Crispy wrote:

Deadron wrote:

I am thoroughly disgusted with the tyranny-loving, science hating, "America is always wrong" irrational left.

Woah, woah, slow down here. Tyranny-loving?

When one finds one's self supporting Saddam over the US, and the Palestinian "kill gay people and suppress women and blow up busses full of civilians" government/terror groups over the democratic Israel, and the Taliban's rule over US intervention there, then one has made a choice it seems to me. There are only so many times that someone can root for the forces of tyranny before, in fact, they have become a supporter of tyranny. They may slip into this because of their general anti-American feelings, but when you "know" one side is always wrong, then you pretty much accept that the other side is always right.

Science hating? Since when did you have to have right-leaning politics to be a scientist? Many of the scientists I know of are left-wing environmentalists who, on their spare days, go out on "save the trees" protests and support campaigns against tyrannical governments

It would be a pulling of this discussion off topic to get into the full discussion, but suffice it to say that scientists who are left-wing environmentalists have, by and large, left their love of science behind in their interest of supporting political movements that don't have much to do with science or the environment.

Deadron wrote:

When one finds one's self supporting Saddam over the US, and the Palestinian "kill gay people and suppress women and blow up busses full of civilians" government/terror groups over the democratic Israel, and the Taliban's rule over US intervention there, then one has made a choice it seems to me.

I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. If someone is against the war in Iraq, that doesn't make them pro-Saddam. If someone feels that Israel's enroachment of Palestinian territory is wrong, that doesn't mean they support suicide bombers or Islamic fundamentalism.

I can understand why certain elements (and it is just certain elements) of the Palestinians are carrying out terrorist attacks; I don't agree with it, but I know why they're doing it. It's because they feel helpless and oppressed in the face of a nation much more powerful than they are, and because their religion tells them to. Removing that feeling is the first step to resolving the tensions in that region; if you can think of a better way of dealing with the situation, I'd be happy to hear it.

In retrospect, I don't agree with those who say that the US should not have gone into Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden had clearly shown that he had both the resources and the intent to carry out damaging terrorist attacks, and there is no doubt that the Taliban regime was oppressive. By the same token, I view the Iraq war as an unfortunate necessity; I wish it didn't have to happen, but at the same time I recognise that Saddam's regime needed to go, and that establishing a democratic Arab government is a good move for starting to resolve Middle East tensions.

There are only so many times that someone can root for the forces of tyranny before, in fact, they have become a supporter of tyranny. They may slip into this because of their general anti-American feelings, but when you "know" one side is always wrong, then you pretty much accept that the other side is always right.

As I said, disagreeing with one side does not mean you necessarily agree with the other. And those anti-American-government feelings usually have valid reasons behind them. The US, whether it likes to admit it or not, has royally screwed up on several occasions; and you can't be the most powerful nation on earth

It would be a pulling of this discussion off topic to get into the full discussion, but suffice it to say that scientists who are left-wing environmentalists have, by and large, left their love of science behind in their interest of supporting political movements that don't have much to do with science or the environment.

I beg to disagree. Why would holding a love of science be mutually exclusive to opposing tyranny? That makes no sense to me.

Crispy wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. If someone is against the war in Iraq, that doesn't make them pro-Saddam.

Ah, so those would be the people who were against the war, but for other ways of getting Saddam out, right? Like sanctions, right?

Oh wait, they were against sanctions too.

Okay, it's the people who were against the war but wanted to see democracy in Iraq, right?

Oh wait, they felt that Iraqis are incapable of handling democracy because of their "tradition" of tyranny.

Okay, it's the people who are not pro-Saddam but who are against war and against sanctions and against democracy in Iraq, and against anything that would in fact remove a massively murderous dictator from power. Those people. Whatever they are, it sure isn't pro-Saddam, we know that.

If someone feels that Israel's enroachment of Palestinian territory is wrong, that doesn't mean they support suicide bombers or Islamic fundamentalism.

I agree. It's just someone who supports Saddam continuing in power, and the Taliban, and the Palestinians, but doesn't support violence or fundamentalism.

It's because they feel helpless and oppressed in the face of a nation much more powerful than they are, and because their religion tells them to. Removing that feeling is the first step to resolving the tensions in that region; if you can think of a better way of dealing with the situation, I'd be happy to hear it.

Hmm, well if I were them I'd start by accepting a deal that gives me 99% of what I'm asking for: The land, the autonomy, the power. Unfortunately, in response to that offer, they chose to begin bombing Israeli citizens.

Pop quiz: What is the only Middle East democracy where Arabs are allowed to vote?

In retrospect, I don't agree with those who say that the US should not have gone into Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden had clearly shown that he had both the resources and the intent to carry out damaging terrorist attacks, and there is no doubt that the Taliban regime was oppressive. By the same token, I view the Iraq war as an unfortunate necessity; I wish it didn't have to happen, but at the same time I recognise that Saddam's regime needed to go, and that establishing a democratic Arab government is a good move for starting to resolve Middle East tensions.

I'm glad to hear that. It puts you way way ahead of most people you probably think are on the same page as you.

It would be a pulling of this discussion off topic to get into the full discussion, but suffice it to say that scientists who are left-wing environmentalists have, by and large, left their love of science behind in their interest of supporting political movements that don't have much to do with science or the environment.

I beg to disagree. Why would holding a love of science be mutually exclusive to opposing tyranny? That makes no sense to me.

You are mixing conversational threads here. I said the far left is anti-science (along with being pro-tyranny), and you said you know left-wing environmentalist scientists. I was simply pointing out that a left-wing environmentalist scientist is not in fact engaging in much science. I'll take that up in another thread.

Air Mapster wrote:

The quotation "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic" (in its various translated forms) is usually attributed to Joseph Stalin.

Having killed some 20 million people, I guess he's in a great position to know!

I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. If someone is against the war in Iraq, that doesn't make them pro-Saddam.

Ah, so those would be the people who were against the war, but for other ways of getting Saddam out, right? Like sanctions, right?

Oh wait, they were against sanctions too.

Okay, it's the people who were against the war but wanted to see democracy in Iraq, right?

Oh wait, they felt that Iraqis are incapable of handling democracy because of their "tradition" of tyranny.

Okay, it's the people who are not pro-Saddam but who are against war and against sanctions and against democracy in Iraq, and against anything that would in fact remove a massively murderous dictator from power. Those people. Whatever they are, it sure isn't pro-Saddam, we know that.

I should produce an analogy: say I happen across two people fighting in the street. One is holding a knife (and is wearing a nametag with "Iraq" on it), but the other is much bigger and stronger than he is (and is wearing the other obvious nametag). Both of them are circling each other, and the bigger one is telling the smaller one to drop the knife or there will be trouble. Is it wrong to either ask both of them to back off from one another (using whatever means are necessary to prevent anyone from getting hurt -- like separating the two with a big sign saying "Veto") or to walk away and not get involved (deliberately stating that you don't support either of their views), even if you know that the little one's knife could kill the bigger one? (This analogy assumes that the WMD claims were true, of course.)

[edit] Actually, scratch that. Say the little one had a knife sheath that may or may not actually have had a knife in it -- he was covering it up so it would be too hard to tell.

The analogy works pretty well in my case. I think the United States was highly wrong in invading Iraq without sufficient evidence. The end was great, yes. I would never deny that... Hussein is no better than a terrorist with booksmarts. But the means were immoral, given that the justification was a lie -- Iraq was not a safe haven for al Qaeda, and there was no tangible evidence to support that it possessed any massive weapons.

It's a similar concept to what the war was fighting against -- justice by opinion instead of by fact.


Overall: Iraq, Good. Saddam, Bad. Result, Good. Way of getting to Result, Bad.

Deadron wrote:

Israel: Here have 99% of what you want, except the 1% that would easily let you exterminate us, as you have so often said you want to do.

Palestine: Die you dogs!

What Israel offers is not 99% of what the Palestineans want; it is, at best, 99% of what the Palestineans have resigned themselves to ask for since they know that their bargaining position is not nearly powerful enough to have any hope of getting anything resembling what they want (most of which is merely what the Israelis want--to have a substantial independent nation in the region in which they form a dominant majority, and can rule themselves with a reasonable sense of security from their foes). More importantly, I do not believe it's what 99% of what the Palestineans as a people deserve, although it suffices for the Palestinean authorities given the tactics they support; I do certainly agree that the Palestineans are in serious need of some new authorities.

Seriously, what more could Israel have done, given the realities that you acknowledge?

I dunno... maybe they could perhaps stop dragging their butts on the whole issue and actually get serious about committing to an actual independent Palestinean state. Saying that the Palestineans can make their own sovereign decisions so long as they make them while sitting in Israeli tank sights does not constitute a serious proposal for Palestinean autonomy, nor does it represent a necessity for Israel's continued existence. Yes, the time has come (and since gone) when we don't really have any options except to accept most of Israel's conquests as a fait accompli, and a return to, say, the original U.N. partition is no longer feasible. But so long as we're disabusing ourselves of that notion, we can add in the notion that Israel is helpless and needs constant and vigilant defense against the big mean Arab bullies. Israel is the big bully now, and the only thing stopping it from throwing its weight around is the knowledge that it relies on support from the U.S. and the world community at large, and that support would quickly erode if it carried out all the "security measures" it might think necessary.

Sometimes I think about what it would be like in the reverse situation...the Palestinians with vast military superiority and nuclear weapons and the Israelis at their mercy.

Just how many Jews would be alive there today, do you think?

Assuming that we're talking about an honest role reversal: many, many more than you give the Arabs credit. Your implication that the Palestineans would have in one way or another gotten rid of the region's Jewish population if they had seized control in 1948 fails to take into account three factors:

1. The Israelis have vast military superiority due to vast international backing, particularly from the U.S. Israel has been very sensitive to the opinions of its backers, and would be taking a much harder line against the Palestineans and its Arab neighbors if it were not for international pressure. If the situation were reversed and the Western world threw its support behind Palestine, this would still hold true for the Palestineans; Palestine's backers might condone many of its aggressive actions up to a point, but if it persisted past that point, it would quickly cease to have vast military superiority.

2. Another reason that Israel hasn't been even harsher on the Palestineans is simply because of its vast military superiority. If the Palestineans represented an imminent threat to Israel's existence, they wouldn't be around for much longer, either.

3. Although there existed anti-Semitic sentiments in the Arab world prior to the Zionist movement, the large-scale immigration of Jews into Palestine created a lot more; yet the establishment of and subsequent military dominance by Israel is what's responsible for the bulk of it. If the Palestineans were in control from the start, they probably wouldn't be so extremely less tolerant of the Israelis than the Israelis currently are of the Palestineans--that is, most of their intolerance would stem from the fact that the Israelis would likely be spending a lot of time blowing themselves up in order to kill Palestinean civilians.

Mrhat99au wrote:

The wars over, get over it, whining about how america could have done it diffenrtly is going to change it. I think that we probably could have somehow taken the country without force, but Saddam is gone, the evil regime destroyed, and hopefully the country will get back on its feet sometime.

Did you mean 'Isn't'?

All to be said. ^^;

Fundamental Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Islam at its core is a religion whose principles are based on tolerance and forgiveness, and the pursuit of all that is good, much like Christianity. The fact that Allah is the exact same god as Christianity's God should corroborate that.

Terrorists aren't Islam Fundamentalists; they're Islam Extremists. They believe in a very strictly interpreted version of the Koran -- an interpretation which is believed by almost all Islamic persons to be entirely false.

B.C. has a wide and diverse culture, and the Islamic citizens I know couldn't possibly be better examples of moral righteousness.

No, I agree that he is bad and needed to be taken care of. What I dont agree with is the fact that Bush called it 'Terrorism' and that Saddam was in full cooperation with Al Queda and other terrorist cells. When in reality, as Hedgemistress said earlier, Osama and Al Queda are extreme Religious people, where Saddam is "get whatever i can take and not give back"...he doesn't care about religion. Anyways, Saddam wasn't part of the whole terrorism thing, Bush just said that, he 'linked' Saddam and Terrorism together, by himself as to justify taking over Iraq, because we can control the Oil in Iraq, and it is Justifiable because Saddam 'supports terrorism'.

Saddam did need to be taken care of, but not nessissarily by Full out invasion. It was convenient that the terrorists attacked us because that gave Bush all the reason he needed to Invade any Middle Eastern Country, because the terrorists are all over there, in Every Country, so Bush gets the ability to 'choose' who to invade and what not. This allows him to further blackmail and have more control in what those countries do...because he could instantly accuse any one of them of holding terrorists, and that we should invade.

To much money was spent on the war in Iraq, when all we had to do was Use afghanistan for our Military Operations...Instead, we spent roughly 85 billion +, when not even a third of that money could fix our ENtire Public Education Finances, and another third or LESS could have fixed all the states' budget deficits 2 or 3 times fold.

Bush will ride the fact that he captured Saddam all the way to re election. The point is that all he's done is put more burden on the U.S. to support those damned 3rd world countries who dont like us. They want us out, now that we've helped them, so they can rebuild their pride and countries.(afghanistan and Iraq) However we still insist on staying over there...

On another subject, Our economy dropped significantly since 9/11. So what does Bush do to help it? He spends 80+ billion on WAR instead of our country. Screw 3rd world countries, if we need their oil so badly then maybe we should think about newer technology research such as full electric cars and Hydrogen Cars. The U.S. has a very large supply of Hydrogen gas which is also very easy to get. If we drove those types of cars, and/or spent money on the research for such vehicles, we wouldn't need to Do all these petty childish games of control over the Oil in the Middle east.
Bush ruined the economey, in the mean time lowering taxes so the goverment has LEss money, increases healthcare so the goverment has even LEss money, and then with the war, theres even more money down the tube. It's a three pronged attack, and official, he's ruined our economy and shouldn't be re elected.

The attacks on our troops wont stop in Iraq untill we leave...Bush doesnt' want to leave yet. They want us gone so they can rebuild...Bush doesn't wanna leave yet. Day by Day we loose troops for an unnessissary cause.

Fundamentalist Islam = Islamic Extremists

Your post proves my point. You thought that I was referring to Islam in general, when in fact I was not. We are too afraid to name the enemy because if we do, people are going to assume that we are targeting Islam, not some whackos who have taken Islam and perverted it.