein they issued pleas for help and assistance and demanded that Israel quit expanding into their territory. Had we only granted an ear for their grievences ... we might not have so much animosity built up within that community.



> They are so misunderstood.


You have to be granted a voice to be misunderstood.

Play.

PS - I apologize, I had to write this letter a second time as I pressed the back button on my mouse when I was finishing it up last time. So, it isn't as decisive as my first message. Hopefully you still get the point.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> You know Play. I was wondering what happened to you.


A couple things happened... 

(1) Basic
(2) The basketball season ended and there was nothing left
(3) All the topics that had any interesting debate were being moved over to another area. I didn't feel like getting to know them and their personalities ... I liked the ones we had here. So, I wanted to stay here.



> You were gone for what 2-3 weeks.


Longer.



> I was hoping we'd see you back. Remember back when we got all the political threads removed to the EBB board?


Yes, it sucked. 



> Want me to try?


Is that a threat?

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Hopefully you still get the point.


Nope..sorry I missed it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> No?
> 
> Who speaks for peaceful Islam in the US? Louis Farrakhan?


I chose to ignore that question because it was rhetorical and provoking. If you had asked the question without the Louis Farrakhan reference, then we might have had something to discuss.

Instead, I get: Who speaks for peaceful Christianity in the US? The KKK?

Thus, I answered another question - which had a lot more relevancy. 

But, just because I like you, I'll answer this one if you want, but I'm sure you won't like the answer nor will you know the men, as you only know things that seem to run parallel to your ideology.

(1) Nehad Awad, Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
(2) Imam Tamman Adi Ph.D, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center(3) Muhammad Ali, former heavyweight champion of the world

I could go on and on and on ... but is there a point? You'd just find a way to say that you don't know them or somehow debase it further. 



> You can read can't you?


Obviously. But, I've already stated why I decided to ignore your bait earlier.



> Shame on you for misquoting my words and deflecting their meaning.


Ah, you mean using your tactics and manuevers against you? 



> Answer the question. Who is the spokesman for this supposed vast majority of peaceful Muslims everywhere.


They are all over. Heck, I could make up names and you wouldn't know them or their message. I'll leave you with the list above. If you want more - I can give them to you. 

Do you really think that Muslim people everywhere are evil-minded because of a VAST minority of people? 



> YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE.


I believe I already have. 

Or should I put it in capitilized letters too?

I BELIEVE I ALREADY HAVE
or maybe bold ...
*I BELIEVE I ALREADY HAVE*

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Nope..sorry I missed it.


I bet you did.

Truth be told, I think you are just unable to respond. You have no defensible point because you base your allegations/arguments on concepts given to you by others rather then by thoughtful and unbiased research. 

When you do that, you can't defend a point ... because it was never yours to begin with. You don't have ownership of the idea ... you're just espousing the rhetoric your overheard and hoping that it sticks to the wall and that no one calls your bluff.

When someone does eventually call your bluff and point out your complete ignorance ... you can't respond. You fall back to old faithful: "damn liberals" or "terrorist supporters" or "America haters" or whatever quick buzzword (that you also overheard) comes to mind.

I've said this before:
_The problem with you is that in a battle of wits and knowledge you come completely unarmed and unprepared._

Play.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Are you saying the points you are making are _solely_ yours?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Are you saying the points you are making are _solely_ yours?


Who and what are your referring to?

If you mean me - then heck no.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Are you saying the points you are making are _solely_ yours?


I believe Playmaker meant that he espouses ideas he understands and can defend. Target seems to offer up talking points that he doesn't seem to understand well enough to defend.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> (1) Nehad Awad, Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
> (2) Imam Tamman Adi Ph.D, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center
> (3) Muhammad Ali, former heavyweight champion of the world.


Here is an example from the CAIR website on the 'About CAIR' link;


> Why was CAIR established?
> 
> The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a non-profit, grassroots membership organization. We have headquarters in Washington, D.C., and CAIR chapters across America. CAIR was established to promote an accurate image of Islam and Muslims in America. We believe misrepresentations of Islam are most often the result of ignorance on the part of non-Muslims and reluctance on the part of Muslims to articulate their case.


Nothing at all about Muslim extremists hijacking their religion. Only about infidel ignorance and lack of communication. Seems to me that if you wanted to improve relations you might address why the relations aren't at optimum.

I see that they started a petition 'Not in the name of Islam.' in May of this year. No running tally or even acknowledgement that I signed it. I urge everyone to sign it. Muslim or not. 

Imam Tamman is the director of the ICC in Eugene. Oregon. Hardly a national figure. But he should be. His writings here are an excellent example of what I would expect of leaders of a peaceful religion. 

Ali is another. I consider him a great man for his talent in the ring and his views outside. Talk about resolve! It is such a shame that he cannot be more involved politically because I believe he could be the catalyst for change. He'd do it. Another title for the champ. 


> They are all over. Heck, I could make up names and you wouldn't know them or their message. I'll leave you with the list above. If you want more - I can give them to you.


I'd sure like to see more about them in the news. Seems like a logical step to confront the actions of a few. Ali is restricted by his health but why isn't Tamman or any of the all overs more outspoken?


> Do you really think that Muslim people everywhere are evil-minded because of a VAST minority of people?


No. I have faith in humanity. I believe that with proper motivation that VAST minority will no longer have the VAST majority to hide behind. 


> I believe I already have.
> 
> Or should I put it in capitilized letters too?
> 
> ...


No man, you can't put that on me. You used all caps first when you posted:


> At what point in that text does it ask that? NO WHERE!


But that's what you Kerry luvin liberal types do is spin other peoples words until they say something different than intended.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I believe Playmaker meant that he espouses ideas he understands and can defend. Target seems to offer up talking points that he doesn't seem to understand well enough to defend.


Yeah like one of his all time favorites that if I remember right you shared also troubadour;


> "Anyone but Bush."


That right there is a well thought out long term strategy that can't be argued with logic.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> Yeah like one of his all time favorites that if I remember right you shared also troubadour;
> 
> That right there is a well thought out long term strategy that can't be argued with logic.


"Anyone but Bush" certainly smacks of logic, yes. I don't think I've ever said that...I tend to be more long-winded in my objections to Bush. 

But, of course, the key difference is that neither of us (since Play and I seem to be the most talked about couple since Ben and J-Lo) tends to boil down our objections to "Go marry the terrorists if you love 'em so much" type of rhetoric.

You seem to do that quite a bit.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> "Go marry the terrorists if you love 'em so much" type of rhetoric.


Well that's close but not quite on. I'd say it's more like this:

The terrorists feed off dissention to our government. It empowers them more than guns and cash because it reinforces the sort of belief that creates a suicide bomber.

It's our right of dissent of course but I have to question the sensibility. 

If the majority of the Islamic community exposed them for what they are instead of martyring them it would make great strides towards peace.

I believe that there are people who would rather see the killing continue if it means Bush wouldn't get reelected. 

So..how do you feel about peace in the mideast if it meant a Bush reelection?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I bet you did.


Because it's just espoused rhetoric your overheard and were hoping that sticks to the wall in the hope that no one calls your bluff.

You have no defensible point because you base your allegations/arguments on concepts given to you by others rather then by thoughtful and unbiased research. 

*The problem with you is that in a battle of wits and knowledge you come in firing from the hip. You put out a lot of words but few hit their intended Target*


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

This is just too amusing. 

Play tells Target:



> The problem with you is that in a battle of wits and knowledge you come completely unarmed and unprepared.


and Target pretty much proves the allegation by retorting:



> The problem with you is that in a battle of wits and knowledge you come in firing from the hip. You put out a lot of words but few hit their intended Target


In a battle between someone shooting from the hip and someone unarmed, I'm putting my money on the hip-shooter.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> The terrorists feed off dissention to our government. It empowers them more than guns and cash because it reinforces the sort of belief that creates a suicide bomber.
> 
> It's our right of dissent of course but I have to question the sensibility.


So, do the terrorists post here on the blazer board, or do they just read it for empowerment? 

And do they think Sheed is Good, or Evil?

barfo


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Ssssh.

O'Reilly's on.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> So, do the terrorists post here on the blazer board, or do they just read it for empowerment?
> 
> ...


I dunno, but I think Kemp and Lucas effectively became martyrs. I mean, look at the results.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Ssssh.
> 
> O'Reilly's on.


Are we allowed to say pithy in here?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> Yeah like one of his all time favorites that if I remember right you shared also troubadour;
> 
> Anyone but Bush.


One of my alltime favorites is "anyone but Bush"?

Hrmph ... news to me.

Play.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Ssssh.
> 
> O'Reilly's on.


On what? PCP?

barfo


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> On what? PCP?
> ...


Nahhh....that makes you spin.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Well that's close but not quite on. I'd say it's more like this:
> ...


You'll admit, I'm sure, that "Don't question the administration, for the sake of the country" is a fairly convenient stance for you to take, as a conservative, with a conservative President in office.

That certainly wasn't the rallying cry of conservatives when Bill Clinton was in office during the first World Trade Center attack, or after the attack on the USS Cole. No, conservatives couldn't dissent fast enough at that time.

And I had no problem with conservatives dissenting, just as I have no qualms about criticizing the government today. In a democratic republic, we have a duty to question, debate and criticize what our government is doing, because their jobs are in our hands. How is one supposed to make a relevant decision as to whether to vote to re-elect or oust the current leadership without critically evaluating them?



> I believe that there are people who would rather see the killing continue if it means Bush wouldn't get reelected.


Maybe. Who knows...I got the distinct impression that there were people who wanted all sorts of bad things to happen on Clinton's watch, to help defeat Gore.



> So..how do you feel about peace in the mideast if it meant a Bush reelection?


I don't link the two...I don't have to either hope for both or reject both.

If there was peace in the Middle East and Bush were re-elected, I'd be happy that there was peace in a generally troubled and deadly region and disappointed that someone I don't think is good for the country (and the world) is in power in the US.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> You'll admit, I'm sure, that "Don't question the administration, for the sake of the country" is a fairly convenient stance for you to take, as a conservative, with a conservative President in office.


I was when HW Bush was in office. Many reasons why. His no new taxes pledge breaking one of them. It's not as much the party as the character of the man that appeals to me.


> That certainly wasn't the rallying cry of conservatives when Bill Clinton was in office during the first World Trade Center attack, or after the attack on the USS Cole. No, conservatives couldn't dissent fast enough at that time.


 Actually I supported everything he vowed to do about them but I'll admit it bothered me when he didn't follow through. Fault me I guess. 

When he lied about sex in the workplace I dissented about that. I did question his ability to lead because of that. Sex in the workplace is usually indicitive of a power trip mentality. If not what is the reason? So turned on they couldn't wait? Boredom? He was an adult wasn't he?



> Maybe. Who knows...I got the distinct impression that there were people who wanted all sorts of bad things to happen on Clinton's watch, to help defeat Gore.


Don't count me among them. There is plenty wrong with this world without people hoping for more to happen.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> When he lied about sex in the workplace I dissented about that.


So Clinton lying about something that had no effect on anyone else (beyond sheer moral outrage!) led you to dissent, while Bush lying about why he was going to war (WMDs, Iraq being in cahoots with Al Queda) leads me to dissent. Fine.

If either of us has his priorities wrong in what he chooses to question the President about, it's not me.


----------

