Rabid, Radical, Foaming At the Mouth Raghead Writes Letter To Bush

[Victor]

You should all read this:

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml

Check out what he thinks about 911.

[huisjen]

Oh, this should be interesting.

Dan

[crawdaddyjim50]

Why is that?

[Victor]

Because we're already being told he's another twelfth-century camel-humping Osama who wants to nuke Israel. It would be nice to know that someone has read what he really has to say.

[ishmael]

He's said, repeatedly, that Israel needs to be eliminated. He's also said he feels called by Allah to do so, to usher in the Islamic Messiah. I kid you not, it's in the public record.

That spells nut job to me. I don't care what his PR people are now saying.

What the hell to do to contain him is a different topic.

Gawd, I wish we'd grow out of this millenialist thought process. It seems so adolescent to me. And it's damned dangerous.

[Meerkat]

That spells nut job to me.
This is something that I really believe you can spell! After all, it takes one to know one. :rolleyes:

[Victor]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

No excuse for a sophisticated group like us not to know the Muslim perspective. All we have to do is bookmark this site.

[ahp]

I just downloaded it for bedtime reading. Let you know tomorrow what I think.

[ishmael]

The problem is, I've said this before, there's a weakness in the current psyche that believes this tripe. It's rife in the MEM common folk, from Hassidic Jews, to Fundamentalist Christians, to devout Muslims. They all think these problems are going to be solved by some terrible end time war and a messiah coming down to rescue at the last moment.

A LOT of people believe this. The way of things, they may be right about the terrible war.

[RichKrough]

"Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad "

I am wondering how he fills out DMV forms with such a long name :confused:

[geeman]

I cant stand the guy,,but take a look at how he came to power,,telling his countrymen one thing,,then after he's in power changing direction ,,interesting,,how he handled ""his " masses, to get where he is.

[Jagermeister]

As far as I can tell, there are only two areas of divergence between Ahmadinejad's letter and the vocal members of the WBF's liberal contingent:

1) Ahmadinejad thinks "the people of the region are happy about (Saddam's demise)"

2) Ahmadinejad speaks too much of Christ (PBUH) and God.

Other than that, I see a great concurrence of Ahmadinejad's writing and the opinions commonly expressed on the WBF. I am now deeply convinced that Ahmadinejad is actually posting here on the WBF, and has been using the Bilge to express and refine his arguments.

The harmony between Ahmadinejad and the liberals here leads me to the conclusion that most of the liberal members would find living in the Islamic Republic of Iran a virtual paradise on earth, since Ahmadinejad espouses the same principles that motivate them.

[geeman]

LOL

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"Other than that, I see a great concurrence of Ahmadinejad's writing and the opinions commonly expressed on the WBF."


Oh brother...

[Victor]

So the liberal element of the WBF (PBUT) is not happy about Saddam's demise? We were overjoyed at Saddam's demise, THREE years ago, just a little confused about what's been happening since. Perhaps we should all agree with this woman and do what the SS did, with the same result:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQyYzUzZTZkZGVkZmI3MWU4YzMwYTFhNDhhOTNlMmE=

"Quick, crushing military action against men like these would have sent the right message to all our Iraqi enemies, Sunni and Shiite alike: Violent resistance is immediately fatal and ultimately futile. A clear, consistent message like that could have saved many American, Iraqi, and Coalition lives down the road, and won us what we needed most: the respect of ordinary Iraqis, reassured to see clear limits emerge in their new and uncertain world. Hearts and minds would have followed."

Uh-huh. Took the words right out of Himmler's mouth.

[LeeG]

I haven't read his letter, read Pollacks book. There's a paranoia and expectation for "respect" that's odd about Iran.
Victor, I know it feels good to frame Irans leaders name with raghead and nutjob but it doesn't do much to illuminate the issues. I think the NRO article you linked is a dificult attempt to have her cake and eat it too.
Kevin, you ignoranct scum sucking dirtbag.

[ishmael]

Okay, what do we do about this madness? What do we do?

I think spreading the message that this is a myth is a step. A MYTH, that has everything to do with personal transformation, but if we live it out, writ large, it's disasterous.

Barring the Messiah coming in on a flying saucer, living this myth out in real time, in the world, is going to be disasterous. And when the survivors go to pick up the pieces they are going to be just as bereft, more so, than we are.

[huisjen]

So what's "PBUH"?

Dan

[Victor]

Peace Be Upon Him. I must confess to a personal bias about Iran, I met the woman of my dreams there. She pulled me out of the crowd, took me home, and made love to me in the shower of her parents' apartment in the embassy compound. This was in 72, 340 years ago. Later she told me if I met another woman and just HAD to do her, to bring her home cause she likes to do women herself once in a while. At that point I should have been on my knees begging her to marry me, RIGHT?

[Norman Bernstein]

Maybe he was listening to Ann Coulter when she said that the U.S. should invade the entire middle east, kill all their leaders, and force them all to convert to Christianity.

[Victor]

But back to the topic at hand. The Iranians have been putting out peace feelers toward us ever since Khomeini's death, and we totally ignore all of them. Washington has no interest in a peaceful relationship with Iran. I thought it was because we so surprised and offended by the Embassy seizure in 79, but I now believe it's really for the same reason as everything else we do over there: it's not in Israel's interests to have the US at peace with Iran.

Isn't it time we tried thinking that maybe the grievances against Israel are real, and not just the product of some Koran-thumping nutcase? Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps 50 YEARS later? Has anyone ever heard how hard it is for a Palestinian to get a building permit? Some say well, all they have to do is follow the rule of law, but guess what happens when they do! The more I read about this the less radical the Muslims look. I'm really starting to think that 90% of their radicalism comes from sheer frustration. They've TRIED the moderate approaches and they don't work!

What's REALLY ironic about this is that we are now doing EXACTLY what Khomeini's people said the Great Satan would do!

[Norman Bernstein]

100% with you, Victor.. epecially on the Palestine/Israel thing, which I've taken some pains to study in some depth. It amazes me that people who espouse the virtues of freedom, democracy, and justice can simply turn a blind eye to the complete opposite when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

[Keith Wilson]

Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps 50 YEARS later?Because it has always been in the interests of the Arab countries where the refugee camps are located to keep them there. Otherwise they would have been absorbed into the general populations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, to everyone's benefit.

However you make some good points. Some of the Palestinian grievances against Israel are very real. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, however. The Palestinians could have had 90% of what they wanted in the late '90s, and 80% several times previously. Neither they nor the Israelis have EVER tried the moderate approach - at least not both at the same time. You should read translations of the popular arabic-language Middle Eastern press sometime; much of their attiude toward Israel really resembles clinical paranoia, and there's sometimes a kind of anti-semitism that a Nazi might find a little over the top.

[ishmael]

Not to excuse Israeli sins, which are definately there, but they've been under attack since the day they were created. After a few decades of such attacks you get grumpy.

The whole thing is a mess. The creation of idiot savants like Balfour. But until the religious mythology is illuminated it will continue a very explosive situation.

[Thad Van Gilder]

That letter won't go very far...

There is no way that our president could understand the wording of it, and even if he did, I am sure he would not have the attention span to read it to the end.

-Thad

[Norman Bernstein]

Not to excuse Israeli sins, which are definately there, but they've been under attack since the day they were created. After a few decades of such attacks you get grumpy.

and if you're thrown off your ancestral lands, not compensated, forced into refugee camps, taxed without representation.... you wouldn't be a bit more than 'grumpy'?

[Victor]

I guess the Israeli plan was for the Palestinians to become Jordanians, Egyptians, or Syrians. And there are lots of Palestinians in those countries. I suppose the camps are for those Palestinians who refuse to leave?

More and more it looks like Muslim radicalism can claim to be a REACTION to Jewish and Christian radicalism, especially when you consider how LITTLE we hear about what's really going on over there.

There's enough religious zealotry among Muslims, Christians and Jews that a holy war is inevitable. Probably within our lifetimes, and probably involving at least two nuclear explosions. That seems to be what all these religious nuts are praying for. But there's no excuse for OUR nuts.

[ishmael]

Norm,

No question, there's injustice all around. The entire project was a mistake, in my estimation.

I have no advice, except to make people aware that their myths are just that, myths. Stories we tell ourselves to explain the universe. They're important, but not so important we need to kill others over them. A devout Jew and a devout Muslim, if they really got to talking, would find remarkable similarities.

We all have a huge stake in this. Those myths are just liable to draw us into a war that will make WWII look tame.

[Norman Bernstein]

I guess the Israeli plan was for the Palestinians to become Jordanians, Egyptians, or Syrians. And there are lots of Palestinians in those countries. I suppose the camps are for those Palestinians who refuse to leave?

More and more it looks like Muslim radicalism can claim to be a REACTION to Jewish and Christian radicalism, especially when you consider how LITTLE we hear about what's really going on over there.

There's enough religious zealotry among Muslims, Christians and Jews that a holy war is inevitable. Probably within our lifetimes, and probably involving at least two nuclear explosions. That seems to be what all these religious nuts are praying for. But there's no excuse for OUR nuts.

Victor, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not just 60 years old... it's 120 years old, dating back to the earlest British 'mandate' in Palestine. If you really want to get an excellent, and highly objective, view of the history of the conflict, read 'One Palestine, Complete' by Tom Segev, who is a writer for a major Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. This book was not the only work I've read on the suvject, but it was by far the best.... giving some actual perspective on why the conflict exists, and the history behind it.

[TomF]

I see a great concurrence of Ahmadinejad's writing and the opinions commonly expressed on the WBF.Having heard of his repeated comments about pushing Israel into the sea, I frankly was expecting quite a different sort of letter. In fact, you're right.

Jaeger, for the moment, let's both simply table our shared cynicism and disbelief about the motivations of politicians. Obviously, Iran's leaders would prefer their country didn't become a smoking ruin, so like most politicians, they'll dissemble to promote their goals. I'm very willing to admit that Iran's theocracy is repressive and in some measure odious - we've a relatively recent case of an Iranian-Canadian journalist who was beaten to death by Iranian prison guards, for taking photos outside the prison gates ...

But let's momentarily set that aside, and take the letter at face value. Which of the substantive points in Iran's letter did you particularly find incorrect, or wrong-headed? I would certainly quarrel with him on some things (e.g. how to treat Hamas' elected leadership in the Palestinian Authority - and the conspiracy theory re 9/11). On others ...? How do you react to his claims that:

Motivations and actions in the Iraq campaign are inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity
Some other actions (e.g. Guantanamo, secret E European prisons etc.) in the War on Terror are also inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity
The treatment of palestinians in the creation/support of the state of Israel is inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity.
Latin American and African peoples have a right to benefit from their countries' wealth, rather than see it siphoned off by foreign firms and benefitting foreign rich people
the financial costs of war(s) should be examined in the light of the potential benefits to a country's citizens if the $ were spent differently
there is no historical legal precedent for restricting a nation's capacity to do scientific R&D ... obviously a reference to their nuclear program.
National leaders will be judged by history in terms of how well they lived out their stated beliefs ... how they benefited their people.This is obviously a political text, and obviously Bush (or you, or I) could write an equally "persuasive" letter calling on Iran's leaders to take actions based on a benevolent reading of Islam ... and calling them to task for places where they're not doing so.

But Bush HAS professed to be a Christian. He HAS wrapped his foreign policy in language regarding promoting liberty and democracy, providing benefits to Iraqis, generally shining a light into dark places.

Should he NOT be asked to take stock of his actions, using the very criteria he's used to justify them?

[RonW]

So why doesn't anyone tell or put the story in it's proper context.
At the end of world war11 they where millions of dissplaced european jews floating around the oceans of the world, looking for someplace to go. Country after country refused them, including the U.S. gee I wonder why? So the us and britain, drew a line in the sand and set them off on to their new homeland. The arabs protested, but couldn't do a hell of a lot about it. The jews come up with a unique spin that they are the lost tribe of israel and this is their homeland.
How convenient. And since they are so biblical (all of a sudden like)and we are such good christians, well it gets worse.
IN the meantime the arabs looking for water, keep coming up with this gooey sticky black stuff. The money rolls in, and when it gets deep, they start buying weapons, if not from u.s. then from russia and china..the plot thickens.....
Now you have radical arabs that wants the jews off of their sand dunes, and hates those that protects them...so here we are, the middle east crisis that all focuses around confiscation and illegal immigration on a sand dune in the arab world...
Or did that break it down to the reality of it all...

I say move israel and the jews, problem solved, how about south america, brazil is a big country. Now where is george from brazil, he must know of a stretch of beach that isn't being used....

[Victor]

Well that's interesting Norman, I always wonder about your reaction when I post on this subject. So why ARE the Palestinians still in the camps instead of in the general society, or in Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria? They're not the first ones who have been displaced - look at all the people who lost ancestral lands in WWII. I suspect the Palestinians are not blameless in this regard. They seem to be professional victims. Some day they'll have to get over it!

How about giving them the Sinai Peninsula? Or has that been proposed?

I'll order that book by Segev.

[Norman Bernstein]

Well that's interesting Norman, I always wonder about your reaction when I post on this subject. So why ARE the Palestinians still in the camps instead of in the general society, or in Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria? They're not the first ones who have been displaced - look at all the people who lost ancestral lands in WWII. I suspect the Palestinians are not blameless in this regard. They seem to be professional victims. Some day they'll have to get over it!

How about giving them the Sinai Peninsula? Or has that been proposed?

One interesting factoid I learned from 'One Plaestine, Complete': Palestine was not the original objective of the early Zionists, looking for a Jewish homeland. The chief candidates, back in the late 1800's, was either South Africa, or Argentina. They were principally looking for land with relatively little population that could be settled... and ultimately controlled (important concept here) by Jews and Jews alone.

As for Palestinian resistance, spanning generations: just think about it. If you were in their place, wouldn't the injustice you perceive be handed down, generation to generation, and become part of the liturgy of your creed? Would you ever simply resign yourself to the fact that the injustice could never be redressed... and simply give up the hope?

I doubt it. The conflict's roots go back 120 years... and the struggle has spanned three generations now. There's simply no hope of correcting the worngs of the past, on both sides... but there's always hope for a settlement, an accomodation, a compromise.

Forget the radical rhetoric. For every Arab leader pandering to the population who says they want to drive Israel into the sea, there's a right wing Israeli who says that all of 'Judea and Samaria' (i.e., even the land occupied by refugee camps in the West Bank) belongs to Israel, by divine right. Nobody's a hero here.

[Victor]

A rather radical position for a Jewish man to take. I'll bet you get some flak about it.

[Norman Bernstein]

A rather radical position for a Jewish man to take. I'll bet you get some flak about it.

Ohh, I'm regularly blasted... usually, by people who think that freedom and democracy and justice is fuly deserved by Israel.... strange how they don't believe that Palestinians deserve the same.

However, most of those people haven't bothered to spend a little time doing some reading.

10 years ago, I was like most Jews here in the U.S.... I thought that the film 'Exodus' was the real story of the establishment of Israel... and that there was nothing in this world, or even the world to come, that could be more noble or just than the establishment of a homeland for Jews.

Too bad the actual history doesn't quite provide the same picture.

[paladin]

Lessee....an Iranian Canadian journalist was beaten to death taking pictures outside a prison complex......in full view of signs in Farsi and English "Photographs Strickly Forbidden" and folks are upset that they nailed him....
Why dontcha try that trick at Fort Meade in full view of signs that also tell you no piks and see where you end up.....

[TomF]

Lessee....an Iranian Canadian journalist was beaten to death taking pictures outside a prison complex......in full view of signs in Farsi and English "Photographs Strickly Forbidden" and folks are upset that they nailed him....
Why dontcha try that trick at Fort Meade in full view of signs that also tell you no piks and see where you end up.....Her - but yeah. You've made my point.

Still, I'd hope that a similarly stupid journalist might not end up dead, after "talking" with Ft. Meade's friendlies.

[Tristan]

Lessee....an Iranian Canadian journalist was beaten to death taking pictures outside a prison complex......in full view of signs in Farsi and English "Photographs Strickly Forbidden" and folks are upset that they nailed him....
Why dontcha try that trick at Fort Meade in full view of signs that also tell you no piks and see where you end up.....

Yep, taking forbidden photos should ALWAYS by punished by death (beating or stoning preferred). It's only appropriate. Sure makes sense to me.:confused::confused::confused:

[Victor]

He probably pulled out his Canadian passport and said "you can't touch me". Just like that Jewish WSJ reporter who walked into a hornet's nest.

[ahp]

It is tomorrow. I read it in bed last night, and he raises some valid questions. He deserves a courteous answer, not the back of the hand. Raising valid questions about US behavior is little like shooting fish in a barrel. After all the "Yeah buts" we still look like hippocrites to much of the world.

[Osborne Russell]

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

Sounds like Karl Rove and Pat Robertson having a beer. Bill Bennett's outside having a smoke and Rush Limbaugh's in the men's room.

[ishmael]

You miss his point, Osbourne.

The liberalism he refers to is not the liberalism of today's politics, it's the liberalism of the individual, freed from state or religious stricture to go about his own business and to follow his own conscience. That's why these people are wrong, and that's why they are dangerous.

The argument could be made that the only things accomplished in the last five hundred years have been due to liberalism.

It has many problems, but a return to medieval or fundamentalist ideologies, which is what he's suggesting, isn't the answer.

[Osborne Russell]

The liberalism he refers to is not the liberalism of today's politics, it's the liberalism of the individual, freed from state or religious stricture, to go about his own business and to follow his own conscience.

Who's "he" -- Bush or Ahmedinejad? What's the diff? Is Ahmedinejad not the winner of the election and a Unitary Executive? Faith based initiatives? Making a mid-east democracy out of the lumber on hand? Determined to protect his country's security with pre-emptive war?

Stripped of national referents and connotations, these two mean precisely the same thing by "liberal."

[Victor]

The diff is what they say vs what they do.

[ishmael]

If you can't see the inherent differences between western liberalism and what is going on in Iran, Osbourne, I don't have anything to say.

[JimD]

Ahmadinejad's english is nigh on impeccable. Either he has spent most of his life living in London or he's hired a very good writer.

[Victor]

Well, what IS going on in Iran, Ish? A conservative Islamic Republic with strict rules of conduct, yes, but if you went there you'd probably be surprised at how open it is. And prosperous, aside from the oil. Their "support for terrorism" consists mainly of sending checks to Hezbollah.

The place was much more radical 25 years ago. The Shah was toppled mainly by liberal groups, but the mullahs grabbed power and put Khomeini in power, very much like Kerensky and Lenin. There were student protests recently seeking a more open society. Their last President was very moderate and sought reconciliation with us, and we ignored him completely.

One guy getting beaten to death outside a prison does not make a fascist society. People get beaten to death every day right here in the good old USA.

Jim, I'll bet ol Ahmawhateverhisnameis has a ghostwriter, but he is a teacher.

[Jagermeister]

The Iranians have been putting out peace feelers toward us ever since Khomeini's death, and we totally ignore all of them.
I challenge you to provide credible proof of this statement. The Iranian notion of "peace" is that the west ignore their systematic human-rights abuses and executions of political opponents as well as homosexuals and non-Muslims. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Iran's continuing and systematic violations of human rights and the use of torturous, inhuman, and degrading punishments, including the execution of political opponents, such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. If turning a blind eye to such abuses is "peace", the United States is right in rejected it.

Well, what IS going on in Iran, Ish? A conservative Islamic Republic with strict rules of conduct, yes, but if you went there you'd probably be surprised at how open it is.
Oh, yes, very "open". :rolleyes: Here is Human Rights Watch on Iran:

"Men and women suspected of homosexual conduct in Iran face the threat of execution,” said Scott Long, director of Human Rights Watch’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program. “We have documented brutal floggings imposed by courts as punishment, and torture and ill-treatment, including sexual abuse, in police custody.”

"Article 111 of the Code of Islamic Punishments, Iran’s criminal code, states that lavat – sexual intercourse between men – “is punishable by death.” Under Articles 121-122 of the Penal Code, Tafkhiz – non-penetrative “foreplay” between men – is punishable by 100 lashes for each partner and by death on the fourth conviction. Article 123 of the Penal Code further provides that, “If two men who are not related by blood lie naked under the same cover without any necessity,” each one will receive 99 lashes. Articles 127 to 134 stipulate that the punishment for sexual intercourse between women is 100 lashes; if the offence is repeated three times, the punishment is execution."
People are flogged for meeting in unsegregated groups.(i.e., mixed sex). Religious minorities, like the Sufis, are flogged and imprisoned. Women who wear clothing other than black burkas are flogged and/or sexually assaulted for being "loose". There are not isolated incidents, but the reflection of the official policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Their "support for terrorism" consists mainly of sending checks to Hezbollah.
In addition to Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s), Iran is linked to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf region, Africa, and Central Asia. Iran is also undoubtedly supporting radical Shiites in Iraq, like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

Among other acts, Iran was involved in:
- the 1988 kidnapping and murder of U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins (a U.N. observer) in Lebanon;
- the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina;
- the 1996 truck bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen.
- assassinations of Iranian exiles in Europe and the Middle East.

There were student protests recently seeking a more open society.
The student protests were crushed by the government (via "parallel institutions"), and the student leaders were detained, some indefinitely (and presumably executed). The Iranian government continues to detain activists, writers, and journalists in secret prisons, threatens pro-democracy speakers and audiences at public events, carries out brutal assaults against students, writers, and reformist politicians. All this has been documented by Human Rights Watch.

[Victor]

Why the F do I have to log in every time I post? You're right Kevin, but what's new? And how many other societies are just as oppressive? Saudi Arabia still has public beheadings. Indonesia? Pakistan? China? Many African countries? How come all of a sudden we're getting so righteous about things they've been doing since 1979? It's our PERCEPTION of Iran that's changed lately, not Iran, and that means Bush's people are brewing something in the back room. IMHO all the big talk about Iran is really about jacking up the price of oil.

If they get a nuclear bomb who they gonna threaten with it? Us? Hell no! Israel, who else? Let them deal with it, that's what Mossad is for! Why should we do their dirty work?

[Osborne Russell]

If you can't see the inherent differences between western liberalism and what is going on in Iran, Osbourne, I don't have anything to say.


The question is whether [i]they[/] mean the same thing by "liberal."

[ishmael]

You strike me as intelligent, Osbourne. Look at the history of the man's statements. He's not talking about Nancy Pelosi.

That people in the west don't understand this propaganda is a little frightening. It's weird that the left is backing down, not saying this challenge is worthwhile. If you think the weird right religious folks in this country are mistaken, you ain't seen nuthin yet baby, till you've got an Islamist in charge.

[Victor]

Ever hear of Khomeini? Makes this guy look like a pussycat.

[ishmael]

A pussycat doesn't say Israel will be destroyed, we will develope the weapons to accomplish it.

He's a whacko. I'm not at all sure what to do about him.

[Jagermeister]

How do you react to his claims that:

Motivations and actions in the Iraq campaign are inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity
Some other actions (e.g. Guantanamo, secret E European prisons etc.) in the War on Terror are also inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity

That's quite a list, Tom. I'm not sure I can do justice to the entire thing.

For the most part, Tom, I don't think I'm qualified to offer an opinion on how "Christian" are Bush's actions. I am familiar with the arguments regarding "Christian war" across the spectrum from pacifism to "just war". From my limited understanding, in order for Bush's actions to be Christian, they must conform to the following criteria:

- Just cause
- Just intention
- Last resort
- Formal declaration
- Limited objectives, i.e., "securing peace"
- Proportionate means
- Noncombatant immunity

From what I know I think Bush can be said to meet those criteria (although I am sure that there are those on the moonbat left who will dispute his intentions).

On some of the other topics:


The treatment of Palestinians in the creation/support of the state of Israel is inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity.
This is a very long and involved issue. I would only offer than (a) the Palestinians have brought most of this on themselves, (b) the Israelis have repeatedly attempted a "civilized" solution only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians, and (c) there is vast ignorance of the history of the region. The best book I have read is Crossroads to Israel, by Christopher Sykes (alas, out of print). It was one of the texts in a class I took on the Arab-Israeli conflict (as it was called back then). This will have to be another post.

Latin American and African peoples have a right to benefit from their countries' wealth, rather than see it siphoned off by foreign firms and benefiting foreign rich people
This is true, and their governments supposedly take this into account when they issue leases for the exploitation of such resources as the country possess. What countries such as Bolivia wish to do when they nationalize, is to renegotiate after the developer has proved the worth. The developer takes all the risk, but rather than getting the agreed return when a field proves out, the host country takes the field back. Even if the host country reimburses the developer for the cost of exploration and equipment, the developer has still lost money on the attempt. If the governments don't want the developers in, they have the right not to issue leases. But to issue leases and renege on them is theft.

the financial costs of war(s) should be examined in the light of the potential benefits to a country's citizens if the $ were spent differently
What are the financial cost of a World Trade Center attack? What are the financial costs of a middle east oil embargo created by a nuclear armed Iran or Iraq threatening the region? What are the financial cost of a half century of regional instability, versus the cost of changing the political environment of the region. I can't calculate exact numbers, or even approximate formulae, but I can see more to the calculation than Ahmadinejad probably intends.

there is no historical legal precedent for restricting a nation's capacity to do scientific R&D ... obviously a reference to their nuclear program.
I think it equally obvious that there issignificant legal precedent for restricting certain studies. We ourselves are bound to refrain from scientific R&D into chemical or biological agents specifically harmful to humans. Iran's nuclear program makes no sense from either an economic standpoint or a natural resources standpoint. They could get much more energy, much sooner, at much lower cost by simply installing gas turbines to make electricity from the natural gas which they flare off, which excess could then be sold to their neighbors. Iran doesn't even have a gasoline refinery. If they are so concerned about self sufficiency, they should address that first. In analysis, their nuclear program is strictly for nuclear weapons, and there are ample precedents for international prevention of their aims.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

- Just cause
- Just intention
- Last resort
- Formal declaration
- Limited objectives, i.e., "securing peace"
- Proportionate means
- Noncombatant immunity

So, basically he's violated pretty much all of them in a limited sense, and the first three were totally ignored.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"We ourselves are bound to refrain from scientific R&D into chemical or biological agents specifically harmful to humans."

Are you talking about the United States? If you are, that statement is laughable. The USA has the most significant arsenal of biological and chemical weaponry on the planet.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"the Palestinians have brought most of this on themselves,"


Oh absolutely. After all they only lived there for hundreds of years, long before the artificial creation of the Jewish state with western support. The nerve of them to object!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Originally Posted by TomF
How do you react to his claims that:
Motivations and actions in the Iraq campaign are inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity
Some other actions (e.g. Guantanamo, secret E European prisons etc.) in the War on Terror are also inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity





Gee Kevin, You seem to have skipped over the christian justification of Guantanamo... any reason for that, or did you just forget?

[Jagermeister]

The USA has the most significant arsenal of biological and chemical weaponry on the planet.
I haven't the time to refute all of the bull**** you churn out, Peter. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to confine yourself to valid criticisms (of which you do have a few, now and again). However, these are not some of those.

On the issue of biological weapons, from the webiste of the FAS (not a pro-government site):

In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal. Research efforts were directed exclusively to the development of defensive measures such as diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for potential biological weapons threats. Stocks of pathogens and the entire biological arsenal were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973 under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Departments of Natural Resources of Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Small quantities of some pathogens were retained at Fort Detrick to test the efficacy of investigational preventive measures and therapies.
On the issue of chemical weapons, also from the website of the FAS:

In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.
Apparently, it taking longer than thought, because Wikipedia has this to say:

The United States of America completed Phase II, and was granted an extension until December 2007 for the completion of Phase III. Over 80% of the chemical weapons destroyed in the world since the treaty came into force were destroyed in the U.S. Russia completed Phase I and received extensions on the remaining phases. Libya joined the convention a few months prior to this time, and had just commenced activities.

The United States' General Accounting Office has announced it does not expect Russia to reach 100% destruction until 2027, and the United States, 2014; both after the treaty's final deadline.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

The reason you haven't got the time to refute my 'bull****' is that it's pretty hard to refute. Your choice, but you've become the irrational right winger out here. If you've noticed, I don't participate in political threads as often... there's no point. The majority of the world thinks the USA is the greatest threat to world peace... yet people like you think that's 'bull****'

Your president ordered the invasion of a country based on no connection to 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction, and has subsequently destabilized an entire region. Your reaction: the criticism is 'bull****' .

It must be hard being so perfect in the face of such overwhelming 'bull****'.

[Jagermeister]

Some other actions (e.g. Guantanamo, secret E European prisons etc.) in the War on Terror are also inconsistent with Bush's claimed Christianity.
Gee Kevin, You seem to have skipped over the christian justification of Guantanamo... any reason for that, or did you just forget?
The recent EU report found no evidence of secret prisons, IIRC.

Incarceration at Guantanamo is consistent with legal norms and rules of war (which itself can be "Christian", I guess). As an interesting side note, China is complaining that the U.S. has released six Chinese Muslim prisoners from Guantanamo to Albania (IIRC), because China wants them returned to China so it can torture and imprison them. Which side of that are you on, Peter?

But I suspect the larger question that you are posing is one of the reported "torture" at Guantanamo. And that, I just can't answer definitively. While I don't think having the air conditioner turned up is "torture", or being shackled is "torture", if there was genuine "torture", then I do not feel it would be "Christian". But since I don't know what, if anything, happened at Guantanamo, I can't answer the question.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

As for chemical weaponry, do you honestly think the USA doesn't have a handle on every single biological weapon out there? Most of the good nerve gas in existence was developed in Antartica I guess. If so, I have some wonderful stock in a flying pig farm for sale. It's a winner.

[Jagermeister]

It must be hard being so perfect in the face of such overwhelming 'bull****'.
Not really. The rest of the world has such low standards that it's really not very hard being better than the rest of the world.

[Victor]

Good arguments, Kevin. Remember smallpox? We thought it had been wiped out. Turns out the Russians were making tons of it.

[Jagermeister]

As for chemical weaponry, do you honestly think the USA doesn't have a handle on every single biological weapon out there? Most of the good nerve gas in existence was developed in Antarctica I guess. If so, I have some wonderful stock in a flying pig farm for sale. It's a winner.
Peter, you haven't evidence for any of this, so you're just spouting off your own delusions and conspiracy theories you got from watching Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. Since you've diverged from reality, it's time for me to re-institute the filter, and return to ignoring your postings. Bye-bye.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Incarceration at Guantanamo is consistent with legal norms and rules of war (which itself can be "Christian", I guess). As an interesting side note, China is complaining that the U.S. has released six Chinese Muslim prisoners to Albania (IIRC), because China wants them returned to China so it can torture and imprison them. Which side of that are you on, Peter?


What does what China does have to do with what the USA does? Do they determine your moral benchmark?

If Guantanamo Bay is within the norms, (which even American lawyers appointed to detainees refute) why doesn't the military let the UN inspect the facility? Why don't detainees get private time with their lawyers?

Why have prisoners been shackled and disallowed bathroom breaks... then when they urinate in their pants, their body was wiped in it while still shackled in a kneeling position? Is this within the Geneva Convention rules on treatment of prisoners?

Why does Amnesty International call Gitmo the "Gulag of our time" if it's just a prison facility?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

If your standards are so high, Why is America and Americans so disliked throughout the world? Canadians are far more liked by other nations than americans. Is that just unfair?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I love being on Kevin's ignore list. It's kinda like being canonized intellectually. :D

[George Jung]

[quote=Peter Malcolm Jardine]If your standards are so high, Why is America and Americans so disliked throughout the world? Canadians are far more liked by other nations than americans. Is that just unfair?[/quot

Easy to answer - canadians are just so damned loveable! :p And Peter - you're especially so, when yer all frothed up at the mouth.... as always...

About ready for another 'break' there, old boy? Hate to see you choke on all that spittle; have to have one of yer 'compadres' give ya the 'hindlick' maneuver, just to save yer sorry bacon...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"Easy to answer - canadians are just so damned loveable!"

It's a serious statistic George, but don't worry about it. You guys have lots of guns. You'll be safe ...

[Jagermeister]

A very short explanation of why I say, "The Palestinians have brought most of this on themselves".

The creation of Israel was not the act of any occupying power or the result of conquest. For most of the early years Jewish immigrants traveled to the area and purchased land from the locals. Prior to WWI, Ottoman law attempted to prevent Jewish immigration by prohibiting the sale of land to foreign Jews, but despite these laws, locals continued to sell land to immigrants until there were about 100,000 Jews in Palestine at the onset of WWI.

On the breakup of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI, Britain acquired the mandate for Palestine. Also, at about this time, Arab opposition to Jewish immigration began to rise, as exemplified by the Jerusalem riots of 1920 and ensuing pogroms. The period between 1920 and 1939 was marked by increasing hostility on the part of the Arabs against the Jews, culminating in the Great Uprising of 1936. It is worth noting that during this period, as far as I am aware, there were no cases of Jewish settlers forcing Arabs from their lands or taking lands owned by Arabs. As a result of the Uprising (1936 to 1939), the Jewish and Arab populations became even more segregated, even to the point of separating their economies. Because of the separation, the Jewish community moved towards self-sufficiency, with the eventual approval of partition in 1947, and the declaration of Israel in 1948. Throughout this period, separation of the two populations continued until the outbreak of full war in 1948. At that time many Arabs left the region, anticipating a quick return and the acquisition of the spoils after the defeat of the Jews. Disappointed when the Jews were not defeated, many Arabs remained in the refugee camps rather than return to their homes under now Jewish rule.

Although the creation of a Jewish theocracy was understandably onerous to the Arabs, they made no attempt to integrate with the Jewish state and possibly drive it towards a more tolerant state. The Arabs have consistently insisted on the extermination of the Jews and the eradication of the state of Israel.

Imagine the situation if white Europeans should decide that California should not become Hispanic, and were to begin a program of violent opposition, including shootings and bombings, to drive Catholic Hispanics from the state.

Once the partition had occurred, the Israelis made little attempt to reconcile, and appropriated the lands that the Arabs had vacated. This land was added to when the Arab invaders of 1967 lost the war, and were forced to cede territory in the peace. In this, the native "Palestinians" (as they were known, by then) were ill served by the neighboring Arab states, as Arab lands in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, now became part of Israel.

I'm not sure how international law treats the citizens of one state when it looses a territorial war against another state. The Jordanians on the West Bank were now in conquered areas of Israel, and were faced with a choice of moving to unoccupied Jordan (which they were prevented from doing by their own government), or accommodating to the Israeli state (which they refused to do). And the origins of today's intifada were born.

So, what's the bottom line? I don't know. Most of the original Jewish immigrants came peacefully and displaced no one. The Arabs attacked and lost, but it is their children who paid the price. Neither side can claim the absolute moral superiority here. Most of the suffering of the Arabs was caused by the actions of their own ancestors in fleeing the Arab attacks, and in refusing to make peace.

At this point in time, where Israelis are willing to make accommodations, I think most of the blame for the continuing hostilities and suffering belongs to the Arabs.

Their claim to title and ownership of the land is based on a myth that Jews stole their land, and that just isn't true. On the other hand, the expansion of Israel post 1967 occurred as the result of war, and the displaced Arabs have a valid expectation of having some homeland. IMO, the only fair solution is for them to live side by side, if they can ever achieve it.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Nothing like buying into Zionist propaganda full time....:D

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-8.gif

[Victor]

You're missing the point Peter, he's making good arguments. This is interresting - Kevin's stance on Palestine is more pro-israel than Norman's.

[George Jung]

Point? Point? canadiens don't need no stinkin' points! Cuz' we're luved by the World! Got that? The World! :p

Yer too much, PMJ .... btw, don't know what made me think of it, but have you seen the move 'Anger Management'? There's some potential there...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Why would I be angry?....

Now, denial... behind denial is some serious stuff.... :D

[ishmael]

Maybe we are too knee-jerk pro-Israel at times. But the reason we support Israel is because they are correct in their basic ideas, and we'd like them to spread. That's the gloss, anyway.

Mistakes, you bet, doesn't every liberal society make them?

The hatred, the unvarnished despise of jews in much of the Arab world is positively primitive. Israel is a relatively open society.

What the hell is this about? A few acres of desert, a city we all in the west and the levant nod to. Not much natural wealth. It's about an old psychology, folks.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Let's review Kevin's posts on this thread:


Other than that, I see a great concurrence of Ahmadinejad's writing and the opinions commonly expressed on the WBF.

Liberal bull****.

Incarceration at Guantanamo is consistent with legal norms and rules of war (which itself can be "Christian", I guess).

The rest of the world has such low standards that it's really not very hard being better than the rest of the world.

Tinfoil hat time.


Now,Whose got an anger problem?? :D

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Yer too much, PMJ .... btw, don't know what made me think of it, but have you seen the move 'Anger Management'? There's some potential there...


Care to refute anything I said George? or too far in denial to bother...:D

[Norman Bernstein]

Maybe we are too knee-jerk pro-Israel at times. But the reason we support Israel is because they are correct in their basic ideas, and we'd like them to spread. That's the gloss, anyway.

Correct in their basic ideas?

Any Jew in the world is granted the right, by Israeli law, to emigrate to Israel. Palestinians whose family lived on lands in Israel for generations prior to 1948 are not allowed to return to the country... in many cases, their lands were expropriated by Israel without compensation, and they were forced to flee.

You call that a 'correct basic idea'?

The few arabs who were permitted to stay now constitute approximately 20% of the Israeli population... but receive only 5% of national social services.

You call that a 'correct basic idea'?

Israel occupies lands outside of the internationally defined borders of thier country.... the West Bank. They levy a tax on the population of those places... but those people have no representation in Israeli government.

We fought a revolution, nearly 250 years ago, strongly based on the idea of 'no taxation without representation'. You call that a 'correct basic idea'?

Palestinians elected a popular government not too long ago... something internationally encouraged, to get rid of Arafat, who was despised by Israel. They elected the Hamas party, which is perceived by many arabs as far more of a charitable organization than a terrorist group (although the latter charge is undeniably true). Nonetheless, they appear to have been popularly elected.

Israels' response? They're witholding the portion of the taxes they collect, from Palestinians, from that government... in direct contradiction of the ideals of free elections and democratic government. The consequence: hundreds of thousands of civil servants in the West Bank are going unpaid.

You call this a 'correct basic idea'?

Sorry.... we hold ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice high in our minds, as the goal we work towards, in our own country. Sometimes we fall short, and when we do, we deserve criticism. Do we have the 'correct basic idea'? Sure we do.... but what's the point of saying that, when we really are wrong? Did we hold the 'correct basic idea' back during the days of racial discrimination or slavery?

I wouldn't be so quick to lionize Israel as any sort of bastion of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. There's never any excuse for terrorism.... but the animosity and hatred that many arabs show towards Israel has real roots....

[paladin]

aw, c'mon guys.......leave the man alone....I feel for him......and I sorta agree about Israel.......my ancestors were here and the white man came and poisened the water, put bounties on mens head, raped and murdered wimmin and children, deliberately used germ warfare,and got medals for it.....all for money.....

[geeman]

yep,,raped our wimmin,,messed up a good blood line

[Osborne Russell]

You strike me as intelligent, Osbourne. Look at the history of the man's statements. He's not talking about Nancy Pelosi.

That people in the west don't understand this propaganda is a little frightening. It's weird that the left is backing down, not saying this challenge is worthwhile. If you think the weird right religious folks in this country are mistaken, you ain't seen nuthin yet baby, till you've got an Islamist in charge.

He is indeed talking about Nancy Pelosi, who goes about with uncovered head, unchaperoned. Ahmedinejad calls her a liberal; the Republicans call her a liberal; she calls herself a liberal.

They don't call it monotheism for nuthin'. The only material difference between Islamists and fundamentalist Christians is that the latter would like to have the power of the former. Nothing new there.

I'm not sure who you mean by "the left" but if you mean the Democrats, it's tough to say that they "backed down", they having not taken a stand on anything since I can remember. Nothing to back down from.

[George Jung]

Argue with you, Pete? Why? You're always right (even when you're not), and besides, yer a genius (with a little g, just like I'm a canadien :D ). What chance would I have? ;)

Your tripe is like a broken record; whatsamatter; can't you come up with anything new? If you'd taken some (if I do say so myself) good advice, you coulda catalogued your 'standard comments', saved some bandwidth, and simply listed your response by letter or code word; you remember that post, don't ya? A canadien healthcare is the bestest in the world! B canadiens are beloved by everyone in the world! (don't forget yer exclamation marks - I think they add something....) and so on. I'd list them all, but hey, they're your points, so I think you oughta do them. Besides, you've got them committed to memory....

Argue with you? Naw.... reminds me of when I was a kid, arguing with some 'idiot'.... my mother commented she couldn't tell who was who.... that's the thing, trying to discuss anything with you. You've got issues.....

[paladin]

Iran funds "terrorists"....
The U.S. Starts a war in Indo china for oil...Central and South america, send mercenaries to destabilize Angola, send assassins to foreign countries we don't like....prosecute Americans for selling guns to folks outside the country because the gov't doesn't want any competition.....starts another war over oil or because the current prez didn't like the former head of state threatening to send assassins for daddy after daddy threatened to have his head on a platter......for the money spent on this boondoggle we could have permanent health care for every man, woman and child in this country. Instead we have a debt that out great grandchildren will be paying one way or the other....

[TomF]

Iran funds "terrorists"....
The U.S. Starts a war in Indo china for oil...Central and South america, send mercenaries to destabilize Angola, send assassins to foreign countries we don't like....prosecute Americans for selling guns to folks outside the country because the gov't doesn't want any competition.....starts another war over oil or because the current prez didn't like the former head of state threatening to send assassins for daddy after daddy threatened to have his head on a platter......for the money spent on this boondoggle we could have permanent health care for every man, woman and child in this country. Instead we have a debt that out great grandchildren will be paying one way or the other....Thanks, Paladin.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"A canadien healthcare is the bestest in the world!"

Nope. Never said that. Just that we have a better health care system than you guys do. I can quantify that statement with a significant world study.

"B canadiens are beloved by everyone in the world! "

Nope. Never said that either. Just said that Canadians are better liked than Americans.... and that by quite a bit. Again, I can quantify that with a major study.

"Argue with you? Naw.... reminds me of when I was a kid, arguing with some 'idiot'.... my mother commented she couldn't tell who was who.... that's the thing, trying to discuss anything with you. You've got issues....."

The only issue I have is that when I put forward a point of view, I have to be able to back it up. That's the rules of good debate. Both of the statements I didn't make are followed by statements I did make.... and I can back them up. The problem with you George is you apparently get ruffled if people challenge your assumption that the USA is the best at everything.

Canada isn't the best at everything, and you would be hard put to find a Canadian, including me, that would say that. It's called reality. You should try it sometime. Your country could benefit from this point of view should you decide to adopt it. :D

[George Jung]

Naw, Pete, you've got anger management issues, and you'll be hard put to convince anyone here differently. You're posts are so predictable, no one even listens. Reminds me of that old farside cartoon, where the guy is giving commands to his dog. The caption reads "What your dog actually hears", and comparing the dialogue clouds above the man, his has 'roll over, Rex! Fetch, Rex! Play dead, Rex!', compared with what the dog hears which is 'Yada yada yada, Rex! Yada yada yada, Rex!..."
You get my drift? Yer a yadayadayada kind of a guy.... Rex. Same tired comments, same potshots, same crappolla.

[Gary E]

As far as I can tell, there are only two areas of divergence between Ahmadinejad's letter and the vocal members of the WBF's liberal contingent:

1) Ahmadinejad thinks "the people of the region are happy about (Saddam's demise)"

2) Ahmadinejad speaks too much of Christ (PBUH) and God.

Other than that, I see a great concurrence of Ahmadinejad's writing and the opinions commonly expressed on the WBF. I am now deeply convinced that Ahmadinejad is actually posting here on the WBF, and has been using the Bilge to express and refine his arguments.

The harmony between Ahmadinejad and the liberals here leads me to the conclusion that most of the liberal members would find living in the Islamic Republic of Iran a virtual paradise on earth, since Ahmadinejad espouses the same principles that motivate them.

For you to come to those conclusions, I am now more than ever convinced that YOU ARE FULLA SH!T.

[Victor]

The US starts a war in Indochina for oil? That's a new one! and George, you're the first guy I've ever seen use "you're" for "your".

[TomF]

Naw, Pete, you've got anger management issues, and you'll be hard put to convince anyone here differently. You're posts are so predictable, no one even listens. .... Same tired comments, same potshots, same crappolla.George, I agree that Pete's angry from time to time. And that he recycles similar criticisms too.

Does saying something more than once make it wrong? Red Lead's been used to preserve boat timbers for a very long time - advocating it is crappolla?

A lot of forumites don't like it when folks from within the US or from other parts of the world criticize US government policies and practices. Fine and good. But ignoring the comments doesn't make them any less true.

[George Jung]

Is that the best you can do, Vic? Hehe. Rich. Look at it this way.... it's just 'balancing the till' for all the times you have posted 'your' as a contracture of 'you are'.... and more is still on the tab....:p

TomF, note Pete is not the only critic of the USA here. I've even known you to make similar 'observations'. Note you don't catch too much flak over it; Pete does. Care to hazard a guess as to why?

Civility and friendliness go a long way towards having what you have to say be well-received, and considered. Being an arrogant, abrasive, pompous ass does not have that same effect.

Like some honey? Or do you prefer vinegar? Maybe you prefer 'sow as you reap'.... I'm really not too hard to get along with. Aside from running Petes 'appendage' through the wringer when he becomes obnoxious (getting to be a fulltime job, btw), I believe I comport myself appropriately here. One telling point - I don't recall a single Canadian supporting Petes rants on this forum. I have to believe you don't support his behavioral problems, either, but are just unwilling to call him on it. He's kind of your version of our Stan, or Dutch. He's the dumb cousin always saying something stupid.... but ya can't comment, he's family! (My condolences...):D

[geeman]

I agree,,I have never understood how anyone expects to make headway trying to convince someone their wrong by insults......That I have never understood,When I get insulted ,,I just assume they didnt have anything really meaningful to say.

[George Jung]

"George, I agree that Pete's angry from time to time. And that he recycles similar criticisms too."

From 'time to time'? hehe :D yer a funny guy...

"Does saying something more than once make it wrong? Red Lead's been used to preserve boat timbers for a very long time - advocating it is crappolla? "

I was going to give you a pass on this one, TomF, but..... your (sorry, I owed Victor one) a nice enough guy, a bit too liberal but all in all, okay.... but comparing Pete to 'Red Lead'? Really? That maybe is the most anemic excuse for a 'valid' (NOT) comparison I've ever seen! I let it sit for quite a bit before calling you on it... and everytime I thought of it, I'd start laughing.... my wife and kids were starting to 'keep their distance' and giving me the ol' 'eye'....Anyhow, REALLY? Thanks, best laugh I've had today :D (and I needed it.. forgot to get my kids to get 'mom' a mothers' day present. I guess in this house I'm like the USA..... it's always MY fault! Gotta run, one of the little Sandanistas is in need of some bombing!)

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

George has really gone kinda whacko over the criticism thing. Americans never were very good at taking criticism. Oh well.

Oh George, I don't think, despite your opinion, that you are whacko or mentally ill in any way. You just don't have the same values that I do. Fair enough.

[George Jung]

Thanks, Red. That means a lot, coming from you! :p

Bwahahaha!:D

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"Civility and friendliness go a long way towards having what you have to say be well-received, and considered."

[George Jung]

Pithy, Pete. I actually had a nice 'response', but have decided to do otherwise. Lets see if you can do the same.

[Paul G.]

Peter.

George merely represents the average aging reactionary who is trying to deny reality, which is change. No student of history would ever cling to idealogy like these guys do.

Power is what its all about and as long as you have it you can tell the world where to get off. But once that ephemeral and heady phase begins to ebb, out come the long knives desperately slashing all and sundry on their inevitable decline to poverty, misery and insanity:D

[George Jung]

:p Spoken like someone who has been there....

[Victor]

Not me, honey, you're thinking of Joe (CSOH). I only do it to be snotty. I'm the schoolmistress around here when it comes to your and you're.

[High C]

Not me, honey, you're thinking of Joe (CSOH). I only do it to be snotty. I'm the schoolmistress around here when it comes to your and you're.

My Grandpa the English professor wrote a little book entitled "Your, or You're?" And another called "There, Their, or They're?" And of course, "Who or Whom?"

I never mess those up. ;) :cool:

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

It's true Paul. I still find it sad tho. :(

[TomF]

.... but comparing Pete to 'Red Lead'? Really? ...George, make all the fun of it you wish. If Bob Cleek sometimes launched into full rant mode about red lead, it apparently didn't make using the stuff any less sound. Some found a full-on Cleek entertaining, others obnoxious. He didn't care...

Some of the criticisms made "downstairs" here are also based on fact, whether they're said with rant mode set on, or off ... I like to keep mine "off" mostly, and wish ALL others would do the same. But as with the indomitable Cleek ... sometimes angry buggers down here have a point, however it's expressed.

[George Jung]

There is a world of difference between 'valid criticisms' and what Pete does; I know it; you do too, if you're honest about it. Want to defend your 'cousin'? Your choice. But if you honestly support Petes 'rave mode', you're not as 'capable' as I'd pegged you. Comparing what he does, to 'Cleek raving about boat building' is .... well, weak is being charitable. Cleeks' rants are infrequent, different topics, and useful. I don't recall personal assaults, insults against countries or parties..... where did you dredge up such a dreadful analogy? I'll give you a point for persistence, but really, give it up!:rolleyes:

[TomF]

Whatever, George J. I don't support Peter's personal attacks when they're made, and probably should be clearer when the next occurs. I agree, the sniping can get over the top.

Tell you what. I'll call him on his language/attitude, if you do the same for one or two from the Bush-supporter side of the floor.

[crawdaddyjim50]

If your standards are so high, Why is America and Americans so disliked throughout the world? Canadians are far more liked by other nations than americans. Is that just unfair?

They like you because you are easily led to slaughter. I think they refer to you as sheep. They have no real respect for your people or your gov't. They even try to carve autonomy out of Ontario without so much as a pardon me. No you are not hated like americans only because these people don't hate you like they don't hate dirt. They think of you as invisible or inconsiquintial.

[George Jung]

Well. Then again, there's that.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

They think of you as invisible or inconsiquintial. __________________

Really? That's strange. The guy who was released by the palestinians because he had a canadian passport must have been relieved by his 'invisibility'

George jumps on some incredibly fantastic statement degrading the Canadian participation around the globe, and then has the nerve to chastise me for what I say about America. LMAO:D

[George Jung]

My apologies, Pete. I thought you would get the 'understated' tone of my response for the implication that was intended. Maybe too subtle for you..... LMAOT!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Come on George, Don't apologize for anything, it's beneath you.:D

[George Jung]

Whatever, George J. I don't support Peter's personal attacks when they're made, and probably should be clearer when the next occurs. I agree, the sniping can get over the top.

Tell you what. I'll call him on his language/attitude, if you do the same for one or two from the Bush-supporter side of the floor.

Deal. Who you want me to whack?

[TomF]

Deal. Who you want me to whack?Now there's an offer!:D And wouldn't you know, it arrives when the whole bilge is swimming in the milk of human kindness. Just proves that God's got a weird sense of humour.

t.

[Keith Wilson]

So what's gotten into everybody today? No vitriol at all, signs of a wry sense of humor even in the most political, some intelligent discussion . . . We could do this all the time if we wanted to! :)

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I'm letting Georgy Porgy off easy ... that's why.