RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Sintesi, see my reply to your post below? nm(33 posts)

Sintesi, see my reply to your post below? nmweiwentg
Jul 8, 2002 3:48 AM
Just checked it out.Sintesi
Jul 8, 2002 6:27 AM
You're still cock-eyed about the whole affair. Again you fail to blame the perpetrators of the whole nightmare which is the the Iraqi regime. The responsibility, and those deaths and infant mortality rates, resides with them. No way in hell are they going to get the chance to create a weapon of mass destrustion. They give up their bombs, they get to feed their kids. Pretty simple choice to my mind. But then even with the sanctions they could be feeding their people better, of this I have no doubt.

Why don't you retract your Bush hating response? You acknowledge that the embargo is UN directed, why single out my president? If you really think he should be sharing a jail cell with Hussein (WHAT A JOKE!) what about the rest of the world who goes along with this? You are unfair and admittedly biased in your judgement.

I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet but you seem to be shifting ground. If I get a chance I'll try and digest your response and send back a reply below.
Just checked it out - and obviously didn't get my pointweiwentg
Jul 8, 2002 1:39 PM
you see, what I'm saying is that anyone who is complicit in killing innocent people deserves to be locked up. this is no joke, and this is not shifting ground. If there's someone cock-eyed about the whole affair, it isn't me.
amazing, really, sanctions kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, and you can still defend the actions of your ex-president in placing the embargo. and whoever said the UN is always right?
Sintesi, you disappoint me ... not that I expected much better from the likes of you.
You're a real beaut, weiwentg.Sintesi
Jul 10, 2002 8:26 AM
First you say you are opposed to the Iraqi embargo which harms children.

Then I post the embargo summary from the UN which showed that Iraq could have gotten food as early as 91. They finally agreed in 96.

Then you said YOU AGREED with that embargo, you were objecting to embargo DURING the war. Huh?

I point out that the war was only 100 hrs long. How many could have died of starvation then? This was a partial jest, since the embargos actually started in August DURING the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, but still the point remains. A six month wartime embargo no matter how total is not unjust. And they could have had food and medicine a few months after the war's conclusion. BUT THEY REFUSED.

Then you refuse to concede that you were wrong and now your back to saying that its the embargo in it's entirety that you so vehemently oppose. You then go on to post an article you read on the internet about how it has become a criminal embargo because of the huge amount of starvation and the rate of infant mortality that rises in Iraq with each passing year. I concede those people are suffering, but I assert George Bush is not responsible as you do.

Your assertion that Bush is a war criminal is appalling. It is the Iraqi Government that is responsible. They have billions in escrow accounts that they refuse to use to relieve the suffering. They have dried up marshlands in the south to starve out the shi-ite muslims. The UN who administers 12% of the Oil for food money on Iraq's behalf in the northern territories has shown enormous improvement when compared to their counterparts in the south where distribution is handled by the Iraqi Govt. Illegal trade has existed along the border in defiance of the UN embargo continuously to the tune of several billion dollars annually. In April Saddam cut off the Oil for a month to punish the world. Also Saddam can still manage to pay $25 grand to the families of each suicide bomber in Israel. What is this all about? How come he can't feed his people? Oh yeah, I forgot, George Bush, the UN and their criminal embargo.

The money is there, we can't force him to use it. You are just plain misinformed and blatantly prejudiced and hateful towards our president. And you admit it openly. Unbelievable.

In one of your posts you say this about me.

"to you they aren't really people, they're just 'towelheads'. they're Muslims, heathen! what do you care? "

Ad hominem and straw man attacks. You get all emotional lathered up and start with the character assassinations which couldn't be further from the truth. How dare you? That's the best you can do? Call names? Whoopee. I'm glad your disappointed by "likes of" me. You just know what I'm all about don't you? And everyone just like me? It's easier to dismiss people that way isn't it? You're acting like a schlemeil.

Weiwentg, pull your head out, you should retract all your statements concerning the personal villification of George Bush. It isn't fair and it isn't supported by the facts. Furthermore you need to accept the fact that this suffering is caused and indeed perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

Here's some stuff from Britain, Norway, the European Economic Union and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Plenty more where that came from too.

FACT SHEET
Sanctions 10 Years On
Prepared by Foreign Commonwealth Office
London, England
February 2001
 UN sanctions on Iraq remain in place because of Saddam Hussein's determination to retain and rebuild his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and threaten the region;
 Sanctions have contained the regime's military ambitions and threat to its neighbours:
 Since sanctions were imposed Iraq has not:
- used chemical weapons against the Kurds of northern Iraq;
- used chemical weapons against Ir
more.Sintesi
Jul 10, 2002 8:28 AM
 Sanctions have contained the regime's military ambitions and threat to its neighbours:
 Since sanctions were imposed Iraq has not:
- used chemical weapons against the Kurds of northern Iraq;
- used chemical weapons against Iran;
- invaded its neighbours;
 Before sanctions, Iraq did all of these;
 It is not credible to blame sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people;
 In recent years, sanctions have been targeted more closely on military items and items of potential use in Iraqi weapons programmes;
 It is a myth that sanctions cover food and medicines;
 To export the majority of goods to Iraq - including food, medicines, agricultural, educational and water and sanitation goods - you need simply notify the UN;
 The Iraqi people continue to suffer because:
- Iraq is not ordering sufficient quantities of these goods (Iraq ordered no medicines during the last phase of the UN oil for food programme);
- As a result, billions of Dollars remain unspent in UN oil for food accounts;
- Iraqi bureaucracy is preventing the delivery of millions of Dollars worth of goods;
- Iraq is exporting food and medicine to other countries (eg milk powder and asthma inhalers);
 Over the last year, the UN has made around $16 billion available to Iraq for the purchase of such goods;
 This sum is several times higher than government spending in equivalent areas (eg housing, health, education) in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iran;
 With these sums available, only Saddam can be blamed for his people's suffering.
Saddam's Weapons
 Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his people and neighbours makes him unique among modern dictators;
 Saddam remains determined to retain and rebuild his WMD and threaten the region;
 Iraq has admitted hiding chemical, biological weapons and missile parts in the desert (buried in the sand), railway tunnels and fridges in private homes;
 We believe Iraq is still hiding WMD in a range of locations;
 UN weapons inspectors have been unable to account for:
- 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons;
- 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of VX;
- some 31,000 chemical weapons munitions;
 We fear Iraq is taking advantage of the absence of UN weapons inspectors to rebuild its WMD;
 If Iraq's weapons programmes remain unchecked, Iraq could:
- redevelop offensive chemical and biological capabilities;
- develop a crude nuclear device in about five years;
 The effects of biological and chemical weapons are horrendous: less than a teaspoon of anthrax can kill over a million people;
 The international community cannot afford to ignore Iraq's WMD;
 UN weapons inspectors (led by Dr Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the successor to UNSCOM) must be allowed into Iraq.


FACT SHEET ON REVISED UN SANCTIONS ON IRAQ
UK FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
May 14, 2002
A British initiative established the Oil for Food programme in 1995; Britain proposed the lifting of the ceiling on Iraq's oil exports in 1999.
The new resolution will combine the roll-over of the Oil for Food programme for a further 6 months with the introduction of the Goods Review List (GRL). The revised controls mean that Iraq can freely import all civilian goods, without waiting for clearance by the UN Sanctions Committee in New York. From now on, the Committee will only deal with military-related items (as defined on the GRL).
In effect, this means no more sanctions on civilian goods for Iraq. There are 3 main benefits:
a) A fundamental change in approach. Previously, all exports to Iraq were prohibited, except for food, medicine and humanitarian goods. Fr
more.Sintesi
Jul 10, 2002 8:29 AM
FACT SHEET ON REVISED UN SANCTIONS ON IRAQ
UK FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
May 14, 2002
A British initiative established the Oil for Food programme in 1995; Britain proposed the lifting of the ceiling on Iraq's oil exports in 1999.
The new resolution will combine the roll-over of the Oil for Food programme for a further 6 months with the introduction of the Goods Review List (GRL). The revised controls mean that Iraq can freely import all civilian goods, without waiting for clearance by the UN Sanctions Committee in New York. From now on, the Committee will only deal with military-related items (as defined on the GRL).
In effect, this means no more sanctions on civilian goods for Iraq. There are 3 main benefits:
a) A fundamental change in approach. Previously, all exports to Iraq were prohibited, except for food, medicine and humanitarian goods. From now on, everything is allowed, except for the military-related items on the GRL.
b) Since the UN Sanctions Committee will no longer be involved in vetting civilian goods, these items will be delivered to Iraq much more quickly, without bureaucratic delay.
c) The system becomes fully transparent: the GRL is a publicly-accessible UN document.
How will it work?
The procedures attached to the resolution lay down a clear timetable for the processing of contracts for the export of goods to Iraq. The Sanctions Committee will not be involved in vetting contracts for civilian goods. Some examples of items which will not now go to the Sanctions Committee, but be processed without bureaucratic delay:
 Personal computers
 Normal commercial software
 Tractors for agricultural use
 X-ray equipment for airports
 Irrigation equipment
 Cars for personal use.
The new system maintains strict controls on the military-related items on the GRL - because of the Security Council's concern about their potential use in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or military programme. So items which will still be considered by the Sanctions Committee include:
 rocket motor cases and liquid propellants
 uranium and plutonium
 lasers
 detonators
 chemical enrichment plant systems.
The GRL is not, however, a denial list. It simply means that the item concerned will be reviewed carefully. The UN Sanctions Committee will consider the full circumstances of any application, with expert advice from the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and IAEA, to decide whether the military risk of allowing the Iraqi regime to have a listed item outweighs any humanitarian benefits. Then, the Committee will work to a strict timetable.
The Oil for Food Programme is vast. It allows Iraq to sell unlimited quantities of oil. The profits from this are deposited in the United Nations Iraq account (commonly known as the Escrow account). Iraq can then use 72% of these funds on almost anything other than military equipment. Even before the introduction of the GRL, Iraq could use the revenue to buy goods including food, medicine and educational, agricultural and infrastructure items - in fact all the requirements of the ordinary people of Iraq.
The remainder of the revenue goes into the UN Compensation Fund (25%), which is recompensing those who lost their livelihoods as a result of Iraqi military aggression against Kuwait, and to pay the costs of the UN administration of the Oil for Food programme and the continued UNIKOM presence (3%).
By the beginning of May 2002, over 22,000 OFF contracts worth about $35bn had been approved for export to Iraq. During the current phase of the programme (December 2001-May 2002) $4.43bn should be available for the humanitarian programme.
In practice the Iraqi regime has not used the Oil for Food programme to the full. It has consistently underspent the amounts available in the Escrow account. While claiming that the Oil
more.Sintesi
Jul 10, 2002 8:32 AM
In practice the Iraqi regime has not used the Oil for Food programme to the full. It has consistently underspent the amounts available in the Escrow account. While claiming that the Oil for Food programme cannot meet the health needs of the Iraqi people, it has recently asked the UN to approve contracts for patently non-essential goods, e.g. 2 billion cigarettes, 181,000 TV sets, 500 tonnes of neckties.
In early May 2002, approximately $3.8bn was lying unspent by Iraq in UN accounts.
The Iraqi Central Bank consistently holds up delivery of about $1bn-worth of goods already approved by the UN (e.g. at present $186m of health items and $139m of educational supplies).

STATEMENT ON NORWAY'S MEMBERSHIP OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
THORBJORN JAGLAND, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
NORWAY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
November 15, 2000
Excerpt
. . .
It is a sad fact that although the sanctions against Iraq have been relaxed in recent years, the civilian population has benefited very little from this. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein has taken advantage of the situation to enrich himself and his supporters, while at the same time cynically refusing to make use of this opportunity to ensure that the population receives food and medicine.

COMMENTS BY CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH OF SAUDI ARABIA
London, England
25 June 2001
Responding to a question on smart sanctions against Iraq that the U.S. administration is trying to develop, Crown Prince Abdullah said we announced three years ago a Saudi initiative aiming at eliminating the sufferings of Iraqi people and the responsibility now rests on Iraqi leadership that obstructs every movement to remove the sufferings.
He noted that sanctions do not target the Iraqi people but they are means to an end that is protection of the region from new adventures of the Iraqi regime.

You should particularly read this:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/EU/eu-parl-042602.htm

Live it up hate boy.
Whew. nmSintesi
Jul 10, 2002 8:32 AM
you have yet to explain this:weiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 1:42 AM
Saddam does not feed his people properly ... how is it then morally permissible for us (in the 'civilized' world) to continue sanctions? if they were discontinued, commercial Iraqi interests might be able to bring food in, although that would depend on government policy.
no doubt Saddam is to blame in great part, and this is indisputable. what I also consider indisputable is that the 'civilized' world has aided him in starving his people.
Weiwentg, the money is there. The means are there.Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 5:10 AM
This guy is killing his own people and trying to blame the west so people like you will scream and cry and stamp their feet to release him from the embargo. You're falling for it.

You do concede that he has WMD and mid range ballistic missiles, right? You do concede that he could very well have a nuclear bomb in 5 years or so. Do we just let that possibility (eventuality to my mind) come to fruition by ending the embargo. Can you guarantee he will begin taking care of his people then? He hasn't in the past. Can you guarantee he won't use his weapons on others? Of course he will, you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise. Any way you slice it, people are going to die in great numbers and all because of one brutal, evil dictator.

What is your foriegn policy Weiwentg? What would you do?

Invade? Might happen.
my answerweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 6:14 AM
> This guy is killing his own people and trying to blame the west so people like you will scream and cry and stamp their feet to release him from the embargo. You're falling for it.

so ease the embargo! allow the Iraqi civilian population to recover, and do not allow arms to get in. it's that simple... easing the suffering of innocent people is a bad idea in what way? the women and children of Iraq did not attack the US, or anyone else. why should they be punished, except by the twisted foreign policy that you are so fond of?

as for what to do to Iraq, I concede that I have no concrete idea. there is no one 'central' Muslim state with sufficient influence to keep Iraq in line. however, there is a coalition of Arab states, and it is in their interest to ensure their own security. they could, with some US military backing, keep Iraq under control. the Arabs, Kuwait included, are against a renewed war.
aside from that, I would pressure - even force - Iraq to accept the presence of the various UN agencies, such as the UNDP and the arms inspectors.

as for WMDs, you can see my post below - the threat, according to an arms inspector, MAY be overrated. actually, I just came across the article today. and of course, this is just one guy.
The money IS there! The embargo has been eased.Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 6:25 AM
Your're missing it entirely. How about keeping Iraq so weak there won't be another war. What happens when Hussein lobs a WMD into Israel? You think there's innocent babies dead now, just wait.

"as for WMDs, you can see my post below - the threat, according to an arms inspector, MAY be overrated. actually, I just came across the article today. and of course, this is just one guy."

Exactly, one guy versus all this overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There are Iraqi defectors who stated so unequivicobly (sp?!). I mean this guy's premise is "I saw nothing in the brief time I was there, therefore there is nothing there."
keeping Iraq so weak?weiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 7:28 AM
you mean, by keeping their civilian population starved?
fortunately, as you say, the embargo has been eased, but the damage is done. you will not deny the casualties caused by the embargo. could Iraq's military have been kept sufficiently weakened so as to preclude construction of WMDs, without imposing an embargo that would affect the civilian population? yes, by means of an arms-only embargo. but this was not done. I have mentioned several times that the sanctions have served only to starve the people of Iraq, and this shall be the last time I do so. however, I shall also mention that this despicable act has not won you friends in the Muslim world, and that your nation's denial of this atrocity hasn't either.
We don't deny the atrocity we are witnesses of it.Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 10:26 AM
The Iraqis did this to themselves all the way down the line. You're a victim of anti-american propaganda.
you helped themweiwentg
Jul 12, 2002 2:17 AM
of course, anyone who deviates from the party line is labeled as anti-American or Communist; we've all heard this before.
the fact remains: you effectively helped Saddam starve his people.
You're shifting.Sintesi
Jul 12, 2002 4:48 AM
First we (america/George Bush) were totally to blame, then it was the UN (after I kept pointing this out to you), now we're merely "helping" Saddam Hussein. I see this as a positive.

If I worked on you a year I think I'd turn you completely around. It would probably take a couple days if you'd only acknowledge when you are wrong but you've invested too much in disliking America and it's hard for you to renounce.
more like: you misreading me, and being an arrogant fool to bootweiwentg
Jul 15, 2002 2:00 AM
nm
It's what you wrote. I'm no fool and you're a dupe. nmSintesi
Jul 15, 2002 6:33 AM
clarificationweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 1:31 AM
right, I probably didn't state things clearly.
ARMS embargo: fine. Saddam should not be allowed near anything more dangerous than an air rifle.
embargoing food + medicine (this only during the war, I think): unconsionable. say that (TOTALLY random example) Malaysia is pissed off at Singapore (currently there's a small spat over water prices, it's a long story) and invades. they declare a total embargo, not allowing food or medicine in, and Singapore is not self-sufficient in either. you think this is bad, yes? and that they deserve their asses kicked (in theory only; in real life I have nothing against my country's neighbors)?
you probably do. so, why is it OK in Iraq's case? their military invaded Kuwait, and committed numerous crimes there. however, their civilian population did not orchestrate the invasion or the subsequent sacking. they may have supported it, probably because they were lied to. perhaps you would care to explain how this justifies cutting off food and medicine? and how does this justify the post-war sanctions, which led to even more deaths? what legal or moral precedent is there for wholesale slaughter of a population duped by its leaders? I suppose there's Japan, which your nation was, for better or worse, quite happy to drop nuclear bombs on at the time.
so, to state clearly, I oppose the total embargo imposed during the war, and the subsequent sanctions that led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths. whether they had led to Saddam's ouster or not they would have been morally unjustifiable.
your government is quite pleased to lecture everyone (my country's government included) on human rights. time, perhaps, to live up to those standards.
and as for the comment about your people not caring because the Iraqis were Muslims, this was perhaps exxagerated. However, your nation has done the following:
1) supported Israel, which is currently in an illegal occupation of Palestine, and in fact has assisted Israel in styming the Palestinians rights to independence.
2) failed to intervene in a timely fashion in Bosnia, when the lives of Muslims were at stake
which gives many the impression that Americans do not care much about Muslims. perhaps you could go to Malaysia (a moderate Muslim nation) and ask around.
more on anti-Muslim prejudiceweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 1:35 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/opinion/09KRIS.html?ex=1027230511&ei=1&en=7479fa17964c35ce

The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and has contributed remarkably few great scientists or writers to modern civilization. So it's time to defend Islam.

In speaking to Arab friends, I've reproached them for the virulent anti-Semitism in their societies. But it's a cheap shot for us to scold Arabs for acquiescing in religious hatred unless we try vigorously to uproot our own religious bigotry.

Since 9/11, appalling hate speech about Islam has circulated in the U.S. on talk radio, on the Internet and in particular among conservative Christian pastors — the modern echoes of Charles Coughlin, the "radio priest" who had a peak listening audience in the 1930's of one-third of America for his anti-Semitic diatribes.

"Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," Paul Weyrich and William Lind, two leading American conservatives, write in a new booklet titled "Why Islam Is a Threat to America and the West." Mr. Lind said of American Muslims: "They should be encouraged to leave. They are a fifth column in this country."

Ann Coulter, the columnist, suggested that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and a prominent evangelist in his own right, said of Islam: "I believe it's a very evil and wicked religion." The Rev. Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, declared that the Prophet Muhammad was "a demon-obsessed pedophile."

President Bush set an example of tolerance immediately after 9/11, but lately has been quiet. He should denounce the bigotry, rather than (as he did by speaking to the Baptist convention after the "pedophile" slur) condoning it. If we want Saudi princes to confront their society's hate-mongers, our own leaders should confront ours.

One problem with this prejudice (as with Osama bin Laden's) is that it blinds the bigots to any understanding of what they deride. If Islam were really just the caricature that it is often reduced to, then how would it be so appealing as to become the world's fastest-growing religion?

Islam already has 1.3 billion adherents and is spreading rapidly, particularly in Africa, partly because it also has admirable qualities that anyone who has lived in the Muslim world observes: a profound egalitarianism and a lack of hierarchy that confer dignity and self-respect among believers; greater hospitality than in other societies; an institutionalized system of charity, zakat, to provide for the poor. Many West Africans, for example, see Christianity as corrupt and hierarchical and flock to Islam, which they view as democratic and inclusive.

One can dispute that, and it's reasonable to worry about the implications of the spread of Islam for the status of women and for the genital mutilation of girls. But simply thundering that Islam is intrinsically violent does not help to understand it and picks up on racist and xenophobic threads that are some of the sorriest chapters in our history.

Of course, Islam is troubled in ways no one can ignore. The scholar Samuel Huntington has noted that the Islamic world has "bloody borders," with conflict around much of its perimeter. Of the 26 countries torn by conflict in the year 2000, 14 have large Muslim populations. And on average, Muslim countries mobilize twice as large a share of the population in armed forces as do predominately Christian countries.

This is fair grounds for debate, but the sweeping denigrations of Islam are mush. Critics often quote from the Koran, for example, to argue that Islam is intrinsically violent ("fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them"). But the Koran, like the Bible, can be quoted for any purpose. After all, the New Testament embraces slavery ("Slaves, obey you
What does this have to do with what we were talking about?Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 6:18 AM
I never said one anti-muslim thing. Whay are you bringing this up?

I like the issue but you are just rambling now. You are shifting the issue because you're losing your original argument aren't you? You really should apologize about your characterization of Bush as a war criminal, that is no different or fairer than me calling Islam a goofy religon responsible for untold misery the world over. In the interest of fairness and correctness please retract your earlier statement.

In regards to fastest growing religion, is that genuinely due to conversions and proselytization or are Muslims just having more babies? That's an innocent question I'm genuinely curious.

"Many West Africans, for example, see Christianity as corrupt and hierarchical and flock to Islam, which they view as democratic and inclusive." Where are all the openly free, democratic predominately Islamic countries? There's not a lot. I can't even name one. I confess my ignorance. What about women? Same rights as men? Should they have? Why don't they?

Personally i think both religions are pretty bogus. Whatever gets you through the day, weiwentg.
"Religion is to spirituality is what Pornography is to sex"
Expoitationville.

You sure seem defensive weiwentg. Let's just assume there are crackpots and racists the world over. Ann Coulter makes her money by being a provacateur. You did note that she was immediately fired from her job after writing that didn't you. I've seen her three time on TV in recent weeks (she's promoting a new book) where she was scoffed at and generally dismissed as an extremist nut. What does that tell you about America?

My nation is not anti-Muslim, we have millions who practice openly and in peace. Nothing to hide here. FREE NATION! Is yours? We don't have tens of thousands gathering and chanting Death to Muslims, do we? People seem willing to do that at the drop of a hat in virtually every "Islamic" country you care to imagine. Who hates who? The people in Muslim countries that hate Americans seem to be somewhat justified in your eyes, yet the relatively few in this country are completely unjust, is that it?.
it's an oblique pointweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 7:23 AM
your nation is a very pluralistic one, that is for sure. yet, the Christian right is very prominent in its politics, and I know from personal experience that Islam is NOT acceptable to most fundamentalist Christians. and your nation's international policy is definitely not pro-Muslim in general.
actually, my nation is not anti-Muslim. we're surrounded by Muslim countries, and cannot afford to be; and in any case we don't want trouble. however, in terms of international policy, we have strong military ties to Israel, who participated in the initial training of our armed forces. we haven't condemned Israeli aggression, to the best of my knowledge.
and no, I do not apologize for calling Bush (or Saddam) a war criminal. he has blood on his hands, and he hasn't admitted or atoned for it.
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are "war criminals" too ?Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 10:22 AM
I mean really. I'm not going to harp on this any longer but you are not a very consistent or fair person nor do you succumb to reason easily. I proved to you there is one person truly responsible even Saudi Arabia thinks so for chrissakes. I think your mind is plain locked up and that is just too damn bad. We will not agree on this issue apparently.

What is your country exactly?

"your nation is a very pluralistic one, that is for sure. yet, the Christian right is very prominent in its politics, and I know from personal experience that Islam is NOT acceptable to most fundamentalist Christians. and your nation's international policy is definitely not pro-Muslim in general."

Christians can be troubling I agree and they are prominent, but what do you expect? 80% of the nation is Christian of one brand or another. Some are more distasteful than others. Some are the greatest humanitarians the world can know. Great people. I would say the ratio of Fundamentalist asshole christians to Fundementalist asshole Muslims is probably the same and share equal status in both spheres. Which is to say significant but ultimately not much.

I think our country greatly benefits the Muslim world, are doors are certainly open to muslim students and immigrants. I'll check and see how much food and medicine we've supplied to muslims if I can. I suspect we've saved millions upon millions of lives through our charity. Our country is not given nearly enough credit for our generosity. These people who hate us are uneducated, impoverished and provincial with no access to unbiased information. This will change in due time.
Aid to Muslims - a recent exampleSintesi
Jul 11, 2002 11:38 AM
"By March 1993, mass starvation had been overcome, and security was much improved. At its peak, almost 30,000 US military personnel participated in the operation, along with 10,000 personnel from twenty-four other states. Despite the absence of political agreement among the rival forces, periodic provocations, and occasional military responses by UNITAF, the coalition retained its impartiality and avoided open combat with Somali factions--blending its coercive powers with political dialogue, psychological operations, and highly visible humanitarian activities. "

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/restore_hope.htm

BTW, we lost lives trying to get rid of Strongman Aidid. This is the guy or one of the guys systematically starving opposition clans by hoarding food. Genocide.

We got our fingers burnt tho. Probably won't be back any time soon. But hey, saved a few hundred thousand lives. Soo anti-Islamic aren't we? or do Somalis not count as true Muslims?

I'm looking for more stuff to display. I'll find it.

Admit it, the only true grievance you have with us is our friendship with Israel. What are you going to do with yourself if Bush leads them to peace? That will wilt your american loathing heart won't it?
US aid to Turkey 1999.Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 12:06 PM
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/19/us.turkey.02/

Read it and weep weiwentg. More to come.
Sudan. 70% muslim. close to a billion since 1989.Sintesi
Jul 11, 2002 12:20 PM
The more I find out the more and more I think you're a jerk for saying the crap you do.

http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ofda/sudan_sr04_fy02.html
let's take that all in one shotweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 6:03 PM
I have mentioned before that anyone who has blood on his/her hands (ie has killed civilians wantonly) should be considered a war criminal. at the very least, that person should end up in some sort of international court to answer for his/her misdeeds. so yes, Tony Blair and a lot of Muslims, too.
you think I'm a jerk? your nation claims to hold the moral high ground in everything and is quite happy to lecture everyone else about it, while in truth there is very little that is moral about American foreign or economic policy. your nation aids Sudan. fine. your nation (under Clinton) also bombed a pharmaceutical plant there, claiming with sketchy evidence that it was manufacturing chemical warfare agents. also, it refused to present the evidence to Sudan, and it later blocked a UN inquiry into the attack.
I think your arrogance is representative of your nation's leaders and most of its power elite.

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely11.html
I have no need to weepweiwentg
Jul 12, 2002 2:14 AM
Turkey is a secular Muslim country (which, as an aside, has committed war crimes of its own, eg against the Kurds), as is Egypt, which your nation also aids.
your nation has failed to positively engage the more religious Islamic countries. granted, fundamentalist Islam is a violent religion (the same can be said of fundamentalist Christianity and other religions). but your nation failed to help Bosnian Muslims adequately - Muslim nations had to provide them arms, for example - and it has failed to address the question of Palestine. sending aid to Turkey during earthquakes is, frankly, an obligation considering your nations' alliance. however, consider the Balkans. your nation turned a blind eye to arms smuggling into Bosnia. not too bad. but it was other Muslim nations which provided those arms, and they acted first. your nation's delay allowed the Serbs to kill many Bosnians, and your intervention was late and indecisive. there is a perception - probably true - that the Kuwaitis were rescued early because of their oil. the Bosnians had no oil, so they were left hanging ... although I do admit that the mountainous terrain made military intervention far more difficult than in Iraq.
instead of bombing people, try another tack as well...
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are "war criminals" too ?weiwentg
Jul 12, 2002 2:07 AM
Clinton: possibly, over the use of DU munitions in the Balkans.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020708-3102700.htm

my opinion? I had no idea DU was so deadly (see article), and quite possibly he and/or his military commanders should have to answer for that.
also, he did bomb Sudan on uncertain intelligence ... and refused to apologize afterward.
I'm from Singapore.weiwentg
Jul 12, 2002 2:29 AM
primarily Chinese and Bhuddist. approximately 13% of the population is Christian, and all the Malays are Muslim (~10%). almost all the Christians are of the fundamentalist variety in that they believe in the infalliability of the Bible.

you ask what I expect of Christians? as for the Church in the US, I would ask them to stop whining about the family and people's sexual behavior. they should instead live up to their teachings by being a force for peace, and they should condemn people's greed instead of their sexuality. as it is, the religious right is advancing a patriarchal, pro-'family' agenda. they have been silent on the issues of non-violence, the renunciation of greed, and helping the poor. they have failed to love others as Christ demanded. all these issues are stated strongly in tradition and in the Bible, and we haven't lived up to them.

as for helping the Muslims, don't give yourselves too much credit. aside from Bosnia and Palestine, your bombing reduced Afghanistan to a shambles, and your forces have been very very tardy to apologize and make compensation for their collateral damage. you have starved the people of Iraq, and interfered in the internal affairs of Iran (to a great extent) and Malaysia (to a small extent, in the Anwar Ibrahim affair). what good you have done must be balanced against the evil you have done, which is considerable.
I'm from Singapore.Sintesi
Jul 12, 2002 4:30 AM
Whatever. I give up. You're a "true-believer" and I can't think of a worse insult. Bye-bye.
so are youweiwentg
Jul 12, 2002 4:42 AM
you know, had you taken a sociology class at a non-conservative university, you would actually be able to comprehend that the 'world order' is not as it seems. but you seem not to have taken such a course.
psychologists have identified a phenomenon known as the Just World Hypothesis - humans need to believe that there's justice in the world. in your case, you believe, quite wrongly, that your nation does what is right.
as an aside, Christians, Muslims and Jews don't need to believe in justice on earth; there will be justice after the final judgement. Marxists believe that there will be justice after the vanquishment of capitalism, capitalists believe that there is already justice, etc.
Saddam risk a lie, says UN expertweiwentg
Jul 11, 2002 1:32 AM
Exclusive
AARON HICKLIN and ROB CRILLY

UNITED Nations weapons inspectors colluded with British secret service agents to spread disinformation about Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programmes as part of a campaign to justify military strikes, according to the head of the UN inspection team in Iraq.

In an interview with The Herald, Scott Ritter, who led the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) team in Iraq for seven years in the 90s, claims he helped to leak propaganda to journalists. He resigned from the post in 1998 but said his experience then suggested that recent claims that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction should be treated sceptically.

Hawks within the US administration insist Iraq's suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes should be the next target in the war on terrorism.

Last week, Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, failed to persuade Naji Sabri, Iraqi foreign minister, to allow weapons in-spectors back into the country. The stance could make a US military strike more likely. President George W Bush has reportedly been briefed on a Pentagon plan to send 250,000 troops into Iraq, though he has yet to approve it.

However, Ritter, a former intelligence officer in the US marines, maintains there is scant evidence that Iraq is a threat.

He says claims that Iraq is re-arming come from unreliable witnesses and that factories bombed in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox had not breached UN resolutions. "Every single one of those facilities was subjected to repeated inspections and never did we detect anything to remotely suggest that these were involved in producing anything prohibited. There's nothing there. Nothing."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/8-7-19102-0-23-36.html

somehow, I doubt this was reported in the US (although I could be wrong).