Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 00:10 (Agree/Disagree?) As an American, I was skeptical of the pre-war intelligence and motives of the U.S. Administration before the war and felt that many, many aspects of the war were handled very poorly. However, I think most people understand that granting any type of concessions to terrorists in essence encourages those actions. I find it very grievous that these poor gentlemen who are working to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq are so barbarically killed and to see their families suffer with such grief and loss. But negotiating with the perpetrators would absolutely be counter-productive as there would be open season on every American and Brit in Iraq. Iraq is an incredibly complex topic which I am sure many of us feel very strongly about. I think one principal that is interesting from an Ex-SGA perspective is the approach to effecting a change or reform of a regime (or religious movement). If we pretend for a moment that TF is Iraq and go back a few years to the legal persecution that TF faced there are some interesting parallels that can be made. Persecution did some things to make the TF leadership modify certain rules and behaviors which were illegal or regarded as unacceptable. However, what effect did persecution have on your home while in TF? I think for the most part it was a galvanizing force that brought people together and increased devotion to the group. I know of very, very few people who left the TF because of persecution. Generally lasting reform has to come from within. History teaches us that people eventually wise up and rise up against oppressive regimes. I think eventually people in Iraq would have desired reform and rose up against their leadership and I think the U.S. would have been more than happy to provide assistance in the form of air support or weaponry. I think eventually TF will collapse but it won't be because of persecution or legal actions taken. It will be because members come to their own senses and want to move on. Looking back now it’s easy to understand why some individuals tried their best to disrupt TF and urged authorities to raid Homes hoping to help people get out, etc. However, at the time what was your perception of those individuals whose actions were resulting in trauma to your siblings and friends? In closing, to any of you who are serving or have served in Iraq: Thank you for the job that you are doing or have done. People all over the country and the world will debate whether the war was the right thing to do and some, including myself, will criticize the administration. This, however, is not a criticism of you. 99.9% of the troops there have done a marvelous job and endured all manner of discomforts in service to our country. You have my utmost respect and gratitude. (reply to this comment)

From Random Comment Generator Thursday, October 26, 2006, 22:36 (Agree/Disagree?) "However, I think most people understand that granting any type of concessions to terrorists in essence encourages those actions." I don't dispute that. My question. Has refusing any and all concessions, bombing them, and labelling all persons with contrary opinions as terrorists helped anything? Has refusing any and all concessions to terrorists DISCOURAGED those actions? To the contrary, things are escalating. I won't blame the escalation in terror on the US response to 9/11. I think that was inevitable. But the world could have done well without a war in Iraq. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and possibly captured the phantom menace, and have enough troops available for deployment to discourage N.Korea from building nukes. What did Iraq achieve? It created a humanitarian disaster and cost a hell of a lot of money and lives. Of the three "axis" countries, we went into the one and only one that was nowhere near possessing WMDs. We also created an environment where we are unable to make a move on Iran or N.Korea. We lack credibility, troops, money, international support, and we just don't scare anyone. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again. We just showed the world that we can't win a war.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 26, 2004, 00:50 (Agree/Disagree?) History also tells us that the change from totalitarianism to democracy is invariably a rough road. Take The Former Yugoslavia, for example - how many of you blame the death of Josef Tito and the fall of Communism for that violence? Yet it is as much to blame for it, as the US/UK invasion of Iraq. How many of you are griping that Russia should still be under Communist rule - which would have prevented the current domination of much of the country by the Mafia, as well as the troubles in Chechnya? Whenever there is a power vacuum, there are those who will use less than righteous methods to try and fill it - that is what is happening in Iraq now! As for waiting for change to come from within, lets remember that the UN and International Community was holding Iraq under the most cripling sanctions that had ever been put against a country - and there's one thing for certain, it wasn't Saddam and his cronies that were suffering from them! The reason why the Iraqis weren't rising up is due to the strangle-hold on power that Saddam held, so making it much safer for any discontented individual to simply emigrate rather than take the risks involved in changing their own country. Therefore, so long as all you liberals are going to whinge on about the rights that immigrants and asylum seekers have to claim citizenship in our countries, then our governments ought to have the right to go in and sort things out at the point of origin. Every time Saddam persecuted his people he was sending refugees to our countries, and thereby affecting our own political dynamics. We, therefore, have every right to return the favour!(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, September 26, 2004, 09:17 (Agree/Disagree?) [[Arrgghhh! My italics around your comments were removed in my reply to your post! I'm trying again with italics and bold and brackets to make the post readable. Is there a way to remove your previous comments in these situations? My apoligies for the multipost.]] Wow. Interesting points. I only recently discovered this web page after 4 years out so it's nice to find a microcosm that so well represents the political spectrum with such spirited and knowledgeable debate. History also tells us that the change from totalitarianism to democracy is invariably a rough road. Take the Former Yugoslavia, for example - how many of you blame the death of Josef Tito and the fall of Communism for that violence? Yet it is as much to blame for it, as the US/UK invasion of Iraq. I agree the changes are difficult for countries to go through but I think Yugo is a very different situation then (and obviously now) from Iraq because the catalyst for change came from within the country. If a foreign country had invaded Yugoslavia 1 week before Tito died I believe it would have served to unify various factions in the region to fight off the foreigners and sparked much greater bloodshed. How many of you are griping that Russia should still be under Communist rule - which would have prevented the current domination of much of the country by the Mafia, as well as the troubles in Chechnya? Whenever there is a power vacuum, there are those who will use less than righteous methods to try and fill it - that is what is happening in Iraq now! Russia is a great example of country that is undergoing change from within. I’m not saying it’s a pretty thing but it’s doesn’t involve hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury or thousands of Americans suffering loss of life or limb. As for waiting for change to come from within, lets remember that the UN and International Community was holding Iraq under the most crippling sanctions that had ever been put against a country - and there's one thing for certain, it wasn't Saddam and his cronies that were suffering from them! This goes along with my contention that leadership of a regime will make concessions that are required for its survival and their retention of power due to outside forces and influence. Saddam obviously decided early on that WMD was going to cost him the leadership of his country so he disarmed in the 90’s and invited inspectors to confirm that. He gets no credit for having done this under pressure. But he was no longer a threat to the rest of the world that warranted invasion in my opinion. The reason why the Iraqis weren't rising up is due to the strangle-hold on power that Saddam held, so making it much safer for any discontented individual to simply emigrate rather than take the risks involved in changing their own country. Therefore, so long as all you liberals are going to whine on about the rights that immigrants and asylum seekers have to claim citizenship in our countries, then our governments ought to have the right to go in and sort things out at the point of origin. Every time Saddam persecuted his people he was sending refugees to our countries, and thereby affecting our own political dynamics. We, therefore, have every right to return the favour! I think we’re selling the Iraqis and the human spirit short when we say that conditions have to be ideal or acceptable in order to sacrifice for change. History is full of examples of people who collectively said, “WTF?” and fought through all kinds of adversity to overthrow a regime. I don’t hold a very liberal position on immigration (or many issues for that matter) so I wouldn’t be able to effectively debate that position.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 26, 2004, 10:25 (Agree/Disagree?) For the sake of brevity I shan't follow your example of clipping the original comments (just imagine how long this post would be if I did, ha!) I agree with you on the distinction of the 'catalyst' being ostensibly internal/external. But that is why I added the comments following to explain why the change in Iraq had to be externally initiated. Of course, this is working on the assumption that governments have any business involving themselves in the politics of other countries - that can wait for another discussion - the fact of the matter is that all countries DO it, and the International community WAS DOING IT in Iraq through the Sanctions. My argument is not so much that the war was right, but that it was better than the alternatives available at the time. I had a lot of Iraqi friends when I was living in the Mid East, and even more who weren't Iraqi but had lived/worked/visited Iraq. I'm basing my opinions largely on the range of opinions and emotions that I heard from them (which ranged from Iraqi officials to former political prisoners under his regime). There were 2 factors which worked against the Iraqi people taking action internally. First of all, as I already said, Saddam had a stranglehold grip on the country - this was felt by every foreigner visiting the country (they would be assigned a 'guide' who would escort them everywhere they went... and report back to the Mukhabarrat [Secret Service]). But it was felt even MORE by the Iraqis themselves in the way of summary tortures and executions, informants and a general attitude of fear in the country. The other factor being that emigrating was a far more attractive option to the Iraqis - many of whom then formed lobby groups to encourage the US/UK governments to take the action they did. Most major political upheavals involved considerable external involvement (consider the French involvement in the American Revolutionary War). In this case, perhaps the majority of the impetus was not 'local', but then again, those same liberals are all too happy to tell us why those Iraqi immigrants are just as much British/American citizens as we are - so why shouldn't it work the other way, too? You're right, we could have just waited a decade or so for Saddam to die (as happened with Tito) and leave the Iraqis to face probably very much the same problems. Then everyone could have sat back and washed their hands of the situation, since it would have nothing to do with us and I tend to think that's actually what a lot of these people who go around whinging about the 'poor Iraqis' would have wanted - which IMO is even more hypocritical than going into the war for the potential financial gain. As I said, though, the UN and International community had already crossed the threshold of involving themselves in Iraq - given those circumstances, the war was IMO the best option. I'm baffled how you can say that Saddam took the decision to disarm and - more significantly - to invite the UN Inspectors! I don't know whose account of events you're basing this on, but that is clearly NOT the case! The WMD disarmament and UN Inspectors were the terms of surrender imposed on the Iraqi government after the first Gulf War. Iraq LOST that war, but for some inconceivable reason the Allied governments gave in to the doves in their camp and instead of finishing off the job, they decided to impose these terms, along with the UN Sanctions. The Sanctions, as I already said, have done far more damage to the people and economy of Iraq than both of the wars combined - and the truth be known, are probably also responsible for much of the current violence - having encouraged the sectarian segmentation of the country.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, September 26, 2004, 11:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam made the decision to disarm because he probably perceived it as a condition to maintaining his grip on power. The UN Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in 1998 because Iraq was expelling Richard Butler and a number of U.S. and British inspectors for spying. My reference to Iraq inviting them back was prior to this war. They invited inspectors back in to verify that they had disarmed in attempt to avoid war and retain power. I said I give Saddam no credit for choosing to disarm because it was not a voluntary action but one made under pressure and threat of invasion. I am not a pacifist. There are many conditions underwhich I would have fully supported the invasion of Iraq. I haven't had the benefit of spending any time in the Middle East or speaking with Iraqis so it's interesting hearing about your encounters with them. Ever meet Ahmed Chalabi? I might not be as soft-hearted as some of today's compassionate nation-building conservatives but I would have been content to let Iraqis essentially work things out on their own. My concerns about war weren't as much as about 'poor iraqis' but about only sacrificing America's blood and treasure when necessary. Applying pressure, financing resistance, providing support are usually good ideas. I think one of the biggest lost opportunites of the Gulf War I was that Bush I didn't support the Shiite uprising after encouraging it. Hanging those guys out to dry probably made it more difficult for Iraqis inside the country to consider any assistance from the U.S. and made resistance against Saddam a more daunting prospect.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 16:12 (Agree/Disagree?) It's too bad Bush didn't let the inspectors finish their job. It would've saved us $200 billion dollars and 1000 American lives. If he had let them finish their job there would be less murky intelligence on the existence of WMD's and less of an argument for him to start a war. Hmm.....coincidence?? I think not!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) And, after 13 years... just how much longer do you think the UN Inspectors were going to take to 'finish their job'? So long as Saddam was in power and playing games with the inspectors, by allowing/disallowing them to search here or there, their information could never be trusted 100%. They say that one of the signs of insanity is to repeatedly do the same thing, hoping for different results. Well, by that definition, continuing the sanctions would have been insane.(reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 08:24 (Agree/Disagree?) The obvious question here is why did Saddam play cat and mouse with the inspectors when he had no weapons? The answer is clear when one considers the psychology of brinksmanship. If Saddam came totally clean and made it crystal clear that he had no WMDs he would have lost a deterrent against the Israelis, who, lest we forget, bombed Iraq in 1981. So Saddam was playing a dangerous fence stradling bluff of trying to keep the UN Inspectors barely happy, while misbehaving with them enough to keep Israel wondering. This bluff worked for over a decade until that crusty cowboy GW rode into town and called old Saddam's bluff. The result as we all know is history. The real lesson here is that even the best poker player will get called out and beaten, which is why poker is not a good strategy for world politics. Even if it were a good strategy I can hardly have respect for someone who picks off a weaker opponent and then struts around the mideast carrying a fake turkey like he's got a pair of cannonballs in his pants. If you want to see an example of true high stakes global brinksmanship look at Kennedy vs. Kruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The world came within 2 hours of nuclear annihilation and Kruschev blinked first. That is why JFK was fucking Marilyn. Unfortunately our current president is trying to emulate the feats of presidents past, doing a piss poor job of it and fucking everything up in the process. Kerry/Edwards '04!(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 04:26 (Agree/Disagree?) During the last inspections prior to the war the inspectors themselves pleaded with Bush to give them more time. This time it was Bush not Saddam who hampered the effectiveness of the inspectors. The lead inspector was not convinced of the presence of WMD's and requested more time to confirm or deny their existence. Well, since we now know there weren't any and Bush was gunning for a war since the first day he took office, it seems like logical conclusions can be drawn. But you are right! How quickly some people do forget!(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 18:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I was very happy with the job Bush was doing to pressure the U.N. to action and get inspectors back into the country and essentially beat the drums of war to get Saddam's attention. When Iraq suprised me (and obviously the Bush administration) by inviting Inpectors back into Iraq for unrestricted access to the entire country I felt that things were moving along nicely and was ready to tip my hat to Bush. The administration surprized me by doing everything possible to *prevent* the inspectors from searching for WMD. At this time alarms started to go off in my mind. I thought that logically if you *know* where WMDs are and you have inspectors on the ground, you tell them to go to 5 Islamabad avenue and knock on the door. If they refuse access, then they're busted. If you catch them red-handed then they're busted. It made it look like perhaps the administration was concerned that they might *not* have weapons and was trying to act quickly before there was too much doubt about it. It started to look more like political opportunism to me. If the WMD fear factor was removed for most Americans (and a lot of us were getting mighty suspicious) then the only case to be made was for spreading democracy around the world or helping the poor Iraqis. If Saddam was actively exterminating people in huge numbers or conducting ethnic cleansing a strong case could have been and it might have tugged on my heart strings...maybe. I think the decision to start the war prior to the inspectors completing their assessment requiring Iraq to maintain some type of ongoing inspection agreement was perhaps one of the largest foreign policy mistakes of this generation. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 23:52 (Agree/Disagree?) How short-termed the memory of the people! After 13 years of playing games with the inspectors Saddam says that he is going to give them 'unrestricted access' and suddenly he's the good guy?!? This wasn't the first time Saddam had made that offer - I can think of at least 2 other times he said the exact same thing, every time the whole international community gets all hopeful that this time it's really going to be true... and every time he proves that he's just playing games and stalling for time and world opinion. When I heard the Iraqi government 'invite' the inspectors into their country I didn't even consider it noteworthy - particularly since the timing made it clear that it was simply another ploy by them to stall for time, and hopefully stave off the impending invasion yet one more time, continuing the sanctions and suffering of their people yet again. There was only one winner under those Sanctions, and that was Saddam's government. Through their international contacts they were able to maintain a flow of not only foreign cash, but luxury goods as well (I was friends with the manager of a luxury supermarket in Jordan that used to supply them). They also had a captive population, and with an incredibly devalued currency, anyone with foreign capital could live like a king! The average Iraqi person was essentially a slave to anyone with hard currency - so why would Saddam want to change that?(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, September 26, 2004, 09:14 (Agree/Disagree?) > Wow. Interesting points. I only recently discovered this web page after 4 years out so it's nice to find a microcosm that so well represents the political spectrum with such spirited and knowledgeable debate. < >> I agree the changes are difficult for countries to go through but I think Yugo is a very different situation then (and obviously now) from Iraq because the catalyst for change came from within the country. If a foreign country had invaded Yugoslavia 1 week before Tito died I believe it would have served to unify various factions in the region to fight off the foreigners and sparked much greater bloodshed. <> Russia is a great example of country that is undergoing change from within. I’m not saying it’s a pretty thing but it’s doesn’t involve hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury or thousands of Americans suffering loss of life or limb. <> This goes along with my contention that leadership of a regime will make concessions that are required for its survival and their retention of power due to outside forces and influence. Saddam obviously decided early on that WMD was going to cost him the leadership of his country so he disarmed in the 90’s and invited inspectors to confirm that. He gets no credit for having done this under pressure. But he was no longer a threat to the rest of the world that warranted invasion in my opinion. <> I think we’re selling the Iraqis and the human spirit short when we say that conditions have to be ideal or acceptable in order to sacrifice for change. History is full of examples of people who collectively said, “WTF?” and fought through all kinds of adversity to overthrow a regime. I don’t hold a very liberal position on immigration (or many issues for that matter) so I wouldn’t be able to effectively debate that position.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, September 26, 2004, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow. Interesting points. I only recently discovered this web page after 4 years out so it's nice to find a microcosm that so well represents the political spectrum with such spirited and knowledgeable debate. History also tells us that the change from totalitarianism to democracy is invariably a rough road. Take the Former Yugoslavia, for example - how many of you blame the death of Josef Tito and the fall of Communism for that violence? Yet it is as much to blame for it, as the US/UK invasion of Iraq. I agree the changes are difficult for countries to go through but I think Yugo is a very different situation then (and obviously now) from Iraq because the catalyst for change came from within the country. If a foreign country had invaded Yugoslavia 1 week before Tito died I believe it would have served to unify various factions in the region to fight off the foreigners and sparked much greater bloodshed. How many of you are griping that Russia should still be under Communist rule - which would have prevented the current domination of much of the country by the Mafia, as well as the troubles in Chechnya? Whenever there is a power vacuum, there are those who will use less than righteous methods to try and fill it - that is what is happening in Iraq now! Russia is a great example of country that is undergoing change from within. I’m not saying it’s a pretty thing but it’s doesn’t involve hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury or thousands of Americans suffering loss of life or limb. As for waiting for change to come from within, lets remember that the UN and International Community was holding Iraq under the most crippling sanctions that had ever been put against a country - and there's one thing for certain, it wasn't Saddam and his cronies that were suffering from them! This goes along with my contention that leadership of a regime will make concessions that are required for its survival and their retention of power due to outside forces and influence. Saddam obviously decided early on that WMD was going to cost him the leadership of his country so he disarmed in the 90’s and invited inspectors to confirm that. He gets no credit for having done this under pressure. But he was no longer a threat to the rest of the world that warranted invasion in my opinion. The reason why the Iraqis weren't rising up is due to the strangle-hold on power that Saddam held, so making it much safer for any discontented individual to simply emigrate rather than take the risks involved in changing their own country. Therefore, so long as all you liberals are going to whine on about the rights that immigrants and asylum seekers have to claim citizenship in our countries, then our governments ought to have the right to go in and sort things out at the point of origin. Every time Saddam persecuted his people he was sending refugees to our countries, and thereby affecting our own political dynamics. We, therefore, have every right to return the favour! I think we’re selling the Iraqis and the human spirit short when we say that conditions have to be ideal or acceptable in order to sacrifice for change. History is full of examples of people who collectively said, “WTF?” and fought through all kinds of adversity to overthrow a regime. I don’t hold a very liberal position on immigration (or many issues for that matter) so I wouldn’t be able to effectively debate that position.(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 17:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Geezus, I hit such a hot nerve on this one. I totally agree with infantryman and his logic; terrorists and murderers should be punished...Big Time! If this was a perfect World the UN would be running everything just fine. But the fact is they can't, we are still in a world with very different views on just about everything. GLobalization hasn't changed things in the least for countries that still believe in Theocracy such as every Muslim country out there! As far as the Bangladesh issue, why there is 130 million people living in that tiny drain swamp, is an example of what happens when Muslims are suddenly left to live with their neighbors on their own without a powerful dictator,such as the British in 1948--They hack their neighbors to bits and therefore had to move and create their own state. These things happen all the time, such as in the former Yogoslavia, Sudan, Indonesia and everywhere where the Muslim world reaches the outside world, there is mass murder and genocide. Face it they're the dangerous ones, because like TF and other religious fanatics they believe in a God so strongly they feel justified and willing to commit murder or other henious atrocities. At first I was against this war, I didn't understand why most Americans around me were all for it, but after looking at things rationally and thinking of the greater good, The civilized world, I came to agree and fully support the War in Iraq. Anyway I won't say more, I've done too much already, I just have to say my opinion. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 26, 2004, 00:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't think of a single 'ideal world' scenario where the UN would run everything!! We need LESS centralised governments - not more! We need less government bureacracy and waste - not more! We need local government, that will encourage diversity and individual enterprise - not some global juggernaut to steamroll the globe into conformity to their left-wing ideology and so called 'equality'!(reply to this comment)

from infantryman Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 15:38 (Agree/Disagree?) all of u who don't agree on us being over there need to shut ur fucking mouths i just got back from being over there and they deserve everything they're getting! would u rather they were over here chopping off ur family members heads, untill u've picked up a gun in defense of ur country u have no right to talk! (reply to this comment)

from GoldenMic Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) How about I skip the endless and often-repeated debate regarding whether or not the US presence in Iraq is justified (as if this wasn't a purely partisan debate based on political affiliations), and concentrate instead on how a cult background might effect one's opinion in this. It seems to me that our cult experiences could effects our opinions at a variety of levels. One thing, I bet that many of us abhor violence and choose compromise in direct proportion to our cult pasts, either by continuing to live out the survival plan we used while we were there (get along, avoid hassles), or we violently react to our earlier compromises by staunchly advocating direct action every time we see injustice. Also, I think that some of us continue to subtly enact our pasts by expecting outsiders and higher-ups to solve the problem, trusting that the US or the UN is somehow inherently right and justified in its actions (or inaction) just as we were taught to make a similar assumption about those in charge in the cult. Finally, I think that there is a stream of thought here that assumes it is possible to ignore a problem (or appease) it long enough and hope it will just disappear, even though our shared pasts should make it abundantly clear that change and justice must be fought for, and one must have courage to resist oppression, or the oppression will just go on and on. In truth, I do not know if the US was right to invade Iraq, but in my heart I identified with the idea that oppression should be rooted out and destroyed, and I was happy to see that murderous savage go down. I don't actually care if the US is itself perfect, I just like to see oppression being resisted and evil-doer's being smacked down. I certainly don't care if a bunch of beaurocrats at the UN didn't like it, because they seem like all the leaders of my past, putting their head in the sand and ignoring oppression. This is not based on some sense that I know whats really happening, or that America is always right or the equally spurious belief that America is always wrong, but based on my own militant reaction to any oppression. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, September 25, 2004, 14:11 (Agree/Disagree?) While our cult childhoods have an enourmous impact on who we are as adults today, I don't necessarily think that our opinions on the Iraq issue are soley formed by our past. Many of us, on both sides of the issue, share the same views as many who were not influenced by cults as children. I would like to think that eventually we as adults can reach a point where we think for ourselves without vestiges of our past constantly driving our views and opinions. Like you, I am vehemently opposed to oppression in any way, shape, or form. Likewise, I would also require that those claiming to be liberators be truthful and honest when soliciting support for such an action. Lying and misleading an entire nation to garner support for the invasion of another country, regardless of the reason, deliberately invokes fear and panic in order to sway popular opinion. Not allowing the nation to form an opinion based on the truth oppresses free thinking by manipulating opinions and emotions. It is my opinion that the deliberate attempt to decieve an entire nation is tantamount to the oppression of freedom that we as Americans claim to hold so dear. (reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, September 25, 2004, 14:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear frmrjoyish, I think your point is reasonable, but it also seems a little idealistic. Are you seriously proposing that presidents have EVER engaged in a simple recitation of facts to justify their actions? I think that it was President Lincoln who spoke of "lying to all of the people some of the time" and surely you are not suggesting he was a tyrant in the sense that Saddam or TF-leadership is? C'mon, presidents do what all of us do; choose an action and then attempt to justify it and to appear to have been fully thoughtful and moral in their decision-making process. Also, the nation clearly HAS formed an opinion (or two) on this subject, based on new and unfolding truths, and despite concerted effort by the conservatives, liberals, and the press all seeking to describe what is "right" and in an effort to "manipulate opinions and emotions". Finally, while I respect and admire you for seeking to think and react from outside of the constraints of your cult past, it remains a matter of some real interest to me to understand the degree and skewing of our cult pasts on our everyday lives and thinking. Thinking for oursleves includes that aspect of ourselves that comes from an unusually oppressive and exploitive youth, and while I appreciate your insightful acknowledgement that our opinions are often no different than the mainstream, it does still fascinate me to note the permutations and "vestiges" of our shared heritage of hell. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, September 25, 2004, 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, call it idealistic but if we as citizens simply allow our leaders to "choose an action and then attempt to justify it and to appear to have been fully thoughtful and moral in their decision-making process" we are nothing more than chattel and may as well not even have a democracy at all. Besides, isn't that what Sadaam did when he invaded Kuwait? Or gased the Kurds? Of course leaders will try to get away with what they can, but it is our job as citizens to hold them accountable. Without accountability they are nothing more than dictataors!(reply to this comment)

From Saturday, September 25, 2004, 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) But the US is oppressing Iraq and many other countries, and there is alot of effort in response in that reguard, it just takes time and patience. (reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, September 25, 2004, 13:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, I do not agree that the US is oppressing Iraq. Freedom from a raping, pillaging madman is not oppression, in my opinion, and there is no question that their schools, hospitals and other infrastructure are steadily improving since the fall of Saddam. Even so, I don't care that much about their point of view. If they are feeling oppressed, then I guess they should mightily resist that oppression, but I am simply saying that I tend to (over?) identify with any entity that actively resists tyranny, and that this seems a direct result of my cult past. I actually don't think either side of this issue has a convincing intellectual position, and in my gut I know that the same people moaning about our "occupation" of Iraq, are democrats who never minded at all when we were similarly occupying Yugoslavia, or even Haiti. They just justified those actions as "trying to help", like I feel that the current action in Iraq is trying to help... politics, politics, shmolitics... However, it is interesting and important to me that I see how my own cult past colors my perceptions and reactions, and I am certain that one clear result of such a past is that I will NEVER believe in simple answers to one-sided questions or feel comfortable when I take a position that is espoused by the same naive media talking-heads that blithely ignore and minimize the dangers and reality of cults.(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Friday, September 24, 2004 - 15:18 (Agree/Disagree?) My God Wolf, there are a ton of reasons to invade Iraq. Too bad Bush didn't find any WMD's to back up his claim for invasion. He was just trying to cover his ass using the best pc answer he could give without having the World jump on his and our backs. Here are my Reasons of why the US should invade Iraq: 1.) Iraq since in the geographical heart of the mid-east, this makes anyone who runs this country a volatile threat to not only all of it's neighbors but to the entire World; Remember the Kuwait invasion in 91' and the long Iraq/Iran war in the 80's both of these disrupted oil distribution to the entire world. If you study oil distribution the persion gulf is a key distribution point of oil to the entire world. 2.) Land grabbers should be punished: Saddam tried to make a land grab so he would have a good port for his oil distribution. But he was about 50 years too late. He would've been fine if he was Stalin back in the 40's or America back in the 1880's but face it, it's a modern world and you don't just go grabbing someone else's piece of land. 3.) Make an example to all the Dictators and the Muslim world: just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible events, so is this war, however those atomic bombs were an example to Russia as to the power of the US military and Russia never did try to declare outright war on us because they knew they would be desimated. We need to show all those dictators and muslim hotheads what the U.S. is capable of. Mass destruction. That would make it clear to them that we don't mess around with terrorists, and their sympathisers or any other organization governmental or not that decides to mess with the US. 4) Ensure the safe passage and distribution of Oil; face it without oil the West would be nowhere so would the rest of the world. By releasing and controlling Iraq's oil. We have made the world a better place and replenished the good balance of world economic power back into our hands where we will be it's protectorate and not some f'cked up hothead dictator. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, September 25, 2004, 09:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Let's not jump on our high horses just yet! The USA exists as a country because it "land grabbed" an entire country from its orginal inhabitants. When it needed a good port to distribute its military around the world, it did a "land grab" for the Island Nation of Hawaii. "Land grabbers should be punished." Does this mean all land grabbers or all land grabbers except the USA? Or does it not matter now cause it was 100+ years ago?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, September 24, 2004, 21:33 (Agree/Disagree?) 1. I don’t see how Iraq will be less volatile after the US troops leave. It can only be “less volatile” if US troops stay indefinitely. Can you imagine the total number of casualties after 2 or 3 years? Not to mention the cost to US taxpayers. 2. This only justifies the first gulf war, which in my opinion was warranted. 3. I don’t agree with killing the innocent to make an example to dictators (or anyone else for that matter). And again, can you explain how Iraq was involved with terrorism? 4. As long as oil is freely available, the big oil companies will continue to squash serious research into alternative sources of energy. I would rather see the research done now, even if it means I have to pay for a higher cost of living, than know my grandchildren will face an abrupt end to oil reserves with no realistic alternatives available.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, September 24, 2004, 16:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam had to be removed because his government refused to cooperate with the UN and International Community. All the while the French and Russians were bitching about the morality of 'going to war' the Iraqi people were suffering under UN Sanctions prohibiting just about any form of legal imports, and were dying in their thousands. The suffering caused by those Sanctions - which was enforced by the UN even AFTER Saddam had been ousted - was far worse than all of the bombing combined! The only thing I wish is that George Bush Sr hadn't wimped out at the last minute and not finished the job the first time around. Had he done so, the Iraqi people would have had the past decade to rebuild their country as the first democracy in the Arab world.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Saturday, September 25, 2004, 00:39 (Agree/Disagree?) This war was not sanctioned by the U.N therefore it was illegal, and the U.S shoulden't be there. A fact which makes the point of wether the war is right or not moot.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, September 25, 2004, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Ohhh, right! So now you believe that the UN determines what is or isn't right? Let's break this down for a minute... the UN is a forum in which representatives of the governments of the world - or, in the case of the Security Council (which makes most of the decisions) a select group of countries - gather to discuss matters. The UN Resolutions are no more than a straw poll of the opinions of these government representatives. That is also why, as GoldenMic said, the UN has no real power - because all it does is determine the majority opinion of the countries represented (assuming that the government actually represents the country) and those decisions have no legal binding power over independant countries.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, September 26, 2004, 11:56 (Agree/Disagree?) better a group of representatives then one gun crazed texan(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 26, 2004, 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) ... the key being that aforementioned representatives are appointed by aforementioned 'gun crazed texan' (sic) and others like him.(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, September 25, 2004, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, that is some wierd thinking! Are you even slightly aware of the UN's history in terms of corruption and abuses? Why in the world would the United States be bound by whether or not the UN approved of what we did?(reply to this comment)

From lisa Saturday, September 25, 2004, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) And the United States has a better history?(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, September 25, 2004, 14:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Its not a matter of "having a better history". Do you understand the rules of applied logic? The UN's history stands or falls on its own merits, and the history of the US (or Bangladesh or Tibet or Uganda) has nothing to do with the fallacy of suggesting that US responses to thuggery are "illegal" just because "you did it too", or because a bunch of beaurocrats and self-serving lushes don't vote on it. In truth, "law" is only as good as its own enforcability, and the UN is an impotent group, having no moral or practical right to declare an act "illegal" when they don't have the moral authority or power to back it up. Do you realize that you just made a classic cult argument? When cults are held accountable, they frequently state that "other people have done just as badly", and suggest that the answer can be found by judging the morality of the accusing authority, conveniantly allowing them to side-step the question. By the way, I do actually think that the US has a far better history than Saddam and his sons, and if you don't know how disgusting their actions were, you are over-relying on left-wing, anti-West propoganda, I believe. (reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 15:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok this was a bit of a mind boggler. I couldn't figure out if you meant literally or metaphorically chopping one's head off! I suppose you mean when the american hostage got his head hacked off with a saw. That made me so spit-firing mad to think that these citizens were caught in this cross-fire. We (The US government) has become so namby-pamby and yellow-bellied in our relations with other countries. Even in our military operations, we are not allowed to take out targets. We should bomb every mosque and hot-head organization in that country! Face the religious leaders are the real terrorists, if not blatantly supporting and housing these religious extremists. I speak from experience having lived in a Muslim country for over 8 years and having travelled while I was in TF to the mid-east, including Iraq in 97' for the Babylon festival. TF had such a pacifistic and sided on the side of the Mid-easterners and I naturally sided on the same political views. However having applied rationally thinking and watching these nicompoops try to run a country such as Palestine, I would rather have some of our dumb-ass politicians and Republican extremists running the US than terrorists and their sympathetic friends. We must do everything we can to insure that our troops are able to combat in a true military style and get outright victory. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, September 24, 2004, 11:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting viewpoint. Could you kindly explain to us why US troops should be in Iraq in the first place? If your reason has anything to do with Saddam Insane, could you please tell us why you think his successor will be any better than he was? And how was he worse than the Saudi government, who the US supports? If your explanation has anything to do with terrorism, can you please tell us what act of terrorism has been committed by an Iraqi national in the last 50 years? BTW, invading Kuwait was an act of war (and an act of stupidity), not terrorism.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, September 24, 2004, 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) US troops have as much right to be in Iraq as Iraqi immigrants have to be living in America! If Western countries are going to be responsible to take care of refugees and assylum seekers from the rest of the world, then they have every right to meddle in those countries politics in return - since the decisions those governments make ultimately affect the West... (reply to this comment)

From Fish Friday, September 24, 2004, 06:58 (Agree/Disagree?) You’re absolutely right! We are literally digging our own grave with our insane “we are the good guys” policy. For crying out loud!! How the hell can you win a war by being “good”. If bush wanted to conquer a country then he should have been prepared to go all the way with it. This lame facade of religious tolerance he’s pulling is killing Americans and Iraqis alike. If the Islamic fighters are holed up in a mosque then get rid of the mosque!! They’ll learn to hide somewhere else next time. But no, we “respect” other cultures?? Yeah right we do. No one buys it not even his own people. Instead of showing the world America’s power, the war in Iraq has only shown how indecisive and idiotic the leaders and the media of America are. I doubt we have ever appeared more vulnerable. If China or Russia had invaded Iraq would the country still be in the chaos its in now? I doubt it. Why? Because they don’t fuck around. They don’t just lie around talking while their citizens are being slaughtered. The army should NOT have to answer to the media!! That’s the president’s job. The blame should stop with him.(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Friday, September 24, 2004, 09:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, the blame does lie with him, I just hope nov 4th will see his ass out of there.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, September 24, 2004, 08:21 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems China and Russia "don't fuck around" in their own countries as well. Those respective governments have shown no hesitation to slaughter and massacre their own citizens as well!(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, September 24, 2004, 07:43 (Agree/Disagree?) (snip)If China or Russia had invaded Iraq would the country still be in the chaos its in now?(/snip) Yeah right, Tibet and Chechnya are regular paradises.. secure as hell! - oh, wait. If the blame for the situation in Iraq lays with the president as you say, then by all means boot him out in November for the lousy job he's done! But an escalation of brutality in this conflict will not bring a speedy end to hostilities, bottom line. Getting the f*ck out of a situation you (and your vaunted army) never should have been in in the first place has a chance, though. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Friday, September 24, 2004, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah excellent!! I just posted the damn thing and already the howling has commenced. Apparently there was some ambiguity in my post so Ill try to clear it up. When I compared China and Russia with the US (as in invading Iraq) I was comparing their intolerance of civil unrest and criminal activity, as compared to the US’s fetish for letting people have a free for all. (I was generalizing to make a point, not writing some kind of doctorate.) The “good guys foolishness”. You cannot rule a somewhat primitive country in this fashion. Saddam knew this, bush does not. The US has become so obsessed with its image that it is basically impotent in the face of a guerilla war. I do NOT support the attack on Iraq. Anyone who read my post could have deduced that. The obvious point I was making is that if they are going to do it, they should fucking do it. Conquer the damn place, don’t sit around and get butchered while trying to save some mosque. As far as my “vaunted army” (I wish) getting “the fuck out of the situation”, it’s obviously a little late for that. To do so would be to admit defeat, which would be the final blow to any sort of international credulity the US has left. The fact that they are still there says something. They aren’t willing to give in, the want to complete what they came to do, and leave a relatively safe and stable country in their wake. Fuck the cowards that left when things got tough. They are far worse than the states. What kind of name is “roughneck”? I take it by your response that you’re either not American or that you’re in denial. If you’re going to type fuck then fucking type it. I’ve been to Tibet and it’s doing a hell of a lot better than its war torn neighbor Nepal. Perhaps those making comparisons should travel? (reply to this comment)

From Fish Friday, September 24, 2004, 09:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah excellent!! I just posted the damn thing and already the howling has commenced. Apparently there was some ambiguity in my post so Ill try to clear it up. When I compared China and Russia with the US (as in invading Iraq) I was comparing their intolerance of civil unrest and criminal activity, as compared to the US’s fetish for letting people have a free for all. (I was generalizing to make a point, not writing some kind of doctorate.) The “good guys foolishness”. You cannot rule a somewhat primitive country in this fashion. Saddam knew this, bush does not. The US has become so obsessed with its image that it is basically impotent in the face of a guerilla war. I do NOT support the attack on Iraq. Anyone who read my post could have deduced that. The obvious point I was making is that if they are going to do it, they should fucking do it. Conquer the damn place, don’t sit around and get butchered while trying to save some mosque. As far as my “vaunted army” (I wish) getting “the fuck out of the situation”, it’s obviously a little late for that. To do so would be to admit defeat, which would be the final blow to any sort of international credulity the US has left. The fact that they are still there says something. They aren’t willing to give in, the want to complete what they came to do, and leave a relatively safe and stable country in their wake. Fuck the cowards that left when things got tough. They are far worse than the states. What kind of name is “roughneck”? I take it by your response that you’re either not American or that you’re in denial. If you’re going to type fuck then fucking type it. I’ve been to Tibet and it’s doing a hell of a lot better than its war torn neighbor Nepal. Perhaps those making comparisons should travel? (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, September 24, 2004, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Where you write "intolerance of civil unrest and criminal activity," I read "massive human rights violations including but not limited to mass deportations, beatings, various methods of torture and summary execution." What part of this are you suggesting the United States use to consolidate it's hold on Iraq? Blow up mosques? Yeah, that's a great approach. You'd instantly turn every pro-US, moderate Moslem in damn near the whole world against the US the minute you did that. Fact is, the US is running out of friends over Iraq as it stands, and your so-called "solution" would only make the situation exponentially worse. I would beg you not to confuse rectifying a bad mistake by pulling out of a needless war with cowardice. The "stay the course" argument is only valid when the course is necessary to begin with. -Which it clearly is not. It would seem to me that that George Bush's over-arching and undiminished credulity has everything to do with the US's involvement in Iraq to date. Don't catch my meaning? Kindly look up the word "credulity" and try not to use big words that you don't understand in the future, mkay? It kind of makes you look lame. I think the word you wanted was "credibility". - But what the heck: Georgie can't lose what he ain't got, right? for your convenience: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=credulity Finally my piscine pal, what kind of nickname is "Fish" anyway? One could readily assume that you were the hapless victim of some hirsute Family Auntie's charms back in the late 70s/early 80s, especially given the site you're on. Care to elucidate? ;) PS: This is both to you and the mikey-mouse poster below: I have the nickname "roughneck" because I really was a roughneck (ie, worked on oil rigs) for some time after laving TF. Whether this means that I have "balls" or not I shall leave to your conjecture.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Saturday, September 25, 2004, 05:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Umkay? I understand where you’re coming from. As a matter a fact your views seem to be quite reasonable. However, I still don’t fucking agree. If the states were to pull out now they would leave behind a country that would menace not only them, but the entire world as well. This is unacceptable. And no amount of leftwing nonsense will make it acceptable. As for my word use, I use an automatic spell check, moron. At least you got the point. Piscean is right. I hope you will soon have a personal experience with one of my kind. A great white would do nicely. (though it may choke on your engorged ‘balls’)(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, September 24, 2004, 18:09 (Agree/Disagree?) whoops, last paragraph: *leaving TF :)(reply to this comment)

From mikey-mouse Friday, September 24, 2004, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) A rounghneck is what they call guys who work on oil rigs, something our Lee man wishes he was, but doesnt have the balls to do. Ruff is Canadian, but has lived in the US (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Friday, September 24, 2004, 17:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually shit-for-brains, Lee did use to work on a oil rig. Ain't that right Lee?(reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, September 24, 2004, 06:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I compiled this for another discussion on another web site, but are you sure you want "dumb-ass politicians and Republican extremists running the US"? The problem is with religious extremists, not with a particular religion. Christian extremists would apparently love to see "creation science" taught as fact in all schools, non-christians persecuted and denied citizenship (although corporations are apparently just fine with citizenship), rights for women eradicated, religious "law" insitituted, homosexuals jailed and/or killed, American imperialism forcing Christianity on the rest of the world, religious censorship, eradication of "dangerous ideas", revoking free speech for non-Christians, etc. etc. In their own words: ***************************** " I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God ." --George H. W. Bush " It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation ." --Pat Robertson "Those who practice homosexuality should swiftly be put to death by the government. God emphatically condemns the practice of exchanging proper gender characteristics among men and women. God justly calls for the death-penalty for anyone who practices homosexuality." --Citizens for the Ten Commandments "Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." --Jerry Falwell "The long term goal [is] the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them. If we argue that abortion is murder, then we must call for the death penalty." --Gary DeMar "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed." --Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, speaking of doctors who perform abortions "The Church doesn't believe in book-burning, but it believes in restricting the use of dangerous books among those whose minds are unprepared for them." --Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor "The Church has through the centuries, understood that ideas are really more dangerous than other weapons. Their use should be restricted." --Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor "Diversity may be a rallying cry for the politically correct, but for the average American, the acceptance of diversity in religion, as in politics and race, is not a widely embraced notion. " --Gorge Barna, president of the religious polling company Barna Research " There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore ." --Pat Robertson "Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it. ... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory." --Rev. Jimmy Swaggart “ I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag ." --Ralph Reed, political strategist, advisor to George H. W. Bush " I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism ." --Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue " The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period. " --Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL " We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity ." --Ann Coulter, conservative columnist "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." --Ann Coulter " We are approaching a time when Christians, especially, may have to declare the social contract between Enlightenment rationalists and Biblical believers - which formed the basis of the constitution written at our nation's founding - null and void ". --Cal Thomas, conservative columnist " Most American children do not know that this is a Christian nation... [O]ur Constitution won't work in Russia, won't work in Haiti, won't work in Iraq. It only works where the people believe in the Christ of the Bible. The United States of America ." --Jerry Falwell " We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way ." --Dr. Jay Grimstead, founding Director of the Coalition for Revival " Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol ." --Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church " This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians ." --Dr. Gary North, Christian Reconstructionalist " Hey - get with the program! CHRISTIANS are INDIVIDUALS!! NON-CHRISTIANS are a BIG BLURRY MESS!!! ” --Melinda Shore " When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil ." --Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action " If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being ." --Jerry Falwell " The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country ." --Jerry Falwell " A good bit of the country thinks the meaning of America is it's a place where you get to do whatever you want. Different strokes for different folks; if it feels good, do it.... And then there are people like us who believe with all our hearts that that was NOT what the country was supposed to be about. We believe that it's supposed to be a place built on ordered liberty under God." "Somebody gets to put their views into practice through our laws. And the winner of this big war between those two worldviews is going to win our children. In the war over the meaning of America, we're going to win ." --Gary Bauer, 2000 Presidential Candidate (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Friday, September 24, 2004, 09:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes good job Jules, very interesting and scary.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, September 24, 2004, 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! Pat Robertson says: " It is interesting, that termites don't build things," What a moron! Evidently he has no clue about the massive and complicated structures that most termite species build. In fact, it would be equivalent to humans building structures that reach past the troposphere! Such ignorance! Other than that comment, everything else was downright frightening! Good job, jules!(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Friday, September 24, 2004, 10:59 (Agree/Disagree?) The horrifying injustice of it all! I propose "termite awareness week", effective immediately!(reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, September 24, 2004, 11:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Termite bashing is one thing, but I thought you would be at least somewhat concerned about Gary Potter's "no more free distribution of pornography" statement. Those damn Republicans actually want you to pay for it!(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, September 24, 2004, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) (snip) " It is interesting, that termites don't build things.. "(/snip) Being as how termites are the I.M. Pei-s of the insect world, (ie, they *DO* build things, and impressive structures they are!) ole Pat couldn't have chosen a worse analogy, seems to me. Maybe hs should have spent more time in Entomology class as opposed to Theology. -Or (my view) he's just fucked in the head. ;) (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, September 24, 2004, 08:33 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! Oops, looks like someone beat me to it! : )(reply to this comment)

From jez Friday, September 24, 2004, 05:33 (Agree/Disagree?) "We should bomb every mosque.." WTF? IMO calling these terrorists Islamists is equal to calling the KKK Christians or the IRA Catholics, as these people's actions have just as little in common with their respective religions. And as for the mess that is Palestine... please do your research. (reply to this comment)

from moon beam Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 14:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel for the families and of course the victims, it's awfull they got caught up in this mess, as with the children, parents and teachers in russia,that died a few weeks ago. The terorists know the phsychology and realize that the west does not like to do deals with terrorist's. So you can asssume that they were quite prepared to kill. What it has highlighted though is the fact that Irak is still not rulling it's self, even thoough the handover was in June. It shows to the world that Irak is just a puppet state all over again (they did this to them before with Saddam It seems when the terror is close to home,ie, Northern ireland they can "talk" to these terrorists. The unfortunate thing is that the recent tradgedy in Belsan has given Puttin cart blanche to deal with his people in a simular manner to the American goverment. Unsuprisingly in his interview he said he would not deal with child killers, though that is exactly what he'd been doing, which is why they had a terrorist attack in the first place. So instead of real peace talks and reasonable deals made, he can go at them even harder (because the Americans did) just what he wanted really. (reply to this comment)

from jpmagero Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Whether or not going there in the first place was right, is a completely different matter. But giving in to terrorist's demands will always bring a bad final outcome in the longrun. Once the Philipines and Spain were swayed, the terrorists came out even more aggresive feeling that they really did have power and influence. The kidnappings increased and the killings are getting more gruesome. In the end, they will find any excuse for violence, its not really about their demands. If its not headscarves in France, its female prisoners, its reporters, you name it. They will keep changing their demands and continue their violence no matter what. The fact that the vast majority of those killed in suicide bombings are Iraqis shows that they just want violence and are not after any real single objective per se. That's my opinion at least. (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Thursday, September 23, 2004, 14:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't see it that way. Would you kill yourself for something to do on a sunday afternoon? Then think "Why would they"? In all countrys people kill others, and commit suicide, and join the army- prepared to kill. Now in the west it may be for a number of reasons, some very stupid ones to boot. Imagine being bought up in a war torn existence where you have no say, no vote, no husband or family, maybe they are all dead. You ask yourself why?, who's to blame? you have nothing left to live for. you can see what I'm saying. To top it all we live in a world where religous extremism is allowed for, think cults. In such a state of desperation you may join one and become sucked in. Haven't we heard this before, we should know better then anyone what can happen. When they say religion is banned or you have a mental problem if you can believe in these fairy stories, I know I'll sleep better.(reply to this comment)

From jpmagero Friday, September 24, 2004, 14:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I never said they don't have motivation to kill, but that ultimately its not about the demands, its about violence against westerners or anyone seen as a collaborator. So giving into those demands will not bring any more certainty of peace or cessation of violence. I certainly see why some of them would be upset to the extreme, though I could never agree with their methods.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, September 23, 2004, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that the point is really that yes, those terrorists DO have an ultimate goal - and one which we can not and will not ever give in to. So, giving in to them on these less important issues is only going to fuel their desire to use these tactics in future, and - ultimately - to use them on an even larger scale than so far.(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Friday, September 24, 2004, 08:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course there are two extremes, both religious and both have ultimate goals to fufill" In the name of God/Allah. Like I said I see negotiation as the key. This can't be seen in terms of winning and loosing as it's not that simple. It is bizzare that both extremes hate each other, seeing as they have simular theories and mindsets. Like communism and facism, no difference in the end result. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, September 24, 2004, 16:49 (Agree/Disagree?) The extremes hate each other because they are competing for the political power and leverage. It's what happens when religious organisations try to exert political influence.(reply to this comment)

From infantryman Saturday, September 25, 2004, 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) u seem to be running ur mouth bout 911 and all sayin a bunch of shit u don't know bout! i think that the war was and still is necesary, where would u rather the terrorsit be here at home or over there huh? i just got back from there and i'll tell u what there nothing but a bunch of fucking animals who deserve everything they get! untill u've picked up a gun in defense of ur country u have no right to talk!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, September 26, 2004, 00:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Infantryman, before you go accusing me of 'running my mouth' maybe you ought to actually read what I've been saying! I DO know what I'm talking about, I've lived in the region far longer than you have for one thing, and I can swear that during that time I've come to know a lot more about what Iraq is like, and the way Iraqis think than anyone in a US Army uniform ever could! Obviously you think that the fact you've risked your life in defense of your country automatically makes you some sort of authority on the subject, well, that is simply not the case. With all due respect, if you honestly think that Iraqis are 'a bunch of fucking animals' then you don't know jack - and your reasons for fighting in that war couldn't be farther from the truth. On the other hand, I don't know why I'm saying all this, since if you'll read in my other posts you'll find that I AM in favour of the military action in Iraq. As far as the current violence, this is a natural part of the process of changing from totalitarianism to democracy. There will always be those who try to cash in and grab whatever power they can during the upheaval. This violence, however, is not CAUSED by the US/UK military action, but that action did create the evironment that ALLOWED it to happen. Maybe all of those short-sighted people out there ought to look at the bigger picture and realise that if our governments had gone in there and immediately started running the country, then all we would have done is replace one dictatorship with another. The concept of freedom and democracy is that people are able to determine their own future - and yes, that includes giving them the freedom to do things that we don't agree with! However, once someone has decided to use violence to achieve their goals, as these extremists have, then they deserve to be hunted down and brought to book for their crimes. Since the Iraqi police force is not yet capable of doing this effectively, the US/UK troops have been required to remain to do so. That is the essence of what is and has been happening so far - of course there were mistakes made, and that is also something that will continue to happen. But rather than being so narrow-minded and focusing on those mistakes, one really should be looking at the bigger picture of what is being achieved, and support Iraq as it attempts to structure itself as the first democratic Arab nation.(reply to this comment)

from Nick Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 07:25 (Agree/Disagree?) "We do not negotiate with terrorists" has always been US and British policy and for very good reason. The min you start giving in to any terrorist demands no matter if it be over a civilian prisoner in Iraq or a or a plane full of people in the sky, you will start to set a bad precedence. You are projecting a message that if they want to try and harm us there is a possibility they will get their demands met. Right now our policy and our actions say that we will never meet their demands and we are sticking to our guns so don't bother to try and do that again. Yes it is tragic that those two Americans were killed last week and it makes my blood boil! But if we were to give in to their demands in that case just think how many more innocent lives would be lost in the long run. It would be open season on all of us. They will know that all they have to do is hijack a plane and their terrorist buddies in jail will be free to kill again. (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 15:05 (Agree/Disagree?) In light of the fact that today saw the release of hostages including two italian woman bought about by negotiations, it will be interresting to see whether theres a sudden rise in Italians being taken hostage-by your logic. Or if they will continue to take Americans (maybe british too depending on whether Blair changes his attitude and negotiates ken bigley out off there.) to show the world that America has no wish to talk and negotiate/hence being dictator-like. With us or against us stance, with no middle ground! (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 19:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the motivation for kidnapping foreigners is going to be there. By occasionally releasing a few Turks or Italian aid workers between brutally sawing heads off, I guess they figure they score some points with moderate Iraqis who they really need to cast a blind eye to their activities in order to be successful. I think that as it is they are kidnapping as many foreigners as they can and they will continue to do so. Obviously relatives are going to publicly plead for the lives of their loved ones as most anyone would. I still think it's important for governments not do so. It appeared that after Bigley and the 2 Americans (R.I.P.) were kidnapped the Iraqi provisional leadership announced they were going to release at least one of the female scientists (Dr. Germ?, Miss Anthrax? one of them). The U.S. promptly dismissed the idea further reducing whatever credibility the provisional leadership it trying to maintain. It's almost as hard to be strong on behalf of the Iraqis as it is conduct a regime change or transfer to democracy for them probably because it's against the natural order of things. Many here in the U.S. bristle when comparisons are made between Vietnam and Iraq especially because the casualties were so much worse in Vietnam but one glaring similarity is that at some point we moved from supporting the South Vietnamese to effectively fighting the war on their behalf. If different populations around the world want to overthrow oppresive and evil regimes then I am in favor of supporting them financially (within reason) and with air power, etc. But, they have to cowboy the fuck up and stand on their own feet. Because if they don't have the balls to rise up initially, they are going to have a tendency to capitulate and we end up in the kind of situation we are in now picking up the bill in blood and treasure. Adding insult to injury, our country is hated more than ever, and more vulnerable that ever and we turn Osama into a fucking prophet with far greater appeal amongst moderate Muslims and Arabs. Reminds me of a Doonesbury Comic I cut out some time ago: "When George W. Bush first ran for president, he promised to be a UNITER, not a DIVIDER. Three short years later, he's delivered! Today, muslims everywhere stand united in their anger toward America! By invading iraq, Bush has created an incubator for a whole new generation of holy warriors! Moreover, by so carelessly squandering America's moral authority...he's done incalculable damage to her standing and interests around the world for years to come! May he be re-elected! God willing! I am Osama Bin Laden, and I approve this message" (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 15:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Intransigence is not the reason for not negotiating with terrorists - rather it is not allowing yourself to be dictated to by them. It's the same as bullying in school, the more you knuckle under, the more liberties the bully will take until they control your life, and make it unbearable for you.(reply to this comment)

From surfer Thursday, September 23, 2004, 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it's past time for martial law in Iraq. I think the Iraqis see our restraint as a sign of weakness and in order to bring about peace martial law and maybe less political correctness is in order. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Saturday, September 25, 2004, 00:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Trade one dictator for another.(reply to this comment)

from frmrjoyish Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 04:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately it's not that simple! Giving in to the terrorists will never quiet their demands. Instead they will escalate and more innocent people will lose their lives. While American politics does play a role in the breeding of terrorism, this does not excuse the actions of the terrorists. Besides, the majority of the terrorists are basing their actions on religious grounds. IMO, anytime you cut off an innocent man or woman's head in the name of "god" you are automatically wrong and deserve to die! (reply to this comment)