Bush or Kerry or ???

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Chaim
I agree with your analysis regarding the HISTORY of the Middle East. I disagree about the FUTURE of the people that live in this region.

The people of the region are just like you and I; every society, given the choice, would choose democracy.

The problem is with the leaders, the dictators, of these nations. They try to keep their people ignorance, suppress them, use religion to encourage violence, and use violence to control the mass.

They can all benefit from a Democracy.

Regarding your comment about a nation that tries to enforce democracy from a few thousand miles away: if they try to kill us, we should go after them, no matter what the distance is. It’s a small world after all.

I am glad that you agree with me with regard to the history of the middle east.
However, I take issue with your contention that people in these
countries would adopt what we call democracy.
You and I both live in democracies - and by and large life is good.
However to apply our experience to other societies is precarious.

I work with a Ukrainian software engineer.
He lived under communism and is now a full fledged capitalist.
He told me that life under communism was better for people in his country.
I asked him about his view about democracy etc.
He pointed out to me that under communism, people were guaranteed a job, a home and a guaranteed income.
But now under democracy, Ukrainians are unemployed, they have no access to education (education was free under communism)
and food and basic living standards have dropped.

If you consider that billions of people live under systems other than democracy.
If there was a real groundswell to embrace democracy in any of these regions, I am sure that democracy would be ushered in.

 

[Chaim]

Originally posted by limerickman
I am glad that you agree with me with regard to the history of the middle east.
However, I take issue with your contention that people in these
countries would adopt what we call democracy.
You and I both live in democracies - and by and large life is good.
However to apply our experience to other societies is precarious.

I work with a Ukrainian software engineer.
He lived under communism and is now a full fledged capitalist.
He told me that life under communism was better for people in his country.
I asked him about his view about democracy etc.
He pointed out to me that under communism, people were guaranteed a job, a home and a guaranteed income.
But now under democracy, Ukrainians are unemployed, they have no access to education (education was free under communism)
and food and basic living standards have dropped.

If you consider that billions of people live under systems other than democracy.
If there was a real groundswell to embrace democracy in any of these regions, I am sure that democracy would be ushered in.

Ukraine is a young democracy, it takes generations to make the switch, and they chose to make the switch based on long term vision. The person you work with decided that the democracy/capitalism is a better system for him. I agree that the old generation may have hard times.

Even in a democracy, we can find passive people that expect compensations that do not link to the value they add to their employers. This struggle between employee/employer leads to a mediocrity/pure production levels/low quality/etc. Check large corporations. Dilbert did a good job describing these people…

I immigrated to the US 20 years ago from a socio-democracy. The government and the unions control the economy. I was educated, had a good job (for life), but the unions and management, at that time, “decided” for me, that I am too young for promotions, etc. I was young and energetic (still am) and decided to leave and “check-out” other places. A great decision!

The country I came from is also struggling. The switch from Socialism to Capitalism is not easy; during the transition the “State” must help the old and educate/send the right message to the young generation. This is a long term decision!

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Chaim
Ukraine is a young democracy, it takes generations to make the switch, and they chose to make the switch based on long term vision. The person you work with decided that the democracy/capitalism is a better system for him. I agree that the old generation may have hard times.

Even in a democracy, we can find passive people that expect compensations that do not link to the value they add to their employers. This struggle between employee/employer leads to a mediocrity/pure production levels/low quality/etc. Check large corporations. Dilbert did a good job describing these people…

I immigrated to the US 20 years ago from a socio-democracy. The government and the unions control the economy. I was educated, had a good job (for life), but the unions and management, at that time, “decided” for me, that I am too young for promotions, etc. I was young and energetic (still am) and decided to leave and “check-out” other places. A great decision!

The country I came from is also struggling. The switch from Socialism to Capitalism is not easy; during the transition the “State” must help the old and educate/send the right message to the young generation. This is a long term decision!

I take the point that I think that you are trying to make.
Of course any switch in ideology will take time to take effect - however, everyone including us, live in the here and now, and not in the future.
Any change in ideology needs to be introduced slowly and with due care and attention.

You make the link about employees and employers and employees wishing to be compensated for doing nothing.
I don't agree that it is right for an employee to expect to be paid wages if that employee is unproductive and just merely turns up to work to collect a wage.

But if you take this point to it's logical conclusion : GoldmanSachs make EUR6 billion profit - therefore, should all
GS employees get higher wages as a consequence (their labour created those profits !) ?
How does one value the contribution of an employee to a company ?

You sound like you emigrated from Britain in the 1970's : where unions dictated national wage agreements and did
stifle promotion prospects for employees.
This model does not/cannot work.

But at the same time, you cannot allow capitalism to run rampant - if you do you then have the Nike sweatshop scenarios
where child labour is used to make product very cheaply and where Nike enjoy margins of several hundred percent.

 

[WW13]

And this effects my bike riding. WHY???? I really come here about bikes, not politics. Enjoy!!! I do have a belief, but I think I will just enjoy the flames I receive for not appearing to care.

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by WW13
And this effects my bike riding. WHY???? I really come here about bikes, not politics. Enjoy!!! I do have a belief, but I think I will just enjoy the flames I receive for not appearing to care.

Please don't tell me you entered a forum with a title of "bloody soap box" in hopes of discovering useful bike info..

So, if you don't want to read it, just keep your mouse pointer away from the "bloody soap box" junior....


Your welcome...

 

[WW13]

Originally posted by zapper
Please don't tell me you entered a forum with a title of "bloody soap box" in hopes of discovering useful bike info..

So, if you don't want to read it, just keep your mouse pointer away from the "bloody soap box" junior....


Your welcome...

That's one flame. NEXT

I love the entertainment

 

[Espada9]

Originally posted by ejglows
I left the States because of the dismal state it is in... From the New Vietnam, destruction of the environment, and of course we now have a new civil rights war... At the end of the day, either you are a part of it or you are not. I didnt want to have anything to do with it and renounced my residency. If only I could find a reason to claim political asylum in another country...

erin

Good libral fruitcake, stay away!

 

[Espada9]

Originally posted by limerickman
Keydates, I agree with you.

Saudi Arabia and Egypts human rights records are appalling.
I would also throw in Turkey as well.
Look at the way that the Turks treat the Kurds – it is terrible.
To western standards, what passes for human rights in these countries is terrible.
In mitigation, this sort of bahaviour in those countries has been the way for centuries.
Husseins appalling treatment of people, was tolerated – as is the behaviour of other
dictators in that region.
Terrible behaviour, yes.
But are we right to try to impose our values on that region ?

Historically, countries in the Middle East never had what we call parliamentary
democracies like we have in Western Europe for example.
These societies always operated on the basis of what we would probably define as
dictatorships ie the strongest man becomes leader of a tribe/society/nation.
To seek to try to impose western values in these regions is precarious at best.
None of the societies in the Middle East have ever sought to have western-style parliamentary democracy.

This is why the campaign to “impose democracy” is, in my view, contradictory.
To try to impose democracy where democracy was never called for by the people, is a contradiction.
Most people who understand and cherish democracy know that genuine democracy is brought about through a groundswell of popular opinion.
Democracy is not brought about because an expedient politician, living thousands of miles away, decides to meddle in the affairs of that country.
That’s not democracy.

I don’t know what utopian fantasy world you live in but you falsely assume the citizens of these regimes have a choice, the choice is to live and go along with the totalitarian regime or be tortured to death, have your family tortured to death, doesn’t sound like much of a choice to me.
You need to talk to a few people who have lived under these conditions, I’ve never met one who didn’t want democracy, why do you think so many have left (given the choice) and moved to Europe or the US/Canada???

Are large numbers of people moving to Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia because they chose those forms of governments, NOT!

Using hindsight, the US has surly made plenty of mistakes in the past but the intentions of my country are usually on the positive side of history, it’s not Disney World out there, often the choice is the lesser of two evils.
Did we “impose democracy” on Nazi Germany??? Imperialistic Japan???
The Soviet Union???

It’s too bad the rest of the world is so timid about confronting the real bully’s of the world, there would be no killing fields in Cambodia or Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia if the UN acted like it should but it’s just another corrupt bourocracy out for it’s own profit (oil for food anyone?).
If the UN is unable to enforce it’s own resolutions then what is it, but an emasculated joke?

The UN teaches the tyrants of the world that if they kill a few Westerners, the UN will go away, it’s a policy of conditioned response that has perpetuated the Sadam Hussein’s of the world.

World Health Organization reported that over 6,000 children starved every Month in Iraq while palace after palace was being built. If you sit on the sidelines and watch, I believe it makes you an accomplice. I hope I’m never being mugged while a bunch of Euros or Canadians are standing by because judging by their lack of courage and moral conviction I could only count on them watching me die while they “go and get a latté”.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Espada9
I don’t know what utopian fantasy world you live in but you falsely assume the citizens of these regimes have a choice, the choice is to live and go along with the totalitarian regime or be tortured to death, have your family tortured to death, doesn’t sound like much of a choice to me.
You need to talk to a few people who have lived under these conditions, I’ve never met one who didn’t want democracy, why do you think so many have left (given the choice) and moved to Europe or the US/Canada???

Are large numbers of people moving to Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia because they chose those forms of governments, NOT!

Using hindsight, the US has surly made plenty of mistakes in the past but the intentions of my country are usually on the positive side of history, it’s not Disney World out there, often the choice is the lesser of two evils.
Did we “impose democracy” on Nazi Germany??? Imperialistic Japan???
The Soviet Union???

It’s too bad the rest of the world is so timid about confronting the real bully’s of the world, there would be no killing fields in Cambodia or Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia if the UN acted like it should but it’s just another corrupt bourocracy out for it’s own profit (oil for food anyone?).
If the UN is unable to enforce it’s own resolutions then what is it, but an emasculated joke?

The UN teaches the tyrants of the world that if they kill a few Westerners, the UN will go away, it’s a policy of conditioned response that has perpetuated the Sadam Hussein’s of the world.

World Health Organization reported that over 6,000 children starved every Month in Iraq while palace after palace was being built. If you sit on the sidelines and watch, I believe it makes you an accomplice. I hope I’m never being mugged while a bunch of Euros or Canadians are standing by because judging by their lack of courage and moral conviction I could only count on them watching me die while they “go and get a latté”.

The question about "imposing democracy" pertains to the USA
imposing "democracy" in a region where historically there was never any democracy.

The west has meddled in the Middle East since 1918.
The west created Iraq in 1918 by fusing together three distinct tribes, Sunni, Kurd and Shia.
In 1948, the West annexed the 14th province of Iraq and called it Kuwait and installed a royal family.
In 1948, the West created Israel in the wake of the Holocaust
and thus moved millions of Palestinians off their land.

The perception created throughout the Arab Middle East is that the West has been interferring in their internal affairs for the past 100 years.
The Arab Middle East has consistently fought this interference
(Nasser 1950's, Iran in 1979 and now Iraq in 2003/4).

if there was a genuine groundswell within any of these regions to
adopt democracy, democracy could take hold.
However, we have had a series of lies perpetrated by the USA and Britain to justify an illeagl war in Iraq.
The forces in Iraq are viewed as occupiers and not liberators.

Why is that ? Why is it that USA has been continually attacked by
the Shia for example ?
Who says that democracy is the right sort of goverment to have anyway ?
Yes, it works for you and me - but who are we to tell other countries that they should adopt democracy ?

And before you go on about WW2 - the USA (and I am assuming you are from the USA) only became involved in the WW2 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
The USA were neutral while the Nazi's conquered Europe between
1939-1941

Similarly WW1: the USA remained neutral until 1917, in awar
from 1914-1918.

Your country is isolationist by inclination.

Credit where it is due - Europe sat on it's hands while the worst atrocities since WW2 were committed in Bosnia.
President Clinton and the USA shamed Europe in to acting after
the USA decided to take action.

But by nature your country is isolationist.

 

[Espada9]

Originally posted by limerickman
The question about "imposing democracy" pertains to the USA
imposing "democracy" in a region where historically there was never any democracy.

The west has meddled in the Middle East since 1918.
The west created Iraq in 1918 by fusing together three distinct tribes, Sunni, Kurd and Shia.
In 1948, the West annexed the 14th province of Iraq and called it Kuwait and installed a royal family.
In 1948, the West created Israel in the wake of the Holocaust
and thus moved millions of Palestinians off their land.

The perception created throughout the Arab Middle East is that the West has been interferring in their internal affairs for the past 100 years.
The Arab Middle East has consistently fought this interference
(Nasser 1950's, Iran in 1979 and now Iraq in 2003/4).

if there was a genuine groundswell within any of these regions to
adopt democracy, democracy could take hold.
However, we have had a series of lies perpetrated by the USA and Britain to justify an illeagl war in Iraq.
The forces in Iraq are viewed as occupiers and not liberators.

Why is that ? Why is it that USA has been continually attacked by
the Shia for example ?
Who says that democracy is the right sort of goverment to have anyway ?
Yes, it works for you and me - but who are we to tell other countries that they should adopt democracy ?

And before you go on about WW2 - the USA (and I am assuming you are from the USA) only became involved in the WW2 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
The USA were neutral while the Nazi's conquered Europe between
1939-1941

Similarly WW1: the USA remained neutral until 1917, in awar
from 1914-1918.

Your country is isolationist by inclination.

Credit where it is due - Europe sat on it's hands while the worst atrocities since WW2 were committed in Bosnia.
President Clinton and the USA shamed Europe in to acting after
the USA decided to take action.

But by nature your country is isolationist.

Gee, thanks for the free history lesson (you’re obviously British due to you need act superior in the hopes it will make you feel better, a little cover for your insecurity).

Nice one-sided representation of our past Middle East policy, you’re conveniently leaving out all of the details as to why these decisions were made (simplification?).

Dragging out the past for whatever reason does not change the situation of the present, I’m sure you would rather take a “do nothing” attitude as it’s the most convenient.
I could certainly drag out the laundry of the British Empire but we’ve seen that movie before (hypocrite).

It’s the Sunni that are behind most of the Jihadist attacks, not the shia, the “land” never belonged to the Palestinians, and how do you determine weather a war is “legal”???
Do we ask permission?
No one said that democracy is the right sort of government to have, the choice will be up to the Iraqi people, granted the US or the UN don’t screw it up, or the Mullahs don’t fear freedom from their influence and declare a Jihad, or the foreign terrorists don’t inflict too many casualties and infuriate the liberals and so get Kerry elected, it’s a fragile thing but anything worth dying for usually is.

I can’t understand why the so-called “open minded” liberals of the world are so negative, the sky is always falling. Are you people intrinsically unhappy? Is it because you’re afraid of dying (nothing you can do about that, embrace it or live in fear)???
Are you lacking some sort of faith or conviction? I can understand how secular humanism can be a let down, man will never be perfect so get used to let down and disappointment, but to consciously refuse to STRIVE for perfection is nothing but an act of a lazy coward.

Do you believe that the people in power in the US and England are some sort of dark and sinister plotters who deliberately lied and deceived the public? When a decision is made in whatever administration currently in power it’s not done by one man (or woman), so to believe that the “war” was a deliberate deception of the people is to believe that ALL people (including Kerry who voted in favor) are on the take and lied to the public on purpose.

Or could it be that our intelligence (and that of the UN) is so poor because we have little dialogue with the REAL players in the region, and little understanding of the undercurrents of the Islamic world that we bought the information that was sold to us (yes we’re fallible).

Yes, by nature my country is isolationist, but when it comes to defending our allies (does that term still apply?) we’ve always been there. I couldn’t say that about any European country (except for the UK).

I can only say I’m glad you have someone with enough courage in the UK to forget about partisan politics and take a risk at being wrong or unpopular and do what needs to be done for the future of ALL the world (Tony Blair should be a national hero in England, and history will probably judge him as such).

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by Espada9
Gee, thanks for the free history lesson (you’re obviously British due to you need act superior in the hopes it will make you feel better, a little cover for your insecurity).

Nice one-sided representation of our past Middle East policy, you’re conveniently leaving out all of the details as to why these decisions were made (simplification?).

Dragging out the past for whatever reason does not change the situation of the present, I’m sure you would rather take a “do nothing” attitude as it’s the most convenient.
I could certainly drag out the laundry of the British Empire but we’ve seen that movie before (hypocrite).

It’s the Sunni that are behind most of the Jihadist attacks, not the shia, the “land” never belonged to the Palestinians, and how do you determine weather a war is “legal”???
Do we ask permission?
No one said that democracy is the right sort of government to have, the choice will be up to the Iraqi people, granted the US or the UN don’t screw it up, or the Mullahs don’t fear freedom from their influence and declare a Jihad, or the foreign terrorists don’t inflict too many casualties and infuriate the liberals and so get Kerry elected, it’s a fragile thing but anything worth dying for usually is.

I can’t understand why the so-called “open minded” liberals of the world are so negative, the sky is always falling. Are you people intrinsically unhappy? Is it because you’re afraid of dying (nothing you can do about that, embrace it or live in fear)???
Are you lacking some sort of faith or conviction? I can understand how secular humanism can be a let down, man will never be perfect so get used to let down and disappointment, but to consciously refuse to STRIVE for perfection is nothing but an act of a lazy coward.

Do you believe that the people in power in the US and England are some sort of dark and sinister plotters who deliberately lied and deceived the public? When a decision is made in whatever administration currently in power it’s not done by one man (or woman), so to believe that the “war” was a deliberate deception of the people is to believe that ALL people (including Kerry who voted in favor) are on the take and lied to the public on purpose.

Or could it be that our intelligence (and that of the UN) is so poor because we have little dialogue with the REAL players in the region, and little understanding of the undercurrents of the Islamic world that we bought the information that was sold to us (yes we’re fallible).

Yes, by nature my country is isolationist, but when it comes to defending our allies (does that term still apply?) we’ve always been there. I couldn’t say that about any European country (except for the UK).

I can only say I’m glad you have someone with enough courage in the UK to forget about partisan politics and take a risk at being wrong or unpopular and do what needs to be done for the future of ALL the world (Tony Blair should be a national hero in England, and history will probably judge him as such).

Very nice Espada9...I see you have met MOE....maybe Larry and Curly will join in soon...

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Espada9
Gee, thanks for the free history lesson (you’re obviously British due to you need act superior in the hopes it will make you feel better, a little cover for your insecurity).


Like all your posts you have an uncanny ability to get things wrong repeatedly.
I am not British.
I am Irish.


Nice one-sided representation of our past Middle East policy, you’re conveniently leaving out all of the details as to why these decisions were made (simplification?).


No over simplification here.
US foreign policy is dicatated by US self - interest.


Dragging out the past for whatever reason does not change the situation of the present, I’m sure you would rather take a “do nothing” attitude as it’s the most convenient.
I could certainly drag out the laundry of the British Empire but we’ve seen that movie before (hypocrite).


Irish - not British.
And while I am here I don't need to be lectured by a yank about what the British Empire did and did not do.
This country lived under British rule for 800 years.
Now I am gald to say that ourselves and the British people are closer than at any other time (and long may this continue)



It’s the Sunni that are behind most of the Jihadist attacks, not the shia,

You are partially correct.
The Sunni (around Baghdad) are revolting against the illegal US
occupation in Iraq.
But the Shia are also very opposed to the US illegal occupation.
The Shia holy cities of Kerbala, Najaf and Fallujah, have seen Shia
militia attacking and killing US troops.


the “land” never belonged to the Palestinians,

You are wrong again.
Palestine was a sovereign country up to 1948.
In 1948, the West annexed a piece of Palestine and called it Israel.
Plaestinian people within this territory were forcibly removed and relocated to a territory comprising of Gaza City, Jenin etc.



and how do you determine weather a war is “legal”???
Do we ask permission?
No one said that democracy is the right sort of government to have, the choice will be up to the Iraqi people, granted the US or the UN don’t screw it up, or the Mullahs don’t fear freedom from their influence and declare a Jihad, or the foreign terrorists don’t inflict too many casualties and infuriate the liberals and so get Kerry elected, it’s a fragile thing but anything worth dying for usually is.

I can’t understand why the so-called “open minded” liberals of the world are so negative, the sky is always falling. Are you people intrinsically unhappy? Is it because you’re afraid of dying (nothing you can do about that, embrace it or live in fear)???
Are you lacking some sort of faith or conviction? I can understand how secular humanism can be a let down, man will never be perfect so get used to let down and disappointment, but to consciously refuse to STRIVE for perfection is nothing but an act of a lazy coward.

Do you believe that the people in power in the US and England are some sort of dark and sinister plotters who deliberately lied and deceived the public? When a decision is made in whatever administration currently in power it’s not done by one man (or woman), so to believe that the “war” was a deliberate deception of the people is to believe that ALL people (including Kerry who voted in favor) are on the take and lied to the public on purpose.


I believe that the Iraq war was promulgated on lies and deceit.
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of having nuclear weapons
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of having biological weapons
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of supporting Al Qaeda
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of suporting Sept 11th
Bush/Blair doctored intelligence reports and presented doctored information to the UN in February 2003 to try to falsely convince the international community of the threat posed by iraq.

Bush/Blair invaded Iraq to obtain oil.


Or could it be that our intelligence (and that of the UN) is so poor because we have little dialogue with the REAL players in the region, and little understanding of the undercurrents of the Islamic world that we bought the information that was sold to us (yes we’re fallible).

No this is a cop out.
Bush/Blair deliberately edited, altered intelligence to suit their
prerequisite intention to invade Iraq.
The decision to invade Iraq had been taken - Bush/Blair used
contrived intelligence to vindicate that decision.



Yes, by nature my country is isolationist, but when it comes to defending our allies (does that term still apply?) we’ve always been there. I couldn’t say that about any European country (except for the UK).

What a lot of **** !
Help our allies !
that's why the USA let Britain fight Nazi germany between 1939-
1941, is it ?
The US only became involved in WW2 when they were bombed in
Hawaii.
Help our allies ?
Why did the US only enter WW1 in 1917 ?

I can only say I’m glad you have someone with enough courage in the UK to forget about partisan politics and take a risk at being wrong or unpopular and do what needs to be done for the future of ALL the world (Tony Blair should be a national hero in England, and history will probably judge him as such).

I agree with you - you are right : Blair was wrong and Blair is
unpopular !

Finally, I noticed that you have the support of our Pavlovian mature student friend from Virginia.
Our Pavlovain friend is so fast to get his/her/it's opinion on this
forum that he/she/it, did even bother to inform you of the factual inaccuracies posted in this and other replies by you.
Peas in a pod.
But when the bell rings - old Pavlov will always come out barking and foaming.
Can't teach the old dog new tricks !
Wuff, wuff !

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Espada9
Gee, thanks for the free history lesson (you’re obviously British due to you need act superior in the hopes it will make you feel better, a little cover for your insecurity).


Like all your posts you have an uncanny ability to get things wrong repeatedly.
I am not British.
I am Irish.


Nice one-sided representation of our past Middle East policy, you’re conveniently leaving out all of the details as to why these decisions were made (simplification?).


No over simplification here.
US foreign policy is dicatated by US self - interest.


Dragging out the past for whatever reason does not change the situation of the present, I’m sure you would rather take a “do nothing” attitude as it’s the most convenient.
I could certainly drag out the laundry of the British Empire but we’ve seen that movie before (hypocrite).


Irish - not British.
And while I am here I don't need to be lectured by a yank about what the British Empire did and did not do.
This country lived under British rule for 800 years.
Now I am gald to say that ourselves and the British people are closer than at any other time (and long may this continue)



It’s the Sunni that are behind most of the Jihadist attacks, not the shia,

You are partially correct.
The Sunni (around Baghdad) are revolting against the illegal US
occupation in Iraq.
But the Shia are also very opposed to the US illegal occupation.
The Shia holy cities of Kerbala, Najaf and Fallujah, have seen Shia
militia attacking and killing US troops.


the “land” never belonged to the Palestinians,

You are wrong again.
Palestine was a sovereign country up to 1948.
In 1948, the West annexed a piece of Palestine and called it Israel.
Plaestinian people within this territory were forcibly removed and relocated to a territory comprising of Gaza City, Jenin etc.



and how do you determine weather a war is “legal”???
Do we ask permission?
No one said that democracy is the right sort of government to have, the choice will be up to the Iraqi people, granted the US or the UN don’t screw it up, or the Mullahs don’t fear freedom from their influence and declare a Jihad, or the foreign terrorists don’t inflict too many casualties and infuriate the liberals and so get Kerry elected, it’s a fragile thing but anything worth dying for usually is.

I can’t understand why the so-called “open minded” liberals of the world are so negative, the sky is always falling. Are you people intrinsically unhappy? Is it because you’re afraid of dying (nothing you can do about that, embrace it or live in fear)???
Are you lacking some sort of faith or conviction? I can understand how secular humanism can be a let down, man will never be perfect so get used to let down and disappointment, but to consciously refuse to STRIVE for perfection is nothing but an act of a lazy coward.

Do you believe that the people in power in the US and England are some sort of dark and sinister plotters who deliberately lied and deceived the public? When a decision is made in whatever administration currently in power it’s not done by one man (or woman), so to believe that the “war” was a deliberate deception of the people is to believe that ALL people (including Kerry who voted in favor) are on the take and lied to the public on purpose.


I believe that the Iraq war was promulgated on lies and deceit.
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of having nuclear weapons
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of having biological weapons
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of supporting Al Qaeda
Bush/Blair falsely accussed Hussein of suporting Sept 11th
Bush/Blair doctored intelligence reports and presented doctored information to the UN in February 2003 to try to falsely convince the international community of the threat posed by iraq.

Bush/Blair invaded Iraq to obtain oil.


Or could it be that our intelligence (and that of the UN) is so poor because we have little dialogue with the REAL players in the region, and little understanding of the undercurrents of the Islamic world that we bought the information that was sold to us (yes we’re fallible).

No this is a cop out.
Bush/Blair deliberately edited, altered intelligence to suit their
prerequisite intention to invade Iraq.
The decision to invade Iraq had been taken - Bush/Blair used
contrived intelligence to vindicate that decision.



Yes, by nature my country is isolationist, but when it comes to defending our allies (does that term still apply?) we’ve always been there. I couldn’t say that about any European country (except for the UK).

What a lot of **** !
Help our allies !
that's why the USA let Britain fight Nazi germany between 1939-
1941, is it ?
The US only became involved in WW2 when they were bombed in
Hawaii.
Help our allies ?
Why did the US only enter WW1 in 1917 ?

I can only say I’m glad you have someone with enough courage in the UK to forget about partisan politics and take a risk at being wrong or unpopular and do what needs to be done for the future of ALL the world (Tony Blair should be a national hero in England, and history will probably judge him as such).

I agree with you - you are right : Blair was wrong and Blair is
unpopular !

Finally, I noticed that you have the support of our Pavlovian mature student friend from Virginia.
Our Pavlovain friend is so fast to get his/her/it's opinion on this
forum that he/she/it, did even bother to inform you of the factual inaccuracies posted in this and other replies by you.
Peas in a pod.
But when the bell rings - old Pavlov will always come out barking and foaming.
Can't teach the old dog new tricks !
Wuff, wuff !

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by limerickman
I agree with you - you are right : Blair was wrong and Blair is
unpopular !

Finally, I noticed that you have the support of our Pavlovian mature student friend from Virginia.
Our Pavlovain friend is so fast to get his/her/it's opinion on this
forum that he/she/it, did even bother to inform you of the factual inaccuracies posted in this and other replies by you.
Peas in a pod.
But when the bell rings - old Pavlov will always come out barking and foaming.
Can't teach the old dog new tricks !
Wuff, wuff !

Hi Moe...I see that you still haven't been able to fix your technical difficulties...Even when the administrator gives you explicit step by step instructions you still can't figure out how to "quote". If you can't even follow simple instructions, how can you give advice? Maybe you need a bell?

Here goes, this old "pavlovian dog may be able to teach you one trick since "hooked on phonics" isn't working...

ding ding

Using tags really isn't that complicated for a self proclaimed expert on world affairs and economies...Simply start with the word "quote" in brackets insert the text you are quoting then end with /quote in brackets. I hope this helps because your posts are kind of difficult to read all jumbled up like that...

ding.....

he/she/it indeed... tsk tsk tsk, full of insults today are we...Glad you finally found that tiny bit of testosterone that has been eluding you.....But I know you can do better than that...Oh, and the reference to Pavlov is getting a little stale... Can you be a little more original?

 

[zapper]

Originally posted by limerickman

And while I am here I don't need to be lectured by a yank about what the British Empire did and did not do.
This country lived under British rule for 800 years.
Now I am gald to say that ourselves and the British people are closer than at any other time (and long may this continue)

Touchy aren't we when a "yank" lectures you about your affairs but you seem more than willing to lecture us about our economy, military, government, president of which you have miniscule knowledge of.... Whats the word I'm looking for....oh yeah, hypocrite...I believe another poster hit the nail on the head earlier...

Hey thanks for making my day...I knew if I posted something you would be here in a jiffy..Considered yourself trained...by a YANK!

OK go ahead and call me a dog etc...along with some of your other tired material...I'm sure you won't let us down....

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by zapper
Hi Moe...I see that you still haven't been able to fix your technical difficulties...Even when the administrator gives you explicit step by step instructions you still can't figure out how to "quote". If you can't even follow simple instructions, how can you give advice? Maybe you need a bell?


Ah, right on cue, Pavlovian friend.



Here goes, this old "pavlovian dog may be able to teach you one trick since "hooked on phonics" isn't working...

ding ding

Using tags really isn't that complicated for a self proclaimed expert on world affairs and economies...Simply start with the word "quote" in brackets insert the text you are quoting then end with /quote in brackets. I hope this helps because your posts are kind of difficult to read all jumbled up like that...

ding.....


Did you pick this up in your evening IT course ?


he/she/it indeed... tsk tsk tsk, full of insults today are we...Glad you finally found that tiny bit of testosterone that has been eluding you.....But I know you can do better than that...Oh, and the reference to Pavlov is getting a little stale... Can you be a little more original?

I referred to you as he/she/it because I don't know who you are.
I don't know if you're male/female etc.
So as not to caste aspersions, I included he/she/it.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by zapper
Touchy aren't we when a "yank" lectures you about your affairs but you seem more than willing to lecture us about our economy, military, government, president of which you have miniscule knowledge of.... Whats the word I'm looking for....oh yeah, hypocrite...I believe another poster hit the nail on the head earlier...

Hey thanks for making my day...I knew if I posted something you would be here in a jiffy..Considered yourself trained...by a YANK!

OK go ahead and call me a dog etc...along with some of your other tired material...I'm sure you won't let us down....

Your colleague, Espada, first of all claimed that I was British (incorrect) and then tried to lecture me about the British Empire.
(why anyone would need to lecture some from Ireland about
the British Empire is anyones guess).

Nothing hypocritical about my views, Zapper.
I've been clear all along - my responses to you have been referenced.
You difficulty is that the truth about your President has come out.

Instead of having a go at people like me : try instead taking your point of view to the people who I have quoted throughout our
exchange over Iraq.
Try contacting the Financial Times or The Observer or The Guardian and try telling them that they are publishing lies.

 

[less'go]

"Flame Wars 101"...

Yeehaaaaaa! You guys are really slinging the mud now! Keep it coming, it' useless, but fun to read!

;-)

 

[Espada9]

Originally posted by limerickman
Your colleague, Espada, first of all claimed that I was British (incorrect) and then tried to lecture me about the British Empire.
(why anyone would need to lecture some from Ireland about
the British Empire is anyones guess).

Nothing hypocritical about my views, Zapper.
I've been clear all along - my responses to you have been referenced.
You difficulty is that the truth about your President has come out.

Instead of having a go at people like me : try instead taking your point of view to the people who I have quoted throughout our
exchange over Iraq.
Try contacting the Financial Times or The Observer or The Guardian and try telling them that they are publishing lies.

Pavlov, Pavlov, Pavlov,
Maslow, Maslow, Maslow,
Freud, Freud, Freud,!!!

What is this, another lesson from the know it all who seems to have read his first psychology book, congrats smart guy, you’re a real genius.

The lessons of Pavlov’s “conditioned response” would be much more applicable to the left as they never offer up any viable solutions to the worlds problems, the tactic is simple, wait for the opposition to act (something the liberals are incapable of doing, taking action), then criticize, condemn, and create elaborate conspiracy scenarios.

It reminds me of someone who always rides in the back seat of a car and hounds the driver for every infraction or close call, but is incapable of driving themselves.

The Guardian, the Observer??? A left wing tabloid is where you get your information from? No wonder I mistook you for a limer, your arrogance is only matched by your blatant stupidity.
If in-fact the administration lied on purpose, or “edited” the intelligence available, don’t you think there would be some sort of legal action by the judicial branch of government? Look at what happened to Clinton. The point is there is NO PROOF, just more slander with nothing to back it up with.

GOD (yes, I believe in one) how I’m glad I’m not a leftwing nut bag, you people never seem happy or to have any personal contentment unless you can condemn someone who has a different opinion, or make some sort of feeble attempt to sound “intellectual”.

I consider myself liberal in the classic sense, I believe there is always a better way of doing things, I believe in open dialogue and unlike the opposition, I don’t mind hearing the other side (perhaps because it doesn’t threaten me).

So you go and sit in the corner and brood and be miserable and frightened, and don’t forget to take your estrogen shots because all you’ll ever be is marginal!

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Espada9
Pavlov, Pavlov, Pavlov,
Maslow, Maslow, Maslow,
Freud, Freud, Freud,!!!

What is this, another lesson from the know it all who seems to have read his first psychology book, congrats smart guy, you’re a real genius.

The lessons of Pavlov’s “conditioned response” would be much more applicable to the left as they never offer up any viable solutions to the worlds problems, the tactic is simple, wait for the opposition to act (something the liberals are incapable of doing, taking action), then criticize, condemn, and create elaborate conspiracy scenarios.

It reminds me of someone who always rides in the back seat of a car and hounds the driver for every infraction or close call, but is incapable of driving themselves.

The Guardian, the Observer??? A left wing tabloid is where you get your information from? No wonder I mistook you for a limer, your arrogance is only matched by your blatant stupidity.
If in-fact the administration lied on purpose, or “edited” the intelligence available, don’t you think there would be some sort of legal action by the judicial branch of government? Look at what happened to Clinton. The point is there is NO PROOF, just more slander with nothing to back it up with.

GOD (yes, I believe in one) how I’m glad I’m not a leftwing nut bag, you people never seem happy or to have any personal contentment unless you can condemn someone who has a different opinion, or make some sort of feeble attempt to sound “intellectual”.

I consider myself liberal in the classic sense, I believe there is always a better way of doing things, I believe in open dialogue and unlike the opposition, I don’t mind hearing the other side (perhaps because it doesn’t threaten me).

So you go and sit in the corner and brood and be miserable and frightened, and don’t forget to take your estrogen shots because all you’ll ever be is marginal!

I believe that the US Senate Arms Committee are holding enquiries as to the actions of the Bush goverment and following from that there may well be legal proceedings.
Your Supreme Court is also hearing petitions regarding the illegal incarceration of detainees at Guantenemo as well.
So, yes there is plenty of judicial and quasi-judicial hearings going on - the outcome of which we await.

The conspiracy theories that you refer to, were put about by your
president Bush in the runup to the Iraq war.
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of having nuclear weapons
Bush falsely accused Hussein of having biological weapons
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of supporting Al Qaeda
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of suporting Sept 11th
Bush and his goverment doctored intelligence reports and presented doctored information to the UN in February 2003 to try to falsely convince the international community of the threat posed by Iraq.
These conspiracy theories issued by the Bush goverment were the basis for your country going to war in Iraq.

Bush refused to listen to people like Richard Kay, Hans Blix etc.
Because their knowledge contradicted Bush's wish to invade Iraq
regardless.

So don't accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories - accuse your
country's president of spreading falsehoods.

If you do possess information that shows evidence of nuclear
weapons/biological weapons/the assisting of Al Qaeda/Iraqi involvement in the Sept 11th attacks - please feel free to contact your goverment, or any of the newspaper/media outlets with your proof.

I am sure your evidence would be greatly valued.

Finally, I don't condemn you for your opinion - you are free to express your view as I am to express mine.
What I take issue with is people expressing views that are factually inaccurate.