'Iran attack? Just Say No, Tony
Tony Blair can't Say Sorry for taking us to war under false pretences. Now George Bush is talking about taking action against Iran. Perhaps Tony Blair can be encouraged to 'Just Say No' to George Bush on this occasion. OWOS is running a major campaign calling for Tony Blair to stop being an instrument of US foreign policy.'
See: http://www.owos.info/
Not exactly fresh baked bread news, but thought provoking all the same - what do you think?!
Best,
Stephen
I think if we get through Iraq and Iran without civil problems, Syria should watch it's back. :?
One has to wonder just how the Bush administration is going to keep scrounging up the money to perpetuate their delusional war on terror. If they try attacking Iran and Syria, the economy could end up getting worse than it already is. If things continue this way for much longer, America will go the way of all other superpowers that eventually let their influence go to their head.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03012005.html
Interesting. You know what I read in January 2003? -> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
It states at the beginning:
QuoteAs one senior British official put it: `Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'"
Much of this article turned out to be true. For example that Iraq's invasion is meant to be long-term for various reasons stated in this article.
Quote'Iran attack? Just Say No, Tony
I second this.
Greetings
Quote from: LordoftheBunniesOne has to wonder just how the Bush administration is going to keep scrounging up the money to perpetuate their delusional war on terror. If they try attacking Iran and Syria, the economy could end up getting worse than it already is. If things continue this way for much longer, America will go the way of all other superpowers that eventually let their influence go to their head.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03012005.html
I think it's going to become a situation similar to what France saw before it's revolution. A huge divide will split the middle class as the rich get richer and everyone else suffers.
Wars make money for the rich. All those hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Iraq aren't going into Iraq... they're going into peoples' wallets. All the companies involved in the war effort are making cash out the butt. War has always done that.
Then a few billion dollars suddenly goes 'missing' :/
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13767.html
I think this is all just rhetoric from the bush administration.
This is because Iraq has been such a mess and so much more difficult than Bush ever thought it would be (remember the ineptly named 'mission acomplished' speech anyone?), that anything on a similar scale for iran is completely out of the question.
This war has actually shown the military limitations of the US more than anything.. the US military is already stretched to breaking point by Iraq and there is no way they could possibly afford to wage the same level of conflict in iran at the same time.. impossible.
That was probably the original plan, i'm sure, but iraq is turning out to be so costly, both in terms of money and lives, that a full scale attack of iran or even syria is totally out of the queston.. the army simply couldnt handle two iraqs on the go at the same time.
So they are resorting to secondary tactics, which is scare-mongering... only i dont think its really that scary... perhaps worst case scenario, they might afford to spare a few missile launches and air attacks on certain alleged facilities within the country, but thats about it.
As for Blair joining Bush again for Iran, I think that if he went for this a second time the British people really would lynch him!
Doug
PS Also, taking potshots at Iran and Syria is not exactly what i call a sound strategy when you are trying to bring stability to Iraq. Have they ever bothered to look at the geography of the region? Iran shares one of the biggest borders with Iraq, with Syria close behind... You need to be cultivating safe borders and a positive relationship with Iraq's neigbours if you want any hope of stopping suicide bombers and other fanatics from getting through, but US swaggering at Iran and Syria isnt going to help, in fact by doing that you will just create a situation that allows more of these people to slip through, while the Iranian and Syrian government do little to stop it. And if you think an all out invasion is going to help you've got another thing coming.. most likely an all out jihad.. not the best strategy under the circumstances.
I think a lot of people dont realise that there is a massive difference between Iraq an Iran. Far from all the crud about connections between al-queda and Iraq, the reality was that Iraq was a secular military dictatorship, that in fact fundamentalists like Bin Laden etc actually hated! They detested Sadam and Bathists as infidels and not proper muslims.
Iran on the other hand is an *islamic state*.. attack that and you are attacking Islam.. a WHOLE different kettle of fish.. the US is stirring the hornets nest with this strategy!
Quote from: Eol007'Iran attack? Just Say No, Tony
Tony Blair can't Say Sorry for taking us to war under false pretences. Now George Bush is talking about taking action against Iran. Perhaps Tony Blair can be encouraged to 'Just Say No' to George Bush on this occasion. OWOS is running a major campaign calling for Tony Blair to stop being an instrument of US foreign policy.'
Let terrorists get away with whatever they want. BE LIKE FRANCE! :roll:
Please. This "delusional war on terror" is a complete flop... :lol: You lefties are funny. Its incredible to me how you can only hope for the worst while completely ignoring any OBVIOUS accomplishments which repudiate your claims.
Quote from: GandalfI think this is all just rhetoric from the bush administration.
This is because Iraq has been such a mess and so much more difficult than Bush ever thought it would be (remember the ineptly named 'mission acomplished' speech anyone?), that anything on a similar scale for iran is completely out of the question.
This war has actually shown the military limitations of the US more than anything.. the US military is already stretched to breaking point by Iraq and there is no way they could possibly afford to wage the same level of conflict in iran at the same time.. impossible.
That was probably the original plan, i'm sure, but iraq is turning out to be so costly, both in terms of money and lives, that a full scale attack of iran or even syria is totally out of the queston.. the army simply couldnt handle two iraqs on the go at the same time.
So they are resorting to secondary tactics, which is scare-mongering... only i dont think its really that scary... perhaps worst case scenario, they might afford to spare a few missile launches and air attacks on certain alleged facilities within the country, but thats about it.
As for Blair joining Bush again for Iran, I think that if he went for this a second time the British people really would lynch him!
Doug
PS Also, taking potshots at Iran and Syria is not exactly what i call a sound strategy when you are trying to bring stability to Iraq. Have they ever bothered to look at the geography of the region? Iran shares one of the biggest borders with Iraq, with Syria close behind... You need to be cultivating safe borders and a positive relationship with Iraq's neigbours if you want any hope of stopping suicide bombers and other fanatics from getting through, but US swaggering at Iran and Syria isnt going to help, in fact by doing that you will just create a situation that allows more of these people to slip through, while the Iranian and Syrian government do little to stop it. And if you think an all out invasion is going to help you've got another thing coming.. most likely an all out jihad.. not the best strategy under the circumstances.
I think a lot of people dont realise that there is a massive difference between Iraq an Iran. Far from all the crud about connections between al-queda and Iraq, the reality was that Iraq was a secular military dictatorship, that in fact fundamentalists like Bin Laden etc actually hated! They detested Sadam and Bathists as infidels and not proper muslims.
Iran on the other hand is an *islamic state*.. attack that and you are attacking Islam.. a WHOLE different kettle of fish.. the US is stirring the hornets nest with this strategy!
Sigh... Wars are based on campaigns of which can have multitudes of missions. The invasion was complete and successful. IE -- Mission Accomplished. NEXT MISSION...
Explain how Iraq is a mess again? It looks like a HUGE success from my non communist eyes. And I had to quote this twice it was so ridiculous,
QuoteThis war has actually shown the military limitations of the US more than anything.. the US military is already stretched to breaking point by Iraq and there is no way they could possibly afford to wage the same level of conflict in iran at the same time.. impossible.
That was probably the original plan, i'm sure, but iraq is turning out to be so costly, both in terms of money and lives, that a full scale attack of iran or even syria is totally out of the queston.. the army simply couldnt handle two iraqs on the go at the same time.
:lol:
Breaking point? :lol: :lol: Too costly? :lol: Attacking Syria and Iran out of the question? OH, stop! I'm gonna pee my pants! Its good to know you're getting your news from "reputable" sources...
QuoteYou need to be cultivating safe borders and a positive relationship with Iraq's neighbors if you want any hope of stopping suicide bombers and other fanatics from getting through,
That's right because these enemies will listen to a good sit down chat over noon tea! So we better not "swagger" or we'll look arrogant. Wouldn't want to do that. No sir.
Quotethe US is stirring the hornets nest with this strategy!
So what. Its ALREADY stirred. Kick it again then set it on fire. You may think pooping your pants and running away because the bad people are coming is the best way to deal with people who murder hundreds of school children and saw off people's heads for fun and profit. That might be OK with you commies and you can hide in your world of puppy dogs and rainbows all you want. Those of us with balls and a spine will take care of you... like we've always done.
But that's pretty damn sorry if you ask me. Lame, yellow and Frog eatin' sorry.
Hi:
Speaking to you on a personal level, I think the "Mad" in your username is rather apt.
Yours,
Frank
I think its revealing on your part that any critique of US policy is dismissed as being 'communist'. The old 'communist' accusation only serves to make you come across as the typical jingoistic gung-ho type who blindly swallows all the rhetoric and spin churned out to you, without ever stopping to question it; a typical stance of this type of person is to proclaim everything that doesnt agree with their limited world view 'communist'.
This line says it all:
Explain how Iraq is a mess again? It looks like a HUGE success from my non communist eyes
Its all a bit dim really.
Doug
Quote from: FrankHi:
Speaking to you on a personal level, I think the "Mad" in your username is rather apt.
Yours,
Frank
You are correct. Quite mad and not gonna take it anymore. :evil:
QuoteI think its revealing on your part that any critique of US policy is dismissed as being 'communist'. The old 'communist' accusation only serves to make you come across as the typical jingoistic gung-ho type who blindly swallows all the rhetoric and spin churned out to you, without ever stopping to question it; a typical stance of this type of person is to proclaim everything that doesnt agree with their limited world view 'communist'.
This line says it all:
Explain how Iraq is a mess again? It looks like a HUGE success from my non communist eyes
Its all a bit dim really.
Critique? It sounded more like craven terrorist appeasement to me. And who made you the sole criticizer and denouncer? I'm calling you lefties out. You say the liberation and subsequent fervent popular elections in Iraq are wrong then what is right? More talking? Give me a break. Freedom is on the march and socialists can't stand it but won't admit they can't stand it. Your hypocrisy is obvious for all to see though and the Iraqis will not thank you for your inaction. The Lebanese will soon be free and so will the Iranians. Freedom isn't free but its certainly worth fighting for -- your fathers and grandfathers know that but they are remiss by letting you forget.
The day I give a crap what a bunch of terrorist apologists feel about me or what my "commie" comments make me look like to them is the day I shoot myself in the head. So don't hold your breath. Commie in this instance is a catch-all phrase for all America-hating whiny crybaby socialists -- its hardly limited at all.
Quoteblindly swallows all the rhetoric and spin churned out to you, without ever stopping to question it;
Only the blind question the obvious... perhaps a seeing-eye dog will help you understand the world better since you are only able to see what the terrorists and those who want them to win, want you to see.
Ignore the free Iraqis and Afghanis, protests in Lebanon and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Ignore Libya giving up their WMD plans and many other GOOD things happening. But none of that matters because PEOPLE ARE DIEING! OH NO! News flash commie -- They were dieing before , but now they've got a cause to better themselves. If I'm Jingo because I want them to succeed then I guess I'm guilty as charged. See comment above about not caring.
Do actually know what a 'communist' is and do you know what a 'socialist' is? Do you know what the distinction between the two is? Or indeed that there is a distinction?
Why do you think that anyone who questions US foreign policy is a 'communist'? Whether you agree with US foreign policy or not, you are allowed to have your own view on it and it is perfectly fair to give your own reasons why you do agree with it or why you don't, in the manner of a reasonable discussion. However what is not acceptable is to reply with accusations of 'communism' and other outright insults to any point of view you don't agree with. esp. when the term is mis-used in such a crass manner.
For this reason, while I encourage you to engage in active debate on any issue you agree/disagree on, and to argue with me or others on the issues of the day, I must warn you that from now on you must post in a more reasonable manner in line with the established standards of decorum which the moderators and users of this board all adhere to. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking you to post in accordance with common decency. Otherwise your time here may be limited.
Doug
QuoteYou may think pooping your pants and running away because the bad people are coming is the best way to deal with people who murder hundreds of school children and saw off people's heads for fun and profit.
Amazing, you sound like a sound bite from Rumsfield except he gets confused about shooting down some plane:DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And to change that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.
And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html
QuoteThose of us with balls and a spine will take care of you...
Indeed. That statement concerns me much more that some al-qaida boogeyman.
P.S. yothu, thank you for the link to the article by William Clark.
cheers,
cho
You're welcome, Chohan!
You are correct. I was wrong to insult the french. Its their government (mostly) I take issue with. I ask you though, how is it an insult to name someone a communist if they are a communist? Is it a "bad" word? Aren't they proud of their leanings?
I do understand the differences between socialism and communism but since they're slight I group them both together for simplicity sake. I can see how that could be confusing in a heated discussion though. So I will be more specific in the future.
People have been saying around here there is an upcoming Paradigm shift in this planet. Well that change has happened in me. I refuse to sit back and take blatant ignorant Anti-Americanism. And just to be clear ignorant doesn't mean stupid it means uninformed. As I've said in previous posts I am here to learn about Astral Projection but will confront attacks on (since thats what Anti-Americanism is) my country where I see them. I will be sure to do so in the future in accordance to board policy.
...
QuoteYou lefties are funny.
Sigh. Fascism.
QuoteThe invasion was complete and successful.
Bush wasn't celebrating simply invading Iraq. He was celebrating, as he said, the end of major military activity in Iraq. In that he was most obviously wrong, as our casualties are a testament to.
QuoteExplain how Iraq is a mess again?
Terrorist activity within the country has skyrocketed since the invasion (it wasn't even a problem before - they can't even link the terrorists with Saddam), and people die on a daily basis because of terrorist activities. Our troops have no real targets; no definite 'bad guys' to go shoot down. They're pretty much sitting ducks for bombings, etc., which of course they've had. Also all sorts of other civil problems and chaos around the country as a direct result of our invasion.
QuoteThat's right because these enemies will listen to a good sit down chat over noon tea! So we better not "swagger" or we'll look arrogant. Wouldn't want to do that. No sir.
And I guess they love killing us in particular for no apparent reason? It's OUR fault that they're ticked in the first place. We supply Israel with weapons out the butt. Israel was created on Muslim holy ground. The Muslims want them out, and have every reason to feel the way they do, but they can't do a thing about it because the great and fair nation of the United States is giving Israel enough arms to wipe out everyone around.
We could theoretically negotiate our way out of this. Bit by bit, no longer arming Israel, and compromising land with the Muslims. We could do great things in the Middle East without bloodshed. But it won't happen because people with such ways of thinking as yourself from both sides are hindering this process. All these balls and spines are getting in the way of intelligent diplomacy.
QuoteToo costly?
Pretty damned costly. Bush said he was going to have the deficit eliminated during this second term, but I don't know if he's chummy enough with God to ask for miracles yet. Have you seen the daily cost for war in Iraq? Yearly? Overall cost?
QuoteAttacking Syria and Iran out of the question?
You seem ready and willing. What every happened to isolationism? :(
QuoteThose of us with balls and a spine will take care of you... like we've always done.
Erm... Why do you need to take care of 'us', what happened? Did Saddam bomb us? I feel left out.
Oh.. maybe you mean 9/11? Yeah, thanks for taking care of that for "us". I mean, now that you guys found Osama and brought him to justice, we've accomplished exactly what we sat out to do. And in good time! No side distractions, creating unnecessary wars with other countries, nothing like you fascists have tendencies to do! GOOD JOB!
That's considering Osama even had anything to do with 9/11, but I don't want to be labelled a super duper communist for even bringing such things up for healthy inspection. I guess we're supposed to blindly accept what our leaders tell us. History shows they ALWAYS tell the truth. They're ALWAYS in check with the people. Who are we to think?
QuoteYou say the liberation and subsequent fervent popular elections in Iraq are wrong then what is right?
QuoteFreedom is on the march and socialists can't stand it but won't admit they can't stand it.
Hmm. Dunno where you've been but that's not why we went to Iraq.
QuoteThe Lebanese will soon be free and so will the Iranians. Freedom isn't free but its certainly worth fighting for -- your fathers and grandfathers know that but they are remiss by letting you forget.
Pfft... First of all - again we didn't go to war to free them. Never did I ever hear that mentioned. The whole freedom thing came afterwards as the military realized they were going to be there for a looong time.
Secondly, in WWII, neither we or our allies were unprovoked, and our founding fathers were ISOLATIONISTS. Look that up!
QuoteThe day I give a [edit] what a bunch of terrorist apologists feel about me or what my "commie" comments make me look like to them is the day I shoot myself in the head.
Or maybe it'll be the day
they shoot you in the head ;)
QuoteCommie in this instance is a catch-all phrase for all America-hating whiny crybaby socialists -- its hardly limited at all.
lol.. Well in this case, (primitive, used female contraceptive item) is a catch-all phrase for people who forget what the Constitution says about going to war. And I'm not referring to 'freeing' the Middle East.
QuoteOnly the blind question the obvious...
None of this is obvious, really. The sky being blue is obvious. What's going on in the Middle East is not. Unless you tour the Middle East on a regular basis and are kept fully up-to-date, you're getting your information from other people, who could and do lie and stretch information to fit their agendas.
QuoteIgnore the free Iraqis and Afghanis, protests in Lebanon and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Ignore Libya giving up their WMD plans and many other GOOD things happening.
We really should. An organization like the UN would be more appropriate for dealing with such things, but when the UN isn't successful, we should
not take things into our own hands and bust onto the seen with big guns, shooting everybody up. We can protest situations diplomatically and pressure foreign governments with some cooperation of other countries, and help in many other peaceful ways. That would show much more compassion, I think, than warring, if that's what you're up for. But we have absolutely 0 responsibility for what goes on in these other countries.
The Constitution says that wars should be waged by the United States only, ONLY, mind you, in self defense. This makes war on Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
QuoteThey were dieing before , but now they've got a cause to better themselves.
Your logic behind this justification of war is flawless. :roll:
madlordnad_
I'll tell you what's wrong with labling people communists:
I am NOT a communist and if you continue such insults on this board you will be removed. It's that simple.
Once again, debate and feel free to agree/disagree in a *reasonable* manner, not resulting in mis-named insults; I find it unbelievable that you have no ideas about debating with a sense of common decency in mind.
Hi:
The problem with the "commie" thing is a lot of people in Europe have long since moved on. I'm not sure if Mr MadLordNad actually realises that a number of ex "commie" countries are now actually formal members of the European Union.
I do think it is a tad ironic that one of my good friends is an American living in New York, and her husband is an Iraqi citizen. From her I am assured that our friend is not representative of anyone she knows, put it that way.
People in Europe are used to dealing with different nationalities living on their doorstep. For example, I drive a few hours one way and I'm in Spain, the other and I'm in Italy, go north east and I'm in Switzerland, turn right just before I get there and drive for a bit and I'm in Germany.
If you live in the USA, imagine the overall landmass split up into states as it is now, but think of each state as being a completely different country with their own history, own government, own laws, own language, own customs, etc., and up until a few years ago, their own currency. That is how it is like living in Europe.
As such, people in Europe are very much more used to thinking in terms of diplomacy and negotiation between governments, and embracing the differences between people of many different nationalities.
We have long since embraced the notion of bringing the ex-communist countries of the old Soviet Union into the European fold. Plus, people tended to see the Cold War as generally an "American thing". So when it all stopped in the late 1980's we all kinda breathed a sigh of relief and got on with the building of relationships with our neighbours. Because in Europe these countries you speak of are actually here, right next-door to us, sitting on the same land mass.
Because of the vast differences that exist, people in Europe have lived with terrorism for as long as we can remember. Particularly in England with the troubles in Ireland. Several decades ago, the IRA was branded by the English government as a terrorist organisation, and this organisation has been responsible for exploding many a bomb. Killing and maiming all manner of people over several decades.
But people in the main, both English and Irish, have now embraced the idea of negotiation and the bringing of the leaders of this organisation into the political fold. Because that's the only real way the fighting is going to stop. You can't have a police officer or a soldier on every street corner, 24 hours a day.
I think what people generally, especially in Europe, are beginning to realise is that fighting simply leads to more fighting; and when the US government talks about protecting world interests, what they actually mean is: protecting American interests.
In the midst of all the bluster that surrounds the conflict in Iraq, there is one fact that shines out like a lighthouse. Hardly anyone in the USA, government or otherwise, would give a stuff about Iraq, its government, its people, nothing, they wouldn't give a damn. If it were not for the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil-reserves in the world. And that's what it all boils down to. All those people are suffering and dying, not in a fight for freedom, but in a fight to control the oil flowing out of that country.
There are many, many other countries in the world where gross atrocities are committed. Plus, thirty seven and a half MILLION children die every year in the world from lack of basic needs, such as food, shelter, and basic medicine. So put your atrocities argument away, it doesn't wash here.
You talk about France. The French people, as a rule, are very independent minded and they do not take kindly to other governments telling them how they should conduct their internal affairs. That's why I like it here. In the main, it's the people that rule here, not the state.
Unlike in my home country, England. Parliament there has become nothing more than a US puppet regime. Many people are reacting against it. You would never see the French government acting in such a way. The French people simply would not stand for it. There would be another revolution!
Yours,
Frank
Frank,
Well said, my friend.
As you wrote above, "fighting leads to more fighting". There are some of us here who are sick of it; and sick of seeing the government send kids everywhere to kill and be killed.
Best regards,
Nick
QuoteLet terrorists get away with whatever they want. BE LIKE FRANCE! Rolling Eyes
Please. This "delusional war on terror" is a complete flop... Laughing You lefties are funny. Its incredible to me how you can only hope for the worst while completely ignoring any OBVIOUS accomplishments which repudiate your clai
I couldn't agree more. Considering how many WMD's and biological weapons Saddam had, It was crucial we went in there and took them away. I mean it was worth the 200 billion dollars and counting to invade a country and take their weapons that never existed. Good thing we completely forgot about Osama, and attacked Saddam instead.
Also, we should be proud. We are creating a "kinda" democracy in Iraq, that is resembling Iran. Not only are we creating a theocracy, but its a democracy that will have no regard for the rights of women. And one that'll force their religous believes on to everyone.
As my president, whom I am very proud to support, once said, "Mission Accomplished!"
(just to let you know, everything above was sarcasm)
Personally, Mad, I respect people's opinions, but yours lack the facts and figures. I don't find personal insults (calling people lefty commies) very respectful either.
It is sad is to hear people fight one another on terms of ideologies such as ''lefties'' ''righties'' ''down south western center'' etc. People really need to look how the ''chess game'' is being played and if you can observe ''future moves'' a little bit, you all know that we do not want any other wars from both ''leftist'' and ''rightist'' (that are good friends behind the scene by the way and do not really project the image that media portray of them; such as Bush the ''conservative christian'', mmmm, not really....). Many ex-president such as George Bush Sr., Gorbachev (etc.) all prone what they desire the most: a one-world government type of thing. But their goal is to create ''disorder'' before a ''new world order''.
Like a president of the beginning of the 1900s said: ''There is a small group of people doing things, another small group that watch the other small group do these things and a huge group that do not know nothing and did not even knew what just happened''.
QuoteIt is sad is to hear people fight one another on terms of ideologies such as ''lefties'' ''righties'' ''down south western center'' etc.
When George Washington stepped down after his second term, he warned against three things in his farewell address. One of the things he warned was to avoid forming political parties (I think he was the only president that did not belong to one).
He also warned against the division of the country geophysically, like North and South or East and West (no one listened to this either and look what happened), and against becoming too buddy-buddy with foreign countries.
QuoteOne of the things he warned was to avoid forming political parties (I think he was the only president that did not belong to one).
I agree with is completely. It is kind of silly to have a combo package on issues.
It is absurd to have to vote family votes while voting for tax cuts for the rich.
It is the same absurdity to have to vote to help the poor while (insert random democratic party thing you disagree with.)
I believe in a "true" democracy, one following the exact description, people would specifically vote on an issue like gay marriage, instead of voting for or against a candidate that backs or does not support gay marriage.
RTcovenant,
My only question is that since there are parties, what are you going to do?
I still haven't found a good answer to this question either.
Quote from: FrankHi:
The problem with the "commie" thing is a lot of people in Europe have long since moved on. I'm not sure if Mr MadLordNad actually realises that a number of ex "commie" countries are now actually formal members of the European Union.
I do think it is a tad ironic that one of my good friends is an American living in New York, and her husband is an Iraqi citizen. From her I am assured that our friend is not representative of anyone she knows, put it that way.
People in Europe are used to dealing with different nationalities living on their doorstep. For example, I drive a few hours one way and I'm in Spain, the other and I'm in Italy, go north east and I'm in Switzerland, turn right just before I get there and drive for a bit and I'm in Germany.
If you live in the USA, imagine the overall landmass split up into states as it is now, but think of each state as being a completely different country with their own history, own government, own laws, own language, own customs, etc., and up until a few years ago, their own currency. That is how it is like living in Europe.
As such, people in Europe are very much more used to thinking in terms of diplomacy and negotiation between governments, and embracing the differences between people of many different nationalities.
We have long since embraced the notion of bringing the ex-communist countries of the old Soviet Union into the European fold. Plus, people tended to see the Cold War as generally an "American thing". So when it all stopped in the late 1980's we all kinda breathed a sigh of relief and got on with the building of relationships with our neighbours. Because in Europe these countries you speak of are actually here, right next-door to us, sitting on the same land mass.
Because of the vast differences that exist, people in Europe have lived with terrorism for as long as we can remember. Particularly in England with the troubles in Ireland. Several decades ago, the IRA was branded by the English government as a terrorist organisation, and this organisation has been responsible for exploding many a bomb. Killing and maiming all manner of people over several decades.
But people in the main, both English and Irish, have now embraced the idea of negotiation and the bringing of the leaders of this organisation into the political fold. Because that's the only real way the fighting is going to stop. You can't have a police officer or a soldier on every street corner, 24 hours a day.
I think what people generally, especially in Europe, are beginning to realise is that fighting simply leads to more fighting; and when the US government talks about protecting world interests, what they actually mean is: protecting American interests.
In the midst of all the bluster that surrounds the conflict in Iraq, there is one fact that shines out like a lighthouse. Hardly anyone in the USA, government or otherwise, would give a stuff about Iraq, its government, its people, nothing, they wouldn't give a damn. If it were not for the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil-reserves in the world. And that's what it all boils down to. All those people are suffering and dying, not in a fight for freedom, but in a fight to control the oil flowing out of that country.
There are many, many other countries in the world where gross atrocities are committed. Plus, thirty seven and a half MILLION children die every year in the world from lack of basic needs, such as food, shelter, and basic medicine. So put your atrocities argument away, it doesn't wash here.
You talk about France. The French people, as a rule, are very independent minded and they do not take kindly to other governments telling them how they should conduct their internal affairs. That's why I like it here. In the main, it's the people that rule here, not the state.
Unlike in my home country, England. Parliament there has become nothing more than a US puppet regime. Many people are reacting against it. You would never see the French government acting in such a way. The French people simply would not stand for it. There would be another revolution!
Yours,
Frank
My problem with people who disagree with the actions of my country right now is that they're
NOT outraged by murderers. But
Rather blame the victim for the crimes committed against her. How is it wrong to wage war against those who would and have killed us (that's right you too)? And if I sound like Donald Rumsfeld now good! This isn't about oil? That's upsurd! Besides we get more than 50% of our oil from Canada....
The fact is those who are against this war just aren't upset at all about terrorists and couldn't care less if they kill Americans or whoever. And if we act in our own self intrest and defense (gasp -- countries have never done that) then it must be about money... :evil: Please...
QuoteAll those people are suffering and dying, not in a fight for freedom, but in a fight to control the oil flowing out of that country.
Our enemies are evil. We've been attacked by them for over 20 years all the while trying it your way. We've negotiated and talked and gotten UN resolution after resolution. NOTHING GOOD CAME FROM IT. The time for talk is over and in my mind if you thwart us you're in league with our enemy. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ENEMIES DO. Its not too hard to figure out.
QuoteI think what people generally, especially in Europe, are beginning to realise is that fighting simply leads to more fighting; and when the US government talks about protecting world interests, what they actually mean is: protecting American interests.
Wrong. Do the Japanese or Germans still attack us? This is an absurd statement because if you follow the logic defending yourself will only lead to having to defend yourself more... So give up now. That doesn't make sense. The benefits of our actions are obvious and speak for themselves. There is honest and good change happening in the middle east -- no thanks to the UN.
And while yes the death caused by said war is sad it is war after all -- one we didn't start by the way. In fact our excessive worry about collateral damage is hampering the war effort. No matter what though, we can't do right by lefty estimates so I don't see why we bother since its prolonging the suffering.
Ok, so I'm liberal with my commie usage. There's an irony there I think. But what I find more ironic is the fact that the "ex-commie" countries in the EU are more appreciative of their freedom than those who traditionally have had it longer and fought so hard for it just 50 years ago. It was France who told those new or prospective EU countries to mind their place when they supported our (the US) efforts in the middle east. So they don't like taking orders but they sure like giving them... I take issue with people/countries who say they're my/our friend in one breath and in the next stab us in the back. So call it "independent" if you want but I'll call it "coniving" and even "treacherous".
You long ago embraced the ex-communist counties huh? All on your own? LOL!! Oh, and up until the end of WWII Europe wasn't very good at playing nice with their neighbors. I'd say they still aren't though they can put on a good show.
You assume we here don't know what its like to live next to some one different. :shock: That's the most amazing thing considering we have citizens from every corner of the globe. I can go two blocks down the road and run into countless mexicans. We celibrate our contributing cultures here but its our commonality which binds us and gives us an identity. Do you consider yourself a EuroUnioner? I doubt anyone else in the EU does either.
QuoteThere are many, many other countries in the world where gross atrocities are committed. Plus, thirty seven and a half MILLION children die every year in the world from lack of basic needs, such as food, shelter, and basic medicine. So put your atrocities argument away, it doesn't wash here.
What are the basic reasons these countries are in such straights? Could it be the people aren't FREE? And aren't we already derided for acting like the world police? I know there's a double standard where the US is expected to do the most for everyone when there's trouble but then when we do something we're criticized for not doing enough or not doing it right. If the French/UN want to be so great why don't they pool their socialist resources and do something...? Oh that's right they're already in Africa causing more attrocities... My bad.
Ybom -
Once enough people are upset things will begin to solve themselves. Any war with further countries may quicken this process. This may be a good time to secure your future in case of domestic terrorism/war.
QuoteMy problem with people who disagree with the actions of my country right now is that they're NOT outraged by murderers. But Rather blame the victim for the crimes committed against her.
QuoteHow is it wrong to wage war against those who would and have killed us (that's right you too)?
QuoteThe fact is those who are against this war just aren't upset at all about terrorists and couldn't care less if they kill Americans or whoever. And if we act in our own self intrest and defense (gasp -- countries have never done that) then it must be about money... Evil or Very Mad Please...
QuoteThis is an absurd statement because if you follow the logic defending yourself will only lead to having to defend yourself more... So give up now.
QuoteThis is an absurd statement because if you follow the logic defending yourself will only lead to having to defend yourself more... So give up now.
9/11 ≠ Iraq[/size][/b]
NO(!) connection. NONE! We were not attacked by Saddam!
And I thought that was common knowledge.. Surprising how well brainwashing works!
QuoteI can go two blocks down the road and run into countless mexicans. We celibrate our contributing cultures here but its our commonality which binds us and gives us an identity. Do you consider yourself a EuroUnioner? I doubt anyone else in the EU does either.
People come here for money. It's that simple. We're most money-driven country in the world.
QuoteWrong. Do the Japanese or Germans still attack us?
They attacked first, unprovoked, and most countries allied against them. We attack Iraq first, unprovoked, and... hmm.....
Hi Madlordnad.. your posts have improved slightly which I thank you for.. but you've still got some way to go yet, as you are still fixated with the notion that anyone who disagrees with US govenment policy is a 'commie'.
This is just nonsense. In fact it is the ability of an individual to criticise their own government that *makes* a free democracy. Your notion that americans who criticise the government are somhow 'traitors' and 'unamerican' is absurd and in fact that is the sort of view which I'm sure Stalin, Hitler or Saddam would have approved of. They didnt approve of individuals criticising the government either... Stalin always said that those who criticise the state are enemies of the state... just like you say. You are sounding like the kind of people you claim to dislike! Of course the line you are promoting is exactly the propoganda that has been flowing out of the white house over the past few years... which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
So get a grip on yourself....and drop the 'commie' tag... its so lame and out of date, not to mention offensive... it makes you sound like a throw-back from the 1980's if not before... catch up man, the world has moved on!
Doug
Quote from: GandalfIn fact it is the ability of an individual to criticise their own government that *makes* a free democracy. Your notion that americans who criticise the government are somhow 'traitors' and 'unamerican'...
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President, author of Declaration of Independence.
Quote from: GandalfOf course the line you are promoting is exactly the propoganda that has been flowing out of the white house over the past few years... which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Indeed Doug, I used to swallow it myself but these days there are a great many splinters in my mind. For instance this bloke Michael Meiring:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/michael-meiring-blast-from-past.html
Guy blows his legs off in a Davao City hotel room, big news in the P.I.
I have a relative that lives in Davao so I started sniffing on this. Funny you seach this name on CNN or FOX and you get nada.
My country is smoke and mirrors.
Maybe I'm just getting old an cynical which is probably a good thing since I'd rather not spend all my fancy US Army markmanship training killing Muslims, Arabs, Iraqis or whatever Rummy's flavor of the day happens to be.
Btw, if another country illegally invaded America and occupied her with foreign troops I'd be tempted to heat the asphalt at night and plant IED's in the road. Well perhaps not, I'd probably end up like Michael Meiring.
cheers,
cho
MadLordNad:
I would very much appreciate it, if you would not try to infect me with your fears. My death is my business and I shall face that when the time comes. The pre-emptive killing of others on the justification that they may or may not kill me at some time or other in the future, I make no apologies for saying is all too whacky for me to contemplate.
So I should posit myself as an imaginary victim of some deadly perpetrator, and use that as an excuse to murder people?
That's insane!
Though I realise it obviously does make a lot of sense in your mind.
When you say not outraged by murderers, I rather think you mean not, "overcome by hate-fuelled revenge". Because when you look at it, honestly and openly, beyond all the propaganda and misinformation, I doubt there is a despot on earth that does not have or has not had their greedy pockets lined with US dollars, and their despotic army armed to the teeth, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
I'm kinda reminded here of a little saying about a pot who called the kettle black.
I do not wish harm on anyone. I am a peace-loving person. So any kind of gun or weapon is an anathema to me. But if you are going to play with fire, particularly an incredibly fast-expanding fire that you construct in the form of a bomb or a missile, and you keep sending these over to other people, one day someone is going to send one back over to you. Maybe it's one of those weird paradoxical situations, like; let's call it the Law of Missiles. Say, for every 10,000 you wing over to them, one of them comes back and lands on you. So when it happens everyone stands around watching others clear away the bodies and the destruction of some building or other. People get upset but ultimately they all shrug and turn and walk away thinking, "Well, nothing you can really do, have to accept it I suppose, that's just the Law of Missiles."
So while I would never want to wish harm on anyone, I fail to see how you can rightfully see yourself as a victim. You are the cause of the effect. But instead, you drive a huge propaganda wedge between the two, point the finger at someone else, and say that they are the cause. But they are not the cause, you are! Together with everyone else who thinks the same way as you do. You all create that reality, and all of you lend energy to the common construct of the war-machine. This allows you to indulge in mass murder, but indulge in it "legally" in the name of "war".
But mass murder is still mass murder, whichever way you gift-wrap it. This is why so many people in the world are outraged by American actions right now. But people such as yourself don't see it that way. You only concentrate upon the murderous actions of the people you have chosen to call "terrorists" and you demand others do the same. Sorry, but my mind is open very wide and it is entirely immune to propaganda of all types, from any country, of any political persuasion. Fortunately, more and more people are becoming the same way.
The politics of sheer self-interest the government of the USA pursues is being questioned and criticised the world over. Such that more and more people are realising that when America talks about defence and security, it is to defend and secure what other people see as an unjust and unsustainable American Way of Life: a way of life that would otherwise be indefensible.
The American Declaration of Independence in 1776 was fitting in its time and context. In times of slavery, colonialism and imperialism, it is right that the colonised stand up for their dignity and claim freedom from oppression.
Nowadays, however, a new consciousness is being born, and people the world over are questioning how come, for example, the USA represents a little fewer than 5% of world population, yet spends on arms equal to 40% of worldwide arms spending as a whole?
In fact, the amount spent on arms by the USA is almost equal to the combined spending of the next 10 highest defence-spending nations! Other facts are amazing too, like; the US consumes just under 30% of the world's oil production and 30% of the world's gross product. While, again, representing just under 5% of world population!
It is all very well the American people complaining about what they see as terrorism on their shores; but does not anyone in any authority in the USA actually ask what have you done to anger people SO much that they are prepared to kill themselves and thousands of others to be heard, and to express their grievances? Moreover, does not anyone in any authority in the USA realise that the questions of equity and justice are paramount in the minds of those who are oppressed, exploited and deprived by the worlds' wealthy nations, in particular the USA?
For too long these kinds of questions have been swept under the carpet, in the belief that dissent could be quashed either by military force, or by having people's dissatisfactions diverted by handouts of aid. Gosh, this "two-faced" argument again coming from a US citizen. Perhaps you should inform yourself of the reality: in that, collectively, in terms of the amount spent on "aid" the USA is doing nothing more than sweeping crumbs from its table and scattering them amongst the worlds' poor and oppressed.
The distant mirage of a consumer lifestyle for the underprivileged is no compensation for the present hardship, suffering and injustice faced by BILLIONS of people in the world today. One way or another, they are going to get angry and rebel.
Of course, it is ever so easy to attach labels to people and condemn them as "terrorists". I would be one of the first to agree there is no justification for violence and/or killing: but not on both sides. Because in reality there are no sides. It is all too easy to preach peace to terrorists, but how can such preaching and/or condemnation possibly be justifiable and effective until the massively armed and wealthy nations, in particular the USA, begin practicing peace and non-violence themselves?
You complain that excessive worry about "collateral damage" is hampering the war effort. Such an astounding euphemism, "Whoops, guys, we just blew up a school and murdered 50 innocent children. Shucks, not more pesky collateral damage to take account of. Those kids should never have been there anyways. What a darned stupid place to build a school, right in the middle of a war zone!"
You know, there's just something about murdering innocent women and children that gets up people's noses, and makes them rise up and demonstrate against it. You say your enemies are evil, what, you mean they kill innocent people? You mean they imprison people without trial for years on end?
Can you hear all those pots calling those kettles?
In Iraq, if you invaded purely in the name of peace as you claim, then why is it that you have to fight so hard, and bomb and kill and maim so many innocent people to get your message across?
Of course it's about oil. What else could it possibly be about???
Your whole economy runs on oil. Without a plentiful supply of cheap oil, your whole infrastructure, your whole war machine, your whole economy would collapse! But you say that's not right because you get 50% of your oil from Canada. Oh, that explains it. Sorry, I assumed that world oil prices were based upon the twin market principles of supply and demand. I guess myself and the millions of other people who have subscribed to this notion over the past however-many decades, were all wrong then.
You say you celebrate other cultures within your society, you say these cultures have a commonality that binds you and gives you a common identity. Great and long may that be so. But the situation I was talking about, as still exists in Europe to a large degree, is where you have a number of other countries on your doorstep, and there are people living in those countries where you do NOT have much of a commonality, and where you do NOT have an obvious common identity.
What then?
Walk in guns blazing I guess would be your solution.
However, in Europe, we have had to embrace the notion of persistent and tactful diplomacy. Our combined efforts have paid off to the extent where we have created an area of common ground that we now call the European Community. Not only that, we are expanding and have offered a hand of friendship to those countries that only 20 years ago, people such as yourself would have been vehemently spitting venom at, calling them, "the enemy".
In Europe, we have seen much unrest over many hundreds of years. People were fighting in Europe long before modern-day America was even born. This is no doubt why we now believe in the engagement of diplomacy and continual dialogue, over guns, bombs and missiles.
As I said to you before, the Cold War was largely seen as an American "thing". And I really do not know where you are coming from when you talk about European people being grateful to America for their "freedom"(?) Now that just loses me totally.
The Japanese and the Germans are not attacking you, no. But I never said they were. All I said was that fighting simply leads to more fighting.
Did all the fighting cease at the end of WW2? Of course it didn't. America has been directly and indirectly engaged in many, many wars and conflicts since that time. Like I say, fighting simply leads to more fighting, and your country's military engagements serve as incontrovertible proof of the efficacy of that statement.
Fact is, if the USA can justify the killing of innocent people then any other nation, or faction, or whomsoever, will just stand in line and justify it in the same way. So the vicious circle continues.
To my mind, the USA missed a grand opportunity on that September day, of showing great compassion and restraint. Alas no, we have another war. As if there were not enough killing and misery in the world already.
Yours,
Frank
Frank, first let me compliment you on your form. Many in the US sympathize with your views, and I'm sure that many of those who don't appear to sympathize still do, but they haven't figured out how to express it.
Ok. Now, Frank, I'm trying to understand your post in the context of your other posts about Victim/Perpetrator belief constructs and how we constantly create our reality. Doesn't that mean the victims of US conflicts had just as much do with creating their fate?
I'm trying to understand your choice of ethical guidance. Do you have any system of ethics other than the one you personally create for yourself? Does establishing personal ethics have significantly more to do with reality creation than, say, meditation?
It seems that personal ethics are value judgments that guide people's thinking and, therefore, everything they do and everything they see. What do you think about that particular statement?
[Edit: Oh, if I may offer my bit into the discussion. I think, after reviewing quite a bit of material through my international economics courses, the conflicts arising between nations in question are definitely more complicated than just oil. It is not obvious to the public how many peaceful options have been tried and have failed over the decades, particularly economic sanctions. Such peaceful attempts historically are unlikely to work if the people of said nations do not have voices for political dissent and cannot affect policy decisions.]
Here's a quote that I need to share, given the context of this discussion:
When a man becomes steadfast in his abstention from harming others, then all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in his presence.
- Patanjali
...
Posted by Shinobi -
QuoteLastly, I'd like to address Nick's Pantajali quote – "When a man becomes steadfast in his abstention from harming others, then all living creatures will cease to feel enmity in his presence". It's a beautiful quote, and I'm a big fan of Pantajali. Unfortunately, this particular quote is demonstrably inaccurate. Ghandi, one of this era's most ardent advocates of peaceful resolution and ahimsa, apparently incited some enmity. The Pope is hardly a raving lunatic, and has excited tremendous enmity. The Dalai Lama continually lives under threat of death or damage. These are just some of my favorites – I'm sure that people can think of many other examples. The point is that, while our activities certainly create an environment of greater or lesser threat, living a peaceful life does NOT guarantee some sort of 'peace bubble' surrounding us.
What struck me about the quote most of all, I guess, is that I believe Pantanjali is stating that we are capable of abstaining from harming others, if we wish to do so. My thinking is that what Pantanjali was stating is that it all has to start somewhere.
While there are those who presently have enmity (no matter who the person may be), Pantanjali's point as I understand it, is the idea that this "steadfast abstention" is the first path to walk. We will never achieve freedom from "enmity", unless and until enough of humanity has achieved the first.
It can and will be said, that to be as Pantajali describes is impossible or nonsense. However, what I admire most about the quote, is that it points to a divine path. We just need the courage to take those first steps. Hopefully someday we'll get there. :wink:
All the best,
Nick
Nice quote Nick,
The non-violent way as always been the best option to take and we still have, at least (and hopefully!), one person that will go this way and this is the Dalai Lama. Even if there is a genocide that was done on the Tibetan people, he never wants to use any kind of violence to resolve the conflict. In many attempts he tries to reach people toward a more compassionate way of living. What he does is ''love your enemy'' and ''turn the other cheek'' kind of approach; basically show compassion. In the news today, the Dalai Lama said that he accepts the idea that Tibet remains in the Republic of China....
Our societies have become one that have a tremendous potentials to fulfill joy, love, etc. But, sadly, it has been the most ignorant and most dangerous for it's own people. Making the way toward self-destruction of its own people and other living beings around them are the results that are easy to observe nowadays.
To ''fight'' for love and compassion can not be done with any kinds of weapons; it will be stupid and ''ironic ''to do so....
Take care,
...
Hi Shinobi,
On a personal level, and as a retired criminal law prosecutor and defense attorney, I can tell you that the law allows for defense of self and defense of others. So in the scenario that you've posited (and who hasn't thought of such a scary scenario), most of us (myself included) would do whatever it took to remove the harm from my wife and kids.
However, we sort of veered off the government/military issue a bit, and I am as much to blame for that. At this point in our history, military wise, I think we need to be asking ourselves as americans: why are we the only industrialized nation on the planet that does not provide health care for all its citizens? Further, why is it that billions of dollars are spent instead on a war machine that will never win the hearts and minds of others? These are the questions that I would ask of my government.
All the best,
Nick
QuoteSo, patapouf, it appears that we disagree on whether, or not, it is possible to fight for compassionate reasons. I hope that it is clear that my view not largely fueled by thoughts of hate, rage, or a desire for retribution. It is merely willingness to use any/all tools at a human's disposal to protect beauty and light in the world.
I understand what you want to say Shinobi and I don't say that I totally disagree with what you just said. But when we look at a bigger conflict such as wars; the people that will suffer out of it are the ones that do not want to do any kind of harm to anybody and we do not need another one to observe if it is true.
Of course, some might say ''Yeah, what can you do if you see a crazy dude like Hitler who wants to rule the world?'' If the soldiers that were holding the guns had the concepts of compassion toward each others;maybe things might have turned out differently. People can refuse to listen to certain ideologies if they want to.
Take care,
Shinobi:
This is not a debate concerning some hypothetical scenario you have chosen to concoct. The title of the debate is perfectly clear in the topic heading, and I would be grateful if you would remain on that topic. Obviously, if someone is going to concoct an argument over some hypothetical scenario then they are going to choose one that best befits their particular point of view.
Moreover, no one person's hypothetical scenario is any more or any less valid that anyone else's. So could we remain on-topic please with the actual scenario as dictated by the topic heading. Though I have to say, I couldn't help but chuckle seeing you try to wheedle your way into a win-win situation under the guise of offering us a hand of convenience. :)
Yours,
Frank
Well..hmm. I agree with Shinobi. I can relate, hence why I rarely participate in political disussions. Being from a military family, I see why such things are necessary though.
QuoteThe frustrating thing for me about this kind of a discussion, is that those who completely deny the utility of violence in general, and war in particular, portray those who recognize the practical need for forceful interaction as war mongers. Clearly, there are those who revel in violence in the world. But enjoying it and seeing the practical need for it are two different things.
I wish I would have thought of how to express that feeling years ago, well said. A topic like this to me is a no win situation...I hate suffering and want to stop it, but how do you stop it? and when you do try and stop it, it only leads to another kind of suffering. Which suffering is worse?
I'm not sure if I'm off topic Frank..I swear! but just wanted to say my little say.
Nay
...
QuoteRTcovenant,
My only question is that since there are parties, what are you going to do?
I still haven't found a good answer to this question either.
I'm personally going to vote for the party I agree with more, because obviously I can not change the government.
Quote
My problem with people who disagree with the actions of my country right now is that they're NOT outraged by murderers. But Rather blame the victim for the crimes committed against her. How is it wrong to wage war against those who would and have killed us (that's right you too)? And if I sound like Donald Rumsfeld now good! This isn't about oil? That's upsurd! Besides we get more than 50% of our oil from Canada....
I am outraged my murderers,too. I also disagree with torture. I seriously doubt Iraq would have attached us considering the fact they had no WMDS. Also, we our current administration outsources torture to other nations, how come your not outraged with them?
QuoteOur enemies are evil. We've been attacked by them for over 20 years all the while trying it your way. We've negotiated and talked and gotten UN resolution after resolution. NOTHING GOOD CAME FROM IT. The time for talk is over and in my mind if you thwart us you're in league with our enemy. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ENEMIES DO. Its not too hard to figure out.
Of course negotiating works, you just have to realize who your negotiating with. We ended WW2 early because of negotiation.
Quote
Wrong. Do the Japanese or Germans still attack us? This is an absurd statement because if you follow the logic defending yourself will only lead to having to defend yourself more... So give up now. That doesn't make sense. The benefits of our actions are obvious and speak for themselves. There is honest and good change happening in the middle east -- no thanks to the UN
They did not attack us because they were a country and we negotiated peace terms. They were not some renegade terrorist organization that beleives they'll visit 71 virgins in heaven if they set off a car bomb and kill innocents.
But anyways, We were wrong to invade Iraq in the manner we did. And it is a bit extreme to just invade Iran at the moment. Our economy is weak and Iran has not done anything.
Strong at Home, Respected in the World That is the democratic 2004 platform message, and I most certainly agree with it.
QuoteStrong at Home, Respected in the World That is the democratic 2004 platform message, and I most certainly agree with it.
Not strong enough, apparently.