War With Iraq

[Al]

"If you don't understand our ellectoral process don't bother talking about it, the ellectoral college is an important way to make sure voters in small states don't get ignored."

First of all, the word is "electoral". Secondly, the electoral college system is a farce. It is completely open to abuse and corruption. It has no place in a modern democracy. Particularly one that prides itself on being the most democratic country in the entire world. (Obviously the fact that it isn't has slipped the collective mind of America.)

"I often act aragont it is only for fun you are the form of true aragonce. Anyone who disagree with you was obviously brainwashed and can't think for themself"

But my understanding of recent events is that the Americans hate people thinking for themselves. After all, the Frenchs, Germans, Russians etc. thought for themselves and reduced the US administration to a heap of gibbering idiots.

"Hes dead"

Is he? Know that for a fact do you?

"If we are stupid we wouldn't be richer than your country it's that simple. You can have your art museums I'll take my 20 grand SUV that earned working in the greatest economy in the world."

In two short sentences you have completely proved my point re. many Americans and a complete lack of even the thinnest veneer of civilisation.

"Richest country, Most powerful country, Most moral country, Most benevolent country. You'll disagree on the last probably but keep in mind if we wanted the world it would be ours"

There are greater riches than material ones. There are riches than you will never know. You are a philistine. And since when was the US a moral country? It is a swamp full of morally retarded degenerates. I think you refer to the worst of them as the "government". And do not forget that pride goes before a fall. I would have thought that one of the lessons of Septemeber 11th would have been that you are not as powerful as you think. Besides it is a fact that the US has never won a war when the UK has not been fighting alongside.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Al wrote on 00:21, 26th Apr 2003:
[i]First of all, the word is "electoral". Secondly, the electoral college system is a farce. It is completely open to abuse and corruption. It has no place in a modern democracy. Particularly one that prides itself on being the most democratic country in the entire world. (Obviously the fact that it isn't has slipped the collective mind of America.)

The electoral college in theory I guess could be used for corruption since you only have to buy off like 271 people to win a presidency but only 9 delegates in the history of the US haven't voted for the right canidate so it really doesn't matter.

But my understanding of recent events is that the Americans hate people thinking for themselves. After all, the Frenchs, Germans, Russians etc. thought for themselves and reduced the US administration to a heap of gibbering idiots.

Once against simply aragonce that only people who think the way you do think for yourself.

Is he? Know that for a fact do you?
I'd bet the farm on it.


In two short sentences you have completely proved my point re. many Americans and a complete lack of even the thinnest veneer of civilisation.

American culture is different than European but it doesn't mean we are any less civilized than you.


There are greater riches than material ones. There are riches than [i]you will never know. You are a philistine. [/i]
I describe myself as an intellectual in training so to say I won't attain what ever riches you have from looking a painting is stupid and the hieght of arragonce.

And since when was the US a moral country? It is a swamp full of morally retarded degenerates. I think you refer to the worst of them as the "government".

You didn't really offer any facts to prove your stupid statement.

And do not forget that pride goes before a fall. I would have thought that one of the lessons of Septemeber 11th would have been that you are not as powerful as you think.

September 11th brought back American pride and look at where the terrorists are now, they've gone into hiding or 6 feet under ground. Anybody can give a sucker punch but a sucker punch won't finish a fight.

Besides it is a fact that the US has never won a war when the UK has not been fighting alongside.

Hrmm revolutionary war? war of 1812? Did you count those as wars we won. Don't be silly you guys are riding our coattails when it comes to war. I still contend that Isreal the US and the UK could take on the world, you're really not a fight against us.

[Pin Cushion Queen]

[s]Unregisted User Andy Bayley wrote on 01:26, 26th Apr 2003:
[s]Al wrote on 00:21, 26th Apr 2003:

But my understanding of recent events is that the Americans hate people thinking for themselves. After all, the Frenchs, Germans, Russians etc. thought for themselves and reduced the US administration to a heap of gibbering idiots.

Once against simply aragonce that only people who think the way you do think for yourself.

If you look back through the posts on this page, you will see a number of occasions where people have posted someing approximating "I am for the war because Bush says so, and since we elected him he must be right, etc, etc, etc". To me this does not seem like careful, considered reasoning, just blind patriotism.


And do not forget that pride goes before a fall. I would have thought that one of the lessons of Septemeber 11th would have been that you are not as powerful as you think.

September 11th brought back American pride and look at where the terrorists are now, they've gone into hiding or 6 feet under ground. Anybody can give a sucker punch but a sucker punch won't finish a fight.


Terrorism will always be around. Their is very little that can be done to physically prevent terrorism. If terrorists wish to hurt or kill people to make a statement, it is not difficult. And if they are caught, there will always be more terrorists, with a different plan to hurt people. The only way that terrorism can be lessened is by discussion. And even then, there will still be factions that disagree, and kill people to make sure everybody knows they disagree. Fighting wars will only lead to more terrorism, as people already opposed to the allies will see this as an example of western/christian hatred of their people.

[puzzled]

[s]Al wrote on 00:21, 26th Apr 2003:
First of all, the word is "electoral". Secondly, the electoral college system is a farce. It is completely open to abuse and corruption. It has no place in a modern democracy.

How is it open to abuse and corruption? And what exactly is a modern decmocracy?



In two short sentences you have completely proved my point re. many Americans and a complete lack of even the thinnest veneer of civilisation.

And you have shown that you are arogant, patronising and highly judgemental on what is 'civilisation'.


There are greater riches than material ones.

How very easy for you to say when you have a comfotable job that even enables you to post on a student forum during office hours (though not in this case). Tell that to people dieing of thirst.

And since when was the US a moral country? It is a swamp full of morally retarded degenerates.

I just love the way you never sink to making ignorant sweeping generalisations.


Besides it is a fact that the US has never won a war when the UK has not been fighting alongside.

Er, well to give two easy examples: the war of independence and the war of 1812.


Your post seems to have been little more that a frustrated rant against a country you show no signs of actually knowing much about.

[Al]

"How is it open to abuse and corruption? And what exactly is a modern decmocracy?"

How is the US system open to abuse and corruption? I would have thought it obvious. Each state has a certain number of "electoral college" votes. The more populous the state, the more electoral college votes. Whichever party wins the popular vote in each state should get the electoral college votes for that state. However, in about half of the states it is not compulsory for members of the EC to cast their vote. That is one potential abuse. Even in the states where it is compulsory for all members of the electoral college to vote there is nothing to say that they must reflect the will of the popular vote. That is another opening for abuse and corruption. As they count the popular vote to determine which party gets the electoral college vote, why not just use those as a way of determining who has won the election? That way there wouldn't be the farcical situation of seeing a Republican party appointee having the final decision in a contested election between Republicans and Democrats.

"And you have shown that you are arogant, patronising and highly judgemental on what is 'civilisation'."

It wasn't me that said a car was of greater worth than art.

"How very easy for you to say when you have a comfotable job that even enables you to post on a student forum during office hours (though not in this case). Tell that to people dieing of thirst."

Would these be the people in Iraq who can't get clean water because of the war? And when did I ever say I worked in an office? I do not, and, therefore, do not have "office hours".

"I just love the way you never sink to making ignorant sweeping generalisations."

Thanks.

"Er, well to give two easy examples: the war of independence and the war of 1812."

As I understood it the War of Independence was how the colonies became the United States. Therefore the US did not win that war. Particularly as it was only the intervention of the French and other Europeans (that's right, those cowardly Europeans) that stopped the colonists being crushed. That and convincing slaves that they would be freed if they fought for the Continental army. Hmmm, telling lies to get people to fight. They do like that tactic don't they?

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Pin Cushion Queen wrote on 12:01, 26th Apr 2003:


If you look back through the posts on this page, you will see a number of occasions where people have posted someing approximating "I am for the war because Bush says so, and since we elected him he must be right, etc, etc, etc". To me this does not seem like careful, considered reasoning, just blind patriotism.

well not everybody is a free thinker but I'm sure that is true in every country. A lot of people have so much respect in the office of the presidency and the current president that they blindingly trust him. Not saying it's right but there ignorance in every culture.


Terrorism will always be around. Their is very little that can be done to physically prevent terrorism. If terrorists wish to hurt or kill people to make a statement, it is not difficult. And if they are caught, there will always be more terrorists, with a different plan to hurt people. The only way that terrorism can be lessened is by discussion. And even then, there will still be factions that disagree, and kill people to make sure everybody knows they disagree. Fighting wars will only lead to more terrorism, as people already opposed to the allies will see this as an example of western/christian hatred of their people.


I'm an optimist I believe we can drain the swamp of Islamic fundamentalism and make Islam go through the reforms christianity has gone through. To do this though you have to westernise the middle east. How do you do that? democracy.

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Al wrote on 12:47, 26th Apr 2003:
[iHow is the US system open to abuse and corruption? I would have thought it obvious. Each state has a certain number of "electoral college" votes. The more populous the state, the more electoral college votes. Whichever party wins the popular vote in each state [i]should get the electoral college votes for that state.[/i]

No it shouldn't if you only had to win the popular vote then alls you need to do is show favortism to large population areas like New York, Chicago, and LA. You don't live here our system is fair and shouldn't be of your concern. I think your MP's are rude by always yelling and what not but I don't gripe to you about that.

However, in about half of the states it is not compulsory for members of the EC to cast their vote. That is one potential abuse. Even in the states where it is compulsory for all members of the electoral college to vote there is nothing to say that they must reflect the will of the popular vote. That is another opening for abuse and corruption.

Once again only 9 delegates in history have voted in a way different than they were supposed to.

As they count the popular vote to determine which party gets the electoral college vote, why not just use those as a way of determining who has won the election? That way there wouldn't be the farcical situation of seeing a Republican party appointee having the final decision in a contested election between Republicans and Democrats. Our system keeps voters in rural areas from getting disenfranchised.




It wasn't me that said a car was of greater worth than art.

I'll stand by that I'd much rather be successful than look at a painting.

"I just love the way you never sink to making ignorant sweeping generalisations."

Thanks.

you give a bad name to arrogant people all over the world.

As I understood it the War of Independence was how the colonies became the United States. Therefore the US did not win that war. Particularly as it was only the intervention of the French and other Europeans (that's right, those cowardly Europeans) that stopped the colonists being crushed. That and convincing slaves that they would be freed if they fought for the Continental army. Hmmm, telling lies to get people to fight. They [i]do like that tactic don't they? [/i]

So wait you were wrong? especially since you didn't mention the war of 1812. And The US did win the war of Indepence it was the first but by far not the last of Americans showing thier greatness of Britains.

As far as the lieing to slaves thing, you should worry about all the atrocities your country has done in the world instead of just pointing a finger at the US.

[Tom Plant]

Dear Andy Bailey,

Thanks for your reply.

My opinions of the Shiite Iraqis have nothing to do to do with peace. I am sure they can rule 'peacefully' in just the same way as Saddam did - by killing people who disagree with them. And if it's wrong to be intolerant of a doctrine that enforces subjugation of women, corporal and capital punishment and the other trappings of Sharia law, then yes, I'm guilty. I think my intolerance is justified, just as our mutual intolerance of Saddam is.

As far as Turkey is concerned, our governments pressured theirs to go against the express will of their people. If that's not anti-democratic, then what is? Also, you say that our governments are not meant to be 'populist,' which I rather think they are. They are meant to do what we tell them. I thought that governments doing what they think is right without their people's consent is what we supposed to be fighting against, right?

I'm glad you agree with me about Germany. Please distinguish, though, being anti-America - under its present government - and anti-American. Disagreeing with America is not an affront to the American people, just as your disagreement with France, I hope, does not make you 'anti-French.'

Your tag of ant-Semitism to anyone who wishes the end of Israel is flawed. Many Jews wish for the same thing - how can a Jew be anti-Semitic? They are the Semites! Personally, I don't wish to see Israel obliterated, but I do want to see it move back to its own land and stop its expansion, to reach a peaceful accord with Palestine. Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish, and that's a very different thing from being anti-Israel.

You've got to stop hiding behind these 'anti' tags. They are too ill-defined to have any real meaning. If you disagree with your friend Bill about something, does that make you 'anti-Bill?' I think not. General terms like these are mere obfuscation, but seemingly the conservative response to anyone who disagrees with them. Shouting 'anti-American' whenever I disagree is not enough to convince me, sorry.

To suggest that France does not want democracy is not true, and thei financial dealings with Iraq do not support your argument. We too, both America and Britain, have routinely done business with Iraq, especially in arms during the 80s. I don't really think America is that bothered about giving Iraq democracy, either, to be honest. That's just a pretext. I've explained my opinions about the real reasons for the war before, so I won't repeat myself here. Time will tell, and it will tell the same story that our history in the Middle East has always told - us screwing pver the Arabs and redrawing their borders.

You say that Islamic fundamentalism is better than Saddam's rule - compare your average Afghani with your average Iraqi and I think you'll find that untrue. Iraq was a functioning society with some degree of religious freedom and an economy hampered only by our sanctions before we blitzed the place. Not great, I know, but I fear those liberties will soon be lost.

I agree that the world would be a better place if every country were democratic, but I don't think the way to do this is by going to war with everyone and sticking up American flags everywhere (notice the lack of British flags going up in Iraq, one of the few shames for which we are thankfully not guilty). A forced peace is no peace, and in the Islamic case, will without any doubt generate waves of terrorism which the next century may not see the end of.

I am sorry, but under Bush, diplomacy is dead, and all we have to look forward to is terrorism for the rest of our lives if he is not ousted soon.

Tom Plant

PS There's really no need to start calling me 'intolerant' or 'ignorant.' It's condescending and unnecessary, and makes you look bad. Just give me the arguments, and I'll do the same, in a polite and civil way, ok?

[Al]

"No it shouldn't if you only had to win the popular vote then alls you need to do is show favortism to large population areas like New York, Chicago, and LA. You don't live here our system is fair...."

It appears that it is you who does not know how the electoral college system works.

"Once again only 9 delegates in history have voted in a way different than they were supposed to"

You agree that there is room and potential for abuse and corruption. Good.

"you give a bad name to arrogant people all over the world."

How? By calling them all Andy Bayley?

"So wait you were wrong?"

No, I was not.

"...especially since you didn't mention the war of 1812."

I didn't want to draw even more notice to your oh-so-evident confusion, but see below.

"And The US did win the war of Indepence"

The United States did not win the War of Independence. The US did not exist until after the War of Independence. The war was fought between the UK and the thirteen colonies. And as for the War of 1812, no one won it. I quote from an American history website - "The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate". Stalemate! No one won.

"...it was the first but by far not the last of Americans showing thier greatness of Britains"

This makes no sense.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[pre-frosh, the future fresher]

Greetings.
I'm in a peculiar situation here, having grown up in the Middle East since I was four, but being born an American. Having lived with Arabs in Saudi Arabia for over 12 years, I can assure you that I have great respect for Arabs themselves as well as the glories of their culture(s). In Saudi Arabia, despite the oppression of women, I have never seen a more hospitable, more generous people. Nor a people as kind or curious towards Americans. The character of the every-day Arab is enviable, though at times he may be blinded by some cultural prejudices like those regarding women.

However, recent facts cannot be overlooked, and those recent facts include that many of the terrorists that have hit American installations abroad and at home were from Saudi Arabia. These terrorists, presumably, did not attack American policy, but Americans themselves. Having seen the effects of the Western influence in Saudi Arabia, I can well understand this. The cities are perpetually expanding, and abusing the water resources of the desert; Taco Bells and McDonald's are going up everywhere; and the greatest transfer of money in history (ref. the oil trade) may have proven perhaps too much to deal with. It seems the West has satisfied the material needs of the Arabs, indeed, standard of living in the material sense is much better than it was before the West entered. As an example, infant mortalitly is way down. Also, many Arabs are given wider chances than they were previously at schooling and a broader perception of what they can do with their future.
The question, always, is did this material advancement come at the expense of that rare jewel glimmering at the depths of every culture, the unique spirit of a people?
The jewel in Saudi Arabia used to shine on the surface of the sands of their country, now perhaps a thin level of water covers it. And this level of 'murk' is what the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists fight against.
But my question, "is the murk really filth"? Rather, perhaps, the murk is clear water cleaning off the jewel. The Western influence has brought many great opportunities to the Middle East. The push for reform in the mutahween (Arabia's conservative religious police) is much larger than it was particularly because of the international news coverage given to the burning of the girls school in Arabia that the mutahween allowed to continue with everyone locked inside because the women and girls weren't covered. Children died. And now with the information age which Western capitalism has brought to Saudi, reformists who believe in democracy are given a voice where previously all they had to talk to were the walls of their prison cells.

Are these not good things?

And as the water cleanses the jewel, perhaps some part of the jewel is washed away, dissolved in the water.
But the jewel glows more brightly.
In today's age, Saudi Arabia can be more readily seen, and hopefully appreciated, by the world.
Yes, Saudi, the Middle East indeed, has sacrificed some bits of itself, but has gained much. What the West has done, is not given these changes to Saudi, but has made them available to the Middle East, and many Arabs have chosen to take those advantages. Places like McD's are frequented by many Arabs because they like it. But with every McDonald's, there is one less chance for traditional eatery to start up.

It is their choice.

Now, in Iraq, the West tries again (and I will not distinguish between America and Britain, or France for that matter, the West is perceived as one and is responsible for that, sharing as it does, such broad characteristics as a capitalist economy and belief in freedom). We make the offer of advancement, in an effort to bring the world with us if that is indeed what they want. It was necessary to bring Saddam down, not only for the threat he posed, but also because he would not allow his people the freedom to choose the path they would take. Now, the choice is there.

It will be a difficult choice to make, no doubt, and it is not one that can be made now. I believe that Iraq should be held 'in trust' for the Iraqis by the West for the next year or so, until the Western market can rebuild the infrastructure and economy that Saddam destroyed. If done well, which I believe it will be, this will give the Iraqis a taste of the gifts the West offers, while preserving that which is Iraqi. At the same time, the country and Saddam's and the Baath's past will be opened to the world's eye (as has already begun) and a strong condemnation of both is surely started and still forthcoming. Thus, hopefully the world and most importantly the everyday Iraqi will try to avoid such a dictatorship in the future. It is important to note that the Baath Party and Saddam were not Iraqi, as demonstrated by the intense joy that the Baath's fall was met with.

I ask you all to remember that Iraq's autocratic regime has just fallen, there is a huge power vacuum in a country whose leader and his bureaucracy (notably terror police) controlled most aspects of everyday life. Iraqis are just tasting freedom, let them have it. And abuses of a new thing are not uncommon, thus the lootings and the grabbing of power. But give America a chance at rebuilding Iraq, the lootings are already being stopped, and those seizing power are being dealt with. The international trade of ideas and pressure has already begun, and the give and take between Iraqi culture and the values of the West is beginning. I have given some examples of the wonderful outcomes of this trade, there are many more. Soon, then, the Iraqis will be able to choose what they want.

-- Dan Greenberg

[the Ignorant and Intolerant Andy Bayley]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 04:12, 27th Apr 2003:
Dear Andy Bailey,

Thanks for your reply.

My opinions of the Shiite Iraqis have nothing to do to do with peace. I am sure they can rule 'peacefully' in just the same way as Saddam did - by killing people who disagree with them. And if it's wrong to be intolerant of a doctrine that enforces subjugation of women, corporal and capital punishment and the other trappings of Sharia law, then yes, I'm guilty. I think my intolerance is justified, just as our mutual intolerance of Saddam is.

Your making a broad generalization on the shiite muslims. There have been only two cases where shiite clerics ruled the country. One was like 10th century egypt, the other is Iran. But there the shiites hate the clerics infact there is a plan of a national strike in the country near the end of july. That government is coming down very soon.

Muslims in a lot of ways are just like any other religion. In america we wouldn't fear if a mormon was ellected president. Not all shiites are crazy people who want to live under tyranny. It is my belief that there are certain universal things the whole world wants. The most important is liberty muslims are no different than christians.

As far as Turkey is concerned, our governments pressured theirs to go against the express will of their people. If that's not anti-democratic, then what is? Also, you say that our governments are not meant to be 'populist,' which I rather think they are. They are meant to do what we tell them. I thought that governments doing what they think is right without their people's consent is what we supposed to be fighting against, right?

No our officials at least in america are not supposed to be populist. We ellect the people we think will do the best job and they make the tough decisions. If the people are against how you vote it's your job as a politician to explain to them why you voted that way and hope you get reelected.

I'm glad you agree with me about Germany. Please distinguish, though, being anti-America - under its present government - and anti-American. Disagreeing with America is not an affront to the American people, just as your disagreement with France, I hope, does not make you 'anti-French.'

I'm anti-germany's government, I am however anti-french. People have the right to disagree, but sometimes if peoples motives are to different they can't be freinds, like france and the US

Your tag of ant-Semitism to anyone who wishes the end of Israel is flawed. Many Jews wish for the same thing - how can a Jew be anti-Semitic? They are the Semites!

Hrmm that is surprising that jews would think that way but none the less people who call for the destruction of israel for the most part are anti-semites.

Personally, I don't wish to see Israel obliterated, but I do want to see it move back to its own land and stop its expansion, to reach a peaceful accord with Palestine. Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish, and that's a very different thing from being anti-Israel.

It's a very thin line that separates the to I could understand some people just do not like Israel but the majority of people who hate Israel hate jews.

You've got to stop hiding behind these 'anti' tags. They are too ill-defined to have any real meaning. If you disagree with your friend Bill about something, does that make you 'anti-Bill?' I think not. General terms like these are mere obfuscation, but seemingly the conservative response to anyone who disagrees with them. Shouting 'anti-American' whenever I disagree is not enough to convince me, sorry.

when I say anti-american it is people who just simply hate the US, imperialist power blah blah blah. They will hate the US no matter what and are against any thing the US is for. All protesters are not antiamerican. Some have real issues about the war but there are the other ones who are anti american. So when i say Schroeder ran on an antiamerican campaign, I mean that Schroeder played to the antiamerican crowd to get votes.

To suggest that France does not want democracy is not true, and thei financial dealings with Iraq do not support your argument. We too, both America and Britain, have routinely done business with Iraq, especially in arms during the 80s. I don't really think America is that bothered about giving Iraq democracy, either, to be honest. That's just a pretext. I've explained my opinions about the real reasons for the war before, so I won't repeat myself here. Time will tell, and it will tell the same story that our history in the Middle East has always told - us screwing pver the Arabs and redrawing their borders.

The problem with France and Russian dealings with Iraq was that they were going on during the sanctions. And yes I do question thier motives when they very financially tied to Saddam staying in power. Much like George Galloway I have a feeling Chirac had personal tiles for not going to war.

As for why we went I do believe it was for the sole reason of liberation. Not because we wanted to be nice but because if we are going to win this war on Islamic fundamentalism we have to show people how democracy can work. If you think about it the getting rid of WMDs and the Sanctions for the sole reason of getting rid of the regime that was the plan from day one.

You say that Islamic fundamentalism is better than Saddam's rule - compare your average Afghani with your average Iraqi and I think you'll find that untrue.
I think they were very terrible. Although I think the plight of the Iraqis was worse than the plight of the Iranians.

Iraq was a functioning society with some degree of religious freedom and an economy hampered only by our sanctions before we blitzed the place. Not great, I know, but I fear those liberties will soon be lost.
Don't romance the Saddam regime this guy was hiterlike.

I agree that the world would be a better place if every country were democratic, but I don't think the way to do this is by going to war with everyone and sticking up American flags everywhere (notice the lack of British flags going up in Iraq, one of the few shames for which we are thankfully not guilty). A forced peace is no peace, and in the Islamic case, will without any doubt generate waves of terrorism which the next century may not see the end of.

yah the flags were a mistake I understand the soldiers feeling patriotic but it's regrettable. I hope we don't have to go to many more wars. The hope and the fear of Iran and Syria is that a democratic Iraq will soon call for the end of thier regimes.

I am sorry, but under Bush, diplomacy is dead, and all we have to look forward to is terrorism for the rest of our lives if he is not ousted soon.

Diplomacy failed, and I'll argue that the partial cause of 9-11 was Clinton pulling out of somalia. But anyway how can you have diplomacy with someone bent on your destruction.

PS There's really no need to start calling me 'intolerant' or 'ignorant.' It's condescending and unnecessary, and makes you look bad. Just give me the arguments, and I'll do the same, in a polite and civil way, ok?


You must have me confused with someone else I don't call people ignorant unless they really get to me with stupid comments. I throw the intolerant jest up about muslims not being capable of democracy though for fun cause the left preechs tolerance

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Al wrote on 11:38, 27th Apr 2003:
[i] It appears that it is you who does not know how the electoral college system works.

maybe you can elighten me since you feel you know better about how to ellect my countries leaders.

"you give a bad name to arrogant people all over the world."

How? By calling them all Andy Bayley?

No that would be a compliment


The United States did not win the War of Independence. The US did not exist until after the War of Independence. The war was fought between the UK and the thirteen colonies. And as for the War of 1812, no one won it. I quote from an American history website - "The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate". Stalemate! No one won.

the people of America won the war of independence rather or not it was a country or not doesn't matter. As far as the war of 1812 the goal was your country wanted to take over ours again if I'm not mistaken. You failed so therefore the good o US of A won.

[Cain]

If a country doesn't exist, as the United States of America didn't, then how can they win a war?

It would be like claiming that Winnipeg won the Stanley Cup two years ago. (winnipeg's team moved to Colorado, and Colorado won the Stanley cup)

[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance

[Al]

"the people of America won the war of independence rather or not it was a country or not doesn't matter. As far as the war of 1812 the goal was your country wanted to take over ours again if I'm not mistaken. You failed so therefore the good o US of A won."

Using your "logic", one could equally say that, because it failed miserably in its many risible attempts to conquer Canada in the War of 1812, the US lost the war.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Miss Maryland]

here's some advice: don't argue with Al. He generally knows more than you (and me!) on whatever subject the disagreement is about and will whip your backside in an argument!


so don't waste your breath you silly person

[Andy Bayley]

If the set out goal was to reclaim the US and they failed then they lost the war because they failed.

As far as the hockey team analogy it's really more like the football(real football) team Tennesee team changing thier name from the Oilers to the Titans and then saying it's not the same team.

[Tom Plant]

No surprise there, then! As far as the 'ignorant' comment was concerned, I was referring to your post of March 2nd entitled 'To an ignorant liberal,' in which you quoted me extensively... Never mind, let's forget about it. No offence taken - how's that for being liberal?

My "broad generalisation" about the Shiite Iraqis is based partly on their current anti-American demonstrations, which one might consider strange from a people we have just liberated. Strange it is, as they have just engaged in open religious worship and pilgrimage for the first time in years, but that just goes to show exactly how deep their anti-US feeling runs. This in mind, I ask again; how likely are we to give them (who are 60% of the population) the democratic mandate that Saddam denied them?

It worries me enough that a born-again Christian is the head of America. A Christian invoking the power of god to his country, as Bush frequently does, is just as disturbing as a Muslim. I think you overrate America's liberty and tolerance. Remember that the preacher Bush chose to deliver his inaugural sermon decried Islam as a religion of evil. In fact, not just a Mormon, but even a black or female president is still nothing more than a pipedream in America. This isn't anti-American, before you start trying to use that as a defence - it's simple fact.

You still haven't answered how persuading Turkey to oppose the will of its parliament can be considered democratic.

As far as America is concerned, the government did act in the will of its people. But Britain did not. It did not even act according to the will of its politicians at first, just of its Prime Minister. The fact that this can happen is, of course, our problem, but a considerable one. That America should ally with a country so blatantly ignoring its own people, however, is America's problem.

It's strange that a country which relied so heavily on France for its independence should develop such animosity towards it over one issue, but there you go. What I will say, is that the level of derogatory comments levelled at the French have been nothing short of racist in America, with one politician even dismissing another in argument by saying he had a 'French look' about him. Just try replacing the word 'French' with 'Jewish' or 'hispanic,' and I think you'll see what I mean. Nor is this an isolated example; you have no doubt read several more in the press. Even the Japanese press, conservative and staunchly pro-America, has printed international articles to this effect.

By the way, most of the Jews who disapprove of Israel's action are American. In fact, almost half your population doesn't approve of the war, too, polls suggest. Are the Americans who disagree with the President now anti-American, too? Does democracy now demand mindless obedience to the elected? You haven't yet even acknowledged your fellow countrymen who are against expansion in the middle east.

Personally, I don't wish to see Israel obliterated, but I do want to see it move back to its own land and stop its expansion, to reach a peaceful accord with Palestine. Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish, and that's a very different thing from being anti-Israel.

It is decidedly not a thin line between Israel remaining within its legal borders and ceasing to exist. In fact, it's a very big line. Yes, Israel should exist, but no, it shouldn't break international law and just use force of arms to get more land. That does not seem like a particularly fine lin to me. What do you mean?

I agree that there is no place for broad anti-American sentiment, just as there is no place for anti-French sentiment. In fact, all broad 'anti' sentiments border on fanaticism. But there is certainly a place for resisting the Americanisation of the whole world.

You seem to be saying that we went to war in Iraq as part of a war on Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam could not have been further from Islamic fundamentalism; he hated it, and butchered its followers. Bin Laden declared him an infidel. He is certainly no martyr to Islam. The pretext for the war was, if you remember, nothing to do with liberating Iraqis at all, but that they held weapons of mass destruction. But instead of acknowledging that there weren't any (surely they would have used them if there were), the US and Britain have almost imperceptibly altered the mission - while it was taking place. If this does not stink to you of deception, then you must be wearing very strong aftershave.

Saddam was not Hitlerlike. Saddam did not butcher millions (thousands, maybe) of people, and did not successfully expand his territory. Whenever there's someone we don't like, he's always 'the worst thing since Hitler.' We said the same of Bin Laden, Gaddaffi and Milosevic. Before Hitler, everyone was compared with Napoleon. This ludicrous monsterisation holds no water; none of them were anywhere near as bad as Hitler, and to suggest so belittles the true horror of that man and the lives of those who died fighting him.

For the record, Saddam was not 'hell-bent on destroying us,' and you know well that he couldn't have even if he had wanted to. We were certainly hell-bent on destroying him, but it wasn't mutual until we started. In fact, he was complying for the first time in years, albeit slowly. What we did was fooled him; we persuaded him to drop his weapons, then attacked him as soon as we knew it was safe to do so. As a result of this, the really dangerous countries - like North Korea - will never trust us, and I cannot morally support what we did. Can you?

I want you to know something. Because of my arguments, you've made certain suppositions about me, some of which are correct. I am a liberal, but not in the bearded Trotskyite way you seem to dismiss us all as. I am a patriotic Briton, and a former army reservist of five years' experience, but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything my country does. People I know are currently serving in the occupation of Iraq, and trust me, I don't think its worth the risk of their lives. It will take a lot for you to persuade me otherwise, but good luck.

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 17:55, 28th Apr 2003:
My "broad generalisation" about the Shiite Iraqis is based partly on their current anti-American demonstrations, which one might consider strange from a people we have just liberated. Strange it is, as they have just engaged in open religious worship and pilgrimage for the first time in years, but that just goes to show exactly how deep their anti-US feeling runs. This in mind, I ask again; how likely are we to give them (who are 60% of the population) the democratic mandate that Saddam denied them?

Reports are just coming out in Iranian involvement Iraq. A moderate cleric who was killed in Basra a few weeks back was suspected to be done by Iranian agents. There are some smart people organizing these rallies and the media is playing right into it. You don't think all the people carrying signs printed in English know what they are saying do you? I agree there is a portion of the country that wants an Islamic Theocracy but I think its the minorities. Islamic sects are no different than Christian sects. All catholics don't vote the same way. It could be true that 60 percent of the shiites want a theocracy but I doubt it. Don't think that 3000 people protesting means 17 million people think the same way they do.

It worries me enough that a born-again Christian is the head of America. A Christian invoking the power of god to his country, as Bush frequently does, is just as disturbing as a Muslim. I think you overrate America's liberty and tolerance. Remember that the preacher Bush chose to deliver his inaugural sermon decried Islam as a religion of evil. In fact, not just a Mormon, but even a black or female president is still nothing more than a pipedream in America. This isn't anti-American, before you start trying to use that as a defence - it's simple fact.

You are showing intolerance to christians. Bush said no such thing about islam in fact he can be quoted over and over again as a religion of "peace". As far as the woman president thing it's just the perception of the masses, right wrong people don't see women as strong as men. AS far as blacks they are often held back by the democratic party. Al Sharpton ( a democratic canidate for president) is finding out just how much the democratic party is holding him back from running for office. The system isn't perfect but its far greater than china or Iran.

You still haven't answered how persuading Turkey to oppose the will of its parliament can be considered democratic.

In any foriegn policy decision there are pros and cons. We tried to make the pros much more than they were originally. And we didn't try to get turkey to oppose the will of the parliment but to get the parliment to oppose the will of its people. I stand by that sometimes the uneducated public isn't the end all be all in legislation. Look at your country before the war Tony Blair approval ratings were in the thirties now last I saw they were in the high 50s. People are fickle and change there opinion regularly, you can't base policy on the will of the people but what is right for the people. If at the next ellection you chose wrong for your people they will let you know.

As far as America is concerned, the government did act in the will of its people. But Britain did not. It did not even act according to the will of its politicians at first, just of its Prime Minister. The fact that this can happen is, of course, our problem, but a considerable one. That America should ally with a country so blatantly ignoring its own people, however, is America's problem.

I just kinda answered this. If it was a huge problem the labor party could have kicked blair out of Office.

It's strange that a country which relied so heavily on France for its independence should develop such animosity towards it over one issue, but there you go. What I will say, is that the level of derogatory comments levelled at the French have been nothing short of racist in America, with one politician even dismissing another in argument by saying he had a 'French look' about him. Just try replacing the word 'French' with 'Jewish' or 'hispanic,' and I think you'll see what I mean. Nor is this an isolated example; you have no doubt read several more in the press. Even the Japanese press, conservative and staunchly pro-America, has printed international articles to this effect.

Saying the french helped us out in revolutionary war and therefor we should love them forever is the same as saying the brits opressed us in the revolutionary war so we should hate them forever. There is a lot of french bashing in the american press but also vice versa in the french press. Much like you said you can be against the people who live in Israel and not be against jews. I can be against the people who live in France and not be against all people who came from France. There is a long kind of love hate relationship with the french because first of all we feel they owe us something for liberating there country, you can bring up the revolutionary war but 50 years and 200 years are different things. SO when french tries to rival America it does cause some resentment, like trying to appease the soviet union, not allowing the US to use it's airspace in bombing libya, ect ect.

By the way, most of the Jews who disapprove of Israel's action are American. In fact, almost half your population doesn't approve of the war, too, polls suggest. Are the Americans who disagree with the President now anti-American, too? Does democracy now demand mindless obedience to the elected? You haven't yet even acknowledged your fellow countrymen who are against expansion in the middle east.[i]

First of all the dates of your poll is importan. For a while 40 percent approved and 30 percent disaproved but right before the war it went to like 80 and 9. People disagreeing with the president are not anti-american necisarely. But there are some protesters who have an anti-american agenda. For example the PEACE coalition who sponsers most of the protests in America is a front for the communist group ANSWER. Anti-American is my word of choice but a more appropriate one could be the Blame America First crowd, the people who no matter what blame america as a colonial, imperialistic power. Understand though when I say anti-american I mean people with goals other than the best interest of the country.

[i]It is decidedly not a thin line between Israel remaining within its legal borders and ceasing to exist. In fact, it's a very big line. Yes, Israel should exist, but no, it shouldn't break international law and just use force of arms to get more land. That does not seem like a particularly fine lin to me. What do you mean?

Out of curiousity how did they break international law where those lands were taken as part of a peace treaty caused by the invasion of Israel in 1967? But the thin line is because some people may just not want israel to be there because they feel they are wrong, but the very large majority just hate the Jews. Why wasnt there a free palistine movement before Israel had the lands?

I agree that there is no place for broad anti-American sentiment, just as there is no place for anti-French sentiment. In fact, all broad 'anti' sentiments border on fanaticism. But there is certainly a place for resisting the Americanisation of the whole world.

We as americans and Europeans should have common goals being that we are all lucky enough to grow in free countries to encourage other countries to be free. When one country has a goal in the opposite of the encouraging freedom around the world the other countries should take a stance against them. I wouldn't beat up a french person or even be rude to them, but if I have a choice between Evian water and Liberty Springs I'm going to pick the water that's country represents the same values as mine.

You seem to be saying that we went to war in Iraq as part of a war on Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam could not have been further from Islamic fundamentalism; he hated it, and butchered its followers. Bin Laden declared him an infidel. He is certainly no martyr to Islam. The pretext for the war was, if you remember, nothing to do with liberating Iraqis at all, but that they held weapons of mass destruction. But instead of acknowledging that there weren't any (surely they would have used them if there were), the US and Britain have almost imperceptibly altered the mission - while it was taking place. If this does not stink to you of deception, then you must be wearing very strong aftershave.

Saddam was not a fundamentalist true, but your great paper the telegraph that I do like to read pointed out there is a link between Bin Laden and Saddam. Rather or not Saddam was a fundamentalist doesn't matter Iraq was the easiest case to make a war for. The goal was getting a large arab country to convert to democracy and be a beacan to the other arab countries. Iraq was the best canidate because of how bad a person saddam was. I am sure they will find weapons of mass destruction, I highly doubt that Bush and Blair would risk all of thier credibility if they weren't sure they had them. Finding them won't be easy but they are there. The reason the pretext of war was WMDs is because we can't come out and say we are going to war against fundamental islam and liberating a country doesn't quite past the mothers test in America. It's not a lie liberating Iraq is for our long term safety it just can't be said diplomatically.

Saddam was not Hitlerlike. Saddam did not butcher millions (thousands, maybe) of people, and did not successfully expand his territory. Whenever there's someone we don't like, he's always 'the worst thing since Hitler.' We said the same of Bin Laden, Gaddaffi and Milosevic. Before Hitler, everyone was compared with Napoleon. This ludicrous monsterisation holds no water; none of them were anywhere near as bad as Hitler, and to suggest so belittles the true horror of that man and the lives of those who died fighting him.[i]

Hitler Lite would be more of a fair assessment. First of all saddam is blaimed for the deaths of 1.5 to two million muslims. I compare saddam to Hitler if he was stopped at Austria and let to stay in power. I would say the plight of the Iraqis was not a whole lot different the plight of the Germans as a whole. And any country that partakes in ethnic cleansings( dont bring up the indians) does remind people of hitler. out of curiousity does it bother you when people compare bush to hitler?

[i]
For the record, Saddam was not 'hell-bent on destroying us,' and you know well that he couldn't have even if he had wanted to. We were certainly hell-bent on destroying him, but it wasn't mutual until we started. In fact, he was complying for the first time in years, albeit slowly. What we did was fooled him; we persuaded him to drop his weapons, then attacked him as soon as we knew it was safe to do so. As a result of this, the really dangerous countries - like North Korea - will never trust us, and I cannot morally support what we did. Can you?

Without a doubt I can support this Saddam was truly evil. I don't feel saddam was ever a major threat to us himself. I feel he was a threat to humanity. If we killed 1000 inocent people to prevent him from killing another million then it is definately worth it. Same with North Korea, I don't want peace there I want a country that spends billions on weapons while millions starve to death(dont bring up health care in america)I will risk my life for a cause as just as that I wish I would have been in on the Iraq war and sacrificing my life so millions could live is well worth it.

I want you to know something. Because of my arguments, you've made certain suppositions about me, some of which are correct. I am a liberal, but not in the bearded Trotskyite way you seem to dismiss us all as. I am a patriotic Briton, and a former army reservist of five years' experience, but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything my country does. People I know are currently serving in the occupation of Iraq, and trust me, I don't think its worth the risk of their lives. It will take a lot for you to persuade me otherwise, but good luck.


I don't think I called you unpatriotic to your country if I did it is because I probably lumped you in with others such as AL and the Kensson guy who I guess doesn't want to argue with me anymore. That is the problem with liberals they don't disassociate themselves with the radicals. Conservatives make it very clear they want nothing to do with true biggots and racists.

[Truth Seeker]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 17:55, 28th Apr 2003:
My "broad generalisation" about the Shiite Iraqis is based partly on their current anti-American demonstrations, which one might consider strange from a people we have just liberated.

Not when you consider that a) these people have been opressed for along time so they are loathe to trust ANYone. amd b) Shiite leaders don't want a free, democratic society because then they will lose much of their influence at controlling the people.

Strange it is, as they have just engaged in open religious worship and pilgrimage for the first time in years,

Which is exactly why America is a great country- it allows these things. Saddam would've launched a few chemical weapons their way. Good thing we went in, huh?

It worries me enough that a born-again Christian is the head of America. A Christian invoking the power of god to his country, as Bush frequently does, is just as disturbing as a Muslim.

Are you kidding me? Take a look at the Christian religion and where it is now compared to fuindamental islam. When was the last time a christian flew a plane into a building full of civilians? There is a HUGe difference between even a radical christian (though Bush is a moderate) and a radical muslim, and there is no question the latter is more disturbing.

I think you overrate America's liberty and tolerance.

Name one other country with the diversity of people living side by side as neighbors peacefully that America has. There is none. europe doesn't even come close.

Remember that the preacher Bush chose to deliver his inaugural sermon decried Islam as a religion of evil.

I'm not aware of bush ever saying the religion of islam is evil- that is incorrect for you to say so. Fundamental islam, perhaps, yes, but not moderate islam- there are thousands of muslims that live peacefully in America with hte freedom to practice their religion. It's when they start killing people lik ethe fundamentalists have done that there's a problem.


In fact, not just a Mormon, but even a black or female president is still nothing more than a pipedream in America. This isn't anti-American, before you start trying to use that as a defence - it's simple fact.

This is not a fact at all. It has nothing to do with color or religion- it's about qualifications and respect. Thus far, noone has run that is deservign of the office. Colin Powell could probably be the first one, but he doesn't seem to be interested in the job.

You still haven't answered how persuading Turkey to oppose the will of its parliament can be considered democratic.

What are you talking about? Turkey can do what it wants. If the people don't lik eit, they can vote their people out. If turkey wants to be pursuaded by money, it's their choice.

As far as America is concerned, the government did act in the will of its people. But Britain did not. It did not even act according to the will of its politicians at first, just of its Prime Minister. The fact that this can happen is, of course, our problem, but a considerable one. That America should ally with a country so blatantly ignoring its own people, however, is America's problem.

Actually, all the polls I've seen showed a majority in Briatin supporting the war. And the roel of democratically elected leaders is not to poll the people every time they have to make a decision- it's their job to make difficult decisions based on the information they have, some of which we are not privvy to. If you don't lik eit, vote them out.

It's strange that a country which relied so heavily on France for its independence should develop such animosity towards it over one issue, but there you go.

You're right- it's strange that France, which relied so heavily on America for its freedom in WWII to have been such assholes over one issue.


What I will say, is that the level of derogatory comments levelled at the French have been nothing short of racist in America,
oh please, like derogatory comments about America aren't made every day by the French. Shame on your double standard.

By the way, most of the Jews who disapprove of Israel's action are American. In fact, almost half your population doesn't approve of the war, too, polls suggest. Are the Americans who disagree with the President now anti-American, too? Does democracy now demand mindless obedience to the elected? You haven't yet even acknowledged your fellow countrymen who are against expansion in the middle east.

again, if these people constitute a majority, they should be able to vote in someone who supports their cause in the next elections.


Personally, I don't wish to see Israel obliterated, but I do want to see it move back to its own land and stop its expansion, to reach a peaceful accord with Palestine. Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish, and that's a very different thing from being anti-Israel.

Do you even know the history of Israel? The lands Israel are on that are in dispute are lands taken after they were attacked by other countries over the last few decades- those lands were once held by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and they never once offered to give them to the palestinians while they were in posession of them. Go read a history book and then come back and try to argue this point.

I agree that there is no place for broad anti-American sentiment, just as there is no place for anti-French sentiment. In fact, all broad 'anti' sentiments border on fanaticism. But there is certainly a place for resisting the Americanisation of the whole world.
Then stop eating at mcdonalds, watching hollywood movies, and listening to madonna (who was #1 on the british charts this week). No one is forcing American culture on anyone- if people don't like it they don't have to buy it.

You seem to be saying that we went to war in Iraq as part of a war on Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam could not have been further from Islamic fundamentalism; he hated it, and butchered its followers. Bin Laden declared him an infidel. He is certainly no martyr to Islam. The pretext for the war was, if you remember, nothing to do with liberating Iraqis at all, but that they held weapons of mass destruction. But instead of acknowledging that there weren't any (surely they would have used them if there were), the US and Britain have almost imperceptibly altered the mission - while it was taking place. If this does not stink to you of deception, then you must be wearing very strong aftershave.
1) Saddam and Bin LAden could've been in bed together despite their differences- remember Stalin's teaming with roosevelt and Churchill?
2) Who cares what the "mission" was- the fact is the Iraqi people are better off now where they can (as you pointed out yourself) practice their religion freely and vote for their own leaders without fear.

Saddam was not Hitlerlike. Saddam did not butcher millions (thousands, maybe) of people, and did not successfully expand his territory.
So we shoudll've waited for him to do that before acting? The whole reason we fought and studied WWII was so that we wouldn't ever let it happen again!


For the record, Saddam was not 'hell-bent on destroying us,' and you know well that he couldn't have even if he had wanted to. We were certainly hell-bent on destroying him, but it wasn't mutual until we started. In fact, he was complying for the first time in years, albeit slowly.

Saddam was playing games as he has for years. It's over now. The iraqi people and the world are btter off with one less meglomaniac running a country.

What we did was fooled him; we persuaded him to drop his weapons, then attacked him as soon as we knew it was safe to do so. As a result of this, the really dangerous countries - like North Korea - will never trust us, and I cannot morally support what we did. Can you?
Funny though how North Korea, Iran, and Syria all seem to be cooperating more than ever right now, isn't it?

[Cain]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 17:55, 28th Apr 2003:
What I will say, is that the level of derogatory comments levelled at the French have been nothing short of racist in America,

[s]Unregisted User Truth Seeker wrote on 08:30, 29th Apr 2003:
[i]
oh please, like derogatory comments about America aren't made every day by the French. Shame on your double standard.

It's not double standards if you condemn them both.

[hr]
I'm Johnny Knoxville and this is Invading Russia in the Winter