[NOTE: This exchange is getting too long. I refer readers to follow the links back for context.]
>>>It's not. What are you talking about?<<<
You made it sound like Saddam had his foot in Afghanistan.
>>>Sounds like you are fan of Saddam. Do you approve of dictators who have the some good aspects about their society, yet oppress and kill those they do not agree with?<<<
I'm no fan of any dictator, including Saddam. And I've never favored any of the dictators of whom America's foreign policy has approved.
home.iprimus.com.au
>>>Sounds like you prefer the Taliban too. I suppose you are in the know, and that there was no opium under the Taliban. A country that protects and allows a terrorist group to plan attacks against the U.S. and the free world while killing people for bieng gay and COMPLETELY oppressing women is better to you, but THAT IS PRECISELY the difference between me and you.<<<
You pretty much missed my point. No, I don't favor the Taliban. I prefer secular governments, not religious ones. What I wrote was there is a new government in Kabul, not much else of Afghanistan which has returned to warlord control, hence the increase in opium production.
By the way, the overthrow of Saddam's regime pretty much assures that Iraq will not become an Iranian-styled religious government. Did you know this and do you know this?
>>>He sure has. Your children (if there is a woman desparate enough to have some with you) will live in a world MUCH safer than it was on 9-10-01. I am very glad (and your children will be too) that your suggested courses of action (or nonaction) listed above to leave Afghanistan and Iraq as they were are not being followed. You are the 1st I have seen with these suggestions.<<<
Relative to the world safer due to Bush's actions, again it's my position his warring has created more hatred against American and from this growing hatred will spawn growing, not less, terrorism.
Oh, thanks for your insult. That was very kind of you.
>>>This does not surprise me. It seems you are the only one who does not (although many on your side disagree with my points). Seems like Party time spends too much time partying and not enough time thinking.<<<
Once again, I thank you for your insult and kindness. Now you're discriminating against people who have names that sound like fun. Too bad!
>>>Excuse me. I meant there WERE [terrorist camps]. Not anymore.<<<
Relative to "terrorist camps in Iraq?" Let's both agree there might be some now. Isn't your media network FOXnews now reporting Al Qaeda were found captured in Iraq? I guess the difference is that under Saddamn's brutal regime (and it was!) that sole terrorist camp was relegated to northeastern Iraq, an area that's never been under Saddam's control and an area more closely aligned with Iran. Now, thanks to your Bush man, Al Qaeda may well be in all kinds of places in Iraq. I doubt they'll leave on their own and I doubt we'll capture them all. So what's this mean? More safety for our troops over there? Nope. It means more death and destruction for Americans and innocent Iraqis; it means Iraq is now like Israel.
>>>Looks like there is another anti-Semite on the board. You should get more specific with your charges. And try to use some logic that is better than "these guys are bad, but since some others are bad that is ok too". My guess is that you use this logic to support your "party time". If you are curious as to my Israeli position I will say that they were attacked a number of times by people (counties) with the intent to ELIMINATE Israel. Once you do that, you have tossed out any moral authority. But there are plenty who hate Jews just as there are plenty that hate the U.S. I suggest you open your mind a bit and learn to love democratic and free societies and their people.<<<
Me? Anti-semetic? That's a first. Nobody anywhere has ever made such an accusation about me. Am I that different that I happen to like all kinds of people at my parties, that it's my belief that the party is for the better when this happens? I happen to hate repression, suppression and oppression no matter where it happens. But I also, contrary to our president, believe in international law.
>>>No, I mean help them like we are currently doing by liberating them. Something you do not care about.<<<
When did we liberate the Iraqis? Seems to me we've just changed the level of and kinds of violence. Who are you going to complain to when the Shiites when they eventually gain their power--and they will!--begin killing off their political Sunni enemies? You gonna bring your complaint to Mr. Bush? What's he gonna do? You don't think Bush is eventually going to submit to the Shiite demands in exchange for some nice oil deals?
>>>No, I mean help them like we are currently doing by liberating them. Something you do not care about.<<<
Neither you, not I nor Mr. Bush have liberated anyone! How come you don't get this?
>>>No, I mean help them like we are currently doing by liberating them. Something you do not care about.<<<
Are we repeating ourselves?
>>>I am an advocate of the United States of America and all freedom loving people. That the Iraqis will be helped is a great benefit to removing Iraq. But as your post obviouls implies, you do not care about that.<<<
You know, one of the best ways to enslave people is to make them think they are free. We pride ourselves on freedom in America, but we put more people in our jails per capita and our workers work longer hours than those in other "free" nations; 40 million Americans out of 270 million have no health care; too many can't afford rents and our jobs of choice are moving overseas. I submit the freedom of a walk in the park is a walk in the park no matter where you live. Heck, where I live I can't even buy a bottle of beer on Sunday unless I'm in a bar; and I can't even smoke my Chesterfields in a bar where everyone present is a smoker. And your freedom-loving Patriot act make all of the above much, much worse.
>>>This is another demo lie that is particularly irritating because it cannot be backed up. Nobody on this thread (or anybody else I have ever asked) could state why Gore deserved hand recounts after the mandatory machine recount(by FL state law) that Bush won. Can you? I know the answer is no, but feel free to give it a whirl if you dare.
The Florida Supreme Court made its ruling. Are you in favor of home rule? Apparently not.
>>>And we are giving them that. Even though you supported the Taliban, Al Quida and Saddam does not mean the rest of the Arab world does. Many do hate us, as they are taught from a very early age to do so. But when peole are free and prosperous they generally like it better than being oppressed. It is clear you prefer them to be oppressed, but somehow want them to like us anyway. But that is a pipe dream.<<<
Geez, you make all of these assumptions about me. And you make them only because I disagree with you. You have a funny version of freedom, in my view.
>>>Re-read your own post. Seeing as you are advocating letting Afghanistan and Iraq stay as they were it seems kind of obvious.<<<
A preemptive war doctrine is violative of international law and a very bad policy example to other nations.
>>>Like many demos, you are into censorship. Your free not to like Coulter, but suggesting she not be allowed to express her opinions is UN-AMERICAN. She gets peeved at guys like you who blame us and work against us. Not all of you are traitors, but you are "usefull idiots" at the least.<<<
She's more than welcome to express herself. But perhaps she should be a bit more considerate on how her writings are being perceived. If she wishes to sow the seeds of hatred and division that's her option. She can do that, if she chooses. However, it's ill-advised.
Once again, I thank you for your kind insults.
>>>Since it is not possible (imo) to MAKE THINGS GREAT for people, your point is worthless. If you want to live a decent life and are willing to work at it, I think America is tops. What country do you think is better? Why do you think the government should make things great for all the people? I think the gov't should provide the opportunity to succeed and protect the people. Seems like you think they should provide the greatness and I think gov't should provide the opportunity to achieve greatness. Different views to be sure, but I will argue to keep it the way are framers intended.<<<
America. World Leader. OK, what's this mean? Does this mean that America has the right to support dictators who control their respective populations so that dicatators' insiders can made deals with our insiders? What happened when America got all the copper, the tin, the gold, the silver, the diamonds, the timber, the rubber? Who suffered for our gain and what was the form of that suffering?
Consider this. Supposedly for the past 40 years South and Latin American countries have been the beneficiaries of American economics. Why then do so many of those countries fall behind Cuba, a country with no benefit from American economics for the past 40 years, in so many categories ranging from infant mortality to employment to households with televisions, radios and internet hookups? Fact of the matter is our policies have raped the people from those nations, taking their precious resources with little to no consideration for the inhabitants.
Anyway, maybe the below is telling; or perhaps it is something you wish to ignore:
>>>>>>For example, the income gap between the fifth of the world’s people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest doubled from 1960 to 1990, from thirty to one to sixty to one. By 1998 it had jumped again, with the gap widening to an astonishing seventy-eight to one. Poverty trends have worsened as well; there are 100 million more poor people in developing countries today than a decade ago. The assets of the three richest people on earth are greater than the combined Gross National Product of the forty-eight least developed countries. Even in the United States, where median earnings of workers more than doubled from 1947 and 1973, the past two decades have seen median earnings fall by almost 15 percent, with the earnings for the poorest 20 percent of households falling the furthest behind. In fact, the only segment of the U.S. population that has experienced large wealth gains since 1983 is the richest 20 percent of households. The net worth of the top 1 percent of U.S. households now exceeds that of the bottom 90 percent.<<<<<< |
