Newbie/Wannabe Anarchist ISO Debate
Gary Childress
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
>From the looks of it, it appears that the US is justified in invading
Iraq. Many violations of their international obligations are cited.
Perhaps Bush is engaged in a just war after all? I would like to
debate the accuracy of this document. It is an official US government
document.
Here's a most interesting snippet, just part of the allegations:
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;"
Are these alone not substantial grounds for invading Iraq? There are
other accusations in the document.
I'm particularly interested in the opinions of those in the
International community who are most upset by the Bush Government.
What are the grounds for being against the US trying to restore peace
and democracy in the Middle East? Are your motivations simply based
upon some sort of predjudice/envy against the US and George Bush in
particular? Are you simply "quitters" who, once tasting some
difficulty in the mission, have decided to give up already?
I am still an applicant for anarchist status but reserve the right to
revoke my application at any time. I will play "devil's advocate" to
my best. I really would like to get to the bottom of what is going on
in the world. What is fact, what is fiction, what is justified and
what is not.
Do we Americans NOT have good intentions in the Middle East? According
to this document we do. Iraq had repeatedly demonstrated itself to be
an International touble maker. Things aren't perfect in Iraq today but
they are better for the International community than to have Saddam
Hussein in power.
That is my position as "devil's advocate". I apologize that I have, no
doubt, offended the sensibilities of many in the passages above,
however, I am trying to recreate a political position which seems to be
held by many in the US. I want to see if it holds water or not.
I am also foisting counter arguments to the above in another forum on
the Internet highly populated by conservatives. You can view these
arguments at: http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewforum.php?f=7
Thank you for any replies.
Anarcissie
> ...
> I am still an applicant for anarchist status...
In what sense?
grchi...@aol.com
I am appealing to the group to accept me. If you do not accept me as
an anarchist then I will of course respect your decision. However, if
I find the beliefs of this group to be unfounded then I will revoke my
application.
However, that is not the thrust of my post. The thrust of my post are
the questions above. I am trying to ascertain the truth of the matter
regarding Iraq. I am an American voter and I want to know how I should
vote. Has my country done wrong in Iraq? If so then how can it be
appropriately addressed.
I will put two more propositions out on the table, again, please let me
say as "devil's advocate".
1. Iraq has been reparated for damages through the investment of
Billions of dollars into the country and through the fact that Saddam
is no longer in charge. Therefore there is no issue of compensation,
should there have been one to begin with.
2. G. W. Bush is guilty of no crimes unless it can be established that
he lied to congress. Otherwise, no crime was committed in invading
Iraq for the following reason:
G.W. Bush was then telling the truth that there was sufficient evidence
of WMDs in Iraq.
Also, Iraq was not in 100% compliance with UN inspections for 10 years.
This is also part of the reason Iraq was invaded.
I wish to argue these points because I think they are important ones.
It seems, on the face of it, that Iraq was justifiably invaded
according to the congressional authorization of Bush to use force in
Iraq. Are they not good grounds for invasion? If not, then why not.
thegrea...@gmail.com
plenty more on the same website. also at http://www.zmag.org as well as
more about anarchism in general.
Briefly, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions (although so is the
USA, Israel and many others) but the US/UK 'coalition' committed a much
more serious crime by invading without UN authorisation to do so.
Anarcissie
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > Gary Childress wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I am still an applicant for anarchist status...
> >
> > In what sense?
>
> I am appealing to the group to accept me. If you do not accept me as
> an anarchist then I will of course respect your decision. However, if
> I find the beliefs of this group to be unfounded then I will revoke my
> application.
I still don't understand what you mean as "accept as an anarchist".
_Anarchist_ is not an ethnicity, a team position, a job in a firm, or
a institutionalized role. If you want to be called an anarchist, some
people may be agreeable regardless of your political stance or
philosophical beliefs, but of them some will be ironical about it.
I myself would not normally call you an anarchist based on
what you have written previously and below; it looks to me like
run-of-the-mill liberal imperialism, which requires a heavy
investment in state power. However, if you came to me and
said "Please call me an anarchist", I would probably humor
you, since it doesn't matter very much what I call anybody.
Others may feel differently, of course. There are anarchists
or "anarchists" posting in these newsgroups who are quite
enamored of state power, imperial war, police repression,
and so on. If that's your bag, you won't be lonely.
Gary Childress
thegrea...@gmail.com wrote:
> try http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030811.htm
> plenty more on the same website. also at http://www.zmag.org as well as
> more about anarchism in general.
>
> Briefly, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions (although so is the
> USA, Israel and many others) but the US/UK 'coalition' committed a much
> more serious crime by invading without UN authorisation to do so.
>
Thank you for a very good and concise reply. I have posted a reply
from another fellow in alt.fan.noam-chomsky to the above mentioned,
predominately conservative forum and will await their response. The
repy is regarding the Principles of the Nuremberg Trials. I will also
bring this up to them.
Again, the argument there can be viewed at:
http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewtopic.php?p=205996&sid=0f25fd77326cc527c9ee35e7e780c3ca#205996
Gary Childress
I'm against police repression and imperial war. I think nearly
everyone must be against those things as a matter of principle. Of
course defining exactly what constitutes those things is a much more
difficult matter. I won't try to tackle that, at least not yet.
As for state power, is that wrong in and of itself? I'm not sure I see
the essential wrong of state power, given that it is not overbearingly
authoritarian of course. Surely the state should have some power to
rule over its constituents. Laws governing trade, consumer goods,
education etc, etc. seem, on the surface to be good ideas to me. If
there were a law prohibiting public gatherings, and peaceful protest,
then I would most likely say the state is infringing upon peoples'
rights and over-stepping its bounds.
grchi...@aol.com
thegrea...@gmail.com wrote:
> try http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030811.htm
> plenty more on the same website. also at http://www.zmag.org as well as
> more about anarchism in general.
>
> Briefly, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions (although so is the
> USA, Israel and many others) but the US/UK 'coalition' committed a much
> more serious crime by invading without UN authorisation to do so.
>
This is the reply I received from someone of the other forum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Iraq invaded Kuwait, an ally of the US. A coalition was built and
Kuwait liberated and Iraq invaded. Iraq agreed to a CEASEFIRE. We could
legally argue we were still at war with Iraq until the terms of the
ceasefire were met....which they never were. We chose to resume
hostilities."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was followed by the response:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Once Iraq signed a ceasefire they were at our mercy.
Legally, this is all we needed to renew operations.
Dont play with fire Iraq, you will get burned.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gist of the argument above seems to be that we were still in a
state of war with Iraq, extending from the original Iraq War. Iraq did
not meet ceasefire conditions and so we chose to resume the war, a move
which was within our rights.
Not being an expert on International law I am wondering if we needed UN
approval to invade if it be that we were still at war with Iraq? If
NOT, then it would seem that invading under the pretense that Iraq was
not meeting the conditions of the ceasefire would be within our rights.
I suspect, however, there IS a need to have UN authorization here in
order to abide by International law, however, as I say I am no expert
on the matter.
grchi...@aol.com
Gary Childress wrote:
> thegrea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > try http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030811.htm
> > plenty more on the same website. also at http://www.zmag.org as well as
> > more about anarchism in general.
> >
> > Briefly, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions (although so is the
> > USA, Israel and many others) but the US/UK 'coalition' committed a much
> > more serious crime by invading without UN authorisation to do so.
> >
>
I have the following response/quote from the other forum:
======================================================================
John B. Bellinger, III, Legal Advisor to the United States National
Security Council, wrote in a letter to the Council on Foreign Relations
on April 10, 2003:
"The United States has clear authority under international law to use
force against Iraq under present circumstances.
The legal authority to use force to address Iraq’s material
breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution,
or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of
force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the
predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that
Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council
reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.
Accordingly, at the outset of hostilities, the United States formally
advised the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 678 that military
operations in Iraq 'are authorized under existing Council resolutions,
including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991).' The United
States noted that 'Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted
period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions,
and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance
with its obligations to disarm Iraq and permit full inspection of its
WMD and related programs.'"
4/10/03 John Bellinger
========================================================================
This quote seems to say that UN authorization was not necessary to
invade Iraq. If that is the case, then the US broke no International
laws. If the US broke no International Laws and Iraq was indeed in
breach of the ceasefire, then it would seem that the Bush
Administration is exonerated. Thus it technically committed no crime
against peace. If it committed no war crime against peace, then it is
in a sense not legally responsible for the war. If it is not legally
responsible for the war, then it is not legally responsible for other
war crimes which were not directly committed by them it in the war. Is
this not the case, at least in a legal sense?
I mean we can hypothesize all we want about the fairness of the laws,
but technically if the US leadership did not break any then there is
little that can be done to sanction them in any way and there is little
reason to hold them guilty. It would be like holding someone guilty of
selling cigarettes. If it is not against the law to sell cigarettes,
then no crime has been committed. If no crime has been committed then
they are by all legal counts innocent, law abiding citizens.
I feel this is a serious objection to the reply above. Would everyone
else agree? If not, then why not?
Anarcissie
Many people favor them, although they often call them
by different names than the ones I have used, e.g. "the
war to end war" or "making the world safe for democracy".
> As for state power, is that wrong in and of itself? I'm not sure I see
> the essential wrong of state power, given that it is not overbearingly
> authoritarian of course. Surely the state should have some power to
> rule over its constituents. Laws governing trade, consumer goods,
> education etc, etc. seem, on the surface to be good ideas to me. If
> there were a law prohibiting public gatherings, and peaceful protest,
> then I would most likely say the state is infringing upon peoples'
> rights and over-stepping its bounds.
Anarchists are often defined as those who have
decided that state power is undesirable in and of
itself, for a variety of reasons. The sentiments
you have advanced above are a form of liberalism,
not anarchism, as these terms are generally used.
Gary Childress
I don't know. Is this realistic thinking? Do the vast majority even
want this? Perhaps it is pie in the sky utopianism. What's wrong with
trade commissions, consumer protection agencies, public school
programs? How will problems of current programs be magically solved in
this anarchist society?
John Brockbank
<grchi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168804351.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anarcissie wrote:
>> Gary Childress wrote:
>> > ...
>> > I am still an applicant for anarchist status...
>>
>> In what sense?
>
> I am appealing to the group to accept me. If you do not accept me as
> an anarchist then I will of course respect your decision. However, if
> I find the beliefs of this group to be unfounded then I will revoke my
> application.
>
> However, that is not the thrust of my post. The thrust of my post are
> the questions above. I am trying to ascertain the truth of the matter
> regarding Iraq. I am an American voter and I want to know how I should
> vote. Has my country done wrong in Iraq? If so then how can it be
> appropriately addressed.
>
> I will put two more propositions out on the table, again, please let me
> say as "devil's advocate".
>
> 1. Iraq has been reparated for damages through the investment of
> Billions of dollars into the country and through the fact that Saddam
> is no longer in charge. Therefore there is no issue of compensation,
> should there have been one to begin with.
>
Every cent of the money invested in Iraq has come from the Iraq oil
revenues, and been given to the US companies who were given the contracts.
Iraq still owes billions to compensate for the first Gulf war and it will
continue to be extracted from them.
> 2. G. W. Bush is guilty of no crimes unless it can be established that
> he lied to congress. Otherwise, no crime was committed in invading
> Iraq for the following reason:
>
> G.W. Bush was then telling the truth that there was sufficient evidence
> of WMDs in Iraq.
>
I have no idea whether lying to Congress is illegal, but I would be very
surprised if it was so. Politicians lie all the time. The only decent
source of information about Iraqi WMDs is the UN inspectors.
Anarcissie
For starters, you might want to look at Bryan Caplan's FAQ:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
Of course, there are many people who strongly disagree with
Caplan's views, but then there's Google. I don't think there is
any theoretical argument for or against anarchism that hasn't
been thrashed about pretty thoroughly. The big argument
against anarchism is not that it's theoretically unworkable,
but that people generally don't want to do it -- they like the
state.
Gary Childress
I suppose I am against anarchism then because I like having a state, at
least as things stand at the moment. I mean, I enjoy what I have now.
I enjoy public libraries, computer stores, phone service (especially in
being able to link up to the Internet), police protection from those
who break the law and endanger others, a fire department which will
come to any emergencies I may have, welfare for the poor, the ability
to vote for what I believe in. Granted a lot of things get passed in
legislature which I don't agree with but I don't see any way around
that. I can't speak for everyone unless I can convince others of my
view point.
thegrea...@gmail.com
Favouring anarchism (or opposing the state) need not be the same as
opposing things like public libraries. In my opinion, anarchism is more
about thinking about how we could have good things like public
libraries without having bad things like imperialist war, police
repression and concentrated wealth. Agreement is hard, but some points
in the right direction might be found at the website I mentioned
before, http://www.zmag.org which has a great deal of material about
how such things might be organised. Of course, things can always be
worse, and fighting for 'civil liberties' in the context of
liberal-democratic state-capitalism is meaningful and worthwhile (some
anarchists would disagree with me here, but Chomsky, for example, would
not)
About the Iraq war and international law: law, and especially
international law, is often a matter of interpretation. If a lawyer
says something is true and quotes a law to support it, that doesn't
necessarily make it true. Most international law experts regard Iraq as
one of the most brazen violations of international law in recent
history, but there will inevitably be some who interpret things
otherwise. I don't have the time or inclination to look it up now but
I'm pretty sure UNSC 1441 said that if Iraq failed to disarm it would
face serious consequences to be decided by the security council. If you
go back to newspapers at the time, the British foreign secretary Jack
Straw said look, we can't take it back to the security council for
another resolution because the French will not approve our plans to
invade. About earlier resolutions - my question would be why resolution
1441 failed to assert that those previous resolutions gave
authorisation for the use of force, and why instead 1441 asserted that
what 'consequences' Iraq would face would be determined by the security
council.
This will be my last reply on the matter of the legality of the
invasion of Iraq. I've mentioned previously some websites where you
will find a great deal of discussion on the matter (one more: google
for articles from the time by Phyllis Bennis, an excellent commentator
on US gvt. relations with the UN) and if you want to go deeper in to
it, there is a mass of material published in law journals since 2003.
What matters to me is that the Iraq war was carried out pretty clearly
against international law, with the clear expectation that it would
dramatically INCREASE the threat of terrorist attacks in the West
(which it did) and that it might well result in the deaths of 10000s of
Iraqi civilians (by this point, probably about 500000). Thus it was
completely immoral, even if you want to argue about the legality. Even
if the Security Council had voted in favour of it, it would still have
been totally immoral and my opposition would be just as strong. This is
one reason why I feel the left's focus on the war's illegality was
nisguided (although I maintain that it was illegal).
Simon.
Anarcissie
Gary Childress:
> I suppose I am against anarchism then because I like having a state, at
> least as things stand at the moment. I mean, I enjoy what I have now.
> I enjoy public libraries, computer stores, phone service (especially in
> being able to link up to the Internet), police protection from those
> who break the law and endanger others, a fire department which will
> come to any emergencies I may have, welfare for the poor, the ability
> to vote for what I believe in. Granted a lot of things get passed in
> legislature which I don't agree with but I don't see any way around
> that. I can't speak for everyone unless I can convince others of my
> view point.
Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
"an applicant for anarchist status".
Gary Childress
Should there be compensation to the Iraqi people? The war is
technically legal. Iraq was a trouble maker in the region and wasn't
abiding my provisions of the cease fire. And most of the killing these
days I understand is Iraqis killing Iraqis or else Iraqis killing US
soldiers. The Germans and Japanese didn't rebel against US soldiers
when they were occupied. They accepted defeat and look at them today,
they're prosperous nations.
> > 2. G. W. Bush is guilty of no crimes unless it can be established that
> > he lied to congress. Otherwise, no crime was committed in invading
> > Iraq for the following reason:
> >
> > G.W. Bush was then telling the truth that there was sufficient evidence
> > of WMDs in Iraq.
> >
>
> I have no idea whether lying to Congress is illegal, but I would be very
> surprised if it was so.
I just know they used it against Clinton. I never paid much attention
to the whole "Clinton-gate" thing nor can I remember anymore much about
what all went on. My uninformed understanding at the moment is that
Clinton had an affair, which is not illegal. Felt embarrassed or
ashamed of it as most people no doubt do and lied when questioned about
it by congress. Of course, how congress enters the picture I can't
recall. Like I say I never followed it, I'm sure there must be more to
it than that. Surely the Republicans are not that pathetic!
> Politicians lie all the time.
If only they would enact a bill whereby it is illegal to lie to the
American People. That would be the day!
>The only decent
> source of information about Iraqi WMDs is the UN inspectors.
>
>
But the UN inspectors were not allowed in by the Iraqi government as
stipilated by the ceasefire agreement. I suppose that alone is grounds
for suspicion that something funny might be going on there with regard
to WMDs. I mean, why would they put up so much resistance if indeed
there was nothing to hide?
Gary Childress
Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
officially rejected by Dan Clore.
Dan Clore
> Anarcissie wrote:
>> Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
>> "an applicant for anarchist status".
>
> Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
> alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
> or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
> revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
> that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
> Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
> So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
> purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
> anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
> credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
> officially rejected by Dan Clore.
In addition to the official rejection, your comments above will be
recorded for use when time comes for your "re-education" come the
revolution.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Gary Childress
thegrea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Favouring anarchism (or opposing the state) need not be the same as
> opposing things like public libraries. In my opinion, anarchism is more
> about thinking about how we could have good things like public
> libraries without having bad things like imperialist war, police
> repression and concentrated wealth. Agreement is hard, but some points
> in the right direction might be found at the website I mentioned
> before, http://www.zmag.org which has a great deal of material about
> how such things might be organised. Of course, things can always be
> worse, and fighting for 'civil liberties' in the context of
> liberal-democratic state-capitalism is meaningful and worthwhile (some
> anarchists would disagree with me here, but Chomsky, for example, would
> not)
>
I like much of the system we have now and believe that things can be
improved within the bounds of having a state. God knows there are some
bad things going on right now. I'm not a fan of G. W. Bush. I do wish
there were more help for the poor. I do wish we would/could get out of
Iraq. I don't like the idea of anyone getting killed. But I also
didn't like the idea of Saddam Hussein getting hold of WMDs. I didn't
vote for any war, however, and wouldn't have had someone put it up on a
ballot. It seems there were no WMDs but Saddam wouldn't let anyone in
to testify to it.
Now what do we do? We can protest the war, but then people point to
what seems to be a fact that we can't pull out of Iraq or there will be
a huge civil war and even more people will die than are dying now. It
seems we are stuck and Iraq is stuck. Can't move forward, can't move
back.
As I say I didn't vote for any war either and wouldn't have had there
been a ballot presented to me for it. I don't like to see, nor hear of
people being killed, especially if my country is involved, whether it
be dead US soldiers or dead enemies. If Iraq had invaded us, yes I
would have voted to go to war. Obviously that was far from the case.
I just got yelled at in another forum for letting the troops down and
for listening to "idiots" on the Internet pertaining to politics
because I argued that the war was illegal and that Bush should face war
crimes trials. they basically told me there was nothing illegal about
the war (presented the evidence I presented above), that things are
better without Saddam and that our occupation of Iraq is justified and
that most of the people who are doing the killing now are Iraqis and
therefore it would be bad to pull out of Iraq anyway. That forum is
mostly populated by veterans and ex-service men. God knows I need to
watch my step around there. But they say quitting now is the worst
mistake we can make.
> This is
> one reason why I feel the left's focus on the war's illegality was
> nisguided (although I maintain that it was illegal).
>
> Simon.
>
As far as legality or illegality, I see what you are saying. Many laws
have loopholes that can be exploited by a sharp lawyer and what would
seem illegal can be made to be legal. Perhaps that is what happened in
this case.
Gary Childress
Dan Clore wrote:
> Gary Childress wrote:
> > Anarcissie wrote:
>
> >> Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
> >> "an applicant for anarchist status".
> >
> > Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
> > alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
> > or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
> > revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
> > that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
> > Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
> > So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
> > purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
> > anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
> > credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
> > officially rejected by Dan Clore.
>
> In addition to the official rejection, your comments above will be
> recorded for use when time comes for your "re-education" come the
> revolution.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
May I apply early for "re-education"?
brique
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:512ppnF...@mid.individual.net...
> Gary Childress wrote:
> > Anarcissie wrote:
>
> >> Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
> >> "an applicant for anarchist status".
> >
> > Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
> > alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
> > or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
> > revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
> > that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
> > Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
> > So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
> > purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
> > anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
> > credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
> > officially rejected by Dan Clore.
>
> In addition to the official rejection, your comments above will be
> recorded for use when time comes for your "re-education" come the
> revolution.
Dont be silly, Dan.he gets hung from the nearest telegraph pole alongside
the priest, politicians and cops..... sheesh... haven't you read the latesst
orders from the Central Committee?
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Gary Childress
brique wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:512ppnF...@mid.individual.net...
> > Gary Childress wrote:
> > > Anarcissie wrote:
> >
> > >> Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
> > >> "an applicant for anarchist status".
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
> > > alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
> > > or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
> > > revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
> > > that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
> > > Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
> > > So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
> > > purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
> > > anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
> > > credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
> > > officially rejected by Dan Clore.
> >
> > In addition to the official rejection, your comments above will be
> > recorded for use when time comes for your "re-education" come the
> > revolution.
>
> Dont be silly, Dan.he gets hung from the nearest telegraph pole alongside
> the priest, politicians and cops..... sheesh... haven't you read the latesst
> orders from the Central Committee?
>
Don't listen Dan! I want to be re-educated instead!
> >
> > --
> > Dan Clore
> >
> > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> > http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:512ppnF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Gary Childress wrote:
>>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>>> Hence my curiosity about your remark that you were
>>>> "an applicant for anarchist status".
>>> Oh, I thought you may have read my post "May I Join" in
>>> alt.fan.noam-chomsky or alt.activism. Bacially I spelled it out more
>>> or less there. Anarchists kind of scare me. All the talk of
>>> revolution, corporate criminals, killing G. W. Bush and stuff like
>>> that. I just sort of picture some of the people I've seen on the
>>> Internet gaining control and it is sort of a scarry picture I think.
>>> So I thought it might be a good idea to join just so I could avoid any
>>> purges or inquisitions which may arise if anarchists take over. If
>>> anyone questions my loyalty to the cause I just show them my anarchist
>>> credentials and such. However, it looks like my application has been
>>> officially rejected by Dan Clore.
>> In addition to the official rejection, your comments above will be
>> recorded for use when time comes for your "re-education" come the
>> revolution.
>
> Dont be silly, Dan.he gets hung from the nearest telegraph pole alongside
> the priest, politicians and cops..... sheesh... haven't you read the latesst
> orders from the Central Committee?
Ah, here: "Society will not be happy until the last Usenet Troll has
been hanged with the guts of the last Newby."
Anarcissie
I think the torment of having one's troll fail is
punishment enough.
John Brockbank
"Gary Childress" <grchi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168909085.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I won't comment on the other points because the post would get too long.
However this one misses the point. Of course Iraq did not cooperate
properly with the UN inspectors after the first Gulf war, but once the
threats started they did allow the inspectors back in, and gave them good
access. They found nothing. In the infamous UN hearing when Colin Powell
showed videos and photo 'evidence' and stated that there were lots of WMDs,
Hans Blix said that he had inspected those sites and found nothing and said
that 'better intelligence is needed'. He was saying that the intelligence
being quoted by Powell was wrong.
As far as the 'nothing to hide' point goes, you quite obviously think that
whatever the US orders, other countries should do. Suppose I came to your
house and demanded entry to search every nook and cranny and stay there
watching you all the time. Why would you resist it if you have nothing to
hide?
I am afraid that the if the US government wants to claim that the UN gives
them legitimacy, then they should respect all that the UN does and says, not
just the bits they like.
It is fine with me if someone wants to support the war; after all, a
majority of Americans did support it at first. But it is not alright with
me if people pretend to believe the obvious lies.
If you are not a Christian or a Muslim, do not fight or support their wars.
Paul Bramscher
War is peace, pre-emptive wars are evidence of democracy? And we'll
also kindly forget that it was a "democracy" that helped prop up the
Baathists, and normalized relations with Saddam even as he was
committing the worst of his nastiness?
But then he was only tried and convicted on 140-odd deaths or so, the
book was never opened on the full range of his wrongdoings, most likely
because it would be embarrassing to "democracy." What right did any of
the colonial powers have to Africa? The mideast? Asia? Slaves, oil
and opium. With democracy baggage like this, perhaps the world would be
better off without it?
Some of what we have exists despite the system, not because of it. The
state is crumbling as we sit here, but it's not violent anarchists,
hoardes of illegals, or terrorists. It's the forces of globalization.
The top corporo-states (the big boxes, Walmarts, etc.), manufacturers,
etc. no longer see their companies or labor forces in statist terms.
They see the globe, and move operations to where they can most fully
exploit a sufficiently trained workforce to achieve the business end of
the unit they're off-shoring this month. There is a rejection of the
state on the part of the ultra-elite, and this must eventually filter
down to the bottom.
You'll note, though, that the state keeps average people penned in and
carefully tracks their movements, limits their options, makes it
difficult to work or live or transition from country to country.
Whereas the state seems to smooth or facilitate the movement of large
corporations.
It's all been written up in microcosm. Whether the medieval fiefdom,
the plantation, or Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath." The monopolizers
demand a captive workforce, an ongoing basic asymmetry of rights. They
lean on the state for legitimacy, to rubber-stamp it.
Think also of what "governors" did in the transition between the middle
ages and the modern era. Their primary job was, and remains, keeping
the populace controlled, to preserve the status quo of wealth and power
monopolization.
What do you mean by anarchism being "unworkable?" Is the modern
corporo-state really all that workable? From ecological, sustainability
or a genuine perspective of freedom and self-determination? Doesn't
seem all that workable at all. It's on a collision course with itself.
>>> I enjoy public libraries, computer stores, phone service (especially in
>>> being able to link up to the Internet), police protection from those
>>> who break the law and endanger others, a fire department which will
>>> come to any emergencies I may have, welfare for the poor, the ability
>>> to vote for what I believe in. Granted a lot of things get passed in
>>> legislature which I don't agree with but I don't see any way around
>>> that. I can't speak for everyone unless I can convince others of my
>>> view point.
It's all founded on some early injustices, centuries in the making. The
moment indigenous and self-determining peoples are forced off their
land, they have to answer to Absentee Landords, absentee CEO's, external
economies, etc. The state is about forced allegiance to a monetary cartel.
The core requirement to the current system is that people are born
powerless, landless, propertyless, etc. Certainly the wealthy have
advantage due to vestigial caste mechanisms unaltered since the middle
ages. But most of us spend our lives in a state of economic warfare.
There aren't enough places to squat for free, set up your own vegetable
garden, etc. Why is it after centuries of labor that each of us still
has to make a 30-year mortgage? You'd think that given the laws of
entropy that land ownership would eventually settle into a more evenly
distributed arrangement. On the contrary, ongoing oppression -- which
takes certain energy inputs -- preserves the monopoly, even enhancing it.
The police generally are blue-collar crime enforcers, which you can do
yourself also. Get an alarm system, a trained dog, some other home
protection, a firearm, etc. But the day-to-day ripping off, leeching,
etc. conducted by white collar criminals is well beyond the bounds of
the local police. What right does anyone have, legally, to self-patrol
against white-collar crime? A blue-collar burglar walks into your house
and you can claim full rights to self-defense. A white collar crook
pulls one over on you -- and you are entirely at the mercy of the state
for remediation, which is unlikely to occur.
Many of the programs that statist liberals enjoy aren't really perks of
the state, they are its permanent crutches.
grchi...@aol.com
Am not a troll! :-P'''''
grchi...@aol.com
But Dan! You'd look funny hanging from my guts. :-P'''''
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
grchi...@aol.com
There are those who claim that "The UN never does anything right" and
then applaud the UN when it does support us saying "Finally the UN did
something right, maybe we'll consider paying our membership dues."
Until the UN shapes up to our high standards, then we can't be party to
it. Of course I am not being a patriotic American by insinuating that
the country I live in is hypocritical.
> It is fine with me if someone wants to support the war; after all, a
> majority of Americans did support it at first. But it is not alright with
> me if people pretend to believe the obvious lies.
>
But saying all of this is "playing into the hands of al Qaida" isn't
it? Isn't this just another example of how we lost the Vietnam war, as
they say? Doesn't the enemy grow stronger the more we grow unresolved
to finish the job? Doesn't this just serve to encourage al Qaida?
Therefore isn't the war going to be protracted and bloodier? Shouldn't
we form a resolve and then try to win the war as quickly and decisively
as we can so the troops can come home and peace can be restored? This
is what I was told when I presented Defendario's thesis that Bush is a
war criminal according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, to a forum full of
conservatives.
Also to say that it is an unjust war, why that's a "slap in the face of
all our troops" to say that they are fighting and dying for an unworthy
cause. Look at WW2, there weren't mass protests and we won the war.
Our troops over in Iraq are getting demoralized because of the growing
peace protests, thinking that we are not doing everything we can on the
home front to support them.
I really wish more conservative types would go to forums like this and
put their views out on the table for debate. As it stands everyone
sort of picks a camp and sticks in it almost sealed off from anyone
else and ends up hearing nothing but what their own people say. How is
anyone supposed to determine who is right and who is wrong. A person
opens their mouth, stating what they believe and the entire forum
hammers down on them for saying something they don't like to hear. The
Internet has become such a waste of a potential. The only time anyone
hears the viewpoint of the left is when they get out and protest, even
then mostly what they see are just the signs and banners with a little
slogan on them.
brique
You can't be....re-education requires that you have been educated in the
first place... so, it's the telegraph pole for you.
brique
With the head of the last spammer shoved up their arse.....
Ah, good old Ms. Parsons..... why does nobody talk like that anymore?
Curly Surmudgeon
----snip----
>> Ah, here: "Society will not be happy until the last Usenet Troll has
>> been hanged with the guts of the last Newby."
>
> With the head of the last spammer shoved up their arse.....
>
> Ah, good old Ms. Parsons..... why does nobody talk like that anymore?
Because there are much more important tasks for such a talented tongue.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://osuny.co.uk/forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarcissie
That's all right. If it weren't for trolls there would be
practically nothing in these newsgroups.
John Brockbank
<grchi...@aol.com> replied to message:
>> It is fine with me if someone wants to support the war; after all, a
>> majority of Americans did support it at first. But it is not alright
>> with
>> me if people pretend to believe the obvious lies.
>>
<But saying all of this is "playing into the hands of <al Qaida" isn't
<it?
If you are saying that supporting the war is playing into the hands of Al
Qaida, then you might be right: I suspect though that you are saying that
me complaining about people who support the war and pretending to believe
the lies is playing into their hands, then I don't get it. See below.
< Isn't this just another example of how we lost the Vietnam war, as
they say? Doesn't the enemy grow stronger the more we grow unresolved
to finish the job? Doesn't this just serve to encourage al Qaida? >
It should be fairly obvious to you that the enemy in the Vietnam war did not
want the war. In that sense it was a conventional war. However the enemy,
in the form of Al Qaida, who are after all seen as the main enemy in the
fight against religious terrorism, have absolutely no reason at all to not
want the Iraq war; they love it.
< Therefore isn't the war going to be protracted and bloodier? Shouldn't
we form a resolve and then try to win the war as quickly and decisively
as we can so the troops can come home and peace can be restored? >
'The war' is in fact over and finished some time ago. Looked at from the
point of view of a hard line conservative, who cares if Iraquis, or Muslim
sects, fight each other? It's better than them fighting us.
< This is what I was told when I presented Defendario's thesis that Bush is
a war criminal according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, to a forum full of
conservatives. >
Look, Bush fought a war against Iraq, presumably the reason was that he
thought that Iraq as it was was a potential threat - certainly at least to
Israelis. My view was, and is, that he should have sought a specific UN
resolution about it. He might not have got one, the wrong arguments were
being put (blatantly untrue as well) but still it should have been sought.
You might not be fully aware that during the run up, when Bush and co were
still seeking a specific UN resolution, the British PM said quite openly
that if the UN vetoed a resolution then he would still go to war.
I happened and happen to think that that going to war with Iraq was wrong,
mainly because it would be/is counter-productive in the campaign against
Muslim extremism. But it would be stupid to say that anyone who does not
agree is a criminal.
< Also to say that it is an unjust war, why that's a "slap in the face of
all our troops" to say that they are fighting and dying for an unworthy
cause. Look at WW2, there weren't mass protests and we won the war.
Our troops over in Iraq are getting demoralized because of the growing
peace protests, thinking that we are not doing everything we can on the
home front to support them.>
Easy. Say that it was a just case to get rid of the crook Hussein, and get
the troops out. Of course US companies would have to give up all those
lucrative contracts.
< I really wish more conservative types would go to forums like this and
put their views out on the table for debate. As it stands everyone
sort of picks a camp and sticks in it almost sealed off from anyone
else and ends up hearing nothing but what their own people say. >
Well, I am afraid that most people seem to either merely parrot what they
have heard from some lowbrow cheap media reporter, or just shout abuse.
Gary Childress
See, even if I were a troll, which I'm not, I would be the backbone of
the Internet! The Internet would fall apart without me (incorreclty
assuming I were a troll of course). :-P'''''
Gary Childress
I'm ejukated. I kan kownt up to twentie al bie miself! :-p
Dean T
The fact that you asked to 'join' the anarchist movement shows that you are
a troll, as a person does not ask to join the movement, they research it and
study the ideology and become active within it. Only a tosser would formally
'ask' to join it, on the net means you're even more suspect!!
Any real anarchists that take your word for it and welcome you in are as
stupid as they come...
Dean T
................................................................................................
As I stated previously, you're nought but a troll.....
brique
Not with your hands and feet chopped off, you cant......
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Clore
> > >
> > > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> > > http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> > > Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Gary Childress
OK. I'm a troll. And I'm ugly! And I smell bad. And my mom wears
combat boots! :-P''''''
Gary Childress
John Brockbank wrote:
> <grchi...@aol.com> replied to message:
>
>
> >> It is fine with me if someone wants to support the war; after all, a
> >> majority of Americans did support it at first. But it is not alright
> >> with
> >> me if people pretend to believe the obvious lies.
> >>
>
> <But saying all of this is "playing into the hands of <al Qaida" isn't
> <it?
>
> If you are saying that supporting the war is playing into the hands of Al
> Qaida, then you might be right: I suspect though that you are saying that
> me complaining about people who support the war and pretending to believe
> the lies is playing into their hands, then I don't get it. See below.
>
Sorry for the poor explanation. I mean to say that to protest the war
is seen by some as playing into the hands of al Qaida. It supposedly
will make al Qaida stronger and give it more hope of victory, boosting
its morale. To protest the war simply helps al Qaida to win. Al Qaida
doesn't want the war to go on. They want the US out of the Middle East
and for some to protest the war and want the US out of the Middle East
too is essentially playing into the hands of al Qaida. It would be
like someone protesting in WW2 that the US should raise the oil embargo
against Japan instead of fighting against Japan for having attacked
Pearl Harbor.
> < Isn't this just another example of how we lost the Vietnam war, as
> they say? Doesn't the enemy grow stronger the more we grow unresolved
> to finish the job? Doesn't this just serve to encourage al Qaida? >
>
> It should be fairly obvious to you that the enemy in the Vietnam war did not
> want the war. In that sense it was a conventional war. However the enemy,
> in the form of Al Qaida, who are after all seen as the main enemy in the
> fight against religious terrorism, have absolutely no reason at all to not
> want the Iraq war; they love it.
>
> < Therefore isn't the war going to be protracted and bloodier? Shouldn't
> we form a resolve and then try to win the war as quickly and decisively
> as we can so the troops can come home and peace can be restored? >
>
> 'The war' is in fact over and finished some time ago. Looked at from the
> point of view of a hard line conservative, who cares if Iraquis, or Muslim
> sects, fight each other? It's better than them fighting us.
>
Some say that the reason we don't leave Iraq is that we care about the
Iraqi people and don't want a bloody civil war to break out. Is that
not a noble reason to stay in Iraq?
>
> < This is what I was told when I presented Defendario's thesis that Bush is
> a war criminal according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, to a forum full of
> conservatives. >
>
> Look, Bush fought a war against Iraq, presumably the reason was that he
> thought that Iraq as it was was a potential threat - certainly at least to
> Israelis. My view was, and is, that he should have sought a specific UN
> resolution about it. He might not have got one, the wrong arguments were
> being put (blatantly untrue as well) but still it should have been sought.
>
> You might not be fully aware that during the run up, when Bush and co were
> still seeking a specific UN resolution, the British PM said quite openly
> that if the UN vetoed a resolution then he would still go to war.
>
> I happened and happen to think that that going to war with Iraq was wrong,
> mainly because it would be/is counter-productive in the campaign against
> Muslim extremism. But it would be stupid to say that anyone who does not
> agree is a criminal.
>
> < Also to say that it is an unjust war, why that's a "slap in the face of
> all our troops" to say that they are fighting and dying for an unworthy
> cause. Look at WW2, there weren't mass protests and we won the war.
> Our troops over in Iraq are getting demoralized because of the growing
> peace protests, thinking that we are not doing everything we can on the
> home front to support them.>
>
> Easy. Say that it was a just case to get rid of the crook Hussein, and get
> the troops out. Of course US companies would have to give up all those
> lucrative contracts.
>
We got rid of Hussein but now they say that Iraq will destroy itself in
a bloody civil war. Supposedly we care about the people of Iraq enough
to stay there and try to keep the peace even though it seems almost
impossible to do so. Is that not noble for our country to do?
Besides, if we do want democracy in Iraq then why pull out now when
there is no democracy. Is that not a possible indicatioin that we want
democracy in Iraq?
> < I really wish more conservative types would go to forums like this and
> put their views out on the table for debate. As it stands everyone
> sort of picks a camp and sticks in it almost sealed off from anyone
> else and ends up hearing nothing but what their own people say. >
>
> Well, I am afraid that most people seem to either merely parrot what they
> have heard from some lowbrow cheap media reporter, or just shout abuse.
Sometimes I wonder if it is simply not an intellectual "fashion" to be
cynical about the motives of the US government. It seems like many
intellectuals will call you a "dumb bumpkin" if you proceed from the
assumption that the government must be seeking to further the general
welfare and not form the opposite assumption. Is this not a prejudice
on the part of these Intellectuals?
James A. Donald
> Sorry for the poor explanation. I mean to say that to
> protest the war is seen by some as playing into the
> hands of al Qaida. It supposedly will make al Qaida
> stronger and give it more hope of victory, boosting
> its morale. To protest the war simply helps al Qaida
> to win. Al Qaida doesn't want the war to go on.
Surely Al Quaida does want the war to go on.
The pattern with radical Sunnis has been that as soon as
they are most of the way to forming a government in one
place, they will take aim at the next place - thus the
Taliban took aim at America as soon as they had
assassinated their main opponent, Massoud, without
waiting to secure the territory. The Union of Islamic
Courts took aim at Ethiopia when they were close to
becoming the government of most of Somalia, but before
they were securely the government. Hamas did not
attempt to entirely secure control of Gaza before they
started rocketing Israel. A reasonable reading of the
Koran is that it forbids peace with infidels. You
always have to be fighting, must always be at war.
If this pattern continues, whatever al Quaeda gains
control of in Iraq will be promptly used to attack
someplace else.
Of course that someplace else might well be Shia Iraq or
Iran, in which case we are unlikely to care.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
John Brockbank
>
> Sometimes I wonder if it is simply not an intellectual "fashion" to be
> cynical about the motives of the US government. It seems like many
> intellectuals will call you a "dumb bumpkin" if you proceed from the
> assumption that the government must be seeking to further the general
> welfare and not form the opposite assumption. Is this not a prejudice
> on the part of these Intellectuals?
>
The exchange was becoming rather long, so I have cut out much of it.
I am not concerned with the motives of the US Government, because it is not
possible to discern them. Are they getting off on sending men to die? Are
they just warmongers? Are they so incensed by 911 that they hit out
blindly? Are they taking payoffs from arms companies? Are they taking
payoffs from the companies working the lucrative contracts to rip off Iraqi
oil money? Do they really think that Iraq will soon become a peaceful
democracy? Have they got a general feeling that Muslim countries are a
danger and they should be combated? Do they feel guilt at saddling Iraq
with Hussein and want to make reparations? Do they wish to rid the world of
brutal dictators and have everybody live happily ever after? Is the big
fear that numbers of Muslim countries will acquire nuclear weapons, and
because they are backward they are likely to use them, perhaps against
Israel? Are they fighting a religious crusade? Are they noble? Is there
actually a long term serious foreign policy strategy which of course can not
be divulged.
Who can tell? I am sure that you agree that it is likely that the addition
of 21,500 extra troops is some sort of gesture to justify the often quoted
phrase about not cutting and running. If the military had wanted those few
extra troops and asked for them, certainly there would not have been all
that stuff about having meetings to prepare a new strategy.
Noble? Well there are very large numbers of Iraqis getting bombed and shot
every day. It is too far fetched for me to buy the idea that what is now
happening is for the good of the Iraqi people.
I have to say, as well, that talking about what should be done from the
current point, I regard as tacitly accepting that what has been done in the
past was mistaken. If a man says that what he has done was a terrible thing
causing hundreds of thousands to die but now we should all follow what he
says because he is no longer wrong, it is not a very convincing stand.
Of course a point in favour of remaining is that it will prevent other
countries from conquering bits of Iraq and stealing the oil. We all have to
agree with that. Another way to achieve that end would have been to not
conquer Iraq ourselves in the first place.
So I would be for getting out very quickly. That of course is a minority
view, and just because that is what I think does not mean that everyone else
is evil stupid and criminally bad.
Paul Bramscher
> We got rid of Hussein but now they say that Iraq will destroy itself in
> a bloody civil war. Supposedly we care about the people of Iraq enough
> to stay there and try to keep the peace even though it seems almost
> impossible to do so. Is that not noble for our country to do?
Why Iraq then? It had apparently nothing to do with 9/11. There have
been many genocides, civil wars, etc. that essentially have gone
unnoticed by the US (East Timor, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.) Why
does Bush care so "nobly" about the Iraqi people if you buy this rationale?
Obviously, oil and Israel's national security interests have more than a
little to do Bush's choice of battles. It would be extraordinarily
naive to entertain altruism on Bush's part here. Most Americans no
longer see it this way either, if they ever did.
> Besides, if we do want democracy in Iraq then why pull out now when
> there is no democracy. Is that not a possible indicatioin that we want
> democracy in Iraq?
How about democracy here at home? We're a nation that can't count
ballots, operates closed-source voting machinery, spies on its citizens
without warrant, will be putting RFID chips into passports, tried to
weaken the definition of torture, manufactured reasons to go to war,
trails the rest of the world in international agreements on human
rights, land mines, environment, etc. Not to mention the fact that our
underlying economic system is not at all democratic.
Some people point out that we, ourselves, are technically a
constitutional republic with (generally optional) democratic add-ons.
We're not really the best country to go about spreading democracy
abroad, since we aren't the shining example here in den
Vaterland....er....Homeland.... either.
James A. Donald
> > We got rid of Hussein but now they say that Iraq
> > will destroy itself in a bloody civil war.
> > Supposedly we care about the people of Iraq enough
> > to stay there and try to keep the peace even though
> > it seems almost impossible to do so. Is that not
> > noble for our country to do?
Paul Bramscher
> Why Iraq then?
Why not?
After 9/11, had to kill someone important. Saddam is as
good as any. Shortly before this war begun, I suggested
that Bush threw a dart at a map of the middle east, and
it landed on Iraq.
frisbie...@yahoo.com
The conservative viewpoint boils down to Us Right, Them Wrong. If We
do it, it is is Right. If They do it, it is Wrong. So it the Nazis
did it, it was Wrong, but if we do the same thing, it is Right.
Debate with them all you like. After a while it gets old.