[Renegade]

You are a conceited, racist, ignorant jackass.

I don't get what how he said was conceited/racist/or ignorant? Those countries elected radical parties/leaders. That's just a fact. He didn't anything outrageous or deviating from what everyone has already said around the world. Even if you LIKE the Iranian president or Hamas in Palestine, the fact that they WERE elected as radical change is undisputable. Dunno why people gotto label everyone "IGNORANT OR RACIST" just because they say something semi controversial.

[Cobnat]

“they allowed members of all races and sexes to join.”
So will the KKK, if you agree to support their racist ideology. Any group that holds purists ideals is racist. If I start an Irish Power Group, I am being racist. Sure its ridiculous, but so is the idea that the Black Panthers didn’t advocate ‘black power.’

I disagree, I think *insert colour/nationality/nation* power is a good thing, it brings people together that is very hard to do and it makes people think they are apart of something, plus any national group can be considered "racist" becouse they do care for "thier" people and less for others.

P.S just like to add, Ive never been apart of any national/nationalist group in my life, and becouse of that my life was pretty crap, everyone treated me becouse I was "different" and yet I grew up with them, I never merged with the group I was "ment" to be with and now I realise I was very stupid for not doing so.

“the same way that they portray feminists and lesbians as being virulently against males.”
The older feminist groups did teach abhorrence of males. In the past 15yrs or so, they have pretty much moved out of this mindset and mellowed out a bit. And many lesbians HATE males, nay despise them with a raw seething hatred that is nearly unimaginable. This is not propaganda, it is the truth.

I thought lesbiens didnt care about guys, I thought DIKES hated men.

[Sailor Abbey]

I disagree, I think *insert colour/nationality/nation* power is a good thing, it brings people together that is very hard to do and it makes people think they are apart of something, plus any national group can be considered "racist" becouse they do care for "thier" people and less for others.

P.S just like to add, Ive never been apart of any national/nationalist group in my life, and becouse of that my life was pretty crap, everyone treated me becouse I was "different" and yet I grew up with them, I never merged with the group I was "ment" to be with and now I realise I was very stupid for not doing so.
I thought lesbiens didnt care about guys, I thought DIKES hated men.

Being proud of your heritage and your nationality is wonderful. Saying that your race or nationality is superior is not. And I think the difference between the two is easily recognizable. Its when you start advocating intolerance and violence against others that you become a segregationist.

The problem with the KKK and the Black Panthers in my opinion is that they are basing their groups on skin color. Not their nationality nor their heritage, or anything constructive for that matter. The color of their skin is what dictates membership and mission statement. That is racist.

Well, lesbians and dykes/dikes are the same things. They are also considered gay and homosexual. If what your saying is 'butch dykes' hate men and 'lipstick lesbians' do not - you would still be incorrect. A wide variety of lesbians hate men for a wide variety of reasons, weather they have short hair and wear flannel or not. Hope that clears up any confusion.

[Gobbler]

*sigh* And here I was hoping for them to become my best friends...
I mean, we've got so much in common: They're open minded - I'm open minded. They like women - So do I, etc. etc...

[Sailor Abbey]

You can always get an operation...

[Slade]

Spoon: Hey, harsh words there! Kindly refrain from that in the future, or I'll have to start poking you with my modstick. Don't post on a forum while angry; it makes Domo-kuns cry.

Renegade: My problem was with you saying that a person couldn't be a good member of the religion unless he or she followed that text very strictly, when in reality religions change with the times and culture. There is no "real" religion that doesn't ever change. That would be quite absurd. I think Spoon was angry that the claim was made that Muslims in the Middle East enjoy having extremist leaders, and again with no caveat that separates them, making it sound like another blanket statement.

[Sailor Abbey]

I don’t understand how anybody can really claim to know what’s going on with certainty unless they’re there, living in the culture, or have lived in it at one time. Its one thing to make observations from afar, but they are just that - observations. And even when you do live there, your views could be biased considering the information you are receiving (for example: when your only news source is owned by the government). I like to point out when I’m making observations (hint hint). It makes people less apt to call me names and say I’m being intolerant.

[Jordan]

LOL, spoon. Lighten up sweet heart. Ditto what Renegade said, I don't think any one denies that fact that radical Muslims are conintually voted into office. This makes me racist and concieted ? LOL, you might as well call me hitler for eating pancakes at my computer, it makes just as much sense.

Slade, I pretty certain that these guys are voted into power. I just saw an election take place in Palestine. Where are the liberal Shah's? Where are all the liberal leaders? Where are they during these times of crisis, they make a few statements that make as much noise as a cricket.

I'm sure they fear being killed for their view points, that's my guess.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 14 February 2006 - 10:49 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Zzzzz.. too much liberal propaganda conspiracy theory for me to even counter here.. already debunked this and you just repeated the same thing again.

No I mean it in a literal sense. Bush, being completely insensitive, actually said something to the effect of "this war is our crucade". It was quickly retracted though and I can't remember what speech it was in but I do know for a fact he used that word.

Quote

How about actually responding to the contents of what I said rather than spewing out another rhetorical line without any basis of fact/theory/basis.

I actually did below that if you didnt notice.

Quote

The CIA/FBI are agencies of the Federal Govt. but they aren't politics.

What about the supreme court and presidential advisers? The head of the EPA isn't elected and that's why Bush has been able to raise the acceptable level of frickin arsenic in drinking water.

Quote

following either idealogy completely means you probably are a murderer or a hater of all other people that aren't your faith.

Islam never says anything about killing people not of your faith and it accepts both Christians and Jews as brothers. The problem comes about when people of other religions attack Islam, and really giving followers of your religion the right to defend themselves is not unheard of, people do it whether their holy book says they can or not. It's human nature. if the Mid East were populated by atheists, Jews, hindhus, or anyone, they'd still be fighting back against imperialism by any means necessary and let's face it, people of each of those races have employed "terrorism" (some of it real and some of it only called terrorism)

Quote

Because he'd used them multiple times?.. nobody trusted him anymore..? global security?...

Used WMD multiple times, nobody trusts them, a threat to global security... wonder who else that describes...

Quote

you'd have no reason not to think he didn't.

You're rewriting history. There was plenty of reason to think Saddam didn't have WMDs, mainly the fact that the UN inspectors nor Iraqi defectors could find credible evidence of their existence. And some of the claims were just too laughable to believe. Mobile weapons labs? HAHA! "Woah we hit a bump, shit there goes the anthrax" And it didn't stop at the end of the war either. Remember when the US started giving Iraqis super-villain names? "Chemical Ali" "Ms Germ" "Lady Anthrax" just to name a few. Bush was pushing his lies long after he knew they were lies. Do you think the woman named herself "Lady Anthrax?"

Quote

"hes not stupid nuff to do that!" routine doesn't work when he WAS stupid nuff to do it twice before.

If he had them he wouldnt have let the inspectors in, and he would have announced them as a way to try to deter the invasion or just used them on the conveniently placed American troops nearby.

Quote

Except most of those dictators were pro their own country too

They were pro-themselves first, and in order to keep themselves in power they had to please the US, their third priority was their own country. That's not how it should be.

Quote

Now counter him to the Islamic regime which is anti America and has curved individual rights even more and made the country insignifant, yet no resistence. Hypocricy?

People are willing to suffer the loss of their rights if it's for their own benefit, but not for someone else's. That's why people tolerate Bush's patriot act, but if Canada were to order Bush to take away our fifth ammendment noone would take it. Like I said it's a matter of nationalism and sovereignty. And besides, the fact that the Mullahs stand up to imperialism makes them look stronger, like they can do things on their own. The Shah's submission to the US made him look weak.

Quote

Free will has nothing to do with the individual DECIDING whether whats IN those texts being good/bad.

Of course it does, you have the freedom to interpret it through your own experience. God speaks to everyone individually through the Quran. Some laws might not work for everyone - for example a very poor Muslim in the US who cannot make the Hajj. If religion were as you say it is people who claim to be Christians would just say "fuck it I'm going to hell" the minute they did any single thing wrong. It's crazy, you can't hold people to that standard. A moderate Muslim is as much a believer as a radical.

End of the day, the only thing stopping Iraq from being the next S Korea, is a few thousand radical Muslims/Arabs.

A few thousand radical IRAQIS you mean. The rebels are mainly Iraqi, and noone will deny this. The US is in talks with them, so maybe your theory isn't that unsound, but there's also a very big difference between Iraq and South Korea - We SAVED South Korea from an aggressive and terrible neighbor, but we invaded Iraq and trashed the place to install a government favorable to us. Iraqis owe very little credit to the US and we've already spent most of that credit. I would be happy to see Iraq become a South Korea like nation, but not one that is beholden to the US.

y thing I question is your believe that Castro is flawless and democratic.

His Excellency is the only democratic choice besides American domination and the fact that he's survived all they've done against him and all that Battista did against him really shows that he has some kind of reason to stick around.

Your hard evidence didn't justify me living in Cuba. It justified why I should live in Cuba RATHER than Brazil. And the answer to your second question is nobody. Nobody wants to live in Africa or South America willingly...

Cuba dosn't need people like you. There are enough imperialist servants there already. And it's neat how you can just completely write off two continents as uninhabitable. I recall a map of the world drawn from a US perspective that simply had lines pointing to South America and Africa with something to the effect of "Savages-- people eat eachother." And which marked Australia with the phrase "Here be dragons"

Wow I love how you literally take my quotes out of context and remove parts of it to make it seem like what I said is far different from my original intent:

I want to know what you consider to be a civilized country. Are countries without democracy automaticly uncivilized? Does that therefore make Muslims uncivilized?

No it didnt. Nothing has changed from 2000 to 2006 in Iran's political system or democratic process..

That's because Bush didn't capitalize. Look at what happened in Russia. They started to take apart their apparatus of fascism and so the Americans responded positively with increased diplomatic communications and meetings, etc. Not long after that the Berlin wall fell and then finally the entire dictatorial system fell. You don't bring about change by pointing a gun at someone and demanding that they stop being who they are.

If Bush had cooperated with the Iranian president and showed friendliness, maybe reached out to the Iranian people as a reward for the fact that they had elected someone who would be friendly to him, Iran might have moved further left and eventually become a full blown democracy.

Here's what should have happened:

-Bush shakes hands with Iranian president.-

Iranian: Hey look, those guys don't hate us anymore AND they're acknowledging our choice! We should keep going in this direction, maybe they'll be nicer to us and we'll get more rights.

Here's what did happen:

-Bush declares Iran to be an evil nation and invades two of their neighbors-

Iranian: Holy shit, that guy's trying to kill us even though we elected someone more agreeable to him. There's no pleasing this asshole, we'd better find someone who can fight back, who cares about government reform when there's a psycho with a tank at our doorstep!

The only response you ever have just contradicts your very arguments about widespread communist support in Cuba.

Allende had very widespread support and the US still made a coup against him simply because they were able to buy off a few people in his government. The will of the people dosnt matter to the imperialists, all they need is to buy a few people in power and they can take a country. That's why His Excellency has to be careful of who he trusts. If you have a country, and I'm doing everything in my power to take it over, wouldn't you rather keep people you can trust completely in power rather than risk what I might do to your country if I won?

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

so its ok for one group to espouse violence when they feel they have been wronged or are being threatened , but when America chooses to use violence they are evil? The word big-fat-fucking-hypocrite comes to mind.

As soon as a million Americans are displaced by agents of Iraq, as soon as the Taliban has troops occupying parts of our nation, as soon as the government is under the backing and control of Syria, and as soon as several hundred thousand Americans have been killed by an Arabian embargo and bombing campaign against us, then you can talk about being threatened or wronged. a few thousand civilians died in the trade center and the Pentagon got what it deserved? Big whoop, that's nothing compared to the suffering inflicted on Muslims.

Quote

US Air Force is the most advanced military power the world has ever known

And the Vietnamese freedom fighters were one of the least advanced, but they won because they were right and because the US knew what it was doing was wrong.

Quote

It seems like you just assume that the government is full of uncaring imperialists.

A short play, by J. M. Hoffman

Advisor: Mr President, we killed a hundred thousand Iraqis this year.

Bush: Excellent! Soon the insurgency will end and we'll find those elusive weapons. Keep up the good work and jabber some nonsense about freedom.

Cheney: That'll get em! Oh, and let's try to overthrow that democraticly elected Chavez guy again... for freedom.

Bush: Well ok, but only if we can continue spending millions to try to topple that harmless senior citizen south of Florida.

Cheney: Sure, but we'll talk later, I have a very busy schedule, I have to dodge some of those damned hippies who's opinions are supposed to matter and then go quail hunting to show how in touch I am with the common Americans. I sure hope I don't shoot anyone in the face!

Advisor: Quail hunting and vacationing while Katrina refugees have no place to live and people are dying in a completely unfounded war? Sounds like fun to me, I'll get my gun and NRA membership card!

Bush: HUZZAH!

~FIN~

Quote

Hmmmm…. that’s funny. Didn’t Muslims once claim a vast empire that stretched from Africa to Indonesia? Hmmm… I wonder if they had to use violence to acquire lay claim to such a huge area of land. Hmmmmm… Nope. Nope they probably did it through peaceful protests.

So because they were once a world power they now deserve to be stepped on by the imperialists? I mean, yeah, they lost, but that dosn't justify genocide.

Quote

Any group that holds purists ideals is racist. If I start an Irish Power Group, I am being racist. Sure its ridiculous, but so is the idea that the Black Panthers didn’t advocate ‘black power.'

So let me get this straight. The BPP, who served hot breakfasts to poor white children in the inner cities and provided tuberculosis screening and were butchered by the pigs for it, are racist.

Whereas Nixon, who ordered their mail to be opened, circulated documents demanding their destruction, and had Fred Hampton killed in his bed, was not a racist, and Bush is not a racist? Would you accuse a rape victim of being sexist against males simply because she didn't like being raped? Shit your viewpoint is completely skewed. Bush butchers hundreds of thousands of Arabs, bombs the hell out of their country just because they happen to be the color of terrorists, and you think the BPP are racists? Do yourself a favor. Put down the Ann Coulter, stop reading old dispatches from J. Edgar Hoover, turn off Fox News, and go talk to a former BPP member or someone who actually worked with them. Ignorance like that is what keeps the US system in power.

Quote

The older feminist groups did teach abhorrence of males. In the past 15yrs or so, they have pretty much moved out of this mindset and mellowed out a bit. And many lesbians HATE males, nay despise them with a raw seething hatred that is nearly unimaginable. This is not propaganda, it is the truth.

So you're faulting feminists for being pissed at the gender that kept them in servitude so long? This is ridiculous. You're confusing righteous anger with "a raw seething hatred that is nearly unimaginable".

Quote

Again with the Old Testament. LOL, Slade, most christians don't even read that. Infact, you don't even need to own the OT, just the NT. Stop using the wrathful God of outdated books as your source of evidence that Christians can be just as violent. You absolutely refuse to address this point, a point I've made several times now.

So if Christians can decide for themselves what parts of their holy book to follow, why can't Muslims? Is it because they're sociopaths? Hey, if I read a book and one page says KILL THE UNBELIEVERS (which is never said in the Quran, but just for argument) and the other page says BE EXCELLENT TO EACHOTHER guess which page most people are going to read.

It's just like the video game argument. Kids don't go to school and shoot everyone because they played Halo. Muslims don't go to US bases and shoot everyone because they read the Quran.

Quote

I see govenments, JM, not people.

Then why have you constantly been decrying the Muslim PEOPLE?

Quote

I doubt an all out war would commence, but rather a different route. Perhaps funding opposition groups to run against or over through Chavez and his office.

Jordan, where the hell have you been? The US administration already overthrew Chavez once. Bush made a speech welcoming the new government. Then the people went into the streets, freed president Chavez, and loyal elements of the army helped capture the purpetrators who hadn't been able to flee to the US. We also tried financing opposition, which failed too. THATS why he's upped his rhetoric and started buying arms. And well he should. If there's a war I hope Chavez wins.

Quote

You will hear them occasionally talk about the few looneys who blew up abortion clinics, but that truely is an uncommon event.

So is Muslims blowing things up Jordan. Look at all the terrorism committed by Christians! Guess who the KKK were worshipping the nights before they burned black churches? There's as much violence comitted by Christians as there is by Muslims. What religion do you think the people over in Iraq breaking down doors and dragging Iraqi men by leashes are following? Aren't they violent terrorists as well? The thing is, neither group is doing it for religious reasons. The Christians do it because Bush orders it, and the Muslims do it in efforts to defend their land and people, though these efforts are often extreme and misguided.

They have MUCH more power over their congragation than say some pastor at your local church, who probably has no power at all.

The power does not come from the Sheiks or the minarets or the Imams. Here's an experiment: Go to a restaurant where the employees are well paid and appreciated by their bosses and not overworked. Start ordering them to rise up and kill their oppressors. See if they do it. Next go to a restaurant where the employees are treated like shit, underpaid, and overworked. See if they'll join up with you and start trying to sabotage their job. You're still the same person, but you'll get a different reaction depending on how people feel.

People who are being mistreated will resort to violence to better themselves, the fact that some of the people who are suggesting this happen to be Muslim clerics dosn't matter compared to the root cause.

Palestinians, Iranians, have all elected wacko's, as you put it. They like them. They like having fanatics in control.

Jordan, please. Hamas does a lot of good work. They are also keeping a truce with the Zionist Entity and trying to better the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Hamas was elected because they promised to reform the PA, not to destroy Israel.

As for Iran, Bush is constantly threatening them and they want a strong leader who is going to protect their nation. When the US got attacked people shifted to the right wing. Why would it be different for Iran? You're looking at the surface issues and passing judgement and then just dallying along to state your misinformed and uneducated opinion on the next topic to come to your attention.

[J m HofMarN]

Black Panthers in my opinion is that they are basing their groups on skin color.

The BPP had members of all races. You are making them out to be something they were not. They had no intention of fomenting black supremacy, because that would put them at war with all other non-black progressive groups. You're simply drawing at straws to support an unfounded argument against a group you know nothing about. The panthers were a unity group and were more about serving impoverished people than they were about helping blacks. Want to know why?

Because when it comes down to it, a pig could look at a black, or a poor white guy, or a puerto rican, and see the exact same thing - a target. The Panthers knew that, and they knew that black folks couldn't take on the pigs alone. So they started building a support base. Through soup kitchens, public works, trash clean up, they built alliances with people of all colors, even native American groups were supporting the BPP. And that's what scared the pigs enough to sow these unfounded rumors against the BPP and to murder, and to forge, and to sell drugs, all of this just to destroy what you would have me believe was just a band of racist thugs? You're a fool to believe that.

I don't think any one denies that fact that radical Muslims are conintually voted into office. This makes me racist and concieted

No, what makes you racist and conceited is that you just assume that it must be because Muslims like nothing better than tyranny and blowing themselves up. That simplistic attitude is the same thing that would allow someone to look at the LA riots and say "damn those black folks are savages!"

[Renegade]

No I mean it in a literal sense. Bush, being completely insensitive, actually said something to the effect of "this war is our crucade".

Actually I do remember that and yes it was a poor choice of words but I'm pretty sure thats all it was. Eitherway its not a crusade.. I mean ok say were there for oil, say there were there only for US interests, but were not there to kill muslims.

I actually did below that if you didnt notice.

No you didnt. It was just a bunch of opinion on how capatalism sucks basically rather than countering what I actually said about the parties and why they are different. Listen, all you have to do is look at what each party does when it has full control of all the braches of govt and what they do during congressional battles on bills. If it was up to Democrats and them alone you'd prolly see taxes at like 70% on the wealthy and if it was up to Republicans you'd see taxes practically flattened. In a fully democratic country you'd see abortion on demand, in a fully republican country you'd see abortion fully outlawed. Gay marriage legal in a democratic state, illegal in a red state (not even civil union would be allowed). The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. The only reason BIG change never happens, is because both parties cancel each other out so that only small shit can change. Which is partially good and partially bad depending on how you look at it.

What about the supreme court and presidential advisers? The head of the EPA isn't elected and that's why Bush has been able to raise the acceptable level of frickin arsenic in drinking water.

Well ya Supreme Court isn't elected and I spose you can say thats undemocratic though they were meant to be like that so they weren't based on the random whims of a vote and a means to protect the minority. It's not like the founding fathers woke up and said, OH LETS SEE HOW WE CAN PUT A TYRANNICAL BRANCH OF GOVT! It was meant to be beholdent to the minority rather than maintain some huge power in the govt. As for presidential advisers, thats just obvious, they don't make decisions they are there to advise the elected president. If EVERY job was voted in nothing would be done in the country and there's constantly be even more of a quagmire than there is today. It's not like you can vote in generals in the army either...

The problem comes about when people of other religions attack Islam,

Mmmmm whatever you says mate. The quran is as radical as the Old Testament.

a threat to global security... wonder who else that describes...

We're not a threat to global security ... or atleast not global STABILITY I should of said.

There was plenty of reason to think Saddam didn't have WMDs,

So why was Clinton bombing them as early as 1998 with claims that he was producing em?

They were pro-themselves first, and in order to keep themselves in power they had to please the US, their third priority was their own country.

Is that why the Shah was more reluntant to kill his own people vs his Islamic counter parts? If the Shah wanted to he could of laid seige on his people. Instead of "exciling" Khomeini he could of just butchered him. Not that he wasn't a dictator, but he still had some decenty not to blatently pour his country in its own blood. The Revolutionists however would have no problem stopping a revolt by killing their own people.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 15 February 2006 - 03:38 AM

[Renegade]

People are willing to suffer the loss of their rights if it's for their own benefit, but not for someone else's.

Your analogy isnt correct though because it's not America literally imposing its will on that country, even if it is a person who is pro US, its still a person of that country who is doing it. I don't see what the difference is between Iraqi born dictator Saddam who hates America for no reason vs Iraqi born "democratically" elected leader X Y Z who will be elected after hes gone who happens to be pro us. Even if you think the second one is only there to benefit himself so was Saddam.

And besides, the fact that the Mullahs stand up to imperialism makes them look stronger, like they can do things on their own. The Shah's submission to the US made him look weak.

You mean strong nuff to ruin the military/economy and curb human rights? YAY! Iran with Shah = Saddam too scared to invade. Iran with Khomeini = Saddam .. as you would say.

If religion were as you say it is people who claim to be Christians would just say "fuck it I'm going to hell" the minute they did any single thing wrong.

No... because it says in the very book that you can ask for forgivenness and redemption. That's a key theme in Christianity and most religions. There's a difference between making a mistake and owning up to it in your religion and blatently not doing something because you believe its "not good" anymore. Nothing in the books say you can just disregard something because the times have changed and you don't feel like it anymore.

A moderate Muslim is as much a believer as a radical.

He's a better person, but he's not a better "muslim" as defined by their own text.

I would be happy to see Iraq become a South Korea like nation, but not one that is beholden to the US.

It won't be. As soon as the resistence stops we're gonna pull out.

Cuba dosn't need people like you.

Listen I'm just answering the simple question with the simple and honest truth. However "great" you want to portroy Cuba as, and however much better it is than the Congo, doesn't mean anybody would willingly want to live there or migrate there. Just simple as that.

I want to know what you consider to be a civilized country. Are countries without democracy automaticly uncivilized? Does that therefore make Muslims uncivilized?

What you talking about. All I was pointing out originally was that lots of countries don't particularly like the US and still manage to be democratic. Why is it that the Mid East hates America so much they can't have democracy (or haven't had it ever?). Venezuala hates America, and they seem to have a democracy even WITH America butting in. Lots of Europeaon nations didn't like America in the past and they seem to have it. The Mid East can't just sit there and blame America for all its failures.

If Bush had cooperated with the Iranian president and showed friendliness, maybe reached out to the Iranian people as a reward for the fact that they had elected someone who would be friendly to him, Iran might have moved further left and eventually become a full blown democracy.

I highly doubt that considering the president had very minimal power. The Supreme Leader has most the power in Iran and he's unelected. The president is mostly just a symbolic figure if anything. Though fair nuff, if we did reach out a lil better than than stamping them with axis of evil it would of helped though assuming the Iraq war WAS justified and ok, they couldnt just not do it cause Iran might get scared and become more conservative.

Btw you disregarded the stuff about me racist, so do you know realize atleast what I was saying with my statements on religion/islam and admit that they aren't racist

Edit: Fixed some double-postage.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

This post has been edited by Slade: 15 February 2006 - 05:36 PM

[Cobnat]

Being proud of your heritage and your nationality is wonderful. Saying that your race or nationality is superior is not. And I think the difference between the two is easily recognizable. Its when you start advocating intolerance and violence against others that you become a segregationist.

The problem with the KKK and the Black Panthers in my opinion is that they are basing their groups on skin color. Not their nationality nor their heritage, or anything constructive for that matter. The color of their skin is what dictates membership and mission statement. That is racist.

Tell me, what if you wanted your country to be "ethnicly clean" (ofcourse you would do it in a non-violent way) and understand your peoples history to a point where you know that the ethnic violence in your country wouldnt stop if it isnt ethnicly clean. And ofcourse the people you force of thier land will be compensated and everything, so does that make you a Nazi or Racial Extremist or just some guy who wants to help out his people?

You can always get an operation...

I don’t understand how anybody can really claim to know what’s going on with certainty unless they’re there, living in the culture, or have lived in it at one time. Its one thing to make observations from afar, but they are just that - observations. And even when you do live there, your views could be biased considering the information you are receiving (for example: when your only news source is owned by the government). I like to point out when I’m making observations (hint hint). It makes people less apt to call me names and say I’m being intolerant.

All views are biased, even those of people who dont think they are biased (they are probebly more biased), and all info someone receives is biased, its not always thier fault, its just how we are made, to look at the world in black and white.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Actually I do remember that and yes it was a poor choice of words but I'm pretty sure thats all it was. Eitherway its not a crusade.. I mean ok say were there for oil, say there were there only for US interests, but were not there to kill muslims.

Hey, when you go to rob a house and someone happens to be in that house who you kill, you're going to get charged with a bit more than breaking and entering.

Quote

Mmmmm whatever you says mate. The quran is as radical as the Old Testament.

I concede on that point, it's largely based off the OT anyhow.

Quote

We're not a threat to global security ... or atleast not global STABILITY I should of said.

We're a threat to global peace then at the very least.

Quote

So why was Clinton bombing them as early as 1998 with claims that he was producing em?

Bombing Iraqi military installations to prevent the production of weapons of mass destruction is a litle bit different than razing Faluja to the ground to... do... something.

Quote

The Revolutionists however would have no problem stopping a revolt by killing their own people.

Objection; conjecture.

Quote

Your analogy isnt correct though because it's not America literally imposing its will on that country, even if it is a person who is pro US, its still a person of that country who is doing it. I don't see what the difference is between Iraqi born dictator Saddam who hates America for no reason vs Iraqi born "democratically" elected leader X Y Z who will be elected after hes gone who happens to be pro us. Even if you think the second one is only there to benefit himself so was Saddam.

Who would you rather have in power in the US: Your least favorite US president of all time, or a president who would do pretty damned near whatever a random foreign country told him to? It's about pride and sovereignty, and it's not just about a single country, it's about a global struggle for liberty. What if Iraq was subjugated? Would Iran be next? And if the Iranians accept imperialism it could be Venezuela. It's not just for their own good that people fight against hedgemony.

Quote

You mean strong nuff to ruin the military/economy and curb human rights? YAY! Iran with Shah = Saddam too scared to invade. Iran with Khomeini = Saddam .. as you would say.

Hey, Bush fucked up the military and economy and curbed human rights and the ignorant fools here view him as strong. Saddam wasn't scared of the Shah, he merely saw an opportunity during the chaos of the revolution.

Quote

Nothing in the books say you can just disregard something because the times have changed and you don't feel like it anymore.

But do not the clergy make a difference in this matter? The holy books have to be flexible and often they make reference to being meant for all times and all people. You might not be able to go slaughter a cow for the Christian god anymore, but you can still gain the core wisdom from the bible and that's what it's there for. This "either follow entirely or piss off" idea would simply not be wise for any deity to espouse.

Quote

It won't be. As soon as the resistence stops we're gonna pull out.

A likely story. And what if the resistance gets worse?

Quote

Listen I'm just answering the simple question with the simple and honest truth. However "great" you want to portroy Cuba as, and however much better it is than the Congo, doesn't mean anybody would willingly want to live there or migrate there. Just simple as that.

Hemingway lived in Cuba for a time, and Ginsburg visited as well. Your statement about people not wanting to migrate there is not based on the quality of the country but on people generally liking the place they were born in. I wouldn't leave everyone I know behind and move to Italy but that dosn't mean it's a country full of cannibal savages.

The Mid East can't just sit there and blame America for all its failures.

They're not just sitting there. There are groups attempting to change things in one way or another. Hamas is one of them. The problem is that the mid east only became somewhat independent in the past century and that's why they're still having a lot of trouble. The US was an autocracy for the first hundred and some odd years after it gained independence, and most countries in South America were similiar. It takes time for things to develop and freedom to develop new ideas or new adaptations of old ones. The US is interferring in this process.

Though fair nuff, if we did reach out a lil better than than stamping them with axis of evil it would of helped though assuming the Iraq war WAS justified and ok, they couldnt just not do it cause Iran might get scared and become more conservative.

I think the US might be able to avoid getting edgy if another country invaded both Canada and Mexico. However it's a bit of a stretch to say people wouldn't be scared if another country invaded Canada and Mexico and then made a point of pointing out that we were on the same list and constantly threatening us and making looney demands.

you disregarded the stuff about me racist, so do you know realize atleast what I was saying with my statements on religion/islam

You said some stuff about religion as a whole that made sense, and I thought I did reply to the racism argument in a previous post but it may have been eaten. The point is that writing off a group of people who hold varying political, social, and cultural ideas as just all being "psychos" or "terrorists" or "tyranny lovers" is fundamentally racist. The problem is that it's ok to be anti Islaim these days since the government encourages it.

The racism comes in when you're unwilling to admit that your stereotypes could be wrong and apply them to people, for instance when some people refuse to read Steinbeck or London just because they were socialists, that's racist thinking. I'm not saying you do this, but some of your statements smack of this kind of thing.