Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[Giancarlo]

Sorry. I blew my temper. I am tired of people posting misconceptions of the other side. Enough! Basta Ya

Flattery?

[Lincoln]

I think that Osama was seen in the protests waving the peace symbol but this is not yet confirmed...

[Giancarlo]

A couple of people carrying explosives were caught waving peace signs. Oh the irony!

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, you're so full of it.

So, we can assume, by your logic, the right's refusal to condemn Mugabe means they support his policies? Speaking of anti-Israel, how about our Republican's president coddling of virulently anti-semitic regimes, like those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

If you assert that removing Hussein is a moral issue, then you make Bush and those who support such a policy incredible hypocrites because they aren't out ridding the world of all evil. In fact, Bush campaigned on the very idea that America should NOT be out policing the world and participating in the very moral crusades you seem to think they are embarking upon.

And it was the LEFT that first brought the monstrous acts of the Taliban to the world's attention. Did the right act on any sort of moral obligation to protect the Afghanistani people then? No. So don't give me any of that moral high ground crap. It's political and you know it.

[Giancarlo]

And it was the LEFT that first brought the monstrous acts of the Taliban to the world's attention.

It was?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
I am sick and tired of the damn bias on this forum. They claim to the tolerant ones but once somebody else tries to voice their opinion they are thrown out in the garbage with comments like these:



GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK! BORIS GET A FREAKING CLUE. THE LEFT ARE THE ONES WHO TRUELY ARE BRAINLESS.

I am really pissed off in seeing these biased threads posted with some highly misleading garbage.

Oh please. My comment about the right was just pointing out the stupidity of Ned's assertion about the left.

And once again you don't support anything, you just like to try and wave your magic little pixie wand to wish what you believe true. Is it any wonder nobody here takes you seriously?

[Sikander]

A circle jerk gets Fezzed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez


It was?

Yeah. When they came to power, it was liberal organizations like NOW, the Human Rights Campaigns and Amnesty International that were vociferously denouncing the regime while nobody on the right seemed to care. It wasn't until the WTC was annhiliated that suddenly the right realized the Taliban wasn't such a good bunch after all.

I guess Bush didn't think they were so bad, since he sent them $140 million to "fight drugs," and his oil cronies were scouting out the northern lands to put up an oil pipeline.

[Giancarlo]

Evidence.

[Boris Godunov]

Written in 1998:

"the United Nations—along with all but three of the world's nations—refuses to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government because of their human rights abuses. However, the U.S. oil company Unocal is the major player in an international consortium that plans to begin building a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline through Afghanistan by the end of this year. As long as the Taliban is in power, this pipeline would benefit their oppressive regime.

NOW Advisory Board Co-Chair and Feminist Majority leader Eleanor Smeal has spearheaded the feminist response to the atrocities occurring in Afghanistan. In late January 1998 NOW's Vice Presidents Elizabeth Toledo and Karen Johnson joined Smeal, NOW LDEF President Kathy Rodgers and other feminist leaders in a meeting with Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth to discuss the plight of Afghan women and girls. The two Afghan women in the group, Sima Wali, president of Refugee Women in Development, and Zieba Shorish-Shamley, chair of Women's Alliance for Peace and Human Rights in Afghanistan, had recently returned from the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. They told of the heartbreaking misery and suffering caused by the Taliban's oppressive regime. According to Assistant Secretary Inderfurth, the U.S. influence on the Taliban is minimal and a quick resolution to the oppression is not likely for years. In Inderfurth's judgment the only thing the Taliban desires is recognition by the United Nations. Meanwhile, the conditions for Afghan women and girls is abysmal."

You can search the NOW web site for articles on the Taliban, tons of which date back well before 2001.

From Amnesty International in 1997:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar97/ASA11.htm

1998:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/asa11.htm

So on and so forth.

I have, in those post, provided more support for my arguments than you ever have in the entire history of your posting on thise forum for your baseless, knee-jerk rightist positions.

Once again, a debate has been Fezzed. Drat.

[Giancarlo]

So for some ****ing reason, leftists are smarter than right-wingers? Man, you truely are a hypocrit.

Nice sources.

Now get something credible for a change.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
So for some ****ing reason, leftists are smarter than right-wingers? Man, you truely are a hypocrit.

If you're a typical example of a right-winger, then obviously.

But I said nothing of the kind, so I am thinking you're having delusions again? Meds, meds, meds.

Nice sources.

Now get something credible for a change.

So what reason would NOW and AI have to make up these documents (which have been publicly available for years)?

Do you have any evidence contradicting them? That's how you argue, boy. You have to present your own support. What don't you believe about them?

Don't believe the Unocal bit?

Here's from the company's web site:

"ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 -- Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday. The group is developing a project to build a 790-mile (1,271-kilometer) pipeline to link Turkmenistan's abundant proven natural gas reserves with growing markets in Pakistan. The group is also considering an extension of the line to the New Delhi area in India."

That would have to go through Afghanistan.

And here's the whole history of it:

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/p...e_timeline.htm

Now, on January 3 of this year, you might be interested to know that Bush appointed Zalmay Khalilzad, a former aide at Unocal, as the special envoy to Afghanistan. Hmmm.

[Asher]

I would just like to assert that never, ever, has any right winger been immoral. On the other hand, every left winger is immoral and always has been.

Thanks.

[Giancarlo]

Boris: What the ****? So anybody not having the same views as you is automatically stupid? Give me a break... the world is not only leftism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ned, you're so full of it.

So, we can assume, by your logic, the right's refusal to condemn Mugabe means they support his policies? Speaking of anti-Israel, how about our Republican's president coddling of virulently anti-semitic regimes, like those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

If you assert that removing Hussein is a moral issue, then you make Bush and those who support such a policy incredible hypocrites because they aren't out ridding the world of all evil. In fact, Bush campaigned on the very idea that America should NOT be out policing the world and participating in the very moral crusades you seem to think they are embarking upon.

And it was the LEFT that first brought the monstrous acts of the Taliban to the world's attention. Did the right act on any sort of moral obligation to protect the Afghanistani people then? No. So don't give me any of that moral high ground crap. It's political and you know it.

Well, 9/11 certainly changed everything for Bush. You are right on that.

I will also agree that the left pointed out the travesty the was/is the Taliban. But what did they want to do about it? Nothing! Bush acted.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
* * *
"Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

"Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself."

The words of JFK. Why does Bush sound so much like JFK and his own brother Teddy sound like Chamberlain?

The left once led the fight for freedom against tryanny. Today, it is the right.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
What the ****? So anybody not having the same views as you is automatically stupid? Give me a break... the world is not only leftism.

Once again you're not doing any service to your cause. That's not what I am saying at all, but you're too [you-know-what] to get what I'm saying.

Now stop Fezzing this thread!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Once again you're not doing any service to your cause. That's not what I am saying at all, but you're too [you-know-what] to get what I'm saying.

Now stop Fezzing this thread!

And you are not helping your cause either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, 9/11 certainly changed everything for Bush. You are right on that.

I will also agree that the left pointed out the travesty the was/is the Taliban. But what did they want to do about it? Nothing! Bush acted.

But why did he act? To defend liberty? Come on...you're not trying to pretend you really believe that?

The words of JFK. Why does Bush sound so much like JFK and his own brother Teddy sound like Chamberlain?

The left once led the fight for freedom against tryanny. Today, it is the right.

Bush is saying what his speechwriters give him. And they're trying to make it sound like a fight for freedom, not a fight to obtain the world's 2nd largest oil supply.

Remember what happens when Bush doesn't stick to what his puppet master's tell him to say:

"There's an old saying in Tennesse, it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, too. Fool me once, shame on...you...Fool me twice, I won't get fooled again."

[Ned]

BG, Regardless of your second guessing Bush's motives, it is abundantly clear that the left today is a pack of appeasers and totally unlike Roosevelt and JFK.

I call on you to throw off cynicism and join the fight for freedom against tryanny in the mold of those great leftist statesmen of yesteryear.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
BG, Regardless of your second guessing Bush's motives, it is abundantly clear that the left today is a pack of appeasers and totally unlike Roosevelt and JFK.

Funny, I bet you were probably one of the ones criticizing Clinton for Bosnia and Kosovo. Didn't the left support that?

Your comparison of Hussein to Hitler is weak, as Hussein does not have remotely the capacity to wreak havoc like Hitler did. Hussein is very much contained, whereas Hitler was unstoppable except through war.

I call on you to throw off cynicism and join the fight for freedom against tryanny in the mold of those great leftist statesmen of yesteryear.

First, much of American interventionism in the past has been wrong, and in several instances has led to outright disaster, Vietnam being the chief example among those.

Second, I find the cynicism of the current Administration to be truly deplorable, as they seem to think they can use their sputtering "War on Terror" to further the interests of oil companies, give Bush his childish payback for his dad and also give the GOP political mileage while they continue to mismanage domestic affairs (as usual).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Funny, I bet you were probably one of the ones criticizing Clinton for Bosnia and Kosovo. Didn't the left support that?

Your comparison of Hussein to Hitler is weak, as Hussein does not have remotely the capacity to wreak havoc like Hitler did. Hussein is very much contained, whereas Hitler was unstoppable except through war.



First, much of American interventionism in the past has been wrong, and in several instances has led to outright disaster, Vietnam being the chief example among those.

Second, I find the cynicism of the current Administration to be truly deplorable, as they seem to think they can use their sputtering "War on Terror" to further the interests of oil companies, give Bush his childish payback for his dad and also give the GOP political mileage while they continue to mismanage domestic affairs (as usual).

Wrong on Clinton. I stongly endorse what he did in the Balkans - and in Haiti.

I hope you see a trend here. I, and the vast majority of the right today, ringingly endorse Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton in terms of their foreign policy. Vietnam was a gigantic mistake - but it was a bipartisan mistake. Every president from Truman supported the anti-communist cause there. Johnson's getting us into active combat was, to some extent, merely an extension of prior policy.

Yes, intervention carries risks. But the cause of freedom and democracy once was a bipartisan cause. Let it be one again.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Funny, I bet you were probably one of the ones criticizing Clinton for Bosnia and Kosovo. Didn't the left support that?

No, not the whole left, nor even most of the left. Liberals supported it, but liberals are not the left, they are the middle.

Ned, Hitler was supported by major German capitalists and the ruined German middle class. Hitler commanded one of the most powerful industrialzed countries in the world. There is no real comparison between Hussein and Hitler. Hitler's armies at his height could have conquered Earth. Hussein's height was almost twenty years ago. His military today is a shadow of its former strength. The Saudis could beat him

It is true that Hussen used gas on the Kurdish people (with narry a sound from the Reagan-Bush Administration until 1990), but it is also true that the villages attacked were in revolt against Hussein. He definately opppresses the Iraqi Kurds, but he had never tried to genocide them, unlike it's northern neighbor, our close ally, Turkey.

Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man. He isn't as bad as others, however. He's not as bad as the ruling thugs of Myanmar (Burma) who are genociding the Mons and Karen peoples, as well as using them as slaves. We do business with Myanmar. He wasn't even close to Suharto, who inaugerated his reign in Indonesia be slaughtering half a million people. He then invaded East Timor and killed off 1/3rd of the population of that nation. The US supported and trained his troops to the very end. Even today, Indonesia is committing genocide in West Papua and Borneo, still our ally. We support Pakistan, a nation which has nuclear weapons, which supports terrorism, and which is ruled by a brutal dictator. We support the authoritarian thug Putin in his genocidal war in Chechnya (and we are prepared to give them carte blanc in return for not vetoing force against Iraq in the SC).

[Kramerman]

Unless Saddam gives complete and total free reign of weapons inspectors, I support war.

This morning on the front page Saddam rejected the (somewhat leanient IMHO) inspectiopn proposal, saying that he would only accept an inspection team following the rules of the old one. BULL ****!! He hindered and harrassed thoses inspectors badly, and could have easily slipped weapons passed their noses on many occasions. Indeed they had, the inspectors were there from soon after the Gulf War to 1998, and they were still digging up WoMD stuff from the completely uncooperative and even hostile Iraqis.

Ill say it again, without complete and total freedom in inspections and disarmament of Iraq, I say war.




Kman

[Ming]

The next person that lobs a personal insult is toast.

I don't want to be reading... you are stupid or whatever.

Discuss the topic or don't bother. And FEZ... CHILL!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, not the whole left, nor even most of the left. Liberals supported it, but liberals are not the left, they are the middle.

Ned, Hitler was supported by major German capitalists and the ruined German middle class. Hitler commanded one of the most powerful industrialzed countries in the world. There is no real comparison between Hussein and Hitler. Hitler's armies at his height could have conquered Earth. Hussein's height was almost twenty years ago. His military today is a shadow of its former strength. The Saudis could beat him

It is true that Hussen used gas on the Kurdish people (with narry a sound from the Reagan-Bush Administration until 1990), but it is also true that the villages attacked were in revolt against Hussein. He definately opppresses the Iraqi Kurds, but he had never tried to genocide them, unlike it's northern neighbor, our close ally, Turkey.

Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man. He isn't as bad as others, however. He's not as bad as the ruling thugs of Myanmar (Burma) who are genociding the Mons and Karen peoples, as well as using them as slaves. We do business with Myanmar. He wasn't even close to Suharto, who inaugerated his reign in Indonesia be slaughtering half a million people. He then invaded East Timor and killed off 1/3rd of the population of that nation. The US supported and trained his troops to the very end. Even today, Indonesia is committing genocide in West Papua and Borneo, still our ally. We support Pakistan, a nation which has nuclear weapons, which supports terrorism, and which is ruled by a brutal dictator. We support the authoritarian thug Putin in his genocidal war in Chechnya (and we are prepared to give them carte blanc in return for not vetoing force against Iraq in the SC).

Che, I am not defending these other dictators/genocidal regimes. I think we should do something about all of them.

[Chris 62]

Ha ha, 150,000 protest...and MILLIONS didn't.

Support for war is now better then 70% in the US, at 65% in Britain from latest polls.

Nothing like an ol peace rally to give hope to the fading Left's dying influence.

[alofatti]

Very well put, chegitz.
That explains a lot of the hipocresy with all this war stuff.

[Kramerman]

Ned, Hitler was supported by major German capitalists and the ruined German middle class. Hitler commanded one of the most powerful industrialzed countries in the world. There is no real comparison between Hussein and Hitler. Hitler's armies at his height could have conquered Earth. Hussein's height was almost twenty years ago. His military today is a shadow of its former strength. The Saudis could beat him

In a conventional war perhaps. In otherwords, now, while the Iraqi WoMD program are still weak and deterierated from previous efforts. But in the future he will not be a push over. We can always put our problems off to the future tho, instead of taking care of them whle they are weak, or we could do what the League of Nations did against hitler..... nothing

Military Power 50 years ago was measured in tanks, bombs, and ranks of soldiers. Today it is much different, tho the parallels to Hitler can still be made in equivalency.
I Agree with Ned on this one.

Kman

[chequita guevara]

Possibly as many as 20 missiles, and an airforce that could only threaten Iran and Syria. You can have the biggest stockpile in the world, won't do you no good if you can't deliver them. Hussein can't take over the world with one or even a handful of tiny bombs. He couldn't even stand up to the US when had a viable stockpile and weapons platforms, let alone now.

And before you give me any crap about giving it to terrorists, there is absolutely no indication Hussein would turn his weapons over to anyone, let alone people who would just as soon use the weapons right back against him. It is far more likely that terrorist will get such weapons from the Former USSR or from Pakistan.

Your debating chi is weak, your form sloppy. Go and practice, grasshopper.

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm glad my thread brought controversy.