19 Arab nations oppose this war...

[raj2001]

And they're going to the UN about it. That's basically of no use because the US and UK will just veto it.

I heard that on FOX this morning (not FOX News channel).

[jrjcd]

oh...boo hoo for them! i guess they don't like the idea that someone may not appreciate arab nations funding terrorists and deciding to do something about it....

sounds like they might be a little worried-well!there's still time for them to clean up their back yards before our attention gets diverted to them...

[jrjcd]

i HOPE that last post wasn't too inflammatory...

[BobMurdoch]

"19 Arab Nations Oppose This War"

Big surprise there. That's like saying vegetarians oppose hamburgers.

You've got institutional monarchies suppressing freedoms for their people. If word gets out that democracy is possible, they've got a problem with their people.

Once again to paraphrase Machiavelli, "when embarking on a policy of change, be wary that you will receive lukewarm support from those who MAY benefit from a change to the status quo, and staunch resistance from those who definitely will not."

Or to quote Robin Williams who was doing a bit in the 1980's about South Africa in the 80's, "Let's see, their are 1 Million whites and 10 Million blacks in the country. Mr. Botha does the name Custer mean anything to you?"

[Karl Foster]

..well if that's the case, we better cut and run...:rolleyes:

[RichW]

Democracy will NOT come easy to Iraq. In an ironic way, their oil deposits will work against them as will centuries of autocratic rule. We can hope for an elightened monarchy, however, much like what exists in Jordan today.

[Jack White]

Originally posted by BobMurdoch
"19 Arab Nations Oppose This War"

Big surprise there. That's like saying vegetarians oppose hamburgers.

You've got institutional monarchies suppressing freedoms for their people. If word gets out that democracy is possible, they've got a problem with their people.

Once again to paraphrase Machiavelli, "when embarking on a policy of change, be wary that you will receive lukewarm support from those who MAY benefit from a change to the status quo, and staunch resistance from those who definitely will not."

Or to quote Robin Williams who was doing a bit in the 1980's about South Africa in the 80's, "Let's see, their are 1 Million whites and 10 Million blacks in the country. Mr. Botha does the name Custer mean anything to you?"

Here's a little question for ya.
Which of these countries do you think is the LEAST democratic, Indonesia, Iran, or Kuwait?
Here's another question.
Which of those countries is the MOST US FRIENDLY?
ANYONE who thinks that Democracy in the arab or moslem world will make things better for Israel or the US has ABSOLUTELY no idea what they're talking about.
DEMOCRACIES do what's good for their country.
PUPPET DICTATORSHIPS do what their bosses in Washington TELL THEM TO DO and give their natural resources to the US VERY VERY cheaply.
WHY do you think A DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED Government in Iran was OVERTHROWN and The PUPPET SHAH OF IRAN was installed?
It's because the DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT was NATIONALIZING THE OIL COMPANIES since it was GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAN for that to happen, but Washington didn't like that too much did they?
Democracies in the Moslem and Arab world will be MUCH MORE pro Palestinian than current governments are.
Democracies will do what's good for their PEOPLE.
What's good for their people is NOT ALWAYS good for the USA.
That's why DICTATORS like Musharaf in Pakistan, or Monarchies like in Kuwait are BETTER FOR THE USA than Democracies are.
Democracies do what's good for their people, and PUPPET DICTATORS AND MONARCHS often do what's good for Washinton.

[jrjcd]

y'know...if it pains you this much to live in this country, you do have options...

[firephoto]

Yes he does, plane tickets are cheap before the summer rush. You can get to Europe for less than $200, and once their you won't need to shower or anything and can hitchike to Iran or where ever.

:hi:

[Karl Foster]

Jack (White, not jrjcd),

The correct term for a follower of Islam is Muslim, not moslem.

[Bogy]

Twelve years ago there were Arab/Muslim pilots flying bombing runs against Iraq. Today, any help we get, outside of Kuwait, is grudging at best. You can make light of it all you want, and say it doesn't matter, and cry a river of crocodile tears, but it doesn't change the fact that we are doing our part to keep terrorism alive and well in the Middle East for at least another generation. And it doesn't have a thing to do whether a Saudi prince contributes money to Osama, its all about the perception that a Christian nation is unilaterally attacking a Muslim nation, and killing Muslim women and children. Don't bother flaming me, read the last sentence carefully, I said perception. It doesn't matter what our own perceived goals are, it doesn't matter if it terribly upsets us that Iraqi children have died (if it does), that's the perception. The truth we don't want to accept is that you don't stop terrorism by war. You can stop a nation. We could stop Germany and Japan, we could stop Grenada, but you can't stop terrorism, not with war. We are no safer today, and won't be any safer a month from now, than we were a year ago.

[Neil Derryberry]

We are no safer today, and won't be any safer a month from now, than we were a year ago.

pardon me, but if we remove a regime who has expressed their willingness to arm terrorists with WMD's who want to use them on us, we have certainly made huge strides to guarantee our safety. If bin laden can't buy chemical weapons, he certainly can't use them against us.

[RichW]

"pardon me, but if we remove a regime who has expressed their willingness to arm terrorists with WMD's who want to use them on us, we have certainly made huge strides to guarantee our safety."

Another justification for not allowing Reagan a third term!

"If bin laden can't buy chemical weapons, he certainly can't use them against us."

Old Binnie doesn't get his WMDs from Iraq. I personally believe that he is hiding our somewhere in Iran myself, but so far our government folks, who are,or should be, much more knowledgeable than me aren't publicly saying this is a possibility. The main reason they say is that Iran is not an Arab country and would not harbor him.

There are enough chemicals, biological agents, and perhaps some plutonium on the black market to make Iraq irrelevant for Al-Queda. Actually my fear for this country is continued atrocities carried out by zealots who hate the USA. What WMDs were use on 9-11? None! I hope we don't expericence more of the same.

[James_F]

Exactly what a joke, WMD in Iraq are irrelevant. What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, France, Russia, Israel, South Africa, China and others who have these weapons? Are we to invade them too?

[RichW]

"The correct term for a follower of Islam is Muslim, not moslem."

I just verified this with two followers of Islam and both Muslim and Moslem are equivalent. They are both transliteral spellings of Arabic words. Similarly, The Koran and The Quiran are acceptable English spellings for their Holy Book. My understanding is that there is no definitive one-to-one coorespondence between the Arabic and English alphabets.

Ther was a novelty song years ago called "How Do You Spell Kaddafi?... I Don't Know, I Don't Know!" which now comes to mind.

Of course we have had similar problems with other languages.. such as the Capital of Mainland China... Is it Peiping, Peking, or Beijing?... it depends on the dialect.

[Jack White]

Originally posted by jrjcd
y'know...if it pains you this much to live in this country, you do have options...

No, THE BEST OPTION WAS and IS TO VOTE for the right guy.
That's what many Americans did in 2000.
Gore got MORE VOTES than ANY presidential candidate in the HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Gore also WON FLORIDA, yet he isn't sitting in the White House.
Don't you think people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
Who are we to tell anyone about democracy when our democratically elected president isn't even in the White House?

[Roger]

The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.--- John Adams

In democracy...there are commonly tumults and disorders...Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on the earth.
---Noah Webster.

So let's spread democracy around the world.

A Lady: What have you given us, Sir?
Ben Franklin: A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it.

We haven't kept it. And now we're spreading tyrannical governments around the world.

WW1 stole and overthrew most royal family rule in most of Europe.

WW3 will be to get rid of the dictators in the Middle East and others as to set up the NWO democracies.

"to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God...."

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and the mob is getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer.

[RandyAB]

Come on, I wanna see a pic of a woman...which seems to be happening now after Rogers posts.

[Roger]

Originally posted by RandyAB
Come on, I wanna see a pic of a woman...which seems to be happening now after Rogers posts.

Yeah, I guess if you have no substance then you have to interfere with the flow of things like the cowardly, anti-war protesters do with stopping traffic in Chicago and elsewhere. If these people had any substance then they would not have to block traffic, they would be writing opinion editorials instead.

[gcutler]

Originally posted by RandyAB
Come on, I wanna see a pic of a woman...which seems to be happening now after Rogers posts.

If you insist.

[gcutler]

Originally posted by RandyAB
Come on, I wanna see a pic of a woman...which seems to be happening now after Rogers posts.

Originally posted by Roger


Yeah, I guess if you have no substance then you have to interfere with the flow of things like the cowardly, anti-war protesters do with stopping traffic in Chicago and elsewhere. If these people had any substance then they would not have to block traffic, they would be writing opinion editorials instead.

Come Join Us In Our Noble Fight... There are plenty of choices, Charlize and Britney are already drafted.

Ammunition can be found at...
http://www.adoredcelebrities.com/

[James_F]

Originally posted by Roger


Yeah, I guess if you have no substance then you have to interfere with the flow of things like the cowardly, anti-war protesters do with stopping traffic in Chicago and elsewhere. If these people had any substance then they would not have to block traffic, they would be writing opinion editorials instead.

So you side with Ashcroft on this one huh?

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2003/po030324.gif

[BobMurdoch]

Originally posted by Jack White


No, THE BEST OPTION WAS and IS TO VOTE for the right guy.
That's what many Americans did in 2000.
Gore got MORE VOTES than ANY presidential candidate in the HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Gore also WON FLORIDA, yet he isn't sitting in the White House.
Don't you think people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
Who are we to tell anyone about democracy when our democratically elected president isn't even in the White House?

Oh, please.

If you are looking for someone to blame, blame Nader for siphoning off votes from the Democrats. Just as Republicans blamed Perot for handing the 92 election to Clinton who won the presidency with a resounding 39% vote.

Blame the majority run Democratic committee who created the West Palm Beach ballot which received such derision as obviously feeble minded elderly Democrats couldn't figure out who they were voting for. I don't know why feeble minded elderly Republicans weren't making the same mistakes.

Blame the Supreme Court who overruled the lower courts. Bush had nothing to do with that independent body as it was filled by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Blame Gore, who should have shown some of that personality he showed on Saturday Night Live last year and he would have won.

Blame the other states that didn't vote for him.

It was a close election where the nation was split down the middle. If the state in question was California, I don't think the Democrats would have been crying foul.

Get over it. Start worrying about how that class of no personality candidates the Democrats are throwing out there can win in 2004.

[Jacob S]

I wonder how Gore would have handeled this situation, if he would have gone to war, and has anybody asked him what he would have done?