Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

Post 20

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
The blood on our hands doesn't take away the blood others shed in their own name. Remember that.

-- Bridget

Post 21

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
John, as Letendre pointed out, I didn't see any twisting or manipulation of facts, all I saw were facts. You accused Marotta of moral relativism, but I don't see how you arrived there. The U.S. executes/has executed mentally retarded people, as well as children. But when Michael noted that, you brought up how bad other countries were compared to us, without addressing the issue. That is why I posed the question.

Post 22

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:13amSanction this postReply

And where is Michael’s anti-Americanism? As John’s fine analysis discloses, the facts Michael presented lead to an anti-Sino conclusion, or better yet—simple anti-death penalty.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
And Jonathan, (also addressing Jon L.) clearly Bill posted this news item to demonstrate how monstrous the Iranian government is and just how disgusting Shariah law is. Just to reiterate what the mullahs have done, they executed a girl, for the crime of being a rape victim. The execution was hanging by a crane.

For what purpose is it to post execution statistics, incredibly misleading ones to boot, other than to make an attempt to bring some moral ambiguity into the discussion? The fact is there is no moral equivocation between the US and Iran. The crimes people are executed for in the US are for murder.

As far as children or the mentally retarded that have been executed in the US, it's always a question of what degree do they understand the difference between right and wrong. How mentally retarded was the person that committed murder? How young is the child that committed murder? In some cases some murderers suspiciously claim they are mentally retarded because of low IQ but have no apparent physical mental retardation such as down syndrome, being stupid isn't enough to be labeled mentally retarded. Nor is a 16 year old really that devoid of the understanding murder is wrong.

I don't understand how Jon L and Jonathan don't see Marotta's attempts at moral equivocation given his record on this forum. But so be it.

But to reiterate, as a matter of principle, I am opposed to the death penalty. I'm just sick of the US being the whipping boy.

Post 24

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:21amSanction this postReply

If I murder 8 people, and person X murders 800, did I do anything wrong?
You did 8 very wrong things, but person X did 100 times as many wrong things, which makes him, and his philosophical basis for action, much much worse than you and yours.  In a world where both of you exist, we would be much better of getting rid of him before you.

Post 25

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
And Jonathan, (also addressing Jon L.) clearly Bill posted this news item to demonstrate how monstrous the Iranian government is and just how disgusting Shariah law is. Just to reiterate what the mullahs have done, they executed a girl, for the crime of being a rape victim. The execution was hanging by a crane.
quote Monstrous indeed

I don't understand how Jon L and Jonathan don't see Marotta's attempts at moral equivocation given his record on this forum. But so be it.
A red herring, perhaps, moral relativism? I still don't see it, but I've defended Marotta enough for one day. He's perfectly capable of defending himself, and I will respectfully defer from here on out.

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 7/27, 10:03am)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:46amSanction this postReply

Good response, John. True that the surrounding context matters. The first post, Chris’, certainly did set a tone of anti-Americanism.

I am not against the death penalty. But a case can be made, consistent with justice, for banning it. If it is scary that Mullahs have the power to execute, the argument goes, then it is also scary for any government to have that power.

Even as someone who is not against, I have to admit it is scary to scan the list. There are no nice countries on the list—and there is the US right in the middle!

Post 27

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Jon wrote:

I am not against the death penalty. But a case can be made, consistent with justice, for banning it. If it is scary that Mullahs have the power to execute, the argument goes, then it is also scary for any government to have that power.

For a change, Jon and I agree on something.  I sanctioned the post he made containing this passage.  At least a life imprisonment can be commuted when new evidence arises acquitting the convict.  The government can make reparations to the acquitted convict for wrongful imprisonment.  It can make no such reparations to a corpse.

Given the number of acquittals I have seen of convicts serving long sentences based on new DNA analysis technology, I have grown uneasy with the government's power to inflict 100% justice using a system shown as less than 100% accurate.  The tiny fraction of American prisoners actually executed compared to the total number of prisoners, combined with the costs of the death penalty, combined with the error rates of convictions, make life imprisonment look like the only moral stance when discussing capital crimes like murder.

EDIT: As John Armaos correctly notes in the next post, it is not just as "scary" for a legitimate government to conduct accidental executions for murder as it is for a theocracy to conduct deliberate executions for rape victimhood, etc.  The former is a tragedy of error while the latter is a tragedy of evil.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/27, 11:52am)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
And the case can be made just fine without bringing up the mullahs. It is at least a red herring as Jonathan pointed out. It's scary the mullah's have the power to execute but that's no where near as scary as the United States government having the power to execute. Come on people, are we saying our government is just as scary as the mullahs in Iran?

By no means is it the same thing, at all. In one case we wish to ban executions because innocent people have been falsely convicted of murder, in the other case in Iran, people are executed for being rape victims, heretics, political dissidents, and other non-crimes. While one is accidental and for a better reason (murder), the other is deliberate and for a terrible reason (rape victim).

How can that be just as scary?

Post 29

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
The following would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. I am reading:

Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi


An excerpt:

"I have to tell you that the Ayatollah himself was no novice in sexual matters," Nassrin went on. "I've been translating his magnum opus, The Political , Philosophical, Social and Religious Principles of Ayatollah Khomeini, and he had some interesting points to make."

"But it's already been translated," said Manna. "What's the point?"

"Yes," said Nassrin, "parts of it have been translated, but after it became the butt of party jokes,ever since the embassies abroad found out that the people were reading the book not for their edification but for fun, the translations have been very hard to find. And anyway, my translation is thorough — it has references and cross-references to works by other worthies. Did you know that one way to cure a man's sexual appetites is by having sex with animals? And then there's the problem of sex with chickens. You have to ask yourself if a man has had sex with a chicken can then eat the chicken afterwards. Our leader has provided us with an answer: No,  neither he nor his immediate family or next-door neighbors can eat of  that chicken's meat, but it's okay for a neighbor who lives two doors away. My father would rather that I spend time on such texts than Jane Austen or Nabokov?" she added, rather mischievously.

(Edited by Sam Erica on 7/27, 12:22pm)

Post 30

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply

Fair enough, John. But if you are the one on death row, wrongly convicted, then I do imagine it is precisely just as scary.
(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/27, 12:46pm)

Post 31

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
I love it when a plan comes together....

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.” The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, “New Middle East”—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s “peace process.” That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
  • Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, “comprehensive peace” to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
  • Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
  • Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize “land for peace”— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes “peace for peace,” “peace through strength” and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

    We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading “land for peace” will not secure “peace now.” Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, “peace for peace,” is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
  • striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
  • paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the “supernote” — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

    Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan “comprehensive peace” and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting “land for peace” deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
    We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.

Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

    We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to “land for peace” concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict
    TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its “exhaustion,” which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: “Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important–element in the history of the Middle East.” Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:”
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

Post 32

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
John wrote:
Marotta, in an effort to morally equivocate the US with Iran posted...
John, did you mean to say "morally equate"? I'm not sure what "morally equivocate" means in this context.

- Bill

Post 33

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Yes, I mean equate. My apologies if I used the wrong term.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply

John, as Letendre pointed out, I didn't see any twisting or manipulation of facts, all I saw were facts
It's a 'twisting' of facts becase the way it is presented is completely and intentionally misleading.  For instance, we could just as rightly say...

China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Michael F Dickey were responsible for 87 percent of known executions.
China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Mickey Mouse were responsible for 87 percent of known executions.
Its twisting because by adding the United States to that total it directly implies that it is a signficant contributor to it.  It isnt false, but it is certainly misleading.  Saying that America, Saudi Arabia, and Iran make up 8% of all known executions certainly doesnt have the same oomph to the ignorant that lumping anything in with China, the largest by far murderous regime, does. 

Post 35

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Given abundant evidence that the culture of the Middle East is pretty screwed up, it occurs to me to inquire: what useful purpose can the U.S. government achieve through the imposition of its military presence in the region? Sooner or later the U.S. will be forced by events to withdraw militarily from the area, as was Great Britain nearly 80 years ago. (Incidentally, when we do withdraw, we'll leave twelve newly constructed air force bases, as Gary North points out in a recent article (25th or 26th of July) on Lewrockwell.com. Perhaps the Happy Muslim Hordes will gainfully employ these bases to launch commercial air service between Iran, London, New York and Paris. Or perhaps the bases will help pave the way for future military adventuring by Muslim bullies.)

Israel is a tragic consequence of the politics of collectivism. For the formation of the Israeli State was a an act characterisitic of twentieth century collectivism, in that its fullfillment required massive violation of individual rights by the Israeli terrorists, and by Harry Truman's administration, which chose to sponsor the Israeli experiment in nationalism and socialism. It's true, of course, that the Arabs violated rights as enthusiastically as the Jewish state builders. But Truman had no business backing either side in this long running feud, and staking American "interests" with Israel's. We're still suffering the bloody consequences of Truman's meglomania 75 years later.

If the USA were to cease taking sides in the tragic conflict between irrational Israelis, and hyper-irrational Arabs and Muslims, Israel might, or might not, be driven into the sea. If she were threatened with destruction, the US could open its borders to fleeing Israelis, who are intelligent, disciplined and productive.

Once the USA withdrew official support for Israel, and withdrew militarily from the Middle East, the primary inspiration for anti-American crusading by impoverished embittered Muslims would evaporate. In twenty to thirty years, through the mutual benefits of voluntary trade, the blood lust for revenge among aggrieved Muslims might be largely healed.

This failed experiment in empire building, by Baby Bush (and other rogues who preceded him in office), stands as a stark reminder of the utter futility, waste, and viciousness that flows from coercive collectivist crusading--domestic or foreign. Like Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, Bush's War on Terrorism has accomplished nothing of value, and has left only smoldering ruin in its wake.

Post 36

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply

I think all can see the way that it is misleading, we get it.

The data came from Amnesty, which is indicated. The exact numbers for each country are *right there.* So, he pulled some text, including some that is misleading, and he made sure to include actual numbers as well. It is even disclosed that the first three are probably in truth higher, while America’s is accurate.

“Twisting,” “manipulating,” and “anti-American” are just plain unfounded.

Post 37

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply

There is good reason to believe the instability in Iraq was planned. That the civil war between Shiite and Sunni was planned in Iraq. You guys talk about how horrible Iran is, Iraq's regime is an extention of Iran, and U.S. has brought it all into power! The Neo-Conservatives aren't stupid, they knew this would happen.

People here might also want to look into those death squads in Iraq, they are probably trained by U.S. government, the same ones that were in Central America with "death squad" John Negroponte


Hey, anyone see how Chalabi  was at the Bilderberg conference in Canada this year? If anyone remembers, this is the same guy the U.S. government accused of handing secrets to Iran, and is the supposed backstabber of the U.S. But he's also a friend of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Then again, they are backstabbers of U.S. too. The backstabber in Iraq government, wonder why:


The backstabber at Bilderberg with buddy Pearle, I wonder why:


But wait, he's an enemy of the U.S.? Could all this be unintentional?

What about the Israel spies that were found dancing around videotaping the 911 catastrophe?


What about those Israel spies that were in the U.S. following the terrorists?



Good old Chertoff let them go... thank god he's in control of Homeland security...

Has this war on terror been planned for a while?


Would some people, beside a bunch crazy muslims, want to bring this on in the U.S. to further their goals? I wonder... maybe all those crazy brown people just hate the U.S. for their freedom.


I think the freedom in the U.S. is very unique, in that, it's not freedom. I wonder why the U.S. does what they do, all unintentional of course... no such thing as planned or provoked terror.

One of my favorites, a true classic, giving Iraq and Iran weapons to fight and kill each other, putting sanctions on Iraq, intentionally destroying their water supply, and killing over 500 000 before they even went into Iraq the second time. This to supposedly try and throw Saddam out, the same Saddam they gave weapons to, the same Saddam that didn't care about his people at all, and they put sanctions on Iraq and punish the Iraqi people, not Saddam.  All unintentional of course.

And don't forget funding mujahideen and Bin Laden and Iran contra... what a government. Oh wait, were these the same Neo-Conservatives in the Regan administration? Nah...couldn't be...

The U.S. is going down in flames, it is going broke, it is broke. Who cares though, hey, you have your freedom

Post 38

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 7:18pmSanction this postReply

Of course, THAT post is a different story.

Post 39

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:47amSanction this postReply
Just to be clear, anything you pull from Amnesty’s site is almost guaranteed to be anti-American.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

User ID Password or create a free account.