NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040419/481/jbm10204191624

I guess this Marine is just that exception to the rule..because I'm being told daily by some in here that we're just psychopathic thugs bent on exterminating Iraqi civilians.

Salishe, I respect your point of view and completely support the U.S. troops who are being used in an unjust action, however I urge you not to think that this one photo opp captures the entire scene on the ground in Iraq. To do this is to buy into the media curtain that has been dropped on us in an effort to control our perceptions about this war.

No one is accusing the soldiers on the ground of being evil, maniacal, slaughter-hungry grunts and, if they are, their opinions should be taken with as much credit as that type of gross generalization is due. However, the cause for which they are working is not a just one, not through their own fault (indeed, many of them know this, which is why re-enlistment is at an all time low with 43% of those currently on the ground indicating that they will not re-enlist for another tour and morale is terrible with suicide rates being around 33% higher than Viet Nam), but because we have allowed a callous, cruel and self-serving madman control of our country. We need to bring our men and women home, but from the looks of things, we won't be doing that and will, in fact, be bringing back the draft to send even more of our children over there to die.

Yes, a wonderful photo opportunity, which didn't look at all staged :roll:

Those naive enough to believe that US, British and other Coalition troops would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis are the same people who were naive enough to believe in the existence of WMDs and links to Al Qaeda we were told about as well.

A far more realistic assesment of what is actually happening on the ground, by someone who is there, can be found at :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/21/1082530233558.html

LOL, a conservative being as selective with the facts as a liberal. :roll:

I'm sure everyone else here knows that propaganda cuts both ways.

U.S. troops who are being used in an unjust action
owever, the cause for which they are working is not a just one, not through their own fault
I don't like saving lives either. Maybe we can form a club. :roll:

Saving lives? Funny, my military friends mainly joined to take them . . . :?

Mideastlog (http://www.devo.com/mideastlog/) Is a really goodone. Although it is updated so infrequently that you could be forgiven for thinking it is dead. Or maybe Ben just is and It wasnt mentioned on His own Blog for some reason....

Yes, a wonderful photo opportunity, which didn't look at all staged :roll:

Those naive enough to believe that US, British and other Coalition troops would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis are the same people who were naive enough to believe in the existence of WMDs and links to Al Qaeda we were told about as well.

A far more realistic assesment of what is actually happening on the ground, by someone who is there, can be found at :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/21/1082530233558.html

Well...this is what I expected...and you know your assessment is more realistic then mine eh?...and you know this how exactly?..my own sons were there....they do not jive with your sources.

Yes, a wonderful photo opportunity, which didn't look at all staged :roll:

Those naive enough to believe that US, British and other Coalition troops would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis are the same people who were naive enough to believe in the existence of WMDs and links to Al Qaeda we were told about as well.

A far more realistic assesment of what is actually happening on the ground, by someone who is there, can be found at :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/21/1082530233558.html

Well...this is what I expected...and you know your assessment is more realistic then mine eh?...and you know this how exactly?..my own sons were there....they do not jive with your sources.
WHY is the military asking for more money for Iraq?
WHY are the defence contractors in short supply of military equipment in Iraq?
WHY are they sending over another 20,000 soldiers?
WHY is Congress considering bringing back the draft?
WHY are the commanders extending the stay of US troops in Iraq when their tour of duty is supposed to be over?
WHY is the death toll for US troops higher this month than when the war was officially declared over last May?

All of this is happening because Iraqis' want to kiss the hand of their captors?

I think not. :shock:

Yes, a wonderful photo opportunity, which didn't look at all staged :roll:

Those naive enough to believe that US, British and other Coalition troops would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis are the same people who were naive enough to believe in the existence of WMDs and links to Al Qaeda we were told about as well.

A far more realistic assesment of what is actually happening on the ground, by someone who is there, can be found at :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/21/1082530233558.html

Well...this is what I expected...and you know your assessment is more realistic then mine eh?...and you know this how exactly?..my own sons were there....they do not jive with your sources.
WHY is the military asking for more money for Iraq?
WHY are the defence contractors in short supply of military equipment in Iraq?
WHY are they sending over another 20,000 soldiers?
WHY is Congress considering bringing back the draft?
WHY are the commanders extending the stay of US troops in Iraq when their tour of duty is supposed to be over?
WHY is the death toll for US troops higher this month than when the war was officially declared over last May?

All of this is happening because Iraqis' want to kiss the hand of their captors?

I think not. :shock:

UHHH! Because of the friggin uncoopertive Iraqis!!!! (not all of course, plenty of great guys there)

Even though I dont agree with this happening isnt it kinda hypocritical to say your bringing the Iraqi's freedom but not letting them do what they want?

Whats happening in Iraq now is just a flaw of democracy. Sometimes Because of opposing leaders you dont get your own way.

Look! Hitler has built a great little town for the Jews. Its all in the old German newsreels :roll:

Our so-called "intelligence" told us Iraqis would be eager for democracy.

They forgot to mention that Iraqis would not be eager for a non-Muslim occupying army.

Look! Hitler has built a great little town for the Jews. Its all in the old German newsreels :roll:

Woah. It's nowhere near that. On the other hand, the people clearly want us to leave, so maybe we should get back to important stuff, like educating 80% of the gullible christians in america and helping the environment.

Look! Hitler has built a great little town for the Jews. Its all in the old German newsreels :roll:

Woah. It's nowhere near that. On the other hand, the people clearly want us to leave, so maybe we should get back to important stuff, like educating 80% of the gullible christians in america and helping the environment.
Helping the environment is certainly a far more noble goal than destroying it. :!:

Look! Hitler has built a great little town for the Jews. Its all in the old German newsreels :roll:

Woah. It's nowhere near that. On the other hand, the people clearly want us to leave, so maybe we should get back to important stuff, like educating 80% of the gullible christians in america and helping the environment.My point is that creating 'news' and manipulating the media is an old trick of murdering tyrants. "look, we're HELPING these people!"

Our so-called "intelligence" told us Iraqis would be eager for democracy.

They forgot to mention that Iraqis would not be eager for a non-Muslim occupying army.I actually read yesterday where a top White House official seemed confused when a historian told him it would be a bad idea to ask the Turks to put boots on the ground in Iraq as peacekeepers. Seems he didn't remember a little thing called the Ottoman empire--but the Iraqis do. What was that old saying about those who refuse to learn from history again?

Our so-called "intelligence" told us Iraqis would be eager for democracy.

They forgot to mention that Iraqis would not be eager for a non-Muslim occupying army.I actually read yesterday where a top White House official seemed confused when a historian told him it would be a bad idea to ask the Turks to put boots on the ground in Iraq as peacekeepers. Seems he didn't remember a little thing called the Ottoman empire--but the Iraqis do. What was that old saying about those who refuse to learn from history again?
History? Isn't history only for fools and people like Hitler and Napoleon?

Didn't anyone know...

The victor's write the history. In decades to come the West will be seen as saviours.

The problem with the media is that they thrive on bad news...seldom do we see a happy story on tv or in the papers. What is worse is we listen to the media and believe wholeheartedly most of which we see.

Point is, a photo is taken say of 3 iraqi rebels attacking US troops and automatically headlines virtually say Rebellion in Iraq, locals rise up against coalition...I mean seriously a lot is taken out of context.

Didn't anyone know...

The victor's write the history. In decades to come the West will be seen as saviours.

The problem with the media is that they thrive on bad news...seldom do we see a happy story on tv or in the papers. What is worse is we listen to the media and believe wholeheartedly most of which we see.

Point is, a photo is taken say of 3 iraqi rebels attacking US troops and automatically headlines virtually say Rebellion in Iraq, locals rise up against coalition...I mean seriously a lot is taken out of context.Kind of hard to take car bombs that killed 60+ and wounded over 200 out of context, isn't it? Hard to take 600+ US soldiers KIA out of context, as well as the fact that countries are pulling out left and right, that soldiers are having their tours extended and that we don't have any real idea just how many Iraqis we've killed. That's a lot to take out of context, dude.

Didn't anyone know...

The victor's write the history. In decades to come the West will be seen as saviours.

The problem with the media is that they thrive on bad news...seldom do we see a happy story on tv or in the papers. What is worse is we listen to the media and believe wholeheartedly most of which we see.

Point is, a photo is taken say of 3 iraqi rebels attacking US troops and automatically headlines virtually say Rebellion in Iraq, locals rise up against coalition...I mean seriously a lot is taken out of context.Kind of hard to take car bombs that killed 60+ and wounded over 200 out of context, isn't it? Hard to take 600+ US soldiers KIA out of context, as well as the fact that countries are pulling out left and right, that soldiers are having their tours extended and that we don't have any real idea just how many Iraqis we've killed. That's a lot to take out of context, dude.

Kind of hard to take car bombs that killed 60+ and wounded over 200 out of context, isn't it? Hard to take 600+ US soldiers KIA out of context, as well as the fact that countries are pulling out left and right, that soldiers are having their tours extended and that we don't have any real idea just how many Iraqis we've killed. That's a lot to take out of context, dude.

Spain pulled out...how is that "countries are pulling out left and right"?

The war is a reality...but the fighting is mainly taking place in two areas...not the whole country.

Kind of hard to take car bombs that killed 60+ and wounded over 200 out of context, isn't it? Hard to take 600+ US soldiers KIA out of context, as well as the fact that countries are pulling out left and right, that soldiers are having their tours extended and that we don't have any real idea just how many Iraqis we've killed. That's a lot to take out of context, dude.

Spain pulled out...how is that "countries are pulling out left and right"?

The war is a reality...but the fighting is mainly taking place in two areas...not the whole country.And Honduras. And the Dominican Republic. And Poland. And other countries are starting to make the same sorts of noises. And the British commander in one southern city--Basra, I believe--said that his men were there at the leisure of the local clerics and that if they decided they didn't want the Biritish there anymore, there wasn't much he could do to stop them.

Honduras. And the Dominican Republic. And Poland.

*raises eyebrow* Um no offence to those nations mentioned, but it isn't as if they made much of a difference in Iraq compared to the 130,000 US and 12,000 UK troops.

Honduras. And the Dominican Republic. And Poland.

*raises eyebrow* Um no offence to those nations mentioned, but it isn't as if they made much of a difference in Iraq compared to the 130,000 US and 12,000 UK troops.

If pulling out of Iraq does not make "much of a difference in Iraq compared to the 130,000 US and 12,000 UK troops", then isn't it a good idea for all other countries to get out?

Honduras. And the Dominican Republic. And Poland.

*raises eyebrow* Um no offence to those nations mentioned, but it isn't as if they made much of a difference in Iraq compared to the 130,000 US and 12,000 UK troops.With all due respect, it wasn't me or the people I associate with who insisted on calling this farce a "coalition of the willing." And right now, every non-US troop that pulls out leaves a job for a US or British troop to take over in addition to what they're already doing.

Don't get me wrong--I support their decision. If I were the head of the Dominican Republic or Poland or especially Honduras (with the appointment of John Negroponte as the new Iraqi ambassador), and I'd not only gone against the will of my citizenry, but had done so on the basis of a series of lies, I'd be gone as quick as I could.

The countries do political damage. And they are doing specialised tasks not general peacekeeping.

Of course we oppress people; if we let them all run wild we'd be out of luck in the control of the world department.

Honduras. And the Dominican Republic. And Poland.

*raises eyebrow* Um no offence to those nations mentioned, but it isn't as if they made much of a difference in Iraq compared to the 130,000 US and 12,000 UK troops.
Ahhhh the indifference.

If it is no big deal, why is the US cancelling leave provisions for the troops that are already there?

If it is no big deal, why is the US sending more troops?

If it is no big deal, why is the US considering a draft?

I am sure that Spain, Honduras, and others that are pulling out of Iraq, would be disappointed to know that their efforts were not appreciated.

It would seem to be obvious that there are those in Iraq that will do most anything to keep ANY form of order being restored in that nation. Most of these groups are either non-Iraqi insurgents, outright bandits getting rich in the chaos, groups of folks that enjoyed being Sadaam's bully boys and know that they can only continue to strut and murder under the cover of continued hostilities, and then there are those who want their piece of the ruling pie. None of these groups want ANY sort of government set up in Iraq that will restore order. The fact that they are becoming more active on the heels of Spain and others caving in to terrorist threats and the approaching turn over of responsibility to the interim Iraqi government is a no brainer.

If you really believe that the coalition is not working hard to restore order and begin to put in place a new Iraqi government, you are not taking a clear view of the situation.

I know that there are those who will read this and totally discount it since it does not support their own entrenched beliefs... fine. However, take the time periodically to walk outside the walls of limited thinking and see the potential to perhaps temper a view, be open to something that does threaten your bastion of right. I did not say to reverse your position, just imagine that somone else may have a valid point... just a point mind you. You may find that this simple exercise will in time have the shocking affect of broadening your horizons.

It would seem to be obvious that there are those in Iraq that will do most anything to keep ANY form of order being restored in that nation. Most of these groups are either non-Iraqi insurgents, outright bandits getting rich in the chaos, groups of folks that enjoyed being Sadaam's bully boys and know that they can only continue to strut and murder under the cover of continued hostilities, and then there are those who want their piece of the ruling pie. None of these groups want ANY sort of government set up in Iraq that will restore order. The fact that they are becoming more active on the heels of Spain and others caving in to terrorist threats and the approaching turn over of responsibility to the interim Iraqi government is a no brainer.

If you really believe that the coalition is not working hard to restore order and begin to put in place a new Iraqi government, you are not taking a clear view of the situation.

I know that there are those who will read this and totally discount it since it does not support their own entrenched beliefs... fine. However, take the time periodically to walk outside the walls of limited thinking and see the potential to perhaps temper a view, be open to something that does threaten your bastion of right. I did not say to reverse your position, just imagine that somone else may have a valid point... just a point mind you. You may find that this simple exercise will in time have the shocking affect of broadening your horizons.Ever occur to you that your line of thinking might be the one that's closed off and limited? Just a possibility.

I have no doubt that the coalition--such as it is--is trying to restore order and put a new government in place. I have no doubt of that at all.

Here's the problem--any government foisted upon the Iraqis right now will be subject to the charge of "collaboration with the invaders" to a growing percentage of the population, especially any government that includes a member of the Chalabi family who is prone to signing contracts with US companies. That's the mess we've gotten ourselves into. Right/Wrong--that's all beside the point. That's the situation we're in--now we've got to find a way to deal with it.

Yes, there are undoubtedly those who are attacking the coalition for their own personal reasons--money, power, whatever--but there are also those who are defending their homes against what they perceive as an outside threat and they won't stop fighting until they're dead or we're gone, simple as that. We can't beat them, because you can't beat a man who refuses to be beaten. You can only kill him and then face the twenty men that he has inspired. It's an ugly situation, and it's only going to get uglier for now.

HOW is america considering the draft?

HOW is america considering the draft?About a year and a half ago, before the Iraq war started but while planning was going on, NY congressman Rangel introduced a bill reinstating the draft--it would be called "national service" and wouldn't necessarily involve military duty, but the reason he did it was because he felt the burden of the fighting was being disproportionately borne by minorities in the US (and it is, but that's another issue) and that if we're going to go fight unnecessary wars, then we all ought to fight them. The bill has gone exactly nowhere in the House.

Fast forward to yesterday--Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says that we may need to reinstate the draft thanks to the Iraq conflict. This is the first time in a long time that a Republican has uttered the "d" word. There's no chance of anything happening on it before the November election, and I'll bet it would be slim after that no matter who wins.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.

It would seem to be obvious that there are those in Iraq that will do most anything to keep ANY form of order being restored in that nation. Most of these groups are either non-Iraqi insurgents, outright bandits getting rich in the chaos, groups of folks that enjoyed being Sadaam's bully boys and know that they can only continue to strut and murder under the cover of continued hostilities, and then there are those who want their piece of the ruling pie. None of these groups want ANY sort of government set up in Iraq that will restore order.
They want order alright. They just don't want US law and order. It is all to painful to them, and they are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to keep the US out.

If you really believe that the coalition is not working hard to restore order and begin to put in place a new Iraqi government, you are not taking a clear view of the situation.
They are working hard, very hard. That is why the US is sending in more troops and using more firepower-----they want to end this quickly. Why? Simple reason, in that there is an election coming up and Bush wants to have a neat little bow wrapped around the Iraqi situation or it will cost him some votes.

I know that there are those who will read this and totally discount it since it does not support their own entrenched beliefs... fine. However, take the time periodically to walk outside the walls of limited thinking and see the potential to perhaps temper a view, be open to something that does threaten your bastion of right. I did not say to reverse your position, just imagine that somone else may have a valid point... just a point mind you. You may find that this simple exercise will in time have the shocking affect of broadening your horizons.
So anyone that disagrees with you has "limited thinking"? Interesting.

My horizons may be broadened? You mean the same way that the US is broadening its' horizons, by invading Iraq?

I have a very open mind and I thoroughly understand why the US attacked Afghanistan. I don't have a problem with that.

I thoroughly understand why the US invaded Iraq too, and it wasn't because of WMD, and terrorists. The invasion of Iraq and the killing of innocent Iraqis was illegal and immoral, and no matter how many times you want me to take a "walk", I will always come to that same conclusion.

Perhaps you will keep an open mind when terrorist activities against the US and its' "coalition of the willing" actually increases because of "excessive thinking" of Bush and company.

Our primary reason for being in Iraq is to establish a democracy in order to affect the entire Middle East. Maybe some of you have not noticed, but every Muslim country is a cesspool where terrorists breed. Sure, maybe Iraq had fewer terrorists per capita because of the totalitarian nature of Saddam's secularist regime -- and I read Saddam had a copy of the Koran written in blood, if that is the sign of a secularist -- but we also had the most manpower and equipment on hand to invade Iraq because of the endless patrols over Iraq's skies to enforce U.N. sanctions. ~ Michael.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.In the abstract, that's true. But here in the real world, where we're engaged in a very real war against al-Qaida, it's not exactly the best strategy to go off and attack states that have no linkages to the people we're already fighting with, now is it? There's that whole problem with fighting a war on two fronts, diversion of resources and the like.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.In the abstract, that's true. But here in the real world, where we're engaged in a very real war against al-Qaida, it's not exactly the best strategy to go off and attack states that have no linkages to the people we're already fighting with, now is it? There's that whole problem with fighting a war on two fronts, diversion of resources and the like.We fought a war on two fronts in World War II against an axis with more manpower and firepower than terrorists have at the moment. And we won. ~ Michael.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.In the abstract, that's true. But here in the real world, where we're engaged in a very real war against al-Qaida, it's not exactly the best strategy to go off and attack states that have no linkages to the people we're already fighting with, now is it? There's that whole problem with fighting a war on two fronts, diversion of resources and the like.We fought a war on two fronts in World War II against an axis with more manpower and firepower than terrorists have at the moment. And we won. ~ Michael.We also had a lot more help from our allies, a much larger combined armed forces, and an enemy we could easily see and go after. We have none of that today. Don't try to conflate the two--it's not even close.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.In the abstract, that's true. But here in the real world, where we're engaged in a very real war against al-Qaida, it's not exactly the best strategy to go off and attack states that have no linkages to the people we're already fighting with, now is it? There's that whole problem with fighting a war on two fronts, diversion of resources and the like.We fought a war on two fronts in World War II against an axis with more manpower and firepower than terrorists have at the moment. And we won. ~ Michael.We also had a lot more help from our allies, a much larger combined armed forces, and an enemy we could easily see and go after. We have none of that today. Don't try to conflate the two--it's not even close.We could also field more troops if we had the draft again, as we had then. We could have killed al-Sadr with one missile, too. ~ Michael.

We could also field more troops if we had the draft again, as we had then. We could have killed al-Sadr with one missile, too. ~ Michael.And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. We don't have a draft, and we won't have a draft for a year at least, if we have one then. And do you really think killing al-Sadr would have made a difference? Another would have risen to take his place. You just don't get it, Michael. You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.

And you know what the dumbest thing about this whole exchange is? It doesn't have one damn thing with your original statement or anything else going on in this thread.

[quote=Love Poetry]You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

We don't need links to al-Qaida to attack terrorist regimes. ~ Michael.In the abstract, that's true. But here in the real world, where we're engaged in a very real war against al-Qaida, it's not exactly the best strategy to go off and attack states that have no linkages to the people we're already fighting with, now is it? There's that whole problem with fighting a war on two fronts, diversion of resources and the like.We fought a war on two fronts in World War II against an axis with more manpower and firepower than terrorists have at the moment. And we won. ~ Michael.We also had a lot more help from our allies, a much larger combined armed forces, and an enemy we could easily see and go after. We have none of that today. Don't try to conflate the two--it's not even close.We could also field more troops if we had the draft again, as we had then. We could have killed al-Sadr with one missile, too. ~ Michael.
Surely that could have happened, and what good will that do? Killing al-Sadir will create even more headaches for US troops because it will create a stronger resolve amongst the Shiites.

More than 2500 American troops surround the city, primed for an attack to capture the renegade imam Muqtada al-Sadr.

But the powerful spiritual leader of all Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has told them that he has "drawn a red line" around Najaf.

It's a classic Iraqi power-play. Al-Sistani has brought Sheikh Sadr to heel so now he will protect him against an American threat to capture or kill the imam who is wanted on murder charges.

I wonder who will open that can of worms?

HOW is america considering the draft?About a year and a half ago, before the Iraq war started but while planning was going on, NY congressman Rangel introduced a bill reinstating the draft--it would be called "national service" and wouldn't necessarily involve military duty, but the reason he did it was because he felt the burden of the fighting was being disproportionately borne by minorities in the US (and it is, but that's another issue) and that if we're going to go fight unnecessary wars, then we all ought to fight them. The bill has gone exactly nowhere in the House.

Fast forward to yesterday--Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says that we may need to reinstate the draft thanks to the Iraq conflict. This is the first time in a long time that a Republican has uttered the "d" word. There's no chance of anything happening on it before the November election, and I'll bet it would be slim after that no matter who wins.

I keep telling you all these same idiots have been trying to reintroduce the draft for years. Even Before Bush was elected. Its NOT gonna happen. The Public would Not stand for it

[quote=Love Poetry]You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.

You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess. ~ Michael.

You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess. ~ Michael.

I see. They obviously deserve to be oppressed then. Serve them right for not welcoming the Coalition of the Wilting as liberators, and failing to accept the puppet government composed of shady exiles with links to bank fraud.

Just as well we have troops to close down their newspapers. That'll teach tem what freedom and democracy is all about.

You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess. ~ Michael.
ALL was quiet on the Iraqi front until Bush Dick Colin got visions of sugar plums and oil wells dancing in their heads.

You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess. ~ Michael.

I see. They obviously deserve to be oppressed then. Serve them right for not welcoming the Coalition of the Wilting as liberators, and failing to accept the puppet government composed of shady exiles with links to bank fraud.

Just as well we have troops to close down their newspapers. That'll teach tem what freedom and democracy is all about.What do you define as oppression? I define it as torture chambers, rape rooms, and the like. I do not define giving someone food as oppression. ~ Michael.

If the KKK were printing newspapers with false stories to incite violence against blacks, then should the newspapers be shut down? ~ Michael.

But they didnt want to, So there.

You can't beat a people who refuse to be beaten, You can only kill them.Then you kill them ... just as every Nazi who refused to surrender was killed, every Confederate who refused to surrender was killed, etc. ~ Michael.

And you will, of course, manage to do all of this without oppressing them in any way.

Check the title of the thread my friend.Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess. ~ Michael.

I see. They obviously deserve to be oppressed then. Serve them right for not welcoming the Coalition of the Wilting as liberators, and failing to accept the puppet government composed of shady exiles with links to bank fraud.

Just as well we have troops to close down their newspapers. That'll teach tem what freedom and democracy is all about.What do you define as oppression? I define it as torture chambers, rape rooms, and the like. I do not define giving someone food as oppression. ~ Michael.

No, giving food would not be defined as oppression.

I was referring to your suggestion "Then you kill them ", which you attempted to justify by "Maybe if the Iraqi people had risen up and overthrown their own government, we wouldn't be in this mess".

Fairly straightforward logic.

I do not believe the average Muslim wants his son taught to be a terrorist and his daughter treated like a babymaking machine. But perhaps I am wrong. I asked a young man who had been in the Middle East if there were any happy marriages over there, and he laughed. ~ Michael.

Those Iraqis who are violently resisting the establishment of Iraq as a free nation, in which every citizen has the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and so forth ... should be killed. Simple enough. ~ Michael.

Look! Hitler has built a great little town for the Jews. Its all in the old German newsreels :roll:

Woah. It's nowhere near that. On the other hand, the people clearly want us to leave, so maybe we should get back to important stuff, like educating 80% of the gullible christians in america and helping the environment.Congratulations! You win the Stupidity and Hatred award!

I do not believe the average Muslim wants his son taught to be a terrorist and his daughter treated like a babymaking machine. But perhaps I am wrong. I asked a young man who had been in the Middle East if there were any happy marriages over there, and he laughed. ~ Michael.

So for this they should be invaded?

That's a new one.

WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, regime change and oil have all been discussed, but never the incidents of happy marriages.

Where do we invade next? Hollywood perhaps.

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.

Those Iraqis who are violently resisting the establishment of Iraq as a free nation, in which every citizen has the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and so forth ... should be killed. Simple enough. ~ Michael.
You are suggesting that Iraqis are getting "freedom"? Yeah right. They are being oppressed by a different kind of regime that they want no part of.

Those Iraqis who are violently resisting the establishment of Iraq as a free nation, in which every citizen has the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and so forth ... should be killed. Simple enough. ~ Michael.You are suggesting that Iraqis are getting "freedom"? Yeah right. They are being oppressed by a different kind of regime that they want no part of.I am sure the Germans and the Japanese wanted no part of postwar regimes installed by the Allies. But both are free today. ~ Michael.

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.
Who appointed the US as the Iraqi "saviour"? They hate the US and after the dust settles from this, there will be more people looking to seek revenge against the "infidels"?

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.Who appointed the US as the Iraqi "saviour"? They hate the US and after the dust settles from this, there will be more people looking to seek revenge against the "infidels"?Then the U.S. should kill those people, too. Think of it like the 38th Parallel. If the North Koreans lined up their troops across the border of South Korea and ordered a forward march, then the South Koreans would start firing. If more and more North Koreans kept coming, then the South Koreans would keep firing, until one side ran out of ammo or the other side ran out of men. What would you suggest otherwise? that the South Koreans should stop firing after the body count reaches a certain number, even if soldiers are still coming? ~ Michael.

Those Iraqis who are violently resisting the establishment of Iraq as a free nation, in which every citizen has the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and so forth ... should be killed. Simple enough. ~ Michael.You are suggesting that Iraqis are getting "freedom"? Yeah right. They are being oppressed by a different kind of regime that they want no part of.I am sure the Germans and the Japanese wanted no part of postwar regimes installed by the Allies. But both are free today. ~ Michael.
The US has also failed many times trying to support significant regime change:

"By contrast, the United States has recently undertaken--in Somalia, Haiti, and now Bosnia--the sorts of operations that have historically suffered from a low willingness to accept American casualties--i.e., prolonged interventions in complex political situations characterized by civil conflict, where U.S. interests and principles are typically much less compelling or clear and success is often elusive at best. Past examples of this type of operation include the Dominican intervention (1965) and the intervention in Lebanon (1982-1984)."

http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB2502/RB2502.html

Iraq is just another one of those "complex political situations?"

I think so.

Those Iraqis who are violently resisting the establishment of Iraq as a free nation, in which every citizen has the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and so forth ... should be killed. Simple enough. ~ Michael.You are suggesting that Iraqis are getting "freedom"? Yeah right. They are being oppressed by a different kind of regime that they want no part of.I am sure the Germans and the Japanese wanted no part of postwar regimes installed by the Allies. But both are free today. ~ Michael.

Actually they kinda did. They kicked the shit out of them and then used social engineering. The coalition hasnt done this because they didnt plan very well at all and because its impossible with all these Clerics and religious interference.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.And you know we are not going to leave Iraq any time soon. Saddam's oppression was illegal by international standards, yet the international community did nothing. Now the U.S. actions' supposedly are illegal, yet the international community still does nothing. Why? France, Germany, Russia, and China have nukes. They could threaten us. ~ Michael.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.And you know we are not going to leave Iraq any time soon. Saddam's oppression was illegal by international standards, yet the international community did nothing. Now the U.S. actions' supposedly are illegal, yet the international community still does nothing. Why? France, Germany, Russia, and China have nukes. They could threaten us. ~ Michael.
We could go on forever on this one. Israel's actions have been condemned by the UN for decades and the US always vetoes actions against them. Why is israel immune and Iraq is fair game?

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.And you know we are not going to leave Iraq any time soon. Saddam's oppression was illegal by international standards, yet the international community did nothing. Now the U.S. actions' supposedly are illegal, yet the international community still does nothing. Why? France, Germany, Russia, and China have nukes. They could threaten us. ~ Michael.We could go on forever on this one. Israel's actions have been condemned by the UN for decades and the US always vetoes actions against them. Why is israel immune and Iraq is fair game?Israel doesn't threaten the U.S. interests. If radical Muslims would leave Israel alone, then the fighting would stop. ~ Michael.

The US could have done some great worldly good by trying to broker a true peace in the Middle East by getting Israel and Palestinians to have meaningful discussions.

Instead, they chose to upset the apple cart by invading Iraq and setting back any realistic chance of brokering any kind of meaningful peace. Iraq is the last place in the world that the US should be.

The US could have done some great worldly good by trying to broker a true peace in the Middle East by getting Israel and Palestinians to have meaningful discussions.

Instead, they chose to upset the apple cart by invading Iraq and setting back any realistic chance of brokering any kind of meaningful peace. Iraq is the last place in the world that the US should be.Israel is trying to broker its own peace by building a security fence and killing terrorists. The Israelis kill one Hamas leader. The next one promises vengeance, so he is killed. So the next one promises more of the same, and receives more of the same. It is like I said about North and South Korea: If you see the soldiers coming across your border, you keep firing until you run out of ammo or they run out of men. ~ Michael.

The US could have done some great worldly good by trying to broker a true peace in the Middle East by getting Israel and Palestinians to have meaningful discussions.

Instead, they chose to upset the apple cart by invading Iraq and setting back any realistic chance of brokering any kind of meaningful peace. Iraq is the last place in the world that the US should be.Israel is trying to broker its own peace by building a security fence and killing terrorists. The Israelis kill one Hamas leader. The next one promises vengeance, so he is killed. So the next one promises more of the same, and receives more of the same. It is like I said about North and South Korea: If you see the soldiers coming across your border, you keep firing until you run out of ammo or they run out of men. ~ Michael.
The US needs to whisper in Sharon's ear. NO MORE SUPPORT until you get a deal done. That might get their attention.

However, even that might be too late now that US forces are in Iraq. The US has bitten off more than it can chew and they are going to choke on the results.

The US could have done some great worldly good by trying to broker a true peace in the Middle East by getting Israel and Palestinians to have meaningful discussions.

Instead, they chose to upset the apple cart by invading Iraq and setting back any realistic chance of brokering any kind of meaningful peace. Iraq is the last place in the world that the US should be.Israel is trying to broker its own peace by building a security fence and killing terrorists. The Israelis kill one Hamas leader. The next one promises vengeance, so he is killed. So the next one promises more of the same, and receives more of the same. It is like I said about North and South Korea: If you see the soldiers coming across your border, you keep firing until you run out of ammo or they run out of men. ~ Michael.The US needs to whisper in Sharon's ear. NO MORE SUPPORT until you get a deal done. That might get their attention. However, even that might be too late now that US forces are in Iraq. The US has bitten off more than it can chew and they are going to choke on the results.The Palestinian leadership does not want a deal. It wants Israel destroyed. The Palestinian people may want peace, but the people are not the leaders. The leaders are also not elected, but rule by force. Either the Palestinians kill their warmongering leadership, or Israel will. ~ Michael.

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.

How do we know there are fewer deaths? The US powers-that-be won't release any figures for Iraqi deaths - probably because they don't bother to count them.
They're too frightened to show pictures of American soldiers' coffins arriving home, and no-one from the administration has gone to a single soldier's funeral.
As far as I can see, the whole Iraqi mess was instigated by Cheney in order to make money for Halliburton, and they're certainly not going to worry about liberal ideas like "democracy" and "freedom" - especially for a bunch of Arabs.

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.How do we know there are fewer deaths? The US powers-that-be won't release any figures for Iraqi deaths - probably because they don't bother to count them. They're too frightened to show pictures of American soldiers' coffins arriving home, and no-one from the administration has gone to a single soldier's funeral. As far as I can see, the whole Iraqi mess was instigated by Cheney in order to make money for Halliburton, and they're certainly not going to worry about liberal ideas like "democracy" and "freedom" - especially for a bunch of Arabs.One antiwar Web site placed the number of civilian deaths since the war began at just over 10,000 dead. More people died in the December 2003 earthquake in Iran because of the lack of building codes there (approx. 20,000 dead). ~ Michael.

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.How do we know there are fewer deaths? The US powers-that-be won't release any figures for Iraqi deaths - probably because they don't bother to count them. They're too frightened to show pictures of American soldiers' coffins arriving home, and no-one from the administration has gone to a single soldier's funeral. As far as I can see, the whole Iraqi mess was instigated by Cheney in order to make money for Halliburton, and they're certainly not going to worry about liberal ideas like "democracy" and "freedom" - especially for a bunch of Arabs.One antiwar Web site placed the number of civilian deaths since the war began at just over 10,000 dead. More people died in the December 2003 earthquake in Iran because of the lack of building codes there (approx. 20,000 dead). ~ Michael.

So that makes it OK?

If deaths are the major criterion for oppression, then fewer Iraqis are dying on average now than when Saddam was in charge. America has the opportunity to install a democracy in Iraq so the people would be free and less likely to attack neighbors, harbor terrorists, or sponsor terror. If we fail, then Iraq will go back to what it was, a dictatorship ... and after we leave in failure, more people will die than when we were there. ~ Michael.How do we know there are fewer deaths? The US powers-that-be won't release any figures for Iraqi deaths - probably because they don't bother to count them. They're too frightened to show pictures of American soldiers' coffins arriving home, and no-one from the administration has gone to a single soldier's funeral. As far as I can see, the whole Iraqi mess was instigated by Cheney in order to make money for Halliburton, and they're certainly not going to worry about liberal ideas like "democracy" and "freedom" - especially for a bunch of Arabs.One antiwar Web site placed the number of civilian deaths since the war began at just over 10,000 dead. More people died in the December 2003 earthquake in Iran because of the lack of building codes there (approx. 20,000 dead). ~ Michael.So that makes it OK?It shows the difference between an Islamic regime that has no respect for human life -- how many people were killed in California's last major earthquake, eh? -- and an administration that tries to keep civilian deaths to a minimum. ~ Michael.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.And you know we are not going to leave Iraq any time soon. Saddam's oppression was illegal by international standards, yet the international community did nothing. Now the U.S. actions' supposedly are illegal, yet the international community still does nothing. Why? France, Germany, Russia, and China have nukes. They could threaten us. ~ Michael.We could go on forever on this one. Israel's actions have been condemned by the UN for decades and the US always vetoes actions against them. Why is israel immune and Iraq is fair game?Israel doesn't threaten the U.S. interests. If radical Muslims would leave Israel alone, then the fighting would stop. ~ Michael.

If Israel would give the Palastinians their land back, the fighting would also stop. What a stupid argument.

Maybe the United States should withdraw all troops from all foreign bases on Earth, halt all immigration, and stop all foreign trade. If we did that, then we would not be at fault for any future strife in the world, right? ~ Michael.
Well you know that is just not going to happen. However they could rethink invading countries that they have no business invading. The war in Iraq is illegal by international standards.And you know we are not going to leave Iraq any time soon. Saddam's oppression was illegal by international standards, yet the international community did nothing. Now the U.S. actions' supposedly are illegal, yet the international community still does nothing. Why? France, Germany, Russia, and China have nukes. They could threaten us. ~ Michael.We could go on forever on this one. Israel's actions have been condemned by the UN for decades and the US always vetoes actions against them. Why is israel immune and Iraq is fair game?Israel doesn't threaten the U.S. interests. If radical Muslims would leave Israel alone, then the fighting would stop. ~ Michael.If Israel would give the Palastinians their land back, the fighting would also stop. What a stupid argument.This is called the "right of return" policy, in which Palestinian refugees can return to the homes they lost when Muslims attacked the new nation of Israel and lost decades ago. So let's say Israelis let the Palestinians return. Would the killing end? No...the Palestinians would return home, vote themselves into power, round up all the Jews, and kill them. ~ Michael.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.

So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.It is a simple matter of survival. If your neighbor is intent on killing you no matter what, then there is no way you can get along with him. ~ Michael.

By the way, what did you think of Ehud Barak's offer to the Palestinians during Clinton's presidency? an offer Arafat refused, although it gave him almost everything he said he wanted? ~ Michael.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.It is a simple matter of survival. If your neighbor is intent on killing you no matter what, then there is no way you can get along with him. ~ Michael.

That's a remarkably pointless rationalization for the slaughter of innocents and the oppression of others. What an amazing respect for human life you must have.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.It is a simple matter of survival. If your neighbor is intent on killing you no matter what, then there is no way you can get along with him. ~ Michael.That's a remarkably pointless rationalization for the slaughter of innocents and the oppression of others. What an amazing respect for human life you must have.If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.

If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.

That's what's great about you, man: you have a solution to every problem. And it always seems to involve killing people. Kind of a final one, don't you think?

If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.

That's what's great about you, man: you have a solution to every problem. And it always seems to involve killing people. Kind of a final one, don't you think?

Unfortunately or realistically...naked force has solved more problems in the history of this planet then any other action.

If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.That's what's great about you, man: you have a solution to every problem. And it always seems to involve killing people. Kind of a final one, don't you think?What would you suggest otherwise? Okay, so maybe if the people who wanted peace would rise up, arrest and imprison the terrorists among them, then they would have peace. ~ Michael.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.It is a simple matter of survival. If your neighbor is intent on killing you no matter what, then there is no way you can get along with him. ~ Michael.That's a remarkably pointless rationalization for the slaughter of innocents and the oppression of others. What an amazing respect for human life you must have.If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.

So, then, you'd be all right with liberals rising up and killing conservatives in this country or vice versa? Again, your respect for all human life is deeply touching.

Israel was founded in part to give Jews a homeland where they could live without having to fear that the government presiding over them would kill them for being Jews. ~ Michael.So now they've turned around and started killing the Palestinians for being Palestinian. Not to mention that the whole "Right of Return" thing is as big a joke as the Confederate South telling an escaped slave that it's all right to come back. The killing over there won't stop until Israel makes a concerted effort to try and get along with their neighbors without the US supporting them. To think that either side has their hands clean in that mess is a huge mistake.It is a simple matter of survival. If your neighbor is intent on killing you no matter what, then there is no way you can get along with him. ~ Michael.That's a remarkably pointless rationalization for the slaughter of innocents and the oppression of others. What an amazing respect for human life you must have.If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.So, then, you'd be all right with liberals rising up and killing conservatives in this country or vice versa? Again, your respect for all human life is deeply touching.They probably will one day. I'm not a liberal, by the way. ~ Michael.

By the way, what did you think of Ehud Barak's offer to the Palestinians during Clinton's presidency? an offer Arafat refused, although it gave him almost everything he said he wanted? ~ Michael.

Yes, let's look at that. First, let's remember the comment Barak made about the Palastinians in the June 13th, 2002, New York Review of Books:

"They are products of a culture in which to tell a lie...creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an irrelevant category. There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn't. They see themselves as emissaries of a national movement for whom everything is permissible. There is no such thing as "the truth."

Yes, he certainly sounds very conciliatory, doesn't he? Wait, no, actually, he just accused Arabs of being morally inferior simply because they're Arabs. So that, my friend, would make him a racist.

Now, let's look at Camp David.

1. Arafat maintained that the Camp David meeting was inappropriate and unproductive. Not only did Clinton and Barak know this going in, but several Israeli concessions that had been promised prior to the meeting were still going unmet. What assurances did Arafat have that, even if he agreed, the agreement would be honored since Barak was giving him a pointed example of not honoring his commitments? The fact is that Barak pressured both Clinton and Arafat into the Camp David meeting, against both of their better judgements, in a grandstand attempt to win support while throwing the Palastinians crumbs.

2. Barak's offer was not the amazing, one-time deal that gave Palastinians everything they had been asking for. Sure, it went farther than any deal before had, but it wasn't the golden offer it's been made out as. First, Israel would annex 10% of the West Bank, which is a major point of contention, as well as 10% of other lands in the Jordan Valley and the rest of the land was to be cut into enclaves and isolated from neighbors, creating a patchwork nation that no one in their right mind would want. Second, while certain areas of Jerusalem would be under Palastinian control, namely Eastern Jerusalem, the area with the third most holy Muslim shrine in the world would remain under Jewish control. Additionally, other arab neighborhoods in Eastern Jerusalem would remain under Jewish control.

3. Lack of Palastinian counteroffers does not indicate a rejection of Israel having a right to exist. The Palastinians have agreed many times in the past and have regretted it at each turn as Israel has taken away more and more land like the Native Americans did when the settlers landed in North American and began their drive westward. Indeed, before, during and after Camp David, the Palastinians agreed to give up 78% of Mandatory Palestine, agreed to Israeli "settlement blocs", the principle of the Right of Return and that it should be implemented with no threat to Israeli demographic, political or security concerns. No other Arab nation has ever granted Israel so much. Instead of remaining faithful to the initial UN agreement, Israel has sought to expel all arabs from land they may have been living on for some 2 to 3 thousand years. Yet, at every turn, the Palastinians have tried to work with the Israelis to establish two separate but harmonious countries. If there is a failure to this peace process, it lies on the shoulders of the Israelis and the US for backing them.

If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.That's what's great about you, man: you have a solution to every problem. And it always seems to involve killing people. Kind of a final one, don't you think?What would you suggest otherwise? Okay, so maybe if the people who wanted peace would rise up, arrest and imprison the terrorists among them, then they would have peace. ~ Michael.

Maybe they would, if the Israeli army hadn't bulldozed all the police stations and wrecked the infrastructure. But they did that because they felt the Palestinian police weren't doing enough to stop groups like Hamas. But those police didn't do too much against Hamas because of their deep-seated resentment for Israeli theft of Palestinian land and extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinians. Which were done in response to attacks on the state of Israel. Which were made because Palestinians were kicked off their land by militant (not to say terrorist) Jewish extremists. Who were looking for a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust. Which had its roots in European anti-Semitism and the brutalities of World War I. Which owed its origins to 19th-century Imperialism. Which... which... which... on and bloody on.

Violence begets violence. Nothing is ever over unless you make a desert and call it peace. World War I gave us World War II, which gave us the Cold War and countless bushfire conflicts across the planet, fought between NATO and the USSR mostly by proxy. Which gives us the world we have today, where a USA controlled by the industries and agencies of war is now fighting against some of the monsters they made between 1945 and 1990. A cretinous belief in a black-and-white world of Good and Evil, of one side being wholly Right and the other being wholly Wrong is nothing short of a blight on humanity. It dooms us to perpetual suffering on the same repeating wheels of history.

For example: the idea that we can judge the invasion of Iraq to be "a Good Thing" because we've killed fewer Iraqis than Saddam would have in the same given time period. Where, in this brain-dead moral arithmetic, do you put the "equals" sign? Day 3 of Operation Iraqi Freedom? No? One year on? Ten years on? Twenty? What's going to happen in twenty years? The Treaty of Versailles probably seemed like a good idea in 1918: maybe it looked less smart by 1939. The US training and arming fundamentalist Islamic terror groups might have seemed astute in the 1980s, with the Soviets embroiled in Afghanistan and dealing with fractious Muslims all along their southern flank: less so now, I feel. "Iraqi Freedom" might look good to you now: give it time.

If I thought for a moment that the invasion of Iraq, or indeed America's unquestioning support for Israel, was in any way shape or form connected with a genuine desire for a safer, more stable world for all, I could support it. But I know it's not. Only a hopeless naif could believe that George W Bush's concern for the sufferings of the Iraqi people could lead to such a stupendously expensive expedition. If at least Bush and Blair and the rest of these smirking, pious warmongers would just admit that supporting vile dictators is a bad idea and that they promise not to do it again, that would be something. But no: it's back to square one in places like Uzbekistan and we'll all go around again.

If we want peace, we have to work for it. It takes suffering, and sacrifice. And I don't mean the sacrifice of sending the sons and daughters of the nation's poor to shoot at the sons and daughters of another nation's poor. I mean giving up our hugely feather-bedded lifestyle; our greedy consumption of so much of the world's resources; our refusal to let the starving out of poverty; our introverted, selfish obsession with our own convenience, comfort and entertainment. That would be different. That would be hopeful. That might, just, eventually, if we really try, lead to peace. Such an idea would not be popular: but is that any excuse for not trying it as free-thinking individuals?

If the Palestinian people who wanted peace would rise up and kill the leaders who want nothing but dead Jews, then maybe things would get better. ~ Michael.That's what's great about you, man: you have a solution to every problem. And it always seems to involve killing people. Kind of a final one, don't you think?What would you suggest otherwise? Okay, so maybe if the people who wanted peace would rise up, arrest and imprison the terrorists among them, then they would have peace. ~ Michael.

Maybe they would, if the Israeli army hadn't bulldozed all the police stations and wrecked the infrastructure. But they did that because they felt the Palestinian police weren't doing enough to stop groups like Hamas. But those police didn't do too much against Hamas because of their deep-seated resentment for Israeli theft of Palestinian land and extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinians. Which were done in response to attacks on the state of Israel. Which were made because Palestinians were kicked off their land by militant (not to say terrorist) Jewish extremists. Who were looking for a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust. Which had its roots in European anti-Semitism and the brutalities of World War I. Which owed its origins to 19th-century Imperialism. Which... which... which... on and bloody on.

Violence begets violence. Nothing is ever over unless you make a desert and call it peace. World War I gave us World War II, which gave us the Cold War and countless bushfire conflicts across the planet, fought between NATO and the USSR mostly by proxy. Which gives us the world we have today, where a USA controlled by the industries and agencies of war is now fighting against some of the monsters they made between 1945 and 1990. A cretinous belief in a black-and-white world of Good and Evil, of one side being wholly Right and the other being wholly Wrong is nothing short of a blight on humanity. It dooms us to perpetual suffering on the same repeating wheels of history.

For example: the idea that we can judge the invasion of Iraq to be "a Good Thing" because we've killed fewer Iraqis than Saddam would have in the same given time period. Where, in this brain-dead moral arithmetic, do you put the "equals" sign? Day 3 of Operation Iraqi Freedom? No? One year on? Ten years on? Twenty? What's going to happen in twenty years? The Treaty of Versailles probably seemed like a good idea in 1918: maybe it looked less smart by 1939. The US training and arming fundamentalist Islamic terror groups might have seemed astute in the 1980s, with the Soviets embroiled in Afghanistan and dealing with fractious Muslims all along their southern flank: less so now, I feel. "Iraqi Freedom" might look good to you now: give it time.

If I thought for a moment that the invasion of Iraq, or indeed America's unquestioning support for Israel, was in any way shape or form connected with a genuine desire for a safer, more stable world for all, I could support it. But I know it's not. Only a hopeless naif could believe that George W Bush's concern for the sufferings of the Iraqi people could lead to such a stupendously expensive expedition. If at least Bush and Blair and the rest of these smirking, pious warmongers would just admit that supporting vile dictators is a bad idea and that they promise not to do it again, that would be something. But no: it's back to square one in places like Uzbekistan and we'll all go around again.

If we want peace, we have to work for it. It takes suffering, and sacrifice. And I don't mean the sacrifice of sending the sons and daughters of the nation's poor to shoot at the sons and daughters of another nation's poor. I mean giving up our hugely feather-bedded lifestyle; our greedy consumption of so much of the world's resources; our refusal to let the starving out of poverty; our introverted, selfish obsession with our own convenience, comfort and entertainment. That would be different. That would be hopeful. That might, just, eventually, if we really try, lead to peace. Such an idea would not be popular: but is that any excuse for not trying it as free-thinking individuals?

Bravo! Well said!