anti americanism fashionable

Originally Posted by dr wadd

In that case we should take military action against the Vatican, they are a prime example of corrupt and oppressive regime.

That is an internal matter for the people of Afghanistan and not my call to make. But according to your example, the next time I feel my freedoms being curtailed by the Christian Right then I have a legitimate cause to physically attack them?

As I said before, Christians are just as bad at imposing their views and restricting freedom. But because you choose to believe one piece of scripture over another you can`t see anything wrong with that.

I think I detect within this rather sour and sarcastic post that you might just about be almost agreeing with me. In a discussion forum, you don't have to make a call, you just express an opinion. I get the impression that you don't like the Taleban regime but to say so would undermine your position.

Now, regarding your comments on Christianity, let me briefly set out my 'agenda' again just so we're clear and just so you don't feel the need to keep diverting the debate onto (what you perceive to be) my beliefs. I've said this more than once in this thread already, so here goes nothing:

I'm a Christian. My understanding of the Bible means I am a pacifist. Jesus' message was for his followers to be peacemakers as he was. My understanding of the Bible also leads me to believe that legitimate, secular government, even when it sets itself against God's purposes, is to be tolerated and not rebelled against unless its demands put an obligation on me that is contrary to my faith, in which case I can disobey, but peacefully. Ultimately all authority comes from God and he will ultimately call everyone to account for what they do with what they are given.

This is why I feel able to debate this point with you even though I could never have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan myself. In fact, were I to try to actually do anything about those countries, I would have joined the many Christians who were there either legally, bringing medical aid, or illegally. And believe me, there were plenty of them - peaceful, but still illegal.

As for your comments about the Vatican, I do not regard much of what comes out of there as particularly 'Christian' and nor do a lot of Christians.

As for the Christian Right, as I said, our freedom is defined and constrained by laws designed to allow personal freedom while protecting the freedom of third parties. Domestic laws just about everywhere in the world would forbid you from phyisically attacking someone just because you disagree with them, but 'international law' (insofar as it actually exists) does ultimately allow for armed conflict. If you really want to beat up a Christian, I suggest you go to one of the many countries in the world where we are persecuted for our beliefs. The secret police in Tunisia or China, or even Pakistan, would welcome you with open arms.

Look, I don't like armed conflict, you don't like it either, but what I have been trying to say is that this is the way the world is, and those that want change need to understand that and then work within those parameters if anything is going to change. What I think you are doing - and what many of the protesters on the streets of London today are doing - is saying, this is how the world should be, and then getting angry when they see people acting differently. A little more pragmatism and a willingness to engage with people where they are instead of where they think they should be would be useful.

And as for 'imposing views' and 'restricting freedom' ... anybody who ever did such a thing in the name of Christ is a liar and is not following the teachings of Jesus. I would never do that, and I can safely say that other Christians on this forum like Russ and Bexy would never do that. So now you know.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

This is directed at all the people who think that the protest shouldn`t go ahead. Where's your support of freedom now? Do you only support freedom and the right of expression if it happens to agree with your view of the world? Hypocrits the lot of you, you're happy to bomb another country to ensure that they supposedly have freedom of expression, but are willing to attempt to stifle it in your own country.

Ah! So you have lost your cool! Now lashing out at everyone who disagrees with your worldview. No more arguments eh! You are qualifying for the hypocrite status since you equate terrorism with using force to bring down Saddam Hussein. Take a good look at your sorry self, use your brain and think.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

Ah! So you have lost your cool! Now lashing out at everyone who disagrees with your worldview. No more arguments eh! You are qualifying for the hypocrite status since you equate terrorism with using force to bring down Saddam Hussein. Take a good look at your sorry self, use your brain and think.

I see no loss of control there, merely some questions and my opinion of certain individuals. "No more arguments"? I`m sorry, I didn`t realise that every post of this forum had to answer questions. Is it not permitted to raise them as well?

If any one has "lost their cool" in a recent post I think it might very well be you, your indiscriminate use of exclamation marks would tend to suggest that.

Originally Posted by towny

And as for 'imposing views' and 'restricting freedom' ... anybody who ever did such a thing in the name of Christ is a liar and is not following the teachings of Jesus. I would never do that, and I can safely say that other Christians on this forum like Russ and Bexy would never do that. So now you know.

While we may disagree on a lot of points, my comments about Christanity aren`t directed at you specifically, that is why on one of my posts I stressed that I wasn`t commenting on you as I wasn`t aware on your specific beliefs on the topic. I`ve had many a debate where religion has come into the matter with Russ, and I hope that he doesn`t feel like I`m attacking him either.

But Christianity has oppressed in the name of its cause. Now I can undertand that from a modern interpretation of the bible you can categorically state that these are not Christians, but this is only within your modern definition. The Crusaders and the Inquisition certainly considered themselves to be Christians, and even if this was only for public consumption, it's probably the public opinion that matters most in the larger scale of things.

But in lesser ways Christianity still oppresses certain groups. The recent furore about the ordination of gay bishops is one such example. When it comes to women in the clergy, the Anglican church has moved with the times, but the Catholic church is still rooted in the dark ages. In both cases, the individuals who are expressing these views are using their religious scripture to justify their cause, so in this respect there it is only fair to draw parallels with the Muslim extremists.

I not singling Christianity for comment here, I feel that pretty much all religion has caused too much trouble in the world.

[Jerrek]

This may shock some of you, but it seems that there's a spot of trouble in the "special relationship" between Britain and the US. No, I'm not referring to the loons out protesting in the street, I'm referring to the shrew who's married to Tony Blair. Yes, during a visit to Britain that many Bush partisans would have rather he skipped all together because of security concerns and protests by rabid, anti-war lefties, Blair's wife Cherie Booth of all people is taking the opportunity to publicly chide Bush over the ICC. Here's some of what she had to say...

"It seems inconceivable that a state committed to the rule of law, such as the US, would refuse to investigate and prosecute its nationals should there be reliable evidence that they had been involved in international crimes."

"...With time we can but hope the US will come to share that perspective with regard to its own people, and recognise that the concerns it has expressed †“ legitimate as they may now seem †“ are not well founded."

"The absence of the United States means we all stand to lose."

We all stand to lose what exactly? The opportunity to put Americans on the dock and prosecute them in an anti-American kangaroo court? Of course, people like Booth always swear up and down that's not what they intend to do, but when you watch the way Europe tends to react to events in the world, it's very apparent that there's a double standard when it comes to Israel and the United States. All of us know how it works even if there are a lot of people on the left who refuse to admit it.

You know, Palestinians blowing themselves up on a school bus full of women and kids, "certainly should be condemned, BUT..." as opposed to shrieks of "war crime, war crime, war crime" when Israel defends themselves by killing terrorists who have nothing less than genocide as a goal.

In our case, we'd end up with someone like Donald Rumsfeld being prosecuted because we used depleted uranium shells in Iraq while murderous thugs like Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad would still be welcome at French cocktail parties.

Furthermore, can you just imagine the gleeful way people like Jacques Chirac & Gerhard Schroeder would manipulate the ICC behind the scenes? "Oh, this filthy war in Iraq, it is a WAR CRIME! The Americans should be forced to answer in the international criminal court for their illegal invasion! How do you like "Old Europe" now you stupid American cowboys! Ha, Ha, Ha!"

Oh yeah, sign us up for that right now.

Even if the ICC were completely fair, there would still be no reason for us to get on board with it. I say that because I see no reason why any American should ever have to stand in front of a non-American judge at the ICC and try to convince him that he didn't commit a war crime. That's a matter that should be decided by Americans and no one else.

rightwingnews.com


My views exactly.

[Jerrek]

One more interesting post: http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/...s/20031118.asp

Angry Euro-protestors attacking an American warmonger president?

Yawn. In the American idiom, "Been there, done that." Translation for Euro-sophisticates: "Passe, pal."

It's 2003, and the president is George W. Bush, but the teeth-gnashing rhetoric is right of out 1983 and the "Euro-missile protests" against Ronald Reagan.

This month is the 20th anniversary of the Great Euromissile Crisis. Oh, the accusations! Reagan was stupid. Reagan was dangerous, a warmonger seeking the nuclear destruction of the USSR. Reagan was -- good heavens -- a unilateralist. Today, the mayor of London calls Bush "the greatest threat to life on the planet."

Twaddle. The current crop of Axis of Neville (Chamberlain) leftish pundits and leaders are thus exposed, recycling 20-year-old insults.

Here's the background: In the late 1970s, the Soviets began deploying SS-20 theater ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe. In response, NATO pursued a "dual track" strategy, NATO would negotiate to remove the SS-20s but would deploy its own missiles if the Soviets refused.

Germany's Socialist Chancellor Helmut Schmidt saw dual-track's flaws, the most dangerous being loss of will to follow through with deployment. Schmidt was livid with Jimmy Carter, who insisted on "dual track." Schmidt favored an approach that said: "You deploy, we deploy. If you want to talk, we'll listen."

Dual-track delighted the Soviets. They could jiggle the American nuclear umbrella protecting the West and perhaps deal NATO a fatal political blow. The American media were wallowing in the defeatist "Vietnam Syndrome" and, if one trusted European polls, neutralist sentiment, evident in Holland, Belgium and Denmark, had spread to West Germany.

The Soviets knew the negotiating track of NATO's "dual strategy" was doomed. Moscow had no intention of withdrawing the SS-20s. With the SS-20s as the rattling sword, the Soviets began a political and propaganda campaign designed to portray the NATO missile (SET ITAL) response (END ITAL) as an aggressive act.

By 1983, NATO realized dual-track had failed. Cruise missiles and Pershing 2 ballistic missiles would have to be deployed to militarily and politically counter the 200-plus Soviet SS-20s. So the Soviets launched the "Euro-missile crisis" to frustrate NATO's deployment. Communist sympathizers, Western "peace" organizations, Western pacifists and other political elements in the West participated in demonstrations throughout Western Europe and the United States.

Despite the heady boost from left-wing elements in the West, Moscow's strategy experienced setbacks. In 1983, the Dutch elected their most conservative government (Lubbers government) since World War II. Italy issued statements welcoming deployment. Fear, it seemed, wasn't selling. Common sense and the common need to defend democracy against tyrannical bullies held sway.

Though in some brash sectors hysteria reigned (a review of the videotapes of television news programs and talk shows will illustrate hysteria's near-domination in the American mass media), thanks to U.S. leadership NATO made the cool chess move of counter-deployment.

With a theatrical huff, the Soviets withdrew from negotiations. Nothing, however, went "poof," except perhaps the protestors' adrenalin high. Within 18 months, the Gorbachev regime would assume power in Moscow. The Soviets would return to the bargaining table and accept the Reagan administration's "zero-zero" offer -- no SS-20s, no NATO missiles. And we're all better off.

History never really repeats itself. However, themes from 1983 remain relevant in 2003, a key one being the absolute necessity that democratic leaders demonstrate to tyrants and thugs that the consequences of testing a free people's will to defend themselves are deadly sure and certain. It's a sad fact of human existence: There will always be another tyrant who'll need convincing.

Another theme isn't so important, but it's worth noting. The leftish teeth-gnashers will never get it. The figment utopias they tout can't be challenged by difficult facts. The green-cheese moons they detect orbit their own weightless imaginations, and the gravity of down-to-Earth decision, particularly when it comes to defending liberty, exerts little pull. Hence, the rhetorical hokum they spew that Bush is "more dangerous than bin Laden."

Ironically, the Euromissile Crisis proved to be the last big political battle of the Cold War. In 1989, the Berlin Wall cracked, and the communists' workers' paradise was exposed for the Red Fascist hell it always was.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I see, much like the coalition is doing now. So it is alright for one group to do it, but not another?

So that is your entire answer to Towny's post #284?!

Originally Posted by Graham

SO *WHY* hasn't the USA intervened in all those other countries who are so "unacceptable" to their lights??? It is not that they are "strange bedfellows" it is the fact that the USA offered what were nothing less than "financial inducements" to more than a few of these countries to get them to sign up and support America's illegal actions in Iraq.

Actually, considerable aid was given to the USSR by the USA and the UK during WW2. Again may I remind you of your arrogance towards the new democracies of Europe, people who suffered under Soviet influence and are now free.

Having read a lot of your posts, I see that arrogance is something you are rather good at, you also use "supposition, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and not a *a shred of proof! So you tell me to shut up that's not very democratic is it! Rent a mob, proof of funding, as yet cannot provide proof, that's the nature of the limitations of what we know about the protesters, one assumes they have nothing else to do and they never say anything about themselves. Certainly, when K. Livingstone was GLC leader he did dish out money to all sorts of fringe groups. You don't like anyone opposing your views and you always respond with intolerance along with blah, blah, blah.

I have said elsewhere, this is a free society people who feel so concerned have a right to demonstrate, as long as they are responsible and keep within the law. I think about 25 people did so in central London today. I also think they should donate some money to the Metropolitan Police to meet with the extra expense.

In the end you and your friends do no favours to the Iraqi people who are now free of Saddam Hussein's terror regime.

Do have a nice day.

[Jerrek]

Actually, one more opinion column. The media seems full of them today.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995254.asp?cp1=1

What the anti-Bush protestors in London are complaining about is American power, and their sense of powerlessness

Nov. 18--Judging by the protests, you could be forgiven for thinking one of two things as George W. Bush arrives in London today. Either the British have lost all sense of hospitality, or the president is flying into enemy territory.

(snip)

The answers may have been obvious for half a century, but that doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t yet make them easier to digest in London or elsewhere in Europe. What the protestors in London are complaining about is American power, and their sense of powerlessness. Other presidents enjoyed similarly powerful positions, but none rubbed it in the faces of the Europeans quite like George W. Bush.
In fact, compared to their European neighbors, the British protestors should count themselves lucky. Tony Blair has been wholly successful in carving out his niche as the most trusted, most influential ally of the Bush administration. In that sense, the British have far more power with the worldââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s only superpower than any other nation.
Before anyone emails me about how outrageous this isââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ÂÂ�the very notion that the Europeans should be grateful for a sliver of influence in Washington!âââ€Å ¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â‚¬ÂÂÂ�letà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¢â€žÂ¢s be honest. Blairââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s assessment is fundamentally correct. The United States is powerful enough to do whatever it likes in foreign and defense policy. Itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s far better for Britain and Europe if Blair can work with Bush along the way.

(snip)

It may be unfashionable, even uncomfortable, to stand in the crossfire between such polarized views. But as Tony Blair has proved, itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s the only position that makes any sense if you want to achieve anything as a world leader. This is, as the French would say, a unipolar world of American power. Itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s time Europe got over it. And itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s time Bush returned to the kind of foreign policy he said he wanted during the 2000 presidential campaign: strong, yet humble.

Pretty much.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

... your indiscriminate use of exclamation marks would tend to suggest that.

! oh dear ! another one, you are very observant ! there goes another one, oh dear, Dr Wadd doesn't like it!

So after all your blah, blah, it comes down to exclamation marks, if only the world was so simple.

Of course you can raise questions, but remember your readers may not necessarily think like you. We live in a free society, get out there and enjoy it.

Do have a nice day.

[basa]

Where was todays 'mass' protest.

According to the BBC only about 600 turned up.

And from BBC:

Police kept a low profile and were heavily outnumbered by journalists.

Originally Posted by basa

Where was todays 'mass' protest.

According to the BBC only about 600 turned up.

And from BBC:

The whole idea of mass protest was propagated by the BBC in the first place! I know they've always been veering leftwards but really, in the last few months it's become increasingly silly.

And it was my misfortune to have to read the Guardian this morning - - - their lead 'news' story was a laughably poor piece of leader writing passed off as journalism.

If news organisations would get on with the job of reporting the news instead of sniffing out facts that happen to back up their pre-decided position, there would be a lot less hysteria and a lot more clear thinking.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

And it was my misfortune to have to read the Guardian this morning .

I'm surprised you could stomach it!

[downquark1]

rightwingnews.com

that URL says it all.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No, not the same, homicidal terrorists murder deliberately as a matter of policy: men, women, chidren, mothers and babies, and even those at prayer such as the recent terrorist bombing of two synagoges in Turkey,;how on earth can you smugly say that it's the same as Allied forces bombing military targets, if civilians are killed or injured it's regretably accidental. [snip]
...and you haven't addressed the points raised in the first quote

Excuse me? How did I *not* address them? I just pointed out that Allied forces *redefined* "military targets" to include *civilian* infrastructure. An illegal act and one that has undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of women and children.

They used cluster bombs in civilian areas an action which if not completely illegal is certainly legally very dubious, not to mention morally reprehensible. Something also, I have little doubt, has resulted in the deaths of women and children.

How on earth can you sit there on your moral high horse and claim that we are somehow "better" than those suicide bombers when the best phrase to describe such policies and actions as the ones above is "morally bankrupt"?!

Oh, and I suggest you take a closer look at Turkey's Human Rights record too!