Mark,

I wish I could write so nicely and moderately worded posts as you (actually I can and I hope this post is a positive example, but you do it consistently and I sometimes fail in this repect).

You disagree with me on one major point but I don't disagree with you on this point. I also do think (and you have made a good point on how the Americans react to one single sentence distorting the message of the tape) that the effect of the tape will be to make war more probable. But I had written that I think it was the purpose of the tape to make war less probable and I still think so.

Let me ponder a short while about this difference for many many Mudcatters fail to make this distinction, especially in the politics threads. For instance, when I named human shields 'useless idiots' in another thread I came at least dangerously close to mix up the noble purpose with the bad effect I expect from that action.

Without mentioning other names (the offenders are on both sides of the pro and anti war factions and it happens more often than once a week): Saddam's buddies, Bush's buddies, war supporters, Saddam supporters and whatever words have been used, this type of argumentation fails to consider that when we think that the position of someone else in these discussions has what we consider an evil effect we should never assume that the debater wants or approves of these consequences.

Mark, you're never in that league of offenders, so I'm sorry I used your fine post to make this point. I had even considered to start an extra thread with this point, but I think we have enough politics threads right now so I bury this argument here.

Wolfgang
(BTW for Mark only: Hawaii is the only state of the USA in which I have ever been. So when I am asked 'Have you been in the States?' I respond 'yes'. Then they ask me 'where' and when I respond 'Hawaii and nowhere else' I can feel or even am told that they think I should not have responded 'yes' to the first question. But that's a different topic)