Wim De Smet wrote:
Calling people islamic terrorists is about the same as claiming that Islam is responsible for their actions.
Facts are facts. Outside of a few isolated incidents with the Irish where has the majority of terrorism come from in the past several decades? Hell, outside a few isolated Irish incidents where has *ALL* terrorism come from?
know what's happening the entire time aren't "insurgents", they're terrorists. People who shoot unarmed, fleeing *children* are not "militants", they're terrorists.
You referring to the Israeli military or what?
No. The Beslan school that was taken over and occupied by Islamic Terrorists, oh, sorry, "Chechen Rebels".
URL for the clueless: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3636818.stm
It's a fact that long before Bush gained power there were already groups of people (that would later make it into his government as his close advisors) clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. Their intended goal was "securing American intrests in the Middle East". If that's not about oil, I don't know what it's about. Certainly not about the good of the people.
Then answer me this simple question. Where's the pipeline in Afghanistan? Better yet why isn't America implicated in the oil-for-food scam if it were all about oil? People are so quick to make rash claims of "It's the oil, it's the oil!" but never remember that the past several times they claimed it it didn't pan out.
People in Africa could feed themselves if it weren't for the constantwars.
And whose fault are those wars? Are you now implying that somehow the USA is inciting genocide on a mass scale? BTW, you did read up on the report that population bulges are a prime indicator of fundementalism and conflicts, right? :P
How much this is our fault is something to be debated, but yourbasic premise is at least wrong.
Not in the slightest.
> Might I also point out that Bush is trying to convince people in foreign
> countries _not_ to use a condom,
No, he's not. He cut federal funding. Show me where it is our
responsibility to subsidize the worlds condom use and I'll be right there with
ya. Granted, he did it for the wrong reason but that's hardly "convincing
people in foreign countries _not_ to use a condom." If people in foreign
countries are so mindless as to care what the president of the US thinks they
should do with their dangly bits they have far more problems than I imagine.
Ask anyone with a bit of a clue in the matter and he'll tell you that the high births per couple is caused by low income and opportunity, not vice versa (more people can bring in more food).
Oh, I'm well aware of that. However I am also quite aware that the human animal is capable of overriding it's biological imperatives. Just because higher birth rates are associated with those factors does not mean those factors automatically cause births. The people in question can choose not to bear more children then their local food stocks can feed.
No. Our *life* is more important to us than your life is to us. Just as your life is more important to you than our life is. If it weren't then you wouldn't have the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude that everyone else should forgo their life just to pick up yours.
I resent this attitude from a moral point of view. It is a biological imperative, nothing more.
See above. Regardless I do not see laziness and a sense of entitlement as biological imperative.
There was no UN support specifically for military action.
Bull. I believe it was UN resolution 687 back in 1990/91 which laid out what Iraq must and must not do. Either that resolution or one it references, both of which were still in effect, authorized the use of military force. Since that resolution 12-15 more (I forget the exact number) in the intervening decaded _reaffirmed_ that military force *by any member state* was authorized to uphold those resolutions.
The reason that there never was any UN resolutions aganist actions is
> that the US would've vetoed those anyway and nobody wants to piss off > the US.Uh-huh. You're telling me that France, which has no qualms about pissing off the US, wouldn't've set forth a motion for repremands even to get it as a matter of record, EVEN if it is vetoed?
Apparently you have no clue about the inner workings of the UN, it would be best to just shut up about it and continue working on your educational system.
Apparently I have some clue since I knew that military force was authorized. But then the inner workings of the UN can be summed up in one word: corrupt. Any organization that is directly responsible for the slaughter in Rwanda and Bosnia(1), culpable in the oil-for-food scam which had who knows how much damage in Iraq, reaffirmed that terrorism is a legal action(2) and somehow appointed Syria to the Human Rights council can only be catagorized as corrupt.
Also, if I recall correctly the reason for invasion in Iraq was the "presence" of mass destruction weapons. Where are those weapons now?
That's the question, isn't it? Just because they're not here now doesn't mean they weren't there then. You're telling me that the entire time that Saddam played the bait and switch with UN inspectors (hmmm, were they getting kick-backs from the oil-for-food program?) by not allowing them unrestricted access to any facility at any time of *their* choosing means he had nothing to hide? You cannot conceive that in the weeks prior to coalition action in Iraq Saddam had absolutely no time to move said weapons out of the country like say, to Syria, perhaps? You're telling me that the confirmed movement of trucks from Iraq to Syria were nothing more than, oh, food from the oil-for-food program?
Nevermind that the presence of WMD wasn't needed according to the cited UN resolution. Just the attempt to aquire them is sufficient. That has been confirmed with the meetings between Iraq and N. Korea. Furthermore supporting terrorist actions was also enough. Saddam's thousands to the families of Palastinian terrorists is widely known. His ties to Al Qaeda(3) have been confirmed time and again. The WMDs were not the only argument it is just the most widely cited argument because people think it is so easily refuted.
And you're calling other people's leaders two-faced liars?
Hey, we're not the ones implicated in the oil-for-food scam just after arguing against military action.
It is true that hating america has become fashionable, which is deplorable. However I don't think you have any idea about what the facts are, nor do 90% of americans.
I apparently have a far better idea than you do.
(1) - In both Rwanda and Bosnia UN peacekeepers guarded areas until their
"appearance of neutrality" might be called into question. At that time the
peacekeepers left those positions where people being hunted during genocidial
sweeps had gathered under the presumption that the UN would protect them. As
a result they were clumped together and easy pickings.
(2) - The UN recently passed a resolution condemning terrorism. However buried in that resolution is a clause which states that *any* means may be used "by an oppressed people in a fight for their freedom". This means that the actions taken by Palastine's suicide bombers is valid in the eyes of the UN. This also means that the "insurgents" in Iraq (from Syria and Jordan if memory serves) kidnapping and beheading innocents is valid in the eyes of the UN because those people somehow are oppressed.
(3) - Confirmed time and again ever since President *Clinton*, not Bush, first made the tie back in 1998 was it? That's an oft-repeated lie; that Bush II was the one to make the tie and not his predecessor.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature