Some Food For Thought

"How do you suggest we pay taxes? Just pitch in a bit in the bucket on payday....IF we want to?"

Sure! That works. If it's voluntary, it's charity, and more power to ya. If it's involuntary, it's [b]theft[/b].

"you never mention why you wouldn't want to help those it supports"

That's because I have also [b]never said I wouldn't want to help others[/b]. In fact, I do help others. I occasionally give to charities, I occasionally take homeless guys to fast food joints to feed them, and so on. The point isn't whether or not I want to help someone, and the complete inability of left-wingnuts (like yourself, apparently) to understand that doesn't change the actual point: that [b]forcing[/b] me to give up money, regardless of whether I would have given it up anyway, is [b]theft[/b]. Besides, if I give money to someone directly, I know it's going to do some good. If I give money to government, it may well be used to wage war on smaller nations against which I wouldn't want to wage wars. That's completely ignoring things like the social security fiasco and the fact that the majority of money going into the welfare system gets chewed up by the machinery of bureaucracy and red tape.

You keep bringing up war spending, as though being an American citizen somehow gives you a special x-ray into my mind that allows you to see what I do and do not approve. This particular offshoot of the conversation doesn't even pertain to the war in Iraq (though, of course, the original topic does). Pro-war and anti-theft are not attached at the hip. A great many libertarian-minded people in this country are, in fact, militarily isolationist (or even pacifist) by principle.

Besides . . . government-sponsored theft is not a small issue. It's just an issue that is considered a non-issue by people who want it to continue. Those who don't have a different perspective.

In point of fact, the money so blithely granted to Bush's plans consisted largely of [b]money derived from income tax, tariffs, and other forms of extortionistic theft[/b]. Based on that, you might even be justified in assuming I am as upset about the war in Iraq as I am about "welfare", if not moreso. You just decided to assume I disagree with you on the matter, though, because I disagree with you about something else and, thus, must be stupid across the board. The fact is this: I do not care to make too many concrete statements about my take on the matter in this thread, because my opinions are less simplistic than those of most others, and I have little enough time as it is without dashing out thirty-thousand word theses on the subject of US foreign policy for TechRepublic. Maybe I'll do it later.

In the "real world", there just isn't a conducive set of circumstances for a free Kurdistan.

I'm pretty much in complete agreement with everything you said in this post of yours, neilb. I don't really have more to offer at this time, I'm afraid. It's too bad.

What I was referring to in my previous post was "if we could" situations, not "what we should" so much. The state of affairs in the Middle East just don't really make all those pipe dreams particularly fulfillable.

Just a couple of interns from college trying to break out into the broadcasting market.
There were much more interseting women to gawk at though, as cure as the Global girls are. Tere were about 18,000 people at the show, that makes for a good 9-10,000 girls.

I actualy missed Avril's set, missed Robin Williams and Chantal's too. I ran into a P5 rigger who I hadn't seen since we worked the same tour nealry ten years ago, so we sat in the press room and caught up for the most part.

Pretty lame show really, not my cup of tea, which is good because you can get some work done instead. I have just finished organizing a group of shows for Feb. 4th in Camden Uk, with a prmoter over there. WHile I don't expect it to draw the millions that last night's show did, at least the artists are better musicians!

I guess I'm really just jaded by my experience with the way US citizens treat the electoral process. If I'd paused to think about it, I would likely have realized right away that the sort of voter apathy we have here would in no way be representative of what happened in Iraq. I just didn't really consider that until now.

A simple majority would have looked like a very good turnout to me. Nearly three fourths, on the other hand, just looks like an absurd level of success.

"fsck" is the Unix command for a file system check. If you can't figure out the pun, armed with that information, there really isn't any hope for you.

The notion that I'm trying to remove your right to your own opinions by disagreeing with you (even if I'm pissy about it) is ludicrous. You're rapidly becoming the equivalent, in this thread, of ippirate in the "evolution lie" discussion. Try to avoid those too-egregious logical fallacies. Next, you'll probably be comparing me to Hitler, to judge by your current progress.

"it had norelevance or reference to what you had said anyway."

liar

You might want to look up "ad hominem" at some point and spend some time pondering the definition thereof. Rudeness does not constitute the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument. Aside from that, I submit to you that theft is rather more rude than a rant on the shortcomings of thieves and their apologists.

You keep rattling on about how you didn't mean to direct the post at me, and I have my doubts about that, but more importantly (I think) you keep expressing views in perfect keeping with what that post initially seemed to mean, if it had been directed at me intentionally. Even if you didn't mean to post it where you did, you might as well have, considering the opinions you're expressing. Should I just pretend you don't have these opinions you're offering, then, and ignore what you've said to me, just because a particular piece of it was misplaced? The opinions were still expressed. It's the opinions to which I object, not the target of your post.

No, that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be allowed to have those opinions. I just think you should be reasonable enough to figure out for yourself the abrogation of rights that such opinions support.

If you're really going to ignore me, I suggest you start by not addressing me. I don't usually ignore people that address me.

The main reason we agree on so much is because neither of us is american.
LOL
Brits do define them selves in terms of their nation though, it's funamental to us in my opinion anyway. I don't think of my 'rights' as a personal thing, but as one of many members of a society. I posted earlier about trial by jury yet I've never even been arrested. I don't want that right as an individual, I want it for my society because it's a statement of what that society is.
Any right you 'give away' as an individual in a society, you take from all other members. Any right you grant, you give to all other members so how can it be individual.
Or are we falling over semantics again ?

Hm. I'll definitely have to look into that. Thanks for the recommendation.

I am aware, to some degree, of the fact that much of law in the US is carried over from British law of olde, but my knowledge of the specifics is lacking in many areas. I only have so much time in the day for reading, and there are so many books on so many subjects I have yet to read. Maybe I'll get around to reading about British and American political history in colonial and immediately post-colonial periods, again. It has been a few years.

My attitude is this: Any changes you want to make, before there are responses, are fair game. Once someone responds, edits should be clearly marked and old commentary pretty well preserved so that context of replies is not lost. To be sure I'm not responding to something that is changing, while I compose my reply, or that my edits won't arrive after someone else has posted a reply, I tend to open a new tab in Firefox and double-check the thread and/or content of the previous post before hitting "Submit".

I know not everyone does this, or has thought of doing so. Such is life. I do try to make sure I don't screw up the context of others' posts, though.

So much for reasonable discussion. Even when I disagree with maxwell (he's not the one that's always right: I am), at least he hasn't in my recollection ever devolved into throwing online tantrums like this.

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.

Once again, no mater how important you deem your comment, I was not replying to you, in fact the person I was replying to has made far less 'noise' than you have.

Have a seat and stop trying to make somethign out of nothing. OR are you simply pissed off because I replied to someone else and you wanted it to be you so you could drone on and on?

What the heck?

Oz, you've gone off the deep end.

You seem to be missing that all-important word "instead", there. Re-read what you posted, Oz. I swear, the meaning is in there.

Aside from your complete miss of the relevance of the word "instead", as you posted a definition of "ad hominem", the rest of your post was nothing but an ad hominem attack. As such, I'll give it the attention it deserves:

. . .

simplifies things enormously for all us dumb ****s who wouldn't understand a complex issue.
Two minutes to define the iraq situation before we stick in a 15 minute piece of nonsense from our sponsors, and there's the human interest story about little aunty May's tabby cat to get in as well.
Find out what's happening in the entire world at fifteen minute intervals, 24 hours news my a$$.

I found Fox news on my satelite last night, what a waste of time that is, the only useful pieces of info I got were the temperatures in Budapest and Mexico City.

Are you hitting refresh every one or two seconds so you can follow up with your tripe?

No wonder posts are changed after responses are given. You barely give time for a post to even be entered before you go off on some other tangent!

Try taking a breath between posts for god's sake!

Let my be the first to congratulate you on the accuracy of your prediction of voter turnout.

You should have wagered some money on it. You would have made a bundle from the skeptics, including of course myself.

All major world leaders have commended the Iraqi people for risking their lives to vote. All major world leaders have said what a great step forward this election has been.

I am not afraid of admitting when I have been proven wrong.

I hope the Iraqi people are able to establish a workable democracy.

Geez you really are off on some wierd head space aren't you?

This piece of the thread didn't even involve you yet you are posting abou tpoepl ethrowing tantrums?

If I am laughing afetr reading posts and replying to them how is THAT considered a tantrum.

Perhaps you could explain it by first telling me what 'tone of voice' I used!

Not a sign of a good support tech that's for sure. God help any customers who call you for help, you have thier entire mentality and attitude summed up in a heartbeat, completely incorrectly too.

I don't throw tantrums, but I don't buckle on my own views just because others think differently, remember I AM NOT AMERICAN!

If you never did drugs when you were younger, this might be a good time to start.

My posts sit for less than one minute before you jump in to attack them, EVEN when not even talking about nor to you!

YOu are just doing what some children do when they get all upset about posts, they will follow each and every post that someone makes and TRY to shot it down, usually with an 'ad hominem' reply.

Grow up and settle down. GO for a walk or get some fresh air, open the basement window or have a glass of water or something. You need help now, you have most definitely lost your ability to ignore what doesn't concern you. Anyone would think you were being aargued with, you are just jumping in for the sake of argument at any chance, again, GROW UP LITTLE ONE!

You think that just because I refer to left-wingnuts I'm some kind of right-wingnut? I use both terms daily. I'm in neither of those camps. Both "right wing" and "left wing" are, in essence, authoritarian political impulses that tend toward tyranny. They differ not in the amount of despotic power they wish to apply, but in the type of such power to be used and the justifications that are cited. Where the left-wingnut steals to provide "welfare", the right-wingnut steals to provide "economic assistance" for "essential industries". It's all based on theft, though.

Not only are your political opinions apparently based on pure assumption: so, too, are your impressions of the political opinions of others, it seems. You clearly have zero idea what I actually believe, despite the rather involved explanations of some of the underlying principles and practical examples that I've offered.

I use terms like "left-wingnut" and "right-wingnut" because they're funny. Don't be a dolt that assumes all joking references must be taken as evidence of a closed mind. Please. I liked you more when I didn't think you might be a dolt.

Most of your post betrays a distinct lack of understanding of economic forces. I don't even know where to begin. I am also beginning to really not care, because you're augmenting your previous ad hominem tendencies with straw man tendencies, tantrums, and a complete lack of willingness to entertain the notion that someone that considers use of force in redistributing wealth might not be an evil caricature of the fat cat Republican stereotype.

Making assumptions about what hardship I have or have not suffered is specious, at best. I don't feel the need to tell you about my time couch-surfing, selling both cars and losing my apartment, and so on. I also don't feel the need to tell you how I went about fixing that and finding work without going on the dole. Try to stick to logically relevant arguments, if you please. If you don't, you should be prepared for me to fail to rise to the bait much.

One last note: Being stolen from does not constitute looking out for each other. Looking out for each other involves making a personal, conscious decision to give X many dollars to Y charity or Z person(s) in need, or something along those lines. Voting for money to magically appear in the welfare coffers, followed by bitching about taxes over a pint, does not constitute looking out for each other. I avoid taking handouts (particularly those ill-gotten) regardless of my circumstances, I vote against any coercive measures (and against those governmental officials who support such things), and I help when and where I can. Your assumptions about me hold zero weight, but I don't really expect you to "get" that.

HOw many times must you ask the same question ?

Now if you had some form of comprehensive ability...
I don't understand the concept of arguing personal liberties, as I have never been surrounded by people who feel their government has served them wrong, who have then elected that government twice regardless of their actions.

You guys had an opportunity to change your adminstration but due to fear that Kerry was a democrat, you declined to TRY and do something different. IN which case you DESERVE what you get.

The concept is absurd, end of story. Nobody else in pother countries dwell on personal liberties, we accept what we have, we accept the governing laws of a country.

You live in America by choice. Not by force. Don't like it? LEAVE! Think you can do better? Start your own country and wait for the invasion.

I don't understand why people complain about personal liberties, I think it is absurd.

It is not an issue anywhere else in the world, why is it an issue there? Is it because you FEEL you should be entitled to more freedoms than you have?

I don't and yet I apparently live in a terrible socialist, communist country. Perhaps your free democracy isn't all that it's cut out to be, never thought it was anyway.

You're hitting the threads pretty hard yourself, Oz.

1. I'm actually involved in two IM discussions, helping my mother by telephone (edit: just finished that) with a technical issue, cruising through this thread, and working on a file server when I have a free moment. All this is after I spent about seven hours hanging out with friends, watching movies and playing cards. What has your day been like? As busy?

2. Suddenly, I'm not allowed to notice you threw a tantrum just because it wasn't directed at me? If I never replied to anything that wasn't directed at me, I'd never have gotten involved at TR in the first place (since before I started posting here there weren't any posts directed at me). Maybe you should stop looking for distracting straw man arguments and ad hominem opportunities.

3. I know Americans with your views. When they discuss things reasonably, I try to reciprocate. When they throw tantrums, I usually treat them worse than I've been treating you here.

4. I don't have any interest in recreational drugs (alcohol notwithstanding). Thanks anyway.

It seems anyone NOT wanting such an individualistic environment are considered stupid or repressed by Americans. Perhaps we see more value in supporting our countrymen than we do filling our mattresses.

Now you call me a child. Good job.

I'm not "stalking" you. I'm noticing new posts and seeing if I care to respond to them. The fact that you're making a target of yourself adds to the likelihood that I'll respond to you, but I've also been responding to posts by others. I just type a lot faster than you do, apparently. I think I'm averaging about 100wpm right now, after corrections.

In this case, there seems to be a semantic disconnect. It's the individual rights that matter, but I don't mean specifically [b]my[/b] individual rights. An "individual" (in the generic) has rights that must be protected. That applies to all individuals. All individuals have the same rights, excepting where those rights are directly forfeited (that's another discussion entirely, and only really applies to matters of unethical criminal behavior and the necessary response thereto).

In other words, the way you characterize "societal rights" pretty much sounds like the social import of individual rights, to me. Society must enshrine and protect individual rights (roughly) universally, else rights are not protected at all. Something that is granted some people and not others is a "privilege", not a "right".

"Why then would you find it neccessary to relate to thier right to be who they are byt referring to thier beliefs as a 'freakish little cult' ?"

Grow a sense of humor, man. You're getting far too politically correct in your old age. If someone calls my peers in political philosophy a "freakish little cult" and are not using that as justification for imprisoning us, preventing us from living our lives as we see fit, and so on, then I laugh it off. As long as epithets aren't used as justification for abrogation of rights, they're nothing to get too riled up about.

Get a grip, man. I was specifically talking about letting such people do what they like, "an it harm none" (to borrow from the Wiccan approach). I've even jokingly referred to my own cornies with terms similar in tone to "freakish little cult". It's not an expression of disrespect.

You, by the way, would not be a "freakish little cult". You'd be a "freakish little cultist", if I thought I could use that term with intended humor without seeing you fly off the handle over it. Come to think of it, I may start using that term for you anyway, just to see the reaction. It could be fun.

I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone, [b]particularly[/b] in the realm of religion. If you think I am, you haven't been paying attention to a thing I've said in the "evolution lie" thread, or perhaps you simply lack some important reading comprehension skills.

There will always be people who fall through the cracks. The socialist argument that there are people who cannot provide for themselves doesn't take that into account: it assumes that a "perfect system" is just around the corner. Unfortunately, it's not, unless by "perfect" you mean "empty". All socialism does is screw up any chance of market equilibrium and efficient wealth production in exchange for exchanging the groups of people that end up falling through the cracks in the system.

All that is irrelevant, though, to the fact that theft is theft, period. It's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you really want to help those who can't help themselves, you should put together a private charity and stay out of the robbery business.

Nice to hear what the king said way back then, even if it was just a bit like that.

Your conclusion shows Americans ideals as being free and happy, yet British as being ignorant and domineering. Clever, that's not what I read though, no mention of the church at all, that's a first!

As for you knowing where i am living, firstly, have I EVER asked you where you live?
Should it hold the slightest relevance to your opinion? Should I therefor econsidere where you live in order to pigeonhole your comments or detract from statements as a result of your origin? Still looking quite clever I see.

I am from England, I travel to and from England every now and then, moreso a few years back than now. I went to school in England, and Canada.

I conduct business in Europe and Canada as well as formerly running offices in California and Oregon to offer musicians a fair break and getting them into Europe.

I am a British Citizen(subject), I am more British than Canadian by law and by values. One week in England and I return with a british accent again, so most Canadians that have known me a long time say I am British in and out, others may consider me Canadian due to a half Canadian accent.
I have a UK bank account, a Canadian bank account (though in a company name here, not my own).

I pay taxes in the USA, Canada AND Britain. So where does my nationailty get pigeonholed?

Why must Americans insist on placing people in boxes in order to understand them? There IS no individual in your country.

There is a democrat, there is a republican.

There is an American, there is a Foreigner. but nobody can be both nor acepted as both, perhaps yet another reason nobody sees America as multicultural or accepeting of others.

I couldn't tell you what ANY of my friends political affiliation is, IF they could even tell you themselves, it is SO far from relevant to us it isn't funny. I couldn't even tell you where my best friend was born, though I am sure it wasn't Canada. It again is completely irrelevant.

Why is it important in America to segregate and stereotype poeple?

So there you have it, pigeon hole me as you wish.

UK, Canadian whatever. It makes NO difference to me whatsoever, nor anyome else I have EVER met. We aren't products manufactured by our government or countries. I am free to live and work here or most other countries of the world, except America but that could be done in a month, as I hold a British passport, which is pretty much a global pass. Can't say the same though...can you?

I can give you some examples of US coworkers being kicked out of European countries when attmpting to work overseas without a visa, even then the time is limited.

I have freedom, TRUE freedom to live and work where I choose, perhaps another reason I don't feel repressed by abuse of my liberties and why I am more acceptingof others regardles of political view or country of origin.

Yes i suppose you could call it that, normal though.

I flew to Vancouver last night at the last minute for the launch of the Canadian Tsunami Relief Concert. Worked until about 2:30 AM at the venue. Went into downtown Vancouver and met with a mining exploration team that I have been doing a public company portfolio for as they are looking for new investors. Got about 3 hours sleeo at a friends house, hit the ferry back to Victoria this morning, went to Sanddown racetrack to visit the GM woh is planning a 15 million dollar rennovation to be finished before April, he has me working on new marketing and branding schemes. Spent an hour on the phone helping someone through a computer problem, as well as helping my friend at the track layout a presentation for HIS investors.

Took a Greyhound to Nanaimo where I met an old girlfriend for lunch. And the flew AIR BC into Part Hardy at 6PM. Once home, I checked email and spent some time changing copy on a brochure for ANOTHER mining company (it's that time of year), critiqued a demo tape a band had sent me. Logged in to a European partners website and got my mail. After a while of replying and helping coordinate press covereage for the tsunami relief concert in Camden, I decided to poke in TR. What did I find?

Some putz jumping in on every comment I make, no matter who it is directed at or what it concerned. Before I could reply and even begin to read his next prattle, there was already a response to my LAST post, then another then...I haven't even managed to leave this thread yet and get to others as he is just incessantly posting.

Well I think I'll let the guy sit and dwell in his own feces for a while, I am getting pretty hungry sitting here while spinning in circles around the constant nonsense that he is throwing at me.

As for you other points, I didn't read them, probably wouldn't have time to reply before you post your reply again. Just shows how much thought goes into what you are saying. I am just repeating myself for those who just don't get it I suppose.

No, my title isn't meant to equate the two "isms".

socialism: I'm fully aware that there are well-meaning socialists. I believe that their intentions, however, won't help prevent a great deal of hardship and violation of rights if they get their druthers. I speak of "real" socialists here, primarily, as opposed to centrists who have some socialist leanings as well as some fascist leanings (though there are some distinct similarities in the two political impulses).

terrorism: The only thing that shocked me about the 9/11 events, in particular, were the following.

1. It was spectacularly achieved. This was a Big Event. It looked like something from a movie, but was horribly real. Not much else makes that kind of impression in terrorism, because most of it is quite smaller scale. I don't think anyone has flown jumbo jets into skyscrapers in one of the most populous cities in the world before that.

2. It was surprising that someone would set out to do something that would draw the direct ire and mustered weight of the most powerful military force in the world. This isn't any kind of "we're better" statement from me: it's just a statement to the effect that I was surprised any terrorist organization would be willing to risk the complete annihilation of itself. Individual lives are scattered like sand without a second thought, but usually terrorist organizations like to remain intact to continue their work. The US is one of about five nations in the world you attack that spectacularly if you really want to be wiped out to the last man, because it's the nation that is probably most able to achieve that.

3. The number of lives affected by a single incident was staggering. Yes, similar death tolls have occurred in the past, but not bloody often.

On the other hand, even being an American, I was sitting there on a September morning thinking that maybe the US of A would finally start to take terrorism seriously. Unfortunately, "take terrorism seriously" has been mishandled quite a bit, I think. I've long been of the opinion that terrorists should be hunted, dragged to court, and incarcerated or executed as needed, with great alacrity and vigor. That hasn't changed one iota.

I think what most surprised Americans was the fact that this was one of the first significant acts of terrorism on American soil that was perpetrated by foreign nationals. There have long been less significant acts by domestic terrorists (right-to-lifers who bomb abortion clinics, for instance), but this was indeed different. It annoys me that it took this for most Americans to get the point. It annoys me more that most of them still don't get it.

then I flame you back and you try to say it is adhominem, try a look in the morror when you say that.

As for your typing speed, that's great, you'll make a fantastic receptionist one day I'm sure.

As for the posts, I replied to someone else's comment and they had no further comments. YOU just decided to make a mountain out of a molehill by dragging it out and continually pointing a finger, did you not expect a reply then? If not, why did you post? Why would you not leave it up to the person I was replying to? Anyway, I am still looking for your other post I was suposed to reply to apparently.

You begin by saying that I have surmised your political position without any prior knoweledge, this is right after YOU calling me a leftwing nutjob. Was this based on your personal knowledge of my political views then?

THe ONLY reason I have found that there are only TWO teams in America, left and right , is because of what has been PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt when attempting to understand the American infatuation with politics. I was here during the left right battles and ANYONE who wasn't in agreement iwth the right was a lefty and instantly discounted, and vice vesa of course.

Your fellow countrymen, have demonstrated for all peers here form around the world just how people in your country see two sides only. Thier side and the wrong side.

I don't even remember what else you were rambling on about, obviously nothing important and I won't bother opening a new tab to find out, it just doesn't matter to me....oh yeah that was it. Some crap about your opinion of me and how you don't want to think I'm a dolt, while insinuating I was.

That's cool. I couldn't care less what you thought about me anyway, it is so irrelevant to my life it isn't funny. Did I miss the start of popularity contest or something? Are you trying to dictate how people should act on your forum now?

They don't have any validity or logic behind them so it will only take a minute for me to generate your next waste of a post.

...sorry, I got side tracked trying to keep up to your multitude of posts and had to back up to see which I was responding to here.

2) Please explain how you deem that I threw a "tantrum" - [n] a display of bad temper; "he had a fit"; "she threw a tantrum"; "he made a scene"

"A temper tantrum is an unplanned, unintentional expression of anger; it is not an act to get attention, as is commonly thought. Temper tantrums usually consist of verbal and physical outbursts, such as crying, yelling, and flailing of arms and legs. They usually are most intense during the first 30 seconds, and last 30 seconds to 2 minutes. Temper tantrums that last longer and consist of more aggressive behavior (such as hitting, biting, and pinching) are unusual."

Are you watching me or something? If so, you'd find me sitting back on the couch with a drink and some wings. Does that constitute a Tantrum in the USA or something?

As for not being able to become a part of a discussion unless something is directed at you, where did you dream up THAT concept?

Do you know that MOST people here, are people who read a topic or article and added thier comments on it. Without ANYONE posting before them? Were you one of those kids who would see a baseball game and just run out on the field because they were playing without you? Thus becoming a team member? At least you could TRY and make some sense, that is such a stupid explanation it warrants an edit by yourself.

3) "I know Americans with your views" NO you don't. You haven't got a CLUE what my views are, barely even a hint!

"When they throw tantrums, I usually treat them worse than I've been treating you here."

First of all there you go with your tantrums comments again, secondly you aren't treating me any way, you are just shooting off your mouth for tha sake of argument. Believe me, I certainly don't feel like I am being TREATED badly by you, this is a computer remember? I have a power button, a close button in Firefox and many other places I need to check in too. The only reason I responded was because you went off because I misposted and it has ended up here because you didn't like it and decided to waste your time with it.

4) "I don't have any interest in recreational drugs (alcohol notwithstanding). Thanks anyway"

It wasn't an offer, it was a recommendation. Forget recreational drugs, including alcohol (the most heavily abused and globally damaging recreational drug of all), you need medication at this point, not weed. You definitely should explore your options, you seem to be quite easily fired up. First you are ranting and raving, then labelling me, only to deny a label yourself. Then you are responding to posts with nothing but a flame while accusing ME of ad hominem arguments.

You sir, need a long cold shower or a good dose of Ativan or something.

And it is true, people don't understand danger until it hits the backdoor head on.

Just like people can't really understand anything they haven't been exposed to.

I don't see this as really having anything to do with terrorism or 9/11 though, not that you have said it does.

This was al about freedom and liberation, no that was secondary wasn't it? The reason was because GWB was POSITIVE Saddam had stickpiles of WMD, that's why he had inspectors in Iraq. NO that's not it either, that's why he REMOVED inspectors from Iraq. THEN when nothing was found and a few thousand were dead Liberation was the REAL reason everyone is there. NOw it is to save lives form evil dictators.

Yes, I can see how ALL of these reasons are tied together and how they collectively were used to justify the invasion.

Terrorists, living under a dictator, that suposedly had WMD that COULD harm us.

Sounds like a reason to invade a country to me, perhaps it wasn't the most URGENT matter to address as the first enemy ws quickly rebuilding and showing no signs of being hindered by a few leaders being captured, in fact it fuelled thie rise of more. For all intents and purposes though, a change of government in Iraq was a good thing for the whole world I am sure.

That's never been my complaint though.

WMD wer esold as the reason, people everywhere defended America's stand as they went on about how they are saving thier souls, how anyone against it would let thier families die uncontested and much worse.

How did all these people get such a delusional idea of the war in Iraq?

That is what I don't support about the Irawq invasion, false advertising if you will.

A mistake with no apology and then just more of the same from the same guy who screwed up to begin with. As much as I don't agree with TB's knees bent running around, he at least did offer a formal explanation of a grave mistake in intelligence and accepted responsibility for the UK's involvement. Bush barely said a word, then when he did it was to blame his intelligence.

Well, he meant his intelligence gatherers and secret information from his cabinet, but to blame his own inteligence seems more fitting. Nothing like a knee jerk reaction to start a good war.

I am not the first person here to note that their country is not inundated with political infatuation.

People don't care what politicians have to say. Certainly in times of war we directed our attenion to such matters, but it is never a common topic of discussion between citizens as it is a focus of politicians.

Now with Americans being so bound to politics, it is easy to srumise that the reason American CITIZENS are infatuated with personal liberties is because they are also infatuated with politics, like no others.

I mean seriously Max, how many people, Americans even, do you think actually dwell on this crap in the average day?

I can tell you not many people here do, not in the same way you seem to. At most people bitch about rights and the government gaining more control but usually only in the heat of the monent and then it's dropped. We KNOW the government has too much control, but I can't seriously say my quality of life would be different if it wasn't.

Bottom line though no mater what country you are in, the government doesn't give back money it once took, it simply redistributes it elsewhere, they are in debt, it's not like they cough up the extra dough when they have some.

Canada has done it a couple of times but the whole GST scam is just a farce. They take tax and give you a FRACTION of what you spend, in fact the more money you make, the more you spend, when you earn enough to spend more, you no longer qualify for a GST rebate, there's some backwards logic for you. ..but that's another story and not one that even interests me, I suppose i don't care about the Canadian government as long as I wake up, do as I choose and enjoy my fortune to be here.

The Canadian government doesn't take up any space in people's minds, we just don't care. Taxes go up and and we get paid more to compensate. Taxes go down and we get paid less due to a lower cost of living. We don't gain from lower levels of taxation.

As for your examples;

Philosphers actually pondering something? Now that was a good example of what people feel?

Politicians saying something? Another good example of what PEOPLE feel.

I could go on and on...but you still wouldn't get it.

Because I feel you have no spearation between people and politics in your country, I feel it is impossible for you to see the difference.

From what I read into some of those examples, they don't mention sacrificing governmental control to ensure liberties more than they are instilling the validity of governmental control of the people.

OR general interest.

Another article I was reading had linked to IslamOnline, which I suppose most of you are familiar with anyway. But for those who haven't seen the site yet, it is actually quite interesting to read these opinions IF with a completely open mind.

They have a page where they have accepted ALL SORTS of questions mostly from college students in Iraq. These questions are all about various religious and political issues and they have vey well written replies.

THis is NOT an anti-US site or anything, I am not trying to make a point or imply anything as it seems to be purely informative.

Two areas I have found quite interesting are:
Iraq in Transistion: http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/index.shtml

and

Islamic Viewpoint (where most of the Jihad Q&A is answered concisely and from what seems to be direct and common teachings).
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/topic_11.shtml#5

Unlike many 'news reports' we see, this site seems to be very interested in expressing both the negative and positive side of suporting the transition of Iraq.

Such as "What do Iraqi's think of the ELections"
Where the only real argument AGAINST the elections was
?We are not against the elections, but we are against their timing,? said Saif, an 18-year-old biology student at Baghdad University. ?They will be a disaster. Look at the security!?

A biologist said: ?I will vote no matter what,? said Alia Khalaf, a biologist in Baghdad who is also a follower of Sistani. ?The elections will bring more security to Iraq.?

But a student saw another end result.:
?We will have the elections only because the Americans demand it,? said Sara, a physics student in Baghdad. ?The people nominated are not national Iraqis and most of them are puppets of the Americans who have not suffered in Iraq like we have under these circumstances.?

http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2005/01/article_04.shtml

So again, I encourage everyone to visit this site even if just for personal understanding of the religious aspects of the fight for Iraq and how they feel.

It draws few conclusions and simply offers what I would assume to be very accurate information.

One question it raised; Two of the quotes from Iraqi's were from biologists? Is this a field Saddam's regime had created demand for perhaps, with human/chemical interests in mind or are Iraqi's known for thier biology interests?

to see the pictures of the Iraqi people celebrating their freedom to vote now.

But... they live in a part of the world where the citizenry is accustomed to tyranny and dictatorship so I guess that those celebrations are not for the voting, but the fact that they'll soon get to go back to that dictatorship by choosing who will be their new tormentor/mass murdering tyrant.

First, how would you know if people were unhappy with Saddam? If anyone spoke up against him they just disapeared. The people of IRAQ did not choose to live under Saddam for the last 30 years. They didn't have a choice, they didn't have a say and they didn't get a vote or veto.

Yes, from the aspect of the families that have lost soldiers it would have been better to have never gone into IRAQ. After all, they didn't mind the torture, rape and killings that Saddam did. They fully supported his domination of them and thought it was just great.

A few chemical bombs here or there, no big deal. How long do you watch someone get beat on the streets before calling a cop? Before someone stands up and says "enough"?

There was a huge turnout, dispite all the anti-american journalism in the world. Dispite all the media showing the people of IRAQ not wanting the US there or trying to falsely claim that the people are not better off today than they were five years ago.

If it was so great there, why ave muslums been streaming to the US and Canada? To get away from this system and to agree that our way of life IS better?

.
Most people find it extremely difficult to hit a target that's constantly moving -- especially one that's moving at the speed of sound. Attempting to "get your point" is like trying to hit a Hummingbird with a bowling ball.

If we could search TR's data base for the phrase "you missed my point", I would wager ten to one that you've said it ten times more than anyone else, either the total number of times or as a percentage of total posts. You say that ALL the time. But is it us, or is it you? (That's a rhetorical question, as the answer is quite obvious.)

Of course we always "miss your point". It' a moving target - always changing. And that's your game.

Speaking of hummingbirds. May the bird of paradise fly up your nose.

.
It's easy to start at a desired conclusion and work backwards and find things to justify it. You've been against the action in Iraq from the start; you predicted total failure and nothing but doom-and-gloom; you've been against absolutely everything President Bush has ever said or done; and you will never concede that you may have been wrong. But that's okay. A lot of people are like that.

Prediction: In twenty-five years, Iraq (politically and socially speaking) will resemble present day Kuwait, more than it resembles 2001 Iraq.

(And without the events of the past three years, that would not be possible.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ku.html

Maybe then people will say they were wrong. But I doubt it. After all, many people still believe in President Johnson's "War on Poverty".

EDITED PART: Nothing in the message has changed except this addendum. Change that prediction to fifteen years.

Please define falling through the cracks.
If you are talking no welfare. Then that's a lot of people including both my grandmothers, as one grandad bogged off and left her with the kids and the other got in the way of a machine pistol behind enemy lines in '42, he left a family of eleven.

So how many of the about 150 surviving members of my immediate family from some initial welfare would you consign to the compost heap, because they fell through the cracks you and yours would provide in order to make a profit. ?

I love your polite yet ever condescending posts.

You think they are polite anyway.

I could just call everyone disengenious but that is your favorite, I would try SFTU but others use that one. So instead of calling people names or saying they JUST DON'T GET IT, I am polite enough to imply that perhaps I hadn't made myself clear and then repeat my comments in a different context to help people see my views.

It's less combative than calling people names and yet it always seems to result inpeople calling names anyway.

You're right though it seems mainly Americans just never see my point, funny how others pick up on it and often agree though, or elaborate on my point with their own comments.

But to each his own, and all withough being condecending to you!

"but I suppose my point was somehow overlooked"

1. If you don't want to know about things like how quickly I type, don't ask stupid questions or make stupid accusations about how important you are to me based on whether or not I respond to your posts.

2. Being upset because someone responds to a post you didn't direct at him is silly. How many of your posts were in answer to people that weren't addressing you, today? Quite a few, I'm sure. I suppose I could count them for you, but (contrary to your apparent impression) I do have a life that needs attending-to.

Note: I did say "like yourself, [b]apparently[/b]". At least I applied it as a guess, and not a judgmental declaration. Aside from that, I was basing that analysis on positively described opinions you hold, whereas your completely erroneous characterization of my political leanings was based on the fact that I disagree with you in your left-wingery. In other words, you once again rely on logical fallacy (in this case, a false dilemma) to produce conclusions in an argument.

The idea that it has been "proven" that there are only "two teams" in American politics is ludicrous on the face of it. The fact that Republicrats and Demmicans (really all the same people, past the surface, just with different friends) dominate national elections doesn't make everyone in the country either a left-wingnut or a right-wingnut. There are a great many who aren't either. I happen to be one of them. Your "proof" isn't worth the photons with which it was printed.

If you really believe that all Americans are as you describe, it indicates to me an extremely limited, narrow viewpoint, and a very closed mind, on your part. Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention. Maybe you haven't noticed such political phenomena here as the showing Perot made in a Presidential election, or the Free State Project, or the fact that there were literally dozens of "third-party" candidates in the last Presidential election here.

re: dolt
I was referring to the fact that you're acting doltish. Whether or not that's how you are outside of this discussion is still in question, at least to me, but in this thread at least it seems your modus operandi, through and through.

I don't much care if you're a dolt, all things considered. I love how, whenever I say anything, you make it all about you. It's all about your state of victimhood when I take apart one of your "arguments". It's all about some kind of trumped-up obsession with you when I point out your failure to build a logical argument. Meanwhile, you start insinuating that I think it's all about me. Have fun with that. Self-contradiction was never really high on my list of pastimes.

2: I referred to the very tantrum-like posts you made. You already know this, of course, not being a complete f*cking buffoon (despite appearances here), but I figured I'd say it anyway since you're playing stupid.

3: I spoke of the views you expressed [b]in this discussion[/b]. There have been quite a few. I know what they are, unless you've been lying. Try to avoid changing the subject.

4: No duh. Really? It was a recommendation? Perhaps I should spell out my response in excruciating detail. Alrighty, then, I'll rephrase it.

"I don't have any interest in recreational drugs (alcohol notwithstanding). Thanks [b]for the recommendation[/b] anyway."

Your insinuations that I'm mentally unstable are amusing. Please, do continue.

Well as far as Muslims moving to Canada and the US, it is the same as Australians (who come to Canada in droves) or Asians who come here for the open economy, or Germans who come here because thier trades abilities are in demand, or....We live in mroe prosperous nations than MOST of the world, we have more people moving into Canada than Msulims, while they do make up a great deal of our imigrants including muslims from Africa,England etc. And then there are Hindu's and Pakistani's, they are often all lumped together as "Middle Eastern people" , so it seems they are all fleeing Saddam's dictatorship I am sure. But they don't make up a greater number than other immigrants to out free, young and prosperous nations.

They have ALWAYS immigrated here though, they probably always will.

Yes this is supposeldy a good thing for them, perhaps it is a good thing for oil trade and economy too though.

Seriously though, do you really think any country, especially unedr GWB, would spend many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on toppling a government, providing a group of "hand picked" people to take over that are said by one Iraqi to have no idea of how Iraqi's have suffered all these years, and rebuild the infrastuctures JUST because they are nice people? NO way in hell that would happen. Destrpy your own nations economy when there is no gain?

Remember when the problem was the Afghanistan pipeline, Saddam didn't want it and wasn't keen on a 'global oil reserve'. Afghanistan was invaded, unfortunately not until after the al-Qaeda ataacks, but luckily they were traced to Afghanistan and now the US has MANY bases in the area.

Next stop Iraq, Saddam no longer controls the US economy by controlling their most valueed resource.

Democracy means that a new pipeline can/will be built I am sure, as this has been the goal for many years now. It also means stabilization of Americas economy due to stabilization of of control, not to say that the US went in to GET the oil, but they knew having Saddam in control would eventually crumble the US economy. So even with freidnly partners in control, now the US economy is also stabilized, in that respect anyway.

I am not saying it is all to gain oil, but that is the biggest benefit to the US, oil stabilization, increased production (over time) lower costs and a stronger US economy. All while removing an oppressive dictator and liberating the people who lived under him. I feel that liberation was the secondary beneift, not the reason though.

I refer to point #2.

I don't want to p:ss on your parade, to mix a metaphor, but Osama Bin Laden is not demonstrably dead and is probably still alive. His kidneys will kill him, not the US. Al Qaeda, an amorphous grouping at best, is not diminished. Your forays into Afghanistan and now Iraq have not, I believe, reduced the terrorist threat to your country and mine by association - quite the reverse.

Our long dealings with the IRA have long-since proved that to deal with terrorists you have to, eventually, talk to them about what they want and give them some of it. This ususally only comes about when they are starting to lose both militarily and in support - as was possibly the case with the IRA. We are now in the position that putative ex-IRA killers are members of our parliament but at least London and Belfast are not being routinely bombed.

However, it's totally different now because Al Qaeda don't want anything that you can give them and they aren't losing militarily.

The Military Might of The World's Only Superpower will not be effective against terrorism. Smart bombs are not THAT smart. Hydrogen bombs and other WMDs are not a lot of use. The only thing that defeats terrorists is Intelligence and both our Intelligence Services have shown themselves a bit lacking.

During the "Troubles", the UK population got quite savvy about unowned luggage and that sort of personal security but achieved nothing. The only reason why there was not huge loss of life, possibly including mine, was that the IRA, generally, gave warnings so that people could be evacuated. Either they did posess some scruples or knew that loss of life on any major scale would potentially lose them support in the US and cut off the money-supply.

Al Qaeda don't care.

A fraction of the money that is now being wasted in Iraq would have allowed us both to operate clandestinely and, perhaps, successfully on what would have been a smaller terrorist grouping.

Not now!

Neil

I didn't say that things worked out as one might have expected while contemplating attacking the (arguably) most militarily powerful nation in the world. I said that someone contemplating such an attack might reasonably guess his days, and those of his allies, would be numbered. The fact that things didn't work out that way is the consequence of a combination of stupid planning at critical junctures, blind luck, and restraint on the part of the US military when a nuke-and-pave approach would have been more effective (but less desirable).

The opportunity to effectively wipe out Al Qaeda in any meaningful sense has passed. Even if within the next month anyone of any import in the organization gets rounded up and killed, "splinter" groups will survive, as will the name and the intent in copy-cats. Because the initial response wasn't as swift and comprehensive as it could have been, Al Qaeda will survive in one form or another for many years to come, now. Whether or not the price of a swift and comprehensive response would have been too high is something I will leave out of this branching of discussion, for purposes of simplicity and clarity.

I agree that, for purposes of a "war on terror", the Iraq action was unhelpful at best. It dealt with a particular issue, not a larger collection of issues, and it added to that larger collection of issues rather than subtracting from it (I think). Only time will tell, however, how accurate that analysis of mine actually is.

The upshot is that I don't think anything you've said invalidates what I said, as long as you don't assume more in my meaning than is in my words.

Sorry, Oz, I have to ask: Did you have a point?

Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. I don't much care.

Amazing, take up psychology it seems to be your strength! More assumptive conslusions than ANY psychologist I have met that's for sure! Perhaps I should look to you in order to further my interest of human nature, you seem to have all those other nutjobs, Freud, Erikson, Spearman et al.just trumped by miles as they actually needed to understand people before forming such conclusions, well done. OR was that what you considered, not making another direct jab?

Asa for trollop, I threw that in knowing very wel you hadn't heard the common use of the term and would reply with the slutty girl definition.

Ahhhh, American English and it's literal translations! Just like you calling someone an a55hole, it doesn't mean that they are an exit from the rectum does it?

When you call a guy a jerk, does this mean you are insinuating he has some form of physical tick?

When you call a guy a pr1ck, does it mean he is sharp?

Here's a phrase fo ryou to ponder, "dog's trollop", now according to your dictionary that would mean ? Bitch perhaps?

Hmmmm, nope.

As for the rest of your rant that you feel makes it apper as you are being calm and level headed all along, well.....it really doesn't warrant a response any more than "For A good time call Suszie 555-1212" written on a bathroom wall would.

book, cover, judgment

From what I heard, the numbers are pretty close to that, in the mid 60s.

Given the sacrifice that has been given to date should we not stay the course and see that this burgeoning democracy is given the best start and chance for success? If we so not stay the course and go back on our commitment we not only would be condemning the area to many more deaths in the wake of the turmoil that would result but we would dishonor those who have fought and died to make Iraq free.

I don't think we have any problems in our takes on the world as it is except for your thoughts: "It was surprising that someone would set out to do something that would draw the direct ire and mustered weight of the most powerful military force in the world".

I think that they *really* didn't care what you did and that they anticipated your reaction - certainly Afghanistan - and knew that it would only surve to further their cause and expand their support-base. I reckon that Iraq was a surprise, though, and really no threat at all.

The example of Israel applying more and more indiscriminate force and achieving little is pretty close to home in that part of the world.

Neil

I replied to maxwell edisson assertion that you edited your post (My Yup).

I read (The Original) based on Apotheons response to you. The next day, I read it again after it was suggested you made some edits...............it held a whole new meaning & made (Apotheon at least) response look 'foolish'.

Anyway, your response (to me) includes derogatory comments about Americans.

Is that your style now? It seems to me at least, when someone disagrees with your view - you either (seem) to attack the person, change the subject, drop some 'names' or talk endlessly about yourself or the way we should conduct discussion.

Maybe this is my 'knee jerk' or 'non thinking' response to your comment..............I'm not sure but I think you need a drink.

Whatever. feel free to read what you want into a post, feel free to take offense if someone refers to your coutry's most common stereotype. Take it as a personal slam against yourself.

That is your choice.

Also you can feel free to voice your dislike against what I post, how I post it and what I say.

This is a discussion forum and discussions include favorable and some not so favoured comments, you don't have to like them all.

You don't have ot like me.

You don't have to agree, respond or anything if you don't want to, this again is your perogative.

Enjoy your freedoms and make the most of them, I always do.

Individual right, I interpreted as me societal right, us.
So we've have been posting past each other for some time. What those rights should be i.e the balance between the needs of a society as a whole vs the needs of an individual member of it, is of course a whole 'nother ball game. You seem to me, to be more on the the side of an individual member, whereas I seem to be more concerned with the whole, there again, may be we've misunderstood each other again.

I don't really know whether Al Qaeda expected the response they got. It's entirely possible. I just wasn't aware they were stupid enough to chance what might have been, had the matter been handled either slightly better or slightly worse. It's true that they got the most likely result from the US, and one might have predicted that, but the possibility that the matter would have been pursued more efficiently, or that it may have turned into nigh-genocide instead, would have been enough to stop me from doing something like Al Qaeda did, if I had been in their position.

....................

My real worry is that everyone has underestimated Al Qaeda and friends.

It is possible, maybe likely, that they read your government like an open book and pegged them for a knee-jerk reaction. If they anticipated such a reaction - that's what they got, all right - then they were absolutely spot on.

It was easy to read. The correct action would have been to use your money and resources to buy, beg or steal information, seek out the leaders covertly and deal with them. To cut off the head of this organisation, block their funding, find and destroy their arms. You could have done this but the need was there for SOMEONE TO PAY FOR 911 and pay visibly.

Everyone in this country who was half awake - and I would have though in yours, also - predicted some form of blatantly overt SLAP on someone. I cannot believe that the intelligence of terrorists is any less.

Hopefully the covert plan is ALSO being carried out and we just don't know it - as it should be!

Sorry, but I fear that the sh:t is still heading fan-wards.

Neil

Sorry I forgot who I was responding too, I respond to comments not people, I find less personal prejudice is carried to other discussions that way.

But if you take a common stereotype of another race as personally offending then I leave you with the same I left Apotheon.

You don't have to reply or read it, you are doing so by choice.

I don't know how such an indirect and passive comment can be taken as a direct slam on someone's race, unless they can't simply accept views from the outside.

I certainly don't defend British or Canadian stereotypes that way. I know if it applies to me, I am not a lumberjack or an eskimo that eats back bacon and says 'EH' all the time. Nor am I a pinky finger pointing tea sipper from England.

But I don't take any offense when people say that's how they see Canadians, it's how we are portrayed, what do you expect from people?

I never said America is bad because....
I never said I don't like Americans because...
I never even said ALL Americans are....

This is what I said "

Max is ALWAYS right, didn't you read my last post.

He is American, how could he POSSIBLY be incorrect about anything in the world, especially grammar and the English language"

Well this would be a flame at Max but it is only a typical view of how MANY people see Americans. The words 'self-righteous, blind, and under educated' come up in any conversation I've ever heard about Americans...and those are just the nice ones.

I didn't express a view against Americans in any way, just voiced a common stereotype. It's the image that is portrayed, especially when discussing politics with peers here. Another TR peer (from the US) just emailed me 5 minutes ago and mentioned similar but in a much more negative tone than I have.

I thought it was actually quite civl.

None of that changes the fact that more than seventy percent of the oil the US uses comes from Venezuela (I'm pretty sure that's the country: I'm feelin' a little too lazy to look it up, and I haven't gotten enough sleep, not to mention that I just finished work on my father's computer a bit ago while simultaneously talking my mother through backing up email and browser bookmarks by telephone, as if I don't do stuff like this all day already).

Ahem. Sorry 'bout the tangent.

Yeah, so, I think it's Venezuela. In any case, they drill their own oil, so the Oil For Palaces And Tanks program (where France and Russia were the big beneficiaries) doesn't affect the huge percentage of South American oil the US uses.

You can't have a free society without free individuals, though. Yes, I lean toward the individual's rights. The society is the aggregate of the individual members: it is not its own entity. Trying to treat it as such, and treat rights/liberties as a function of that, only makes slaves of individuals, which in turn means you live in a society of slaves.

Well the only time I felt like a slave was when my goverment told me I would receive no further benefits, (this was during the world recession 1980 version), unless I put in 37.5 hours a week for one of the local companies. As it turned out I ended up with a job at the end of the six months, and before you start leaping about saying point proven the three previous slaves and the two who started with me did not. Though one of them was, I admit a total twonk.

But to get to the real point, given our respective positions we would probably agree on a lot of fundamental issues.
Is what's left important enough to fragment our society ? Seeing as there a small number of differences are we emphasising them by only considering them and not all the points where we do agree. To me that is the argument for society getting the preponderance in the debate. While dialog exists between two different cultures I feel you'll always be better off if you consider the points of agreement first.

So the argument might be you give up your right to bear arms and I'll give up the right to tax the hell out of you to support the rest of my family. LOL

If you are one of the few americans who does believe in strict gun control (none in the UK), I apologize for stereo-typing you.

Or is it a matter of what they COULD use if they had it their way.

You cannot deny that a HUGE issue between the US and Middle East has been the Afghan Oil Pipeline. Saddam wouldn't play fair, he has always pissed of the US president, no matter which party they reprpesented, he is a thorn in their side.

With him gone, the US would have the pipeline they have always wanted to see in the middle east. With Saddam left in control, he could increase oil prices and all competing nations will follow suit, as there is more demand than supply drilled.

From what I remember, and this was five years ago at least;

The pipeline through Afganistan would boost the US economy as there is a great demand on the Southern Asian countries and very few suppliers thus escalating costs of oil imported to the US. Drilling off shore and 'piping' it through the middle east is the most profitable solution for the US. Shipping it West via sea would be too costly and the Western European market is saturated due to low consumption, and piping it East through to Asia wouldn't make sense as it is too expensive even if possible. The only thing left was to suggest piping it to Afghanistan and selling it through Pakistan or India.

Putting that much responsibilty and money into the Afghan economy would only support the Taliban, after 9/11 they had reason to make a change and topple the Taliban, well they pushed them aside anyway.

After that the only obstacle is Saddam. Creating a double whammy opportunity for the Bush administration. Get Saddam out, build ANOTHER democratic country in the middle east AND have fist billing when it came to oils control and development in the Middle East, thus reducing the strain on other South American providers with Supply and Demand working in their favour.

The middle Eastern economy gets a boost, the people may enjoy freedom anddemocracy more than repression, and evil dictator is gone, and so is the thorn in the US' side. Not bad when you think about it, win win for all.

I would have backed and supported this as a global effort. I would have even backed and suported it id that was the goven reason.

The whole WMD thing (grasping at anything to soldidift thier intent) and LIberation were what I consider the added benefits, not the goal or reason for the invasions. The USA has now been able to build bases in these country's and will most likely build permanent bases outside Iraq, as a show of military domination to the Asians who have clearly stated the intentions intentions of F.O.O as a measure to defeat the American military domination of the globes largest resources.

So that's a lot of my take as amssed over many years of arguing positions and motives, long before the Iraqi inasion.
BUT...
Just like trying to convince someone that what they honestly see as a circle is actually a square, I feel we will simply continue to disagree. :)

Unless you are privy to information not available to the general public, I am not aware that the Iraqi people ever asked to be liberated.

Their "liberation," if it is successful, was merely an inevitable step in the real agenda of Bush & Co to gain direct and stable access to Iraqi oil.

OIL, OIL, OIL .... yes, that is all it has ever been about.

Why was Bush so anxious to start the invasion before the Weapons Inspectors had finished their work? Because if they found no WMDs he would have no real excuse to start the invasion.

At least Tony Blair has had the decency to admit that he was misled by the incorrect intelligence supplied to the Bush Administration by its intelligence services. I am not aware that Bush has admitted to any mistakes.

If the self-appointed World Policeman is so benevolent and altruistic, why has the US not intervened in the genocide occurring in Rwanda and Sudan?

Furthermore, as Oz pointed out in his first posting, your original thread is not a discussion but a rhetorical question. "If you don't agree with me, you're not welcome to participate in the 'discussion.'"

However as you presumably use whitehouse.gov as your source of "unbiased news," I guess you can be excused to a certain extent for having such an unenlightened perspective on the whole situation.

.
With all due respect, you certainly seem misinformed. And to suggest the US reaction to 9-11 was "knee-jerk" is absolutely ludicrous.

You suggested that the correct action would have been to use our money and resources to buy, beg or steal information, seek out the leaders covertly and deal with them. Well, that has indeed been done - and is still being done.

You suggested that the correct action would have been to block their funding, find and destroy their arms. Well, that has indeed been done - and is still being done.

You suggested that we should NOT have "made someone pay, visibly". And on that note, I believe you are wrong - terribly wrong.

That is exactly what we SHOULD HAVE done. You see, Osama bin Laden was under the impression that the USA would NOT react as we did. He is on the record as suggesting that the USA was a "paper tiger", and would cut and run from a fight. He was wrong. Do you honestly think that he WANTED a total invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and occupy their safe-haven? He certainly did not anticipate such a response, but that's exactly what he got.

And no, we should not have stopped there. The problem of terrorism if BIGGER than just Osama bin Laden; it's BIGGER than just Afghanistan.

It's about time someone went on the offensive against terrorism - against these thugs. For the past forty years people have been either in a defensive posture or have had a head-in-the-sand attitude when it comes to terrorism. And what have been the results? More of the same. Spain buckled under the threat of further terrorist acts, and capitulated to the terrorist demands to remove their troops from Iraq. They cut-and-ran just like the terrorists told them to do. And what did Spain get for their retreat? BOOM - another terrorist attack.

This is the first time that such a strong offensive has been taken against them - and it's about time. Personally, I think that those who still have the head-in-the-sand posture, and aren't willing to FINALLY say enough is enough, and to root out any semblance of terrorist activity, regardless of the scale or degree, and regardless of where it might reside, are doing the world a grave disservice. I view nations like Canada with absolute pity - border-lining on disgust - because of their namby-pamby do-nothing approach. A ZERO TOLERANCE policy should be advanced to finally put an end to it. And to suggest that going on the offensive against it would only result in an escalation of it is cowardice, if you ask me. You don't run and hide from bullies, you face them head-on.

It's time the whole world stand up and shout from the highest mountain-top for all to hear - WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

And if the USA is the lone voice shouting it, so be it. But what do I know? I'm apparently just a knee-jerk reactionary American Cowboy.

By the way, I found it interesting that you levied criticism because we should have acted covertly to achieve certain things. You then concluded you message suggesting that perhaps we are acting covertly, just unbeknownst to the public. If you find it plausible that it is happening, why did you levy the criticism in the first place?

"There were some mistakes" in the occupation "but to be fair ... I think all in all it was positive, the contribution of the foreign forces in Iraq. It was worth it."

- Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050201/D87VO81G0.html

.
".....But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it?"

- MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST (admitted anti-bush liberal)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

You've hit on something there... [i]"Only an individual has the ethical right to give up liberties, and then only that individual's own liberties, never anyone else's."[/i] each INDIVIDUAL has the inherent right to fight for their OWN liberty. We do not, however, as a society, have the inherent right to force our idea of liberty on others.

What Oz was saying, IMHO, was correct, what gives US the right to decide what liberty really is for any country? Muslim (and Orthodox Jewish) women CHOOSE to cover their hair so that no man besides their husband may see it. The fact that I personally believe being forced to cover my hair is archaic, does NOT give me the right to remove her hair covering. Likewise, the fact that I choose to live in THIS democracy in the U.S. does not give me the right to force my view of what a democracy should be on any other country in the world. As I was told by many Republicans after the last election, "If they don't like it, they can leave."

Ya know... copy and paste works quite well... you can type up an entire dissertation in notepad or UE or whatever text editor you prefer... then run SPELL CHECK and COPY and PASTE into that tiny little window... much less frustrating and you can see where you're going with whatever you're saying...

I'm sure all you big tough guys have already thought of all this... I'm just a pitiful little woman... pointing out the obvious again. ;)

I'll try and explain where I'm coming from. By the way, as I said in my earlier post, Max, I was only a phone-call away from being a terrorist victim myself so your outrage at their tactics is no less than mine.

"Knee-jerk" may have been a bit strong but I'm still not convinced that you had a fully worked out game plan for how to proceed in the aftermath of 911. I still believe that some of your actions were politically motivated in that it wasn't the most sensible thing to do but was the best thing to be seen doing.

The invasion of Afghanistan can be justified on many levels and, indeed, you got quite a lot more support for that compared to Iraq including support from me. But Afghanistan's still not finished and I'm not sure you know how to do it - I'm not criticising as no plan survives contact with the enemy. The elections were held there in October and seem to have gone with fewer problems than anticipated. On the other hand, a good chunk of the country is still under the control of warlords, the Taiban aren't truly down and Al Qaeda are still operating from the Pakistan border.

I absolutely agree with you "And no, we should not have stopped there" but Iraq wasn't the place to go. Here's my problem, it's moved the emphasis and resources away from Afghanistan which is where - if anywhere - Al Qaeda still are. That, in my opinion, is a big mistake.

Yes, the more open Al Qaeda training grounds and headquarters have been closed down but they have surely *gained* support overall because of your "attack on Islam". The closure of their training sites and HQ has also forced Al-Qaeda to form alliances with other groups with Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. They may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out their agenda but this is likely to have broadened their base and moved the emphasis of some groups away from Israel onto the US and its allies.

Al Qaeda's leaders may or may not have anticipated the Afghanistan invasion or a similar outcome but I really think they didn't and don't care. Check out the definition of a "fanatic". These are people who will happily send out a 14 year old suicide bomber. Nuke 'em until they glow and shoot 'em in the dark works for me. But who and where are they? That, above all, is what we need to know - and then, maybe, shoot to kill.

As to the covert action point. What I was trying to say was that a fraction of the resources now being put into Iraq would, applied in Afghanistan and surroundings to gather intelligence, buy allies, etc, probably have much more effect on limiting the terrorists. I don't think you are doing that. Obviously there is much going on that we don't know about but I suspect that it's not as much as I would like. Unfortunately in one way, you have open government and it would be difficult to hide the amounts of money required to do it properly.

I'd like to be wrong.

Neil

I think you are in a way right my friend. This reminds me of something from Russian literature but I can't put my finger on it. Some Russian colloquial expression where one turns ones hands palm up and shrugs indicating "what can one do?".
Choosing from the lesser of two evils one concludes that to stay the course, honor those who have given the ulitimate sacrifice and help the Iraqi people strive toward freedom is the proper course of action.

The first time they tried to blow up the trade center, Pres Clinton treated this not as an act of terrorism, but a criminal act.

He then proceded to do very little about it. Oh they made a dog and pony show about catching "the guy" who set the explosives, but not the organization that supported it.

When the U.S.S Cole was attacked, the same thing.

When he didn't want to interfere with the genocide in Rwanda (like the UN and the rest of the world in this case) it showed what he is like.

Bin Laden thought that if they did this massive attack, that Americans would turn tail (again) and get all of our bases out of the Middle East. Didn't happen bucko.

When the Taliban stood up to Pres Bush they were used to Clinton puffing up for show, but no action they figured that Bush at WORST would put sanctions on them. ooooohh, we know how well they work.
Again, didn't happen bucko.

If we would have had Gore in the White House instead, there would be santions on Afganistan still today and the Taliaban and Bin Ladin would be sitting pretty planning the next big thing they can get brainwashed simpletons to kill themselves over.

If Kerry would have gotten in office, he would have told the world he was sorry that the US is so evil and would give them all lots of pay offs (I mean aid). Everyone would be happy until the next attact.

An attack that was brought on by policies while a Democrat was in office by the way, not a Republican.

We disagree on one key point - we went in too soon and without a legal mandate. I suspect that this late in the day there is no agreement. Indeed, there is no point in agreement as the deed is done and we all have to hope that the outcome is satisfactory for the people who matter - the Iraqis.

While I congratulate you on your knowledge of the Prime Ministers ATTEMPTED justification of the war by widening the criteria and also on successfuly predicting that I knew sod all (and cared less) about President Clinton's H.R. 4655, it really doesn't matter now and didn't matter then. The perception of the majority of the British people, myself included, was that WMD and the danger that they represented TO THE UK was the ONLY reason we could go to war. By your judgement, we are all wrong. The fact that TB apologised for the failure to find WMDs is also, I assume, an irrelevancy.

Here, I speak as a UK citizen but I cannot see how the legality under International Law is different for the US. I believe that my Prime Minister, for whose party I voted and will vote for again, was an IDIOT to get involved.

I don't care if the process took 12 years, it was still too soon and with no legal mandate.

The Charter of the United Nations states:

1) The threat or use of force is prohibited and states are required to settle their disputes peacefully;
2) A war of aggression constitutes a crime against peace;
3) Self defence presupposes the existence of a prior armed attack; consequently, "preventive self defence", is not admissible under international law;
4) The Security Council is entrusted with the principal responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.

According to these principles, there is no rule of international law that authorises one or any number of states to unilaterally use force in order to change a foreign government or regime,

Security Council Resolution 1441 did not permit the use of armed force against Iraq. It simply provided for ?serious consequences? if Iraq did not comply with the obligations placed upon it.

In the language of the Charter of the United Nations, the expression ?serious consequences? doe not mean the use of armed force. The recognised UN euphemism for the latter is taking ?all necessary means?. The words in Resolution 1441 were chosen PRECISELY in order to achieve Security Council consent and unanimity, which could not have been obtained if armed force had been expressly or impliedly authorised in it by the use of the phrase ?all necessary means?.

At the start of war, both Tony Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claimed that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. In the weeks prior to the war, Tony Blair and Jack Straw tried to secure a resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

American officials defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

France and other countries claimed the US and UK arguments were insufficient.

The entire legal case was based on WMDs. No WMDs were found.

I do not wish to argue this, however, You invaded and, far worse, we went with you. This has all long since been done to death and is now irrelevant, anyway, except for the damage it will do to the UN and NATO. But, hey, you don't need either of those anyway, do you?

Let's look at the good points.

Saddam Hussein is gone. There are no WMDs to menace us or the region. The elections appear to have gone well and, if the elected representatives can hold on to the idea that democracy is better than civil war, there may be a good outcome. I sincerely hope that we get our troops out fast and safely and leave a stable regime. This will not in any way convince me that the invasion was legal or proper but will go a long way to mitigating what is a crime under International Law.

Neil

I started doing that once and then just gave up on it, can't be bothered.

Typical man.

You've hit on something there... "Only an individual has the ethical right to give up liberties, and then only that individual's own liberties, never anyone else's." each INDIVIDUAL has the inherent right to fight for their OWN liberty. We do not, however, as a society, have the inherent right to force our idea of liberty on others."

You are right...we do not have the inherent right to force our idea of libery on others. But I always wonder about WWII and the 6 million Jews that were slaughtered by the European population...we did get involved in WWII and ended the Nazi regime...and possibly save who knows how many others? We imposed our idea of liberty on Germany and even Japan with the Marshall Plan. Look at them now. Was that the right thing to do?

"What Oz was saying, IMHO, was correct, what gives US the right to decide what liberty really is for any country? Muslim (and Orthodox Jewish) women CHOOSE to cover their hair so that no man besides their husband may see it. The fact that I personally believe being forced to cover my hair is archaic, does NOT give me the right to remove her hair covering. Likewise, the fact that I choose to live in THIS democracy in the U.S. does not give me the right to force my view of what a democracy should be on any other country in the world. As I was told by many Republicans after the last election, "If they don't like it, they can leave."

You are right...the US or any country for that matter doesn't have the right to impose anything on anyone. Personally I couldn't care less about Nazi Europe or the stupid middle east. But guess what? Sometimes it is not all flowery and sweet. The world won't permit you to be a secularist and isolated. 9/11 taught us that. An ideology of radical islam attacked our nation...we didn't ask for it (if anyone here thinks we did...then you should release all rapists because a woman asked for it as well...thats the analogy), we didn't cause it...we certainly didn't invite it. In their helplessness and an ego that won't admit their own mistakes...and inability to rise up against their own governments and regimes these people attacked the US. So we have not choice but to either change them lest they change us and impose their will on us.

Iraq may not have had connections to 9/11...but they were harboring terrorist training camps. Saddam Hussein was paying money to Yasser Arafat's (the son of a bitch died with several hundred million dollars in Swiss bank accounts...where do you think he got it?) Al Aqsa brigades to blow up cafes and nightclubs in Israel. You or anyone else may not agree with Bush's foreign policy of "IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS"...but IMO it is the right thing to do...to prevent another 9/11. Because 9/11 wasn't some random terrorist attack...it is an attack of ideologies of radical islam which HAS NO tolerence of a difference of opinion. Their motto is either join or die...so either we influence their thought process with our free western thought or become like them....So in a sense you are right...you do have a choice to make.

I agree with that. If an insurgency wanted to kill people for voting in an election in the US, of course it would not be tolerated and the insurgency would be crushed. I'm sure the same would be true in other free countries.

Whats different here is that Iraq is not our country and we are fighting their insurgency for them. We took over their country. After reflecting on the elections in Iraq, I'd say they are very happy to be free. It took alot of guts for them to get out and vote with the threat of death. But is freedom sustainable by just the Iraqi people if we were to leave? Can we train them to fight for themselves and make them good enough to fend off a very ugly insurgency?

I would love to think the answer is yes. That would be the greatest outcome to a horrible quagmire. The Iraqi people took the ball and ran with it.

I don't know if I could ever decide whether it was worth it or not in the cost of human lives. How would you feel if someone from your family was killed in the war? Would the legacy of freeing Iraq make up for the loss of someone from your family? To them maybe it isn't worth it. I think their loss is tragic and they will always be remembered for their sacrifice to our country.

I hope that Iraq is truly the beacon of light that Bush talks about. I still remember though that there were no WMD's and that was our justification for going to war and getting rid of Saddam in the first place. I don't like the lies. I don't think our reasons for going to war were that noble. It looks like a power play to me.

In the end, I hope the history books will say that Iraq went on to spread democracy in the Arab world.

All individual humans have rights. That is the default state. Giving them up requires a specific act on the part of the individual giving them up. If those rights are [b]taken from[/b] that individual, as opposed to having been [b]given up[/b], it is only right and just to rectify the situation. Nobody is bound to risk himself to defend the rights of another, but anyone can certainly act in defense of another's rights.

You're trying to use the consequent to affirm the premise, here. A = B implies !B = !A, but it doesn't imply B = A. You're trying to say that because nobody has the right to take my rights away, nobody else has the right to stop someone from taking my rights away. That's ludicrous, at best.

Of course, I never said anything about "us" having the right "as a society" to force anything. Societies don't have rights: people do. If you really think I said anything like what you seem to ascribe to me, it's clear that your attempted arguments against what I've said are born more of misunderstanding of my point(s) than of actually disagreeing with a concept you've grasped but rejected.

"Liberty" isn't some vague cultural concept. Liberty is a very recognizable state of an individual's freedom from coercive influences. While the US government isn't necessarily doing the best job in the world of handing out liberty like candy, particularly when it's doing such a rotten job of protecting it at home, that doesn't change the fact that any culture in which it is considered acceptable for women to be stoned for showing their wrists is not a culture that respects liberty, and that violation of individual rights should be stopped whether the oppressed people in question have the ability to ask for help or not. [b]When a person is not given a choice, that person's rights are being violated, and that person lacks liberty.[/b] It's that simple.

It constantly stuns me to see people arguing that "liberty" and "freedom" and so on are concepts that don't matter in other cultures and thus should not be pushed in societies that live within the traditions of those cultures. I don't viscerally grok how someone can literally excuse murder, rape, and other nauseating examples of rights violations like that with words to the effect that "It's a different culture, so it's okay." I reject that explanation as complete and utter BS, and you should to (rather than propagating it as you are here).

You said: "The fact that I personally believe being forced to cover my hair is archaic, does NOT give me the right to remove her hair covering."

You entirely missed the relevant part of what you said. I'll repost part of that with emphasis added: "The fact that I personally believe [b]BEING FORCED[/b] to cover my hair is [b]archaic[/b]"

I don't give a hot slab of salami if it's archaic. I don't care if you choose to cover your hair. In fact, though I'm not opposed to people running around naked, I generally rather wish they wouldn't, but I won't try to stop them from doing so regardless of my preferences as long as they're not doing so in a way that violates the rights of others.

I do, however, care very much that people are [b]BEING FORCED[/b] to cover their hair. Get it, yet? FORCED. That's the operative term in what you said. No matter what kind of ethical relativist pap you sling, [b]nobody CHOOSES to be FORCED[/b] to do something. To claim otherwise is to claim that up is down, black is white, and John Ashcroft is a champion of justice.

How can you, in the same breath, first say that it's okay that women are [b]forced[/b] to cover their hair, and that it's deplorable that the US is "forcing" them to have the right to decide whether or not to cover their hair?

Do you really think there are American soldiers tasked with the job of running around stealing head-scarves? That's the only conclusion that would explain your bizarre statements about the rights of people in an Arabic culture in Iraq.

"hen it goes a bit snakey:

"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted."

IN other words we will play by acceptable rules unless we deem it is not accpetable and then we will do as we choose regaldless of what others think."

I am confused here. When did the US require OTHER nation's permission to conduct its foreign policy in its best interests. I don't see Iran, NK, China, India, France, Germany, Japan, Canada ask Americans on whether they should eat or sleep?

Well this in fact contradicts itself. I wonder if any other countries said, "you are either with us or against us" or "we're with you as long as you are with us".

Not every country has had 9/11 happen to them. You may or may not agree with Bush's foreign policy post 9/11 but I wonder if you agree with the some of the Dutch people when they threatened to blow up a Muslim school after that filmmaker was killed by Islamic fundamentalists in Amsterdam or Putin's consolidation of his power in Russia after the Beslan incident. Every nation's reaction is different and every government's reaction is different.

And a contradiction, as I read it:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country."

The very next paragraph:
"But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction."

So he was persuing weapons of mass murder in one paragraph. And just a few quick seconds later, he CONTINUES TO DEVELOP WMD.

So from a knowledge of persuit to a faction of CONTINUING, not persuit, development of WMD.

The whole speech flow is from an open and understanding position of the procedures in place to a certain and determined effort to take whatever measures neccessary to invade a country destined to attack the US.

"When listening to a speech people remember the last word uttered or the last few minutes of a speech, thus being left with a confident and strong assertion that unless the US acts NOW, it will be attacked, if not by checmical then by nuclear power."

YOu said it yourself...you are stating that it is the fault of the people who misunderstood him and his intentions. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"He also speaks of the constant failure of the UN weapons inspectors, which I again agree that they DID fail many times and Saddam should have been removed from power long ago."

So then whats the problem again?

"He then completely skips over saying that UN inspections are currently underway as expected and so far nothing but unused warheads have been found and no traces of WMD manufacturing is still evident in the areas inspected."

Yes he skipped over it, because he made the case the Saddam has been defiant for the past 10 years and the past 10+ UN resolutions. I don't see your point. Are you saying he should have mentioned the ongoing inspections? As opposed to how the inspectors were booted out of Iraq? If he did that his arguments wouldn't be effective.

"He then removed these men, and invaded with the one supporting premise that EVERYONE was on the same page about, WMD and how America WOULD be attacked if they didn't act now."

No, I still don't get where or how you are assuming he said America would be attacked. He said Iraq posed a danger to us...it is true it does. Post 9/11...Bush's foreign policy changed (again you may or may not agree with it but THIS SPEECH is consistent with this foreign policy) and thus a preemptive (which is a stupid word in itself but for appeasement I will use it) strike on Iraq was necessary for the US to avoid another 9/11 (a "strategic" decision)

Just a LITTLE suggestive and misleading if you ask me.

Anyhow, good to see you're still hanging around!
OM

Maybe it was misleading...but I am of the opinion people around the globe and the many members of TechRepublic's anti Bush crowd are only seeing what they want to see.