Thank you Tony Blair and GWB

Ahnimus

bootlegger10 wrote:

You fucking think that Hezbollah isn't using human shields and you are going to talk to me about bullshit?

I said I haven't seen any proof Hizbullah uses "human shields" slighly different than saying they don't.

bootlegger10

Ahnimus wrote:

I said I haven't seen any proof Hizbullah uses "human shields" slighly different than saying they don't.

With you it will probably take the leader of Hezbullah singing their admittance in a song while juggling 14 knives and riding a unicyle in order to believe it.

Human Tide

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We could make trading cards and see who can collect the most! OR we could all put one in our sigs to help spread the enlightenment and always keep them close to us to help in our weaker moments.

Not bad.....I wonder if Miller would be willing to pose for some photographs to put on the trading cards. You know...shitting on the Koran, burning flags of Arab nations, praying to a bust of Hannity...classy stuff like that.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

What's ironic to me is that these folks to bash America for a "lack of freedom" are the same folks who spazz on people who knock countries like Iran for ... you guessed it ... A lack of freedom.

...
I'm confused by this statement... do people who bash America, praise Iran?
I worry about the deterioration of our liberties because I don't want to be closer to what Iran is... a nation with limited liberties. Where is the irony in that?

rebornFixer

bootlegger10 wrote:

With you it will probably take the leader of Hezbullah singing their admittance in a song while juggling 14 knives and riding a unicyle in order to believe it.

I would enjoy seeing that dude take a header off a unicycle ...

Ahnimus

bootlegger10 wrote:

With you it will probably take the leader of Hezbullah singing their admittance in a song while juggling 14 knives and riding a unicyle in order to believe it.

Not quite, it just has to make sense.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That is a sick and twisted way to view things but whatever floats your boat. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

I'm just saying that nobody cared when Saddam slaughtered thousands. But only when America is involved do we care about those civilians. Nobody on here cares when Israelis die in a suicide blast, but they sure as hell care when a Palestian is killed.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm confused by this statement... do people who bash America, praise Iran?
I worry about the deterioration of our liberties because I don't want to be closer to what Iran is... a nation with limited liberties. Where is the irony in that?

Everyone? Absolutely not. In fact, I'll bash the Patriot act along with the next guy.
Maybe its a lame cop-out for me to answer a question with a question, but here goes. I ain't afraid.
What is one to make of the people who get really revved up when people associate fascism with Iran? Why is that something to get offended over? And this is risky, because I know Mr.Brian actually posted a thread on the topic of Islamic fascism, and I consider him a friend. Don't think I am singling him out, please. It could all be in my mind, maybe I am mistaken. But I read a lot of latent sympathy for Islamic extremism into some of the posts here. Am I wrong? I don't know how else to take it.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

You know full well what I mean anyways. Others can back me up on the point.

Well, I just don't remember anyone spazzing because they didn't want Iranians to have freedom. But spin it however you will.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well, I just don't remember anyone spazzing because they didn't want Iranians to have freedom. But spin it however you will.

I asked Cosmo, and because I respect your intelligence (despite some headbutting in the past), I'll ask you too ... Why do some people who strongly oppose American policies respond so strongly when someone makes negative comments about dictatorial governments in the Middle East? I mean, like Cosmo said, isn't the fear one of the U.S. becoming unfree?

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

I'm just saying that nobody cared when Saddam slaughtered thousands. But only when America is involved do we care about those civilians. Nobody on here cares when Israelis die in a suicide blast, but they sure as hell care when a Palestian is killed.

Did you care about the Iraqis Saddam slaughtered? I'm a card carrying member of AI and yes, I care when all people die needlessly and horrificly. I care when Israelis are killed and wish it would stop. My problem is that the US doesn't seem to care about the Palestinians who die, they continue to arm the murderers and give full support of the slaughtering. I would feel the same way if we aided anyone whose intent was to occupy and kill. You're the one who excuses the death caused by one as necessary and yet vilify the others.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

I asked Cosmo, and because I respect your intelligence (despite some headbutting in the past), I'll ask you too ... Why do some people who strongly oppose American policies respond so strongly when someone makes negative comments about dictatorial governments in the Middle East? I mean, like Cosmo said, isn't the fear one of the U.S. becoming unfree?

For me, I think of it as beating the war drums. No one gives a shit about suffering and lack of freedoms in Columbia or anywhere else unless the tv and talking head tell them to. Where are you guys posting about the all the other ruthless dictators the US fully supports and funds? I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and push for war against another country when I know the reasons being fed to us are complete bullshit.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Everyone? Absolutely not. In fact, I'll bash the Patriot act along with the next guy.
Maybe its a lame cop-out for me to answer a question with a question, but here goes. I ain't afraid.
What is one to make of the people who get really revved up when people associate fascism with Iran? Why is that something to get offended over? And this is risky, because I know Mr.Brian actually posted a thread on the topic of Islamic fascism, and I consider him a friend. Don't think I am singling him out, please. It could all be in my mind, maybe I am mistaken. But I read a lot of latent sympathy for Islamic extremism into some of the posts here. Am I wrong? I don't know how else to take it.

...
Thanx for clarifying...
I think that most people here realize that Iran is one pretty fucked up place and would never, EVER want to live under that theocratic state... I mean, you know how much i reject organized religion... that's a death sentance over there. Still, they do have a right to exist as a nation, no matter how fucked up they appear to us.
And I don't think there are any here that support the militant extremist wing of Islam, just as I don't believe anyone here supports the militant extremist wing of Christianity... The Ku klux Klan.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

For me, I think of it as beating the war drums. No one gives a shit about suffering and lack of freedoms in Columbia or anywhere else unless the tv and talking head tell them to. Where are you guys posting about the all the other ruthless dictators the US fully supports and funds? I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and push for war against another country when I know the reasons being fed to us are complete bullshit.

Maybe I'm guilty as charged, and I SHOULD complain more about many of the U.S.'s so-called allies ... Indonesia ... Pakistan ... The Saudis. But that doesn't make your silence about America's so-called enemies any more right than mine about their friends.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Did you care about the Iraqis Saddam slaughtered? I'm a card carrying member of AI and yes, I care when all people die needlessly and horrificly. I care when Israelis are killed and wish it would stop. My problem is that the US doesn't seem to care about the Palestinians who die, they continue to arm the murderers and give full support of the slaughtering. I would feel the same way if we aided anyone whose intent was to occupy and kill. You're the one who excuses the death caused by one as necessary and yet vilify the others.

Yes, I do see differences. I see Israel defending itself against suicide and rocket attacks. I see Israel trying to compromise with Palestine and when they do they still get attacked. So, when they attack Palestinian fighters who surround themselves by civilians and some civilians die, I see that as different from when Saddam kills civilians so that he can stay a dictator.

While sad that civilians die, sometimes it is of their own doing. The Lebanese cvilians and government let these terrorists setup shop in their neighborhoods. They know there are consequences to not standing up to these terrorist (the main one being eventually a terrorist will attack, and that country will fight back where the terrorists operate). Well, Hezbollah attacked, and Israel is fighting back. The way I see it, when Hezbollah comes into your neighborhood, you can either fight and have casualties, or wait for another country to come and do your dirty work for you and face casualties as well. They chose to accept the terrorists.

Milhouse VanHouten

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

For me, I think of it as beating the war drums. No one gives a shit about suffering and lack of freedoms in Columbia or anywhere else unless the tv and talking head tell them to. Where are you guys posting about the all the other ruthless dictators the US fully supports and funds? I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and push for war against another country when I know the reasons being fed to us are complete bullshit.

North Korea, the Congo (and numerous other African countries), China (our trade buddies), etc...

Human Tide

reborncareerist wrote:

I asked Cosmo, and because I respect your intelligence (despite some headbutting in the past), I'll ask you too ... Why do some people who strongly oppose American policies respond so strongly when someone makes negative comments about dictatorial governments in the Middle East? I mean, like Cosmo said, isn't the fear one of the U.S. becoming unfree?

Let me try to come up with something reasonable here. First of all, I would say that such criticisms of mid-east dictatorships usually arise as a way of deflecting criticism of the US. For example, if one argues against the Iraq war there is frequently a response impying that the individual somehow supported Hussein. The argument then proceeds along the lines of illustrating all the crimes committed by Hussein and focusing on the obvious fact that he was not a good guy. I feel that people object strongly, in part because criticism of dictatorial regimes is somehow useless. Everyone is typically in agreement that these regimes are not favorable and that individuals should be able to choose their own government. As Americans or "westerners", our governments have such a tremendous influence on the rest of the world that there can reasonably be considered an obligation or at least motivation to look inward for solutions to global problems. We see issues in the middle east and sometimes focus on how our governments are helping or hurting the situation. It does not imply that our countries are entirely responsible for the problems, but it also doesn't feign the attitude that "those guys" have tons of problems that are in no way related to "us". As such, the objections arise in part because the US is or has been supporting such regimes. The US support for Saddam in the 80s is well-documented. Saudi Arabia is a US ally despite gross violations of human rights. Jordan and Egypt are close allies although neither are truly functioning democracies. Maybe objections therefore also arise because we just don't want to look like hypocrites. Additionally, when the focus is repeatedly put on the dictatorships, it inevitably ends up casting the entire country (i.e. its citizens) in a negative light and sometimes implies that the situation is their own fault more than it truly is.

To summarize, some people tend to distance themselves from the problems and characterize them as largely a product of the "problem" countries themselves. I find this irresponsible, and more importantly, ineffective. The alternative is to recognize that the US has been or still is intertwined in the region's problems, and therefore a significant part of the solution may rest in positive US action or a cessation of negative actions.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

Yes, I do see differences. I see Israel defending itself against suicide and rocket attacks. I see Israel trying to compromise with Palestine and when they do they still get attacked. So, when they attack Palestinian fighters who surround themselves by civilians and some civilians die, I see that as different from when Saddam kills civilians so that he can stay a dictator.

While sad that civilians die, sometimes it is of their own doing. The Lebanese cvilians and government let these terrorists setup shop in their neighborhoods. They know there are consequences to not standing up to these terrorist (the main one being eventually a terrorist will attack, and that country will fight back where the terrorists operate). Well, Hezbollah attacked, and Israel is fighting back. The way I see it, when Hezbollah comes into your neighborhood, you can either fight and have casualties, or wait for another country to come and do your dirty work for you and face casualties as well. They chose to accept the terrorists.

Palestinian fighters are civilians so to speak. They don't have military bases and if they did all gather in one neat location they would be wipeout by the technological weaponry provided by us....then they would be completely defenseless (which is what we want anyways, right?) There is no difference, they are both trying to defend themselves by the means they have necessary....it's just one is severely lacking in means and has to resort to guerilla warfare. They have no other option, other than rolling over and being ran out. I just wish they would cut out the offensive killing of civilians. It's not accomplishing anything but to give Israel the perfect excuse.

Abookamongstthemany

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

North Korea, the Congo (and numerous other African countries), China (our trade buddies), etc...

and the list goes on and on...

rebornFixer

Human Tide wrote:

Let me try to come up with something reasonable here. First of all, I would say that such criticisms of mid-east dictatorships usually arise as a way of deflecting criticism of the US. For example, if one argues against the Iraq war there is frequently a response impying that the individual somehow supported Hussein. The argument then proceeds along the lines of illustrating all the crimes committed by Hussein and focusing on the obvious fact that he was not a good guy. I feel that people object strongly, in part because criticism of dictatorial regimes is somehow useless. Everyone is typically in agreement that these regimes are not favorable and that individuals should be able to choose their own government. As Americans or "westerners", our governments have such a tremendous influence on the rest of the world that there can reasonably be considered an obligation or at least motivation to look inward for solutions to global problems. We see issues in the middle east and sometimes focus on how our governments are helping or hurting the situation. It does not imply that our countries are entirely responsible for the problems, but it also doesn't feign the attitude that "those guys" have tons of problems that are in no way related to "us". As such, the objections arise in part because the US is or has been supporting such regimes. The US support for Saddam in the 80s is well-documented. Saudi Arabia is a US ally despite gross violations of human rights. Jordan and Egypt are close allies although neither are truly functioning democracies. Additionally, when the focus is repeatedly put on the dictatorships, it inevitably ends up casting the entire country (i.e. its citizens) in a negative light and sometimes implies that the situation is largely their own fault.

To summarize, some people tend to distance themselves from the problems and characterize them as largely a product of the "problem" countries themselves. I find this irresponsible, and more importantly, ineffective. The alternative to recognize that the US has or still is intertwined in the region's problems, and therefore a significant part of the solution may rest in positive US action or a cessation of negative actions.

OK. Thanks for this response. Seriously. I think I get it now. I still believe that it is possible (and desirable) to speak out against human rights violations anywhere in the world, assuming that the whole purpose isn't to deflect criticism from the U.S. government. And I think it is problematic to argue that the whole problem in some of these countries stems from U.S. foreign policy ... Some of these governments do need to be held accountable for their actions. However, I can't help but agree with you when you say that democratic countries can play a more positive role in reshaping the politics of developing nations, particularly in the Middle East. Warfare and force should not be the only options (as they aren't in other parts of the world).