 sj |
||
|
||
BS: This is democracy?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 22 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM Overcoming Liberalism: A 12-Step Program Written by Jeremy Robb Monday, January 06, 2003 Several months ago, I heard radio host Michael Savage refer to liberalism as a "mental disorder." As odd as this concept might seem, I think I actually agree with him. I've seen liberalism turn some of the most intelligent people I know into propaganda-spewing robots who care only about the message, not the inaccuracies behind the message. Emotion always trumps logic for them, regardless of the blatantly obvious. Given the difficulty in bringing liberals into the light, I thought it might be helpful to provide them with a 12-step program that could make it easier for a successful transition into reality. As conservatives, we have to remember that we can only be supportive to liberals in this program. They cannot do it alone, but we also cannot do it for them. The Program: Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal This is the first step for every liberal on the way to recovery. It is important to understand that you're not "progressive," "moderate," or "enlightened." You're a liberal, and you need to be honest with yourself about that fact. Step 2: Pledge to support your beliefs with facts Realize that truth is more important than moral superiority and is the only way to come over to reality. You must research beyond propaganda from the Sierra Club, Hillary Clinton, and CNN (the Communist News Network) to understand things as they really exist in the world. You can no longer argue based on "feelings" or emotion. You will actually need to back up your arguments with real information. This is a difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy any more. Step 3: Love America This may be the most difficult step for those of you who are hippies and peaceniks. Admitting that the country you hate actually stands as a beacon to defend freedom throughout the world can make some of you physically ill. You might want to make a visit to a military cemetery to better understand that these men and women gave their lives so that you could spew hatred. Otherwise, you would currently be living in a police state that would never let you wear that nasty patchouli oil, let alone speak out against your government. Step 4: Take a college level economics class I've always defined a Socialist as someone who's never taken an economics class. Most Socialists I've spoke with would have a hard time balancing their checkbooks, let alone explaining the simple concept of supply-and-demand. It's time to flush your complete ignorance of basic economics down the toilet and understand how the world actually functions. This concept will be very important for the next steps that involve communism, facts about corporations, and the inefficiencies of government. Step 5: Say "no" to Communism and Socialism While this concept is obvious to most of the free world, it is an important step in your recovery process. If you have difficulty with this step, spend a week living and working in Cuba. Step 6: Corporations are not evil If you're reading this article online or in an e-mail, it's thanks to corporations. If you get some kind of paycheck, you can thank corporations. If you work for a non-profit or the government, you still have to thank corporations. The non-profit sector and the government wouldn't have any money to pay you without corporations. It is also important that you understand that making a profit doesn't equate to "greed" or exploitation. Capitalism has created the greatest society in our world's history. Even communist countries need corporations to survive, so enjoy a nice, hot cup of reality. Step 7: The government is inefficient If you are one of those liberals who believe the government should tax us more in order to take care of society, you need to pay special attention to this step. You need to realize that government bureaucracy will waste most of your tax dollars, while the private sector will put your money to much better use. Even most Democrat politicians understand this to some degree, which is why Hillary's socialist healthcare proposal was voted down by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Go to your local post office or call the IRS to ask a tax question if you need a reminder about government inefficiency. Step 8: The earth is not your "mother," and she's not dying The time has now come to stop your donations to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and every other EnviroNazi organization to which you belong. Face the reality that the earth, society, and our environment are better off today than ever in recorded history and that they are continuing to improve. I realize that many of you tree huggers will have a very difficult time letting go of the Douglas Fir on this one. I would suggest reading The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Mr. Lomborg is a former member of Greenpeace and is currently a statistics professor at a university in Denmark. He set out to prove the world was in bad shape and ended up surprising himself by proving the exact opposite. Step 9: Stop smoking the wacky tobaccy Okay, some of you might need to enter another 12-step program to complete this step. Marijuana is distorting your sense of reality, and you need to stop using it. Besides, you'll save a fortune on snacks. Step 10: Eat a hamburger If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. You can put your sprouts and tofu on the hamburger, but get some meat into you. You'll look and feel better than you ever imagined. You can always remind yourself that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian to get you through this step. Step 11: Stop re-writing political history It's now time to admit that Bill Clinton is a lying-cheating-sexist-racist-rapist jackass, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst role models for women in this country, Al Gore really did lose the 2000 election by every vote tabulation you attempt, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War and didn't create the homeless problem, John McCain is not a typical Republican, and Jimmy Carter is a nice man but has one of the worst presidential records of anyone in history. Step 12: Be a missionary Once you have completed the previous steps to overcoming liberalism, it's time for you to share this awakening with others who are not as fortunate. Go out amongst the liberal sheep and spread the good word of your freedom from the chains of ignorance that once bound you. Congratulations, and welcome to reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST,petr Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM when youre talking about conducting two wars simultaneously, in the case of the US it would be low level wars against 3rd world nations - because any modern army would inflict high casualties.. the real question is not technological superiority, but rather the willingness of the US population to absorb high casualties and high taxes that are part of the package. In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration still played on the fear after 9/11. but had not 9/11 occurred it unlikely that there would be much support for an optional war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST,RobbieWilson Date: 22 Apr 05 - 05:04 AM It is telling when you see people lamenting US ability to conduct two wars overseas simultaneously. Why anyone should aspire to conducting wars overseas is beyond me. Of course when you have huge industrial and financial investment in producing weaponry you have an interest in creating the demand for weaponary. The massive investment in technological weaponary has focussed on being able to wreak destruction and death from a safe distance. That way it is so much easier to ignore the fact that people are being slaughtered. It makes destruction posssible but does not help in anyway create conditions for a peaceful hatred. Rather it builds a well of resentment and rejection of Western values which will last for generations. It seems to me unlikely that any of this is accidental. The destruction of the infrastructure, in particular water, sewage,power and communications had nothing to defeating Saddams army but was a key ingredient in ensuring that Iraq was not an independent and strong economy with a place in world affairs because of the oil under its land. The whole point of Democracy is that the biggest strongest and most violent member of the community does not dominate what happens but that even the powerful attempt to convince the rest of the community and abide by the majority position. When you start a war making it clear that regardless of what the UN say you are going ahead anyway, threaten smaller nations that to not support you is to open yourself to financial sanctions and ruin you need to be pretty thick skinned to pretend that this has anything to do with democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 21 Apr 05 - 11:13 PM Yes, I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 21 Apr 05 - 11:00 PM From UCBerkeley News: "Despite what he called the "farce of an election" in January, Jamail said, the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave. The reasons, he added, are all too obvious: Security remains inadequate, car bombs are "almost an everyday occurrence," and most of the country has electricity no more than three hours a day. With death and disease rampant, the healthcare system is in crisis, as hospitals grapple with shortages of medicine, supplies, and clean water, a lack of working equipment, and an ongoing "brain drain" of doctors fleeing the country for safety. In Falluja, a stronghold of Iraqi insurgents where U.S. forces staged an all-out assault last November, conditions are far worse, Jamail said. Most of the city has been "bombed to the ground," he said, creating a massive refugee crisis in which "people with literally nothing" have nowhere to return to: "There's no water, no electricity, no jobs, and no reconstruction." Do you still think Iraqis are 'better off' now that the U.S. is there promoting democracy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Apr 05 - 04:16 PM brucie, "However, the days of being able to fight TWO wars overseas are gone. That it can no longer do without invoking ABC warfare. That is what we ALL should be worried about. " First of all, I agree with the first statement. The US can no longer fight two major wars at the same time, thanks to the Clinton Administration. This DOES force us to consider the use of nuclear weapons, where would would not have needed to, before. A pity that the liberals will not take responsibility for their actions in reducing US military capability. "The American leadership is facing bankruptcy and the possibility of civil unrest (else why have 'detention' camps set to go)." This has no basis in anyy facts you have presented- it is merely your opinion. I have given you alternate reasons for the camps, and the lack of publicity, but YOU insist they are for detention of civilians due to political unrest- the burden of proof of this is on you. Your statement about |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 19 Apr 05 - 03:21 PM Petr, want to buy an "e"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST,petr Date: 19 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM well DOugr & Martin Gibson your posts are hogwash too in my opinion, but who cares, back it up with facts.. brucie, sure the US military is the most powerful in the world, with more spending than anyone else this is not surprising. HOwever the American public takes a dim view of high casualties, and in a battle with modern military power (not an underequipped, demoralized third world army such as Iraqs) they would have much higher casualties. If you had more than 10,000 killed in an optional war the US public would not accept that nor the taxes that come with it. what the Iraq war was about was global hegemony for the US, as the project of the Alqaeda Islamists collided with and energized the project of the Neocons. The irony is that the US already enjoyed much of those benefits of being the dominant economic power. And the danger is that the international law and dialogue of the UN kept the major powers at bay for the last 60 years. Now the US has taken the step to go back to alliances and the law of the jungle (that we had prior to wwII). Notice that Russia has also claimed the right to use preventive wars in its own defence. another undeniable fact is, that the US economy (and with it its power ) is declining the Dollar is going the way of the pound sterling. The US $ has dropped 50% in value to the EUro, not only are Europeans going on shopping trips to the US they are buying up their puffed up real estate. of course even though many other countries might like to see a collapse of the US $ to teach America a lesson, it in their interest to prevent that ..because it would hurt the whole global economy. Its only a matter of time before China outpaces the US economy (how many flat screens are manufactured in the US? zero, its all moved to Asia) even innovation is being outsourced, tech manufacturers have moved design and engineering over to Asia, and concentrate on the marketing after slapping on a design or brand (read Marchs Business Week) if youre probably fed a diet of Fox, Hannity, and the typical biased US media you might want to look up some alternative views. such as this or read his book Future Tense.. the neocons goal of Pax Americana is not some kind of conspiracy theory - they ve outlined it in speeches and publications. Wolfowitz readily admitted in Vanity Fair that they "finally settled on Iraqs WMD for various bureaucratic reasons..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 19 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM Sure DougR. Let's let Saddam go and go back to Iraq and take over again. That would please a few dopes here I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. The eight million or so Iraqis who turned out to vote for democracy are the ones who count. I seriously doubt, given the choice, they would return to Saddam's regime over what they have now. You may think otherwise, but that's your right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: RobbieWilson Date: 19 Apr 05 - 08:05 AM Sorry about the anon posting yesterday, I didn't realise I was in cookieless. Whether Doug likes it or not, the vast majority of Iraqi people were better off before the invasion, and even more relevantly were much better off before 10 years of sanctions by the worlds richest nation and everyone else it could bully into joining in. Iraqi hospitals and health care were the best in the region and open to all comers. We know this because in those days the UN and Western journalists could travel about the country and see for themselves. Saddams regime was brutal and dictatorial, however this is not unusual in a areas of constant war where the the conflict is continually stoked and armed by external forces. The true road to peace and Democracy lies in making peace and democracy more successful than war and oppression. You cannot teach the world to respect international law and standards when you are the most visible violator of that law and those standards. When you set up Guantanamo to be outside of any law or jurisdiction. When you say in the run up to invading another country that it does not matter what the UN says you are going to wreak destruction on a much smaller and weaker nation how can you criticise any violent actions from anyone with a cause to espouse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 05 - 01:18 AM Right, dianavan, no doubt about it, Iraq and it's people were so much better off with Saddam. All you have to do is visit the mass graves to confirm that! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 19 Apr 05 - 12:35 AM ...and with democracy in Iraq we are once again faced with the problem of a Kurdish homeland. Turkey is standing at attention and so is Iran. The U.S. is backing the Kurds for the time being and the Turks and the Iranians don't like it one bit. They should have carved out a bit of the middle east for the Kurds following World War II but back then nobody cared. Now that the oil fields are up for grabs, the U.S. is being ever so nice to the Kurds. We back your independence and you give us the oil. Pretty cozy if you ask me. In the meantime, water is contaminated, ambulances cannot get to hospitals, people can't get to markets and children are starving. Evil, just plain evil! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 05 - 08:36 PM PS Democracy is dead. Has been for many years now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 05 - 08:36 PM "Its military is only useful in beating 5th rate armies in 3rd world nations." I would and do disagree with this statement. The USA has a remarkable military with technology to back it up. The problem has always been and continues to be that of 'legs'. The US is more than capable of fighting a war in Irag. In fact, it is doing so. However, the days of being able to fight TWO wars overseas are gone. That it can no longer do without invoking ABC warfare. That is what we ALL should be worried about. The American leadership is facing bankruptcy and the possibility of civil unrest (else why have 'detention' camps set to go). IMO, it has NO option BUT to push for global control. What does it have to lose but its national debt which has to be close on six TRILLION dollars. The Euro is becoming THE currency, and China (PRC) is breating fire into the world economy. The Neocons are more than aware of this--it being they who have helped bring the situation about. And, it being they who have so much control in DC right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 18 Apr 05 - 08:26 PM Guest Petr: everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but your last post was, in my opinion of course, pure unadulterated hog wash. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:19 PM Fine, let's get out and leave the children and the hungry to the insurgents. maybe they can be lined up against the wall and done away with as Saddam would have done. That's how the problem can be solved. Let's let the insurgents win! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST,petr Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM On the contrary, guest with no name, is bang on the point. The war on Iraq, was never about installing democracy there, it was because of trumped up propaganda about wmds, and the constant repetetion of Iraq Saddam 9/11 Alqaeda in one sentence by the neocons until more than 50% of Americans believed there was a connection. - the reasons later shifted to installing democracy, doing the moral thing by removing a tyrant etc. when wmds were obviously not found, and when (even as GWBush admitted there was no known connection between Hussein and AlQaeda. If installing democracy was the question, why not, Zimbabwe, or North Korea (which has wmd?s), Burma or ...the list goes on. In many ways GW Bush is more dangerous than Hussein ever was (not a minority view as more than 50% of Europeans believed in a recent survey). He is more dangerous than Saddam could be because he and the NEoCons want to establish Pax Americana, undermine the concept of international law and dialogue in the UN, and go back to the Law of the Jungle, (essentially what we had prior to WWII). Its silly of course to assume that a nation that has 4% of the worlds population and 20% (rapidly declining) of the world economy can hope to establish itself as the world leader and policeman. (It was a total surprise to the neocons that very few nations lined up behind its coalition of the willing. THe US might have the biggest military in the world, but its practically useless in a war against a modern power, (the American electorate would never tolerate an optional war with more than 10,000 casualties and the extra taxes that come along with it) Its military is only useful in beating 5th rate armies in 3rd world nations. Its like beating up a baby with a baseball bat. when only 2% of the IRaqi population see the US as liberators its time to go home. The insurgents wont go home, because they already are home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: robomatic Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:59 PM GUEST with no name: You are missing the point. Without giving details from the report I find it hard to believe. As I stated earlier, there has to be a breakdown of who is starving. I believe that Kurds for example are not. The main Iraq on Iraqi violence is mostly by Sunni/ Baathist forces on any government body and on Shiite civilians. But the main point is why this should relate to democracy. This is a case of picking something statistical while it is in the midst of change, and using it to slam something political (also in the midst of change). It is like saying "Besides THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 05 - 10:03 AM Dianavan, I have just read through the thread again from start to finish and notice that no-one has anywhere come up with anything to show that your initial statement was untrue. The whole thread is a processon of bullying "might is right" invective and anyone who challenges the mighty is an apologist for terorism. I think it may have been a mistake though to think that the obliteration of Iraq had anything to do with democracy. There are any number of dictatorships and totalitarian states around the world whose people would have been happier for intervention than yhe people of Iraq are proving to be. Nor was it about terrorism. On 9/11 Americans were killed and as a result someone had to pay. America could not strike at the home of the terrorists or their financial backers because they were our oil rich friends in Saudia Arabia, which may lack democracy and keep its foreign workforce as virtual slaves but which shares a common financial interest, so a bogeyman had to be identified. Government lies were put out; That Iraq could strike at Europe with nuclear warheads within 45 minutes, that the chemical weapons we had sold them in order to fight our political oponents in Iran still existed though we knew them to have ben destroyed years ago, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that we were seeking a peaceful verification on WMD months after the decision to assault Iraq had been taken. It would seem to me quite simple really; if we believed in Global Democracy we would strengthen the hand of the UN and not undermine it. Democracy is supposed to be a system which stops the interests of the strongest or most violent overwhelming everyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM I didn't say that Doug. You are putting words in my mouth and making wild assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 18 Apr 05 - 01:30 AM dianavan: I'm sure your are right. The insurgents are probably providing armed escorts to ensure that the needy get the aid the coalition forces are providing. Right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:19 AM bb - I didn't read that she was targetted because she was counting casualties. I believe the Americans would call this collateral damage. That article does not provide a source for the outlandish statement that insurgents have been targetting convoys of food. In fact, it was U.S. troops that have blocked access to hospitals, roads and markets. In addition, the infrastructure has been demolished by the U.S. How are the Iraqis expected to overcome this and feed their children? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:14 PM Is nationalistic pride strictly a German Nazi thing? How stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 05 - 09:41 PM http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_activist_killed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:43 PM Doug - I don't care if they support my point of view or not I just want to know if you (or Mary Garvey) have any source for your information or if you're just talking off the top your head. Since neither you nor Mary seem to have anything to offer in the way of sources, I can only assume that you are making wild assumptions based on Nationalistic pride, much like the Germans of Nazi Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM Exactly, Doug R. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM So then, dianavan, you will accept "acceptable" sources. I assume those that do not support your point of view would not be acceptable. Right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 17 Apr 05 - 01:51 PM And joe, I'll remember your double standard. You probably ate shit for breakfast, also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 17 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM Joe, I'm deeply honored. I love history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 16 Apr 05 - 10:01 PM I will read all sources but it doesn't mean I will believe them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: mg Date: 16 Apr 05 - 09:37 PM a. I don't think I said so. I did say they would blow up the roads, which they will if they can. b. I don't jump just because someone tells me to. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 05 - 08:03 PM Would you accept any sources offered dianavan? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 16 Apr 05 - 03:59 PM If you have sources, cite them. I will read them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 05 - 03:38 PM Wouldn't want to be influenced by progaganda would we dianavan? That's why we should only read the New York Times and THe Los Angeles Times in the U. S. and those who live in GB should only read The Guardian. In the U. S., where we have lots of TV choices, we should only watch CNN and the national news networks. That way we will never be exposed to propaganda. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 16 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM I do not favour the Sunnis over the Shiites or even the Kurds for that matter. I think it is wrong for the U.S. to destroy a country and the infrastructure in the name of democracy. I am also alarmed that the rate of starvation has increased. Mary, you have stated that the insurgents have been targetting convoys of food. Please provide evidence for this statement. You also seem to believe that if the children weren't starving they'd be dead. I also see no evidence of that. The statements you are making are based on emotion and fed by propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:32 PM Sorry, Martin, if I offended you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Apr 05 - 05:56 PM "Democracy is a political system. It has nothing at all to do with feeding children." Any political system that "has nothing at all to do with feeding children" is pretty suspect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 15 Apr 05 - 05:51 PM LOL, dianavan! Joe, please see dianavan's personal attack and kindly bleep it out as anti-social. We shouldn't have to put up with that crap here! What a riot.
Dianavan can be obnoxious, but she hasn't crossed the line. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: robomatic Date: 15 Apr 05 - 05:41 PM OKAY! THIS IS DEMOCRACY! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 15 Apr 05 - 02:13 AM ...and you failed to mention that for breakfast this morning you ate shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:46 PM She failed to mention that her breakfast this morning was insurgent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:08 PM "Yes, I know that. I also know they (the insurgents) were puppets of the U. S. government". - dianavan. Now THAT statement is what I would call ridiculous. You failed to mention, also dianavan, the when the U. S. aided Osama it was in Afghanstan when the insurgents were fighting Russians. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 14 Apr 05 - 12:56 AM Thats just plain ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Apr 05 - 12:53 AM That is just not true. It is a sweet sentiment but it is just not how the world works. If there were no occupation, there would be all sorts of bad nasties jockeying for power, and there would be 1,000 times the terrorism that there is now. We are doing something for the starving children..we are putting our bodies between them and the bullets that would take them out. We are killing and capturing the bad guys so that the good guys can grow the food, drive the food on safe roads, cook the food in homes or roadside stands etc. They would not be alive long enough to starve if we weren't there. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: dianavan Date: 13 Apr 05 - 11:53 PM robomatic - You said, "The reason there were no insurgents prior to the US invasion is that the insurgents were running the country." Yes, I know that. I also know that they were puppets of the U.S. govt. I also know that the terrorist training camps (including Osama's) were originally funded by the U.S. govt. The U.S. has been creating alot of problems in the middle east for a very long time. Its called meddling. I blame them for the turmoil and for the fact that the starvation rate of children in Iraq has increased since the occupation. Mary Garvey - I said, "I would like to see some evidence that the insurgents are "specifically targetting" convoys of food. I have seen no evidence of this. Please provide a reputable source." There would be no insurgency if there was no occupation. Its time for the U.S. to either help the starving or get out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 13 Apr 05 - 02:44 PM Wasn't hard to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 05 - 01:07 PM Yep, Martin, I believe he nailed dianavan. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: Once Famous Date: 13 Apr 05 - 12:03 PM Robo just wrote above of dianavan: "You do seem to be not so much interested in the welfare of the Iraqis as in slamming US efforts whatever they be" Bullseye! Ringer! Home Run! Touchdown! 3-pointer! Goaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllll! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: This is democracy? From: robomatic Date: 13 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM Dianavan you wrote: There were no insurgents prior to the U.S. invasion that I know of. The invasion by the U.S. created a war that increased the rate of child starvation. Do you value the attempt to democratize Iraq more than the lives of starving children? I take it you prefer well fed slaves to hungry freedmen? You are taking a situation in a state of rapid flux and trying to make a point about an overall situation. The facts as I have them are that the current occupation and the Iraqi government are working to repair and install a crimiinally negligent infrastructure, and the current insurgency is doing everything to prevent and reverse this. The reason there were no insurgents prior to the US invasion is that the insurgents were running the country. You do seem to be not so much interested in the welfare of the Iraqis as in slamming US efforts whatever they be. You remind me of Reverend Lovejoy's wife whose stock refrain in any situation is: "What about the children" thus making them your debating tool rather than a real concern. If you had a real concern you would note the robust condition of the Kurds and the improved lot of the Shiites, both of whom were repressed as children, as men, as women. The Sunnis have a tougher row to hoe, as they were as a group over-entitled under the Saddam regime, and they make up a greater portion of the insurgency. |
