- This topic has 80 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
carlislematthew.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 17, 2006 at 9:38 PM #32255August 17, 2006 at 9:55 PM #32258
bgates
ParticipantSalo_t, another leftist with poor understanding of facts. quote from a member of Clinton’s NSC:
Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.I won’t embarass you by asking for evidence that anyone in the administration claimed any citizen was either for the war or a terrorist – wait, yes I will, put up or shut up.
North Korea, meanwhile, has been working on nukes for over a decade. You’re ex-military, why don’t you explain to the class why a military solution there would have been much harder than in Iraq? And maybe Perry can help you with how negotiations should have worked – apparently, we’d just need to open diplomatic channels and our problems would be over, right, Perry?
August 17, 2006 at 10:10 PM #32259salo_t
Participantbgates, your passionate about your views but you still havent explained how Bush’s take on things have been an improvement over anything ells we have had. the way i see it a lot of money and good American lives wasted on a pipe dream. If we had not gone to Iraq would things be different for us? And dont give me that crap that all of a sudden you care about the poor helpless people there. You never gave the people there a second thought before Bush decided to invade, and probably still dont. Yes Saddom was mean but I can name 10 or more leaders that are as bad or worse than him. You have to do better bgates, tell me how bush has improved something. thats what i need to hear.
August 17, 2006 at 10:33 PM #32263Participantsalo_t, you asked “where’s the logic” while claiming the wmd evidence was ‘weak’. I think in demolishing your claim I answered your question. Also note that any criticism I’ve made of you has been based on easily obtainable facts, while you resort to claiming I’m indifferent to human suffering in Iraq, which is not only personally insulting and wrong but for which you can find absolutely no evidence. If you have any decency you’ll apologize.
If we hadn’t gone to Iraq, Saddam would still be undermining the oil-for-food program, scoring propaganda victories right and left by blaming any and all civilian deaths on us because of the sanctions. Iran’s wmd program would have continued at the same pace at least, because they were no more comfortable bordering Saddam’s regime than bordering a US-backed Iraqi government, and their dreams of empire would be the same. We would still have bases in Saudia Arabia at considerable cost and again lending propaganda to our enemies. To imagine that the pre-war policy was free of either financial or world-opinion consequences is the pipe dream.
Instead, Saddam is gone; al Quada’s murdering of Muslim civilians instead of Americans has cost them greatly in public support; there’s a fighting chance of a reasonable government in Iraq; and there are lots of troops on either side of Iran should they be needed. Oh, and the levels of violence against civilians, while horrible, are lower than they were before we got there, according to UN claims of the effect of sanctions and other human rights bodies’ description of the death toll during Saddam’s reign. Do you care at all about Iraqi civilian deaths?
You claim you can name 10 or more leaders worse than Saddam. Last time I asked for evidence, you came up with nothing, but I’ll try again: who?
August 17, 2006 at 10:39 PM #32265powayseller
ParticipantThis is an interesting response, and thanks to everyone for contributing. In defense of Bush, the pork barrel and budget deficit problems are due to having a Republican Congress and a Republican president; nobody vetoed the other, and spending got out of control. Insiders say Bush has a short attention span, preferring short memos over detailed reports. His management style is : either you agree with me or you shut up. I just read a book written by one of his Treasury officials, who was critical of Clinton, but had nothing good to say about Bush.
I’m curious for those of you supporting the Iraq war: what were your concerns about the Iraqi people before our invasion? How do you feel about us being a war-monger nation, i.e. pre-emptive? Why don’t we invade and bring peace to Nigeria? Aren’t their problems legitimate too? Why don’t we invade North Korea and bring democracy there? I guess I’m asking because it seems there was an ulterior motive for Iraq. What?
As far as how I would handle Iran: First, I would find out why they hate us so much. Then, I would learn how other nations get along with them. By then, I would have enough information to form a strategy. I assume a lot of the Middle East hatred has to do with our support of Israel. I would be willing to stop supporting Israel, and probably that would result in the terrorists losing interest in us. This goes back to finding out why they hate us. I once read it is because we are on their holy land. We should leave their holy land. That should go a long way in creating peace.
Also I am puzzled why a discussion like this creates such emotion. PD especially is a very passionate woman on this issue. Why do you get so upset just having a discussion?
August 17, 2006 at 10:52 PM #32269PerryChase
Participantbgates, yes, I’ll concede to you that your argument is stronger than mine (at least to the voters) so that’s why Bush is in power. He gets to implement his policy and run amok.
If you were so sure of the Bush Doctrine, you’d be confident in success; and you wouldn’t even care to debate with us dissenters. We are insignificant in Bush’s great scheme because he knows that he’s got the final answer.
Like I said before, Bush and his supporters have the upper hand. I’m happy to let history be the judge. My feeling is that, like Real Estate, Iraq will become an intractable problem. People will be brought back down to earth but they will still walk with their heads held high (at least in public when window shopping at the mall).
August 17, 2006 at 10:53 PM #32270rankandfile
ParticipantPowayseller, I think this type of discussion raises so much emotion because it gets to the heart of people’s core beliefs: religion, life philosophy, etc. As for your strategy of understanding why our enemies, particularly Muslims, hate us so much, I couldn’t disagree with you more. It’s not because we are on their holy land and it is not because we support Israel. We are different than they are and I think we are a threat to their existence. It is their doctrine to convert all non-believers to Islam or kill them. No, not all Muslims feel this way, but many do…certainly the hardliners and Imams who rule the rest of the masses. They are in a holy war with us (Jihad), yet many of us in the West don’t even realize it.
You are of Iranian descent, perhaps you could answer your own question as to why “they hate us so much”. Maybe you could also tell us why there is a sweeping undercurrent of Iranian youth that are actually against their current administration there and are trying to push for more Western-style reforms such as more more freedom, less rule by religious fanatics, and more rights for women. I think you’d be the perfect person to enlighten us on these points.
August 17, 2006 at 11:00 PM #32274CardiffBaseball
ParticipantJimmy Carter more than any other President in recent memory should be held in contempt for the massive mistake in not backing the Shah. This emboldened the radical Islamfacists.
By the way there is such a thing as a greater evil.Islamofacism is an idea that must be killed. The 13th century barbarians need to go through their reformation and if they do not we’ll continue to have bloodshed. PS wants us to turn their back on Israel, calling it Islamic “Holy Land”. Please the throat slitters storming Asia Minor killing and converting everything in site, and somehow Jerusalem is holy to these people. Thankfully they were turned back in Europe.
What needs to happen is for groups like CAIR to quit making announcements pleading with Americans not to judge all Muslims, and start bashing the mullahs.
August 17, 2006 at 11:06 PM #32277ParticipantBruce Bawer, was the author, and I might look for this book myself, based on the following snip from Dan Simmons Site, his May-June essay.
While Europe Slept…and Slept…and Slept…and Slept:
Bruce Bawer ( While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within) seems to be an unlikely candidate for the labels of "racist" and "bigot" and "fascist" that so many enjoy applying to anyone who warns of the threat of militant Islam.
Bawer is gay and the author of such books as Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity and A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society and was best known in the United States before publishing While Europe Slept for his outspoken opposition to the likes of James Dobson and his Focus on the Family evangelical political organization.
Previously a lifelong New Yorker (and happy to be so), in 1998 Bawer and his partner packed up and moved to Amsterdam. Almost everything about their adopted country appealed to the two—the human scale of the skylines, the near absence of cars, the Dutch language, the love of books and culture, the European tradition of tolerance so emphasized in the major cities such as Amsterdam, and even the Dutch devotion to gezelligheid (small, daily pleasures)—but even in tolerant Dutch society Bawer and his partner became aware of the tradition of verzuiling, "pillarization," the division of society into religious and ethnic groups, each with its own schools, unions, political parties, newspapers, and even TV channels.
Bawer also became aware of the growing tension in Amsterdam and other European cities between the many groups living comfortably there under the umbrella of tolerance and much of the Muslim immigrant community, which seemed to benefit from, but show little or none of, the tolerance of the larger society around them.
In 1999, Bawer and his Norwegian-born partner moved to Oslo where they were soon legally married. Thanks to Norway’s "family unification" laws, Bawer had a right to residency and even five free months of language lessons (he’s good at languages and feels an obligation to speak the language of whatever country he’s visiting, much less residing in.) In their years together in Europe since 1998, as the dustjacket rather breathlessly explains—
"Across the continent—in Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Stockholm—he encountered large, rapidly expanding Muslim enclaves in which women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, ‘infidels’ threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.
"The European political and media establishment turned a blind eye to all this, selling out women, Jews, gays, and democratic principles generally—even criminalizing free speech—in order to pacify the radical Islamists and preserve the illusion of multicultural harmony. The few heroic figures who dared to criticize Muslim extremists and speak up for true liberal values were systematically slandered as fascist bigots. Witnessing the disgraceful reaction of Europe’s elites to 9/11, to the terrorist attacks on Madrid, Beslan, and London, and to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bawer concluded that Europe was heading inexorably down a path to cultural suicide."
What you may decide after reading Bawer’s book—decide about these extraordinary claims and about Bruce Bawer himself—may be quite different, but both Bawer’s personal anecdotes about gay-bashing from Muslims and his excerpts from various European media reactions and dialogues, especially those following terrorist attacks or the very public murders of Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, and others, should be of interest.
Early in the book, Bawer underlined the essential difference between the peculiar American form of fantasy-ideology religious fundamentalism he’d long fought, and the more pervasive and lethal Muslim variety he was encountering in Europe—
"The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn’t close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death."
One can argue the cause and motivation for various observations in Bawer’s book, but the observations themselves can not easily be disputed—especially the fact so obvious to anyone who lives in a major European city today or who travels there, of elite, expensive central cities occupied by the natives of that country, but that city center often surrounded by rings of increasingly alien immigrant ghettos, most frequently Muslim immigrant ghettos in which neither the language of the host nation nor the laws nor the cultural mores nor the cultural traditions of that country are honored.
And anyone observing Europe’s reaction to events in the last half-decade will respond to Bawer’s itemizing of the cowardice of the governments, intellectual classes, and national media in the face of Islamic bullying and overt terrrorism.
Even the media’s reaction to terrorism in their own countries is disturbing.
"On July 7, 2005, suicide bombs in London ripped through three underground trains and a double-decker bus, killing fifty-six. Londoners handled the chaos with admirable composure, recalling the city’s legendary stoicism during the Blitz. When it turned out that the perpetrators had been born and bred in Britain, had been regarded as well integrated (one, a primary-school teaching assistant, had mentored immigrant children), and had been coverted to radicalism at a government-funded youth center in Leeds, astonishment reigned. How could British lads do this? It was as if the Madrid attacks (carried out by Spanish Muslims) and the murder of Theo van Gogh (committed by a Dutch Muslim) had never taken place.
"Watching the BBC that day, I was pleasantly surprised to notice that reporters were eschewing the usual euphemisms and actually using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism.’ Might this signal a change in establishment attitudes? Alas, BBC news chief Helen Boaden soon put an end to this, ordering reporters to speak of ‘bombers,’ not ‘terrorists.’ Even the BBC’s 7/7 reportage, archived online, was retrospectively cleansed of the offensive words. Recalling that the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984 had been based on the BBC, Gerald Baker remarked in the Times of London that ‘I can’t think of a better example of pure Orwell than this painstaking effort at rewriting the verbal record to fit in with linguistic orthodoxy.’"
Speculative fiction, it seems, sometimes serves as memory even when civilization seeks forgetfulness.
August 17, 2006 at 11:14 PM #32280ybc
ParticipantTHE BUSH QUIZ: THE TWENTIETH HUNDRED DAYS
by PAUL SLANSKY
Issue of 2006-08-07
Posted 2006-07-311. Complete George W. Bush¡¯s quote: ¡°I believe that
my job is _____.¡±(a) to protect life. And sometimes people have to die
in order to protect life, see? And that saddens me.(b) hard. It¡¯s a heckuva hard job. It¡¯s difficult.
But I¡¯m doin¡¯ it, see, and I¡¯m gonna keep on doin¡¯
it, because that¡¯s the job of a President.(c) to go out and explain to people what¡¯s on my
mind. That¡¯s why I¡¯m having this press conference,
see? I¡¯m telling you what¡¯s on my mind. And what¡¯s
on my mind is winning the war on terror.(d) to construe the laws I sign in a Presidential way.
Because that¡¯s part of being a leader, see, is
construing with your gut.2. Who is Peter Wallsten?
(a) The partially blind reporter whom George W. Bush
mocked (¡°Are you going to ask that question with
shades on?¡±) for not removing his sunglasses while
addressing the President.(b) The wheelchair-bound senior citizen whom George W.
Bush mocked (¡°You look mighty comfortable¡±) for not
standing in the presence of the President.(c) The C.I.A. employee who, after delivering the
¡°Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.¡± briefing,
was told by George W. Bush, ¡°All right, you¡¯ve
covered your ass now.¡±(d) The Iraq-war amputee with whom George W. Bush
tried to bond by telling him about a scratch he got
during ¡°combat with a cedar¡± while clearing brush.Match the number with what it quantifies.
3. At least 30,000.
4. More than 5,000.
5. Zero.
6. Around 200.(a) Dollars¡¯ worth of merchandise that the former
Bush domestic-policy adviser Claude Allen was alleged
to have stolen from Target and other stores through a
phony refund scam.(b) Shotgun pellets embedded in the face and upper
body of Harry Whittington by Dick Cheney.(c) National monuments or icons that Secretary of
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said there are in
New York City.(d) dollars donated by Barbara Bush to a hurricane
relief fund with the stipulation that the money be
spent on software bought from a company run by her son
Neil.7. Complete George W. Bush¡¯s quote: ¡°Nobody likes
_______.¡±(a) it when the press commits treason.
(b) being lied to.
(c) Osama bin Laden except the Democrats.
(d) beheadings.8. Three of these quotes were made by George W. Bush.
Which one was made by Donald Rumsfeld?(a) ¡°Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of¡ªof
uncertainty in the country.¡±
(b) ¡°The plan [in Iraq] is to prevent a civil war,
and, to the extent one were to occur, to have the,
from a security standpoint, have the Iraqi security
forces deal with it to the extent they¡¯re able to.¡±(c) ¡°Sometimes leaders show up who do a great
disservice to the traditions and people of a country.
¡±(d) ¡°There are limits to how much corn can be used
for ethanol. After all, we got to eat some.¡±Who¡¯s who?
9. John Green.
10. James B. Comey.
11. James E. Hansen.
12. Harry Taylor.(a) The ¡°Good Morning America¡± producer who was
suspended after e-mails he sent, including one in
which he wrote, ¡°Bush makes me sick,¡± were leaked.(b) The NASA official who said, ¡°It seems more like
Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United
States,¡± after the Administration began censoring
climate scientists who tried to speak about global
warming.(c) The Justice Department official who refused to
authorize the National Security Agency¡¯s domestic
surveillance program.(d) The questioner at a Charlotte event who told
George W. Bush, ¡°I would hope, from time to time,
that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed
of yourself.¡±13. How did Dick Cheney say that the September 11th
attacks might have been prevented?(a) If George W. Bush¡¯s father had taken out Saddam
Hussein in 1991.(b) If the Bush Administration had been able to
eavesdrop on the hijackers¡¯ phone conversations
without court orders.(c) If the National Security Agency hadn¡¯t waited
until September 12th to translate two messages warning
of the attacks which had been intercepted on September
10th.(d) If even one of the F.B.I. agent Harry Samit¡¯s
more than seventy warnings that Zacarias Moussaoui was
a terrorist had been heeded.14. Three of these quotes were made by George W. Bush.
Which one was made by Dick Cheney?(a) ¡°I do want to give you some thoughts about what
I¡¯m thinking about.¡±(b) ¡°They ought to learn to sing the national anthem
in English.¡±(c) ¡°We have all the legal authority we need.¡±
(d) ¡°When you turn on your TV screen and see innocent
people die day in and day out, it affects the
mentality of our country.¡±15. What pair of men did George W. Bush refer to as an
¡°interesting cat¡± and a ¡°dangerous dude¡±?(a) The Iraqi Defense Minister and the Al Qaeda leader
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.(b) Elvis Presley and ¡°Colonel¡± Tom Parker, during
the guided tour of Graceland that Bush gave to
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.(c) Owen Wilson and Matt Dillon, after a special White
House screening of ¡°You, Me and Dupree.¡±16. What was George W. Bush talking about when he
declared, ¡°I¡¯m the decider, and I decide what¡¯s
best¡±?(a) Pushing ahead with the Dubai ports deal despite
not having known about it until it appeared in the
media.(b) Blocking a Justice Department probe of the
Administration¡¯s secret domestic spying operation.(c) Keeping Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary
despite calls by six retired generals for his firing.(d) Vetoing a stem-cell-research bill.
17. What did George W. Bush say was ¡°the best
moment¡± during his years in the White House?(a) ¡°The first day I sat at my desk in the Oval
Office and thought about all the history that happened
there and realized that now it was my turn.¡±(b) ¡°When I caught a seven-and-a-half-pound
largemouth bass on my lake.¡±(c) ¡°When they told me we caught Saddam in his
hidey-hole.¡±18. True or false: When Tim Russert, the host of
¡°Meet the Press,¡± said that ¡°there were a lot of
misjudgments made¡± regarding Iraq, his guest
Condoleezza Rice pointed out, ¡°There are also some
misjudgments that were not made.¡±19. Which of these words were among the top ten
responses in a Pew Research Center poll that asked
voters for the first word that came to mind when they
think about George W. Bush?(a) ¡°Decisive,¡± ¡°charming,¡± ¡°brilliant,¡± and
¡°truthful.¡±(b) ¡°Booze,¡± ¡°cocaine,¡± ¡°failure,¡± and
¡°smirk.¡±(c) ¡°Illegitimate,¡± ¡°simian,¡± ¡°hotheaded,¡± and
¡°torture.¡±(d) ¡°Incompetent,¡± ¡°idiot,¡± ¡°liar,¡± and ¡°ass.¡±
Answers:
(1) c, (2) a, (3) d, (4) a, (5) c, (6) b, (7) d, (8)
b, (9) a, (10) c, (11) b, (12) d, (13) b, (14) c, (15)
a, (16) c, (17) b, (18) True, (19) dAugust 17, 2006 at 11:18 PM #32282ParticipantPS, you’re being disingenuous at best. You didn’t ask why people were getting emotional when posters were comparing Bush to Satan. I just had a guy write that it’s “crap” that I might be concerned about the well-being of people in Iraq. Are you puzzled why that would ‘create emotion’? Really? I think you’re smarter than that.
The #1 reason I didn’t vote for HW Bush in 92, or W in 2000, was that HW spent all of 1991 comparing Saddam to Hitler, encouraged the Iraqi Shia to rise up against him, then pulled back and let them get slaughtered. Bush did that in large part to preserve the big anti-Saddam alliance. I’ll say that again: many of the nations that joined us in 1991 but not 2003 pressured Bush to allow a mass slaughter of Iraqi civilians rather than remove Saddam from power when he was at his weakest. I’d ask those of you who are so fond of the ‘international community’ to keep that in mind.
In response to “how do you feel about us being a war-mongering nation”, I would note that I haven’t asked any anti-war poster “how do you feel about being on the terrorist side” because I don’t want to descend to personal attacks. I’d appreciate it if you would reciprocate. (I will aggressively point out where you are wrong, but like our Brit friend said, all part of spirited debate.)
Here’s a half dozen or so reasons why Iraq was different from the other nations you mention:
1) We were in low-intensity conflict with them already. American jets were shot at regularly, and returned fire. A large scale bombing strike on Iraqi targets was ordered as recently as 1998.
2) There were many outstanding UN resolutions – conditions of the ceasefire, not the peace treaty but the ceasefire – which Saddam had systematically violated for a dozen years.
3) We had to garrison large numbers of troops in KSA to deter Saddam, at considerable cost to the budget and our standing in Arab world opinion (our presence there was one of the reasons al Q came into existence).
4) The sanctions regime was falling apart due to Saddam’s bribery, largely of Russian and French contacts but also UN officials. Maintaining the sanctions fell to us and the UK, again at considerable cost to the budget and allowing Saddam to paint himself both as the brave Arab hero standing up to the west, and the Iraqi people as the poor victims of US aggression.
5) We could get to Iraq. Like I said, big bases in KSA; port availability in Kuwait, the hope of a second front through Turkey. We don’t have the operational infrastructure in Africa, and Seoul won’t let us mount an invasion from South Korea to North.
6) Getting to Iraq puts us closer to other enemies. This should be a bigger advantage than it is, since Bush has elected to allow Syrian and Iranian aggression go unanswered as far as I can tell, but if we do need to take action against either of those countries, we’re in a position to do so.
7) The strategic benefit of the Arab world’s first reasonable government. A representative government is going to allow Iraq to be the first nation in the Arab world in which the citizenry shares in the oil wealth and doesn’t fear its government. That will help diminish the appeal of the fundamentalist lunatics over there.But what you really want me to say is that we did it because of oil. Can’t help you there. If we wanted oil, why not just cut a deal with Saddam, like the Russians and French? Yes, international community fans, nations besides the US had oil interests in Iraq, and they were willing to keep Saddam in charge to keep their oil coming.
As for why the Iranian government hates us, they see us as a threat to their theocracy and dream of regional empire. Also, some of them are nuts. I didn’t make up that idea of a green aura coming of the Iranian President. He claimed it happened while speaking at the UN, and it kept everyone spellbound without blinking for half an hour.
I’m curious why you don’t think it’s important for Iran to be equally introspective and find how they have offended us?
You’re right, our support of Israel is part of why they hate us. I think it’s really terrible that you would be willing to sacrifice 6 million Jews, who are living in their own ancient holy land, to placate murderous terrorists. But I have to admit it’s a plan. Better than anyone else has come up with, if morally bankrupt.
August 17, 2006 at 11:30 PM #32283ParticipantPerry, you’re pulling this “he knows he’s got the final answer” stuff out of your ass. He’s never said anything like that. And I don’t understand why you’re happy to let Iraq become an intractible problem. This is bigger than real estate. I’m debating with you guys because this is a critical issue for this country, and we need an honest, vigorous debate about what to do about Iran. It’s a problem that predates Bush by decades, and absolutely will not stop being a problem in January of 2009 (when Bush’s presidency absolutely will end).
My argument is stronger than yours because, unfortunately, you have no argument.
August 17, 2006 at 11:40 PM #32284ParticipantThe soldier who was outed by the Secretary of Defense
On a TV magazine program (forgot which one), I learned how the soldier whistle blower who submitted those Abu Grib prison photos anonymously lost his cover. Donald Rumsfeld testisfied to the congress, and he named the soldier’s name! The soldier said that he was watching TV in Iraq, and was shocked to heard his name. Nobody knew at the time. He had to sleep with a gun under his pillow afterwards.
I feel sad for the soldier, and for the country.
August 17, 2006 at 11:45 PM #32285Participantrankandfile, I’ve never been to Iran, and know nothing of the youth. I know as much about Iranians as my husband knows about Norwegians, since neither of us has visited our parents’ homelands. But from what I read, I think the extemists hate us because we are on their Holy Land.
August 17, 2006 at 11:46 PM #32287Participant7) The strategic benefit of the Arab world’s first reasonable government. A representative government is going to allow Iraq to be the first nation in the Arab world in which the citizenry shares in the oil wealth and doesn’t fear its government. That will help diminish the appeal of the fundamentalist lunatics over there.
Great — care to predict when that will happen?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.