# Peaceniks Get A Life…. And Some Brains



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I’m so disgusted by the current run of sixties throwback peace demonstrations. Ye before anyone jumps on the band wagon…. of course I love and treasure peace in my family, at work and in the world.

However!!!! This current crop of “talk without thinking peace protesters “really need to get up to speed or take a look around at the world we live in and offer an alternative. 

Oh sure don’t declare war on Saddam looks good on a poster but what’s the alternative wait another 12 years?

What really gets to me is that Bush and Blair have become the targets of these people’s attention with their signs. I have yet to see one the says “Saddam Disarm”. Do they not see that this is a case of cause and effect? Bush And Blair did not conjure up this situation Saddam created it, the UN recognized it and now it’s going to get dealt with. 

Presuming that Saddam has no morals, and would supply terrorists of any flavor with any weapon of mass destruction to be used against the rest of the world.

I would bet that these same brain dead peaceniks would be screaming at their respective governments as to why nothing was done to prevent such a terrible.

My message to them is get off the streets get off my TV and read about the history of the world or if you prefer any good parenting book. Once in awhile you have to spank the child.


Andy( Getting It Off His Chest)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'd reply but being brain-dead is rather limiting. Don't assume that because people don't share your point of view, they are mindless idiots.

K --- My icon for a brain dead (less) person


----------



## fül (Aug 14, 2002)

stinand asked peace protesters:
*get off the streets get off my TV*

maybe YOU should get off of your TV, go outside and breathe some fresh air. it is not healthy to ingest everything that little box is feeding you. don't forget your sunglasses, the sun can sometimes be blinding when you come out of The Cave (text).


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Why wait seven more years? With calamitous events fishtailing who knows where, let's pause and regain our bearings with an early look back at those strange times that opened the new millennium -- that era we have been calling the decade of the "Ohs."

After years of decrying the long reach of "judicial activism," conservatives at last commanded a majority on the Supreme Court and promptly appointed a new president of the United States. The president, however, gave credit to a higher authority. He explained to friends he had been "called" by God to lead.

In the name of saving the environment and protecting American values from corporate control, Ralph Nader and the Green Party siphoned off enough votes to turn both government and the environment over to corporate control.

Faced with Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Tyco, et al., Republicans denied ever saying: "If only government was run as efficiently as business."

George W. Bush clarified himself. When he said the U.S. government should not meddle in matters of nation-building, he referred only to the domestic front. Abroad, he redefined America's mission as world-building. To that end, the U.S. field-tested the largest conventional bomb ever seen.

After many years on the margins of society, the protest movement came to life and filled the streets with angry antiwar demonstrators. The movement was so effective at swaying public opinion that the president was forced to hasten his plans to invade Iraq.

Fed up with abuses that clog up courts, Congress cracked down and made it far more difficult for workers to escape their debts by declaring bankruptcy. This freed courtroom space for corporations to file for Chapter 11 and wriggle out of their obligations for such things as pensions.

In a capstone to the government investigation of Wall Street crooks, the big brokerage houses agreed to pay a collective $1.4-billion fine. Prosecutors, however, spared the guilty parties the embarrassment of having to admit they did anything wrong. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, upheld a sentence of life in prison for a man who shoplifted nine videotapes in California.

In order to preserve fundamental liberties, the Bush administration instituted a global policy of incarceration without representation. It also sought financing for a new supercomputer to keep track of the movements, conversations, e-mails, purchases and proclivities of every person in the United States. Bookstores were told they had to divulge the
reading habits of their customers to federal authorities.

To restrain the heavy hand of runaway government, the president proposed to give people back their taxes. In endorsing the concept, the Wall Street Journal described the federal deficit as another way to encourage personal savings.

In the shocking aftermath of Sept. 11, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft said the nation would stop at nothing to root out terrorists. Ashcroft subsequently denied FBI agents permission to examine Justice Department
records of people who bought guns.

Ashcroft ordered the FBI to drop lesser priorities and focus on real threats to the public. Agents immediately raided a co-op where AIDS sufferers were smoking pot under sanction of state law and with approval of local police. The Department of Justice also announced it would prosecute doctors in Oregon who followed a voter-approved initiative and
assisted terminally ill patients in ending their lives.

Seeking to prevent fires, the president asked for $400 million in subsidies to pay loggers to cut forests down.

Democrat Al Gore geared up to run for president again, saying he wouldn't make the same mistake and spend the campaign waffling. He then waffled,
and decided not to run. Dick Gephardt, the congressman who led House Democrats to defeat in 2002, announced he was the man to lead Democrats
in the 2004 presidential election. Tom Daschle, who led Democrats to defeat in the Senate, said he could do more for the cause by staying in Congress.

Gasoline prices reached record levels; consumer confidence plummeted for most products except gas masks; millions of Americans lost their health
insurance. Congress responded to the widening crises by rewriting the menu in the House cafeteria. As the U.S. census reported that America was
more diverse than ever, the Republican leader of the Senate waxed nostalgic, saying Americans should have voted for segregationists in 1948. Not to be outdone, a Democrat in the House said Jews were behind the push for war against Iraq.

Meantime, the State Department earmarked $1 billion to tell citizens abroad about the virtues of openness in the United States.

Trendsetters declared an end to the age of irony.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Uh, yeah. Thats the way to solve a problem, hit it into submission. 
Peace demonstrations have not stopped since the sixties, so blame your tv station for only giving "these peaceniks" coverage when it suits their ratings.
Personally I like being brain dead as it helps me better understand you and "your kind".  
Finally, I believe freespeech is a part of the democracy the US are fighting for, non?
Robert


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stinand:
*I?m so disgusted..However!!!! This current crop of ?talk without thinking peace protesters ?What really gets to me is that Bush and Blair have become the targets of these people?s attention with their signs... Do they not see that this is a case of cause and effect? Bush And Blair did not conjure up this situation Saddam created it, the UN recognized it and now it?s going to get dealt with. 

Presuming that Saddam has no morals, and would supply terrorists of any flavor with any weapon of mass destruction to be used against the rest of the world.

Once in awhile you have to spank the child.

Andy( Getting It Off His Chest)*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice rant Andy. But rather than getting all your information from CNN, why not take the time to find out what else is going on. You claim that Bush and Blair did not conjure up this problem, yet you seem to forget that the UK and the US provided Saddam with the chemicals, tools and know how needed to create WMD. Even AFTER the Kurds were gassed, the US and the UK continued to sell dual use technology to Iraq. When the Kurds were gassed, did the US stand up in the UN and demand that something be done? Why not? Could it be that Saddam was a valued ally?

Sure, Saddam is a thug and deserves to rot in a Belgium jail for the rest of his life. But that does not give the US or the UK the right to unilaterally slaughter civilians, take over the oil fields, install a puppet government, and then work to change the governments in the surrounding countries.

And if the US desires peace so badly, why do they continue to support Isreal to the tune of 10 BILLION dollars a year? You think that Israel would find a way to live in peace with the neighbours if the tanks, helicopter gunships, bullets and missles were cut off?

Rather than accuse others of being brain dead, maybe you should try to be less intellectually lazy, and a little less ignorant.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq 
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank 
Washington Post Staff Writers 

Tuesday 18 March 2003 

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports. 

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night. 

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq. 

In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years." 

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." 

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities." 

ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material. 

Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility. 

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address. 

In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications. 

Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles." But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst. 

Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it. 

In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work." 

Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles -- not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.


----------



## Kuni (Feb 4, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stinand:
*My message to them is get off the streets get off my TV and read about the history of the world or if you prefer any good parenting book. Once in awhile you have to spank the child.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for your mindless assumptions about us "peaceniks." Yes, it's always a good idea to rant at people when you haven't bothered to listen to them in the first place.

For the record, I am not on TV, nor are the majority of "peacenicks"...do you have any idea how journalism works? Networks have political agendas. If a network is of the opinion that war should commence, then any anti-war protesters are going to be made to look like idiots. (Same goes for anti-war networks; pro-war advocates look like crackheads.) So, I'm sorry that you think we're all like all those idiots out there who have no clue what they're protesting (how many of them have been interviewed in total? 5? 10? 20? That's still about 0.00000001% of us). Just as I don't equate Bush's ideals with all Americans, you shouldn't equate idiot protesters' ideals with all protesters.

For the record, most anti-war protesters I've met can't stand Saddam Hussein. He is a tyrant and a murderer and yes, he needs to be ousted. I'm sure, however, that most protesters, such as myself, feel that Bush has been pushing war from day one; even after a less-than-pressing result of the weapons inspection, Bush still keeps pressing for bloodshed. What is his true agenda? It can't be concern for his people, or he would look at North Korea before Iraq!

And no, I'm not 'jumping on the bandwagon.' Maybe you can't tell from your livingroom couch or whatever, but protests have been going on for years. As for me? I hated the Gulf War. I despised the bombings in Kosovo. I gritted my teeth while the US obliterated Afghanistan. This is NOT "jumping on the bandwagon" anymore than your stance is; I've been anti-war my whole life, even in a pro-war family. *shrugs*

Be sure to read Britnell's post. The UK and the US have had an enormous hand in creating the problems in Iraq. No, they aren't solely responsible for Hussein's rise to power, but they sure played a big role in his weapons buildup.

Next time, before you rant, make sure you take the time to find out exactly what it is you're complaining about.

Thank you.
Kuni


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I love this board, presumption and subject change run rampant, and as we all 
know presumption is the mother of al f&^% ups.

Fortunately I don’t get much of my information from CNN, the reason being is that the American news networks are there to sell advertising not to report the news in a factual manner… add to that the unabashed pro America viewpoint and they are non starters.

For TV News I subscribe to BBC world news which I find to be in depth and with a more factual view point I will also watch CBC. I also read a variety of papers, Internet sources etc. So Britnell and fül your viewpoint is invalid. Seeing as I’m also in the communications business I am quite adept at “considering the source”.

If any of you are “Peaceniks” I do thank you for proving my point. I didn’t see anybody coming up with alternate courses of action than war. Just a bunch of rhetoric about the wrong doings of the US and Britain. 

As for “used to be jwoodget” with your rather clever little icons. I happen to think that protesting an action without an ulterior viable plan is brain dead and pointless. 

I love people who intellectually disagree with my point of view and can show me another side of an issue with opinion based facts. Unfortunately you have not, but the icon was cute.

Next on the reply list is Britnell. You raise some interesting points however factually I disagree . The United Nations ignored the Kurds not just the US and Britain perhaps you should not be so intellectuall lazy as to single out two nations. You may also find that many nations supplied WMD supplies to Iraq. Was it right ? Was it humanitarian? No, No and No again. However my post was about the thoughtless protesting of a situation that had to be dealt with. I fear that you are one of those people who see Bush And Blair and the other 30 nations now supporting this war the villain not Saddam. You can support this by sending long articles written by someone else however Saddam needs to be dealt with or are you against that too? You may also find that France and Russia have very strong business deals with Iraq that renders their actions understandable though totally without any humanistic value.I’m sorry that you find my viewpoint ignorant. Name calling is always an interesting tactic when not agreeing with somebody else’s viewpoint that provides a very clear window as to the persons character and convictions.


We all know that any government and/or society is insincere and disingenuous on just about all socioeconomic issues. Purity of action would be pleasant but since the beginning of time this has not happened. However the world has seen just and humane actions from these same governmental bodies. What rationale minded person would say that the present “War” is not one of those actions, only history will say that.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Next time, before you rant, make sure you take the time to find out exactly what it is you're complaining about.

I know what I'm complaining about , I've worked in the news business.
Now rather than follow my stereotype step out of it. and give me an alternative that has a chance of working against a madman like Saddam. 

The mistake the Anti War Wallys make is that they are not dealing with someone who understands right and wrong ..humanitarian issues etc.

I love the anti war sentiment, however the world would be a better place without people like Hitler Saddam etc. But without war you would not have the right to free speech. You may well be learning German right now and goosestepping to work or was that war wrong too. I don't think many Jews would agree.


----------



## fül (Aug 14, 2002)

WWII was good, so war on Iraq is good, too?

OK, here is my argument against war in Iraq: couscous tastes better than a BigMac so the US has no right to attack Iraq.

Man, stinand, either be coherent when you post or go eat a BigMac!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Pllease explain to this simpleton what the evidence was that the Iraq was not disarming? That the continued inspections were having no effect? That there was a clear and present danger of attack by Iraq on American interests? Blix and the inspectors seemed to think that there was progress being made. So why, exactly, was war declared in spite of huge international opposition?

War should be a last resort when the alternatives fail. Instead, Bush set up a series of staw-dog demands that started out demanding disarmament and ended up demanding exile of Hussein. Not even Tony Blair demanded a regime change.

As someone "in the news business", surely you are interested in why the majority of Canadians are against war? Isn't that where the story is? If war is so obviously justified, why are most Canadians not convinced? Or are the majority of Canadians brain-dead?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

A reply

First a small correction I WAS in the news and broadcasting business. I now run a communications company who quite often (I love this word) positions what you hear on the news.

My viewpoint ( though this was not my original post) is that the United Nations made a resolution that required Saddam to disarm. They let it go, as they often do until Bush put pressure on them to get the inspectors back in, something the UN should have done long ago.

I think the common misconception is that the inspectors are there to investigate. They are not, they respond to the documentation that Saddam provided to the UN. In short that means that Saddam could be hiding 50 gallons of anthrax in the dessert or one his palaces but the UN inspectors do not go out looking around the country ad hoc. In fact they are escorted everywhere under Saddams watchful eyes. I don’t see that as a worthwhile process to insure that Iraq has disarmed. Blix’s verbal exclusion in his report to the UN of the drone aircraft, has also made me a little suspicious of his agenda. In a recent BBC interview one of this top inspectors admitted that they had no idea of how long the process would take as Saddam was not fully co-operating. 

Powell presented alleged evidence that showed Saddam had not disarmed. Evidence which according to the various sources was never checked out by the inspectors. 

Logic and history tells me that Bush and Blair are smart savvy politicians advised by coherent thinking people, all of whom would like to serve for another term. If you agree with that why would they commit political suicide by taking an action that is unpopular both domestically and internationally?

In my mind you have 2 choices either Bush and Blair and the other 30 countries now backing them are nuts and ignorant power crazed war mongers or they know something that we don’t.

I will opt for scenario two because I believe that we only have 10% of the facts. Surely the USA with it’s amazing satellites must have a pretty good idea of what is going on their, and are basing some of their actions with that knowledge. 


As for the “War should be a last resort when the alternatives fail.” argument . I think that after 12 years most other alternatives have failed. Do you have some?

I think most people think of this as a recent issue they forget that Saddam has been playing this game for many years.

As I mentioned in another post, France and Russia do some really stellar business worth billions with Iraq as do many others which certainly partially explains their anti war stance. 

As for why Canadians don’t support war, that’s a whole other topic which engulfs our peaceful and secure way of life, the sources of our news and our lack luster politicians.


I don’t like war, but what I do dislike almost as much is the idiots who protest it with no viable alternative. This is not a black and white issue it’s many shades of gray and to over simplify it shows a certain lacking of grey matter.

Do you treat a Cancer or operate on it? Depend on which doctor you ask and what stage the Cancer is in!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Andy wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you treat a Cancer or operate on it? Depend on which doctor you ask and what stage the Cancer is in! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, doctors don't selectvely ingore many cancer patients and agressively "treat" another (especially one who has lots of oil fields for the doctor's oil companies), then announce they are "ridding the world of cancer."

Nor do doctors give aesbestos or cigarettes to their patients, then look surprised when the patient develops cancer.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Nor do doctors give aesbestos or cigarettes to their patients, then look surprised when the patient develops cancer.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with you, but many would if they could make a buck doing it!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"In my mind you have 2 choices either Bush and Blair and the other 30 countries now backing them are nuts and ignorant power crazed war mongers or they know something that we don?t."

Well, some of those 30 countries aren't exactly on the A list of human rights... And many more are dependent upon the US for economic aid. Moreover, the populations of those 30 countries do not, in any example, share the views of their repsective governments. Only in the US is there an overall majority in support of conflict.

"I will opt for scenario two because I believe that we only have 10% of the facts. Surely the USA with it?s amazing satellites must have a pretty good idea of what is going on their, and are basing some of their actions with that knowledge."

But this is what really confuses/bugs me. Given the enormous effort the US and UK went to to pursuade other countries to join them, why would they not have revealed prima facie evidence if it existed? My conclusion is that they don't have it. I simply can't understand why you'd hold back critical evidence in such a situation (unless it was embarrassing to the US or an allie).

And there is clearly some confusion of the role/freedom of the UN inspectors. While their job was difficult and they were harrassed, they were able to visit any site they wanted to (including the palaces) and did not have to give notice. I don't think that Hans Blix was part of some conspiracy. Of the three drones, only one could fly - 200 yards.

My alternative would be to spend 0.1% of the costs of this war (conservatively put at 100 billion, not counting reconstruction), i.e. $100 million, into a permanent inspection/surveillance program. Hussein isn't going anywhere. The no-fly zones are effective deterrents for expansion - and provide safe-havens. Ship food and medical care to these areas. Harrass the hell out of Hussein. Pull the rug from under him rather than flatten him (along with thousands of innocent Iraqis) with a MOAB.

As for cancer, it depends on the type but unfortunately, there are no magic bullets. People almost never die from the primary cancer. They die from metastatic disease - disemmination of tiny numbers of cells that no surgeon can ever see. The standard treatments for solid tumours are surgical resection followed by several courses of chemotherapy and/or irradiation. It's a long process - you can't give cancer cells a deadline. Catching a cancer early is the primary determinant of outcome. Of course, prevention is best. 

Hussein is like a malignant cancer that has intertwined itself around an aorta. You can't remove it without high risk of killing the patient and even if you succeed, you don't know where the metastatic cells have spread to.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Stinand, what are your thoughts on how much "positioning" of the news will occur as war proceeds? I heard on the drive in this morning that Tariq Aziz had a) defected, b) been shot by Hussein, c) disappeared. Turned out to be a hoax from a middle-eastern website but the news was rapidly disseminated. My guess is that we'll get a lot of this. Hopefully, the corroborative evidence will be sought before inaccurate or fake news is spread.

What does your communications company do? I'm interested. In Canada, how much weight is put on "how" things are communicated versus "what" is communicated? Without giving away your trade secrets, how much manipulation/filtering/processing of news goes on? Any tips


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, this is somewhat off topic, but it does pertain to "communication" in an educational context. There seems to be a shift in the Canadian educational scene that is following the US situation, with more emphasis placed upon what is being taught (i.e., communicated in the classroom) and how this instruction (i.e., communication) is taking place. The shift is with the theoretical rationale underlying why something is being taught. Many educators are not as concerned with "why" something should be taught than with "what" is taught and "how" this expected outcome is being taught. This is leading us to a quantifiable situation of testing and evaluations of these scores, rather than the relevancy of a qualitative emphasis upon a broad range of knowledge and content areas.

As I said, this is off the specific topic, but there is a shift in Canada that is either leading the changing nature of communication, or is following the changing patterns of our communication process. Personally, I feel the latter point is the more valid situation, which is why communication providers and creators need to understand the importance of their actions.

Actually, Stinand, to bring the focus back to the main intent of this thread, I was a "peacenik" (I still am but in a different manner), I have a life and I have brains.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dr. G. I was bemoaning this trend towards fact-based learning and away from comprehension-based learning with one of my clinical fellows today. She was trained at McMaster which has a very unusual anddynamic teaching process where they throw the med students into the deep end (i.e. into patient interactions) rather than have them sucking up facts for the first two years. As a consequence, they are better able to consolidate dispirate facts into a practical action.

I totally agree that the "communicators" are an essential part of the process and that they carry significant responsibility. I'm sure, for example, that some people put more trust in Peter Mansbridge than their family physician.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fül:
*Man, stinand, either be coherent when you post or go eat a BigMac! *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How the hell is he gnna be coherent after eating a Big Mac? Don't ya know McDonald's food is the source of wars?

Just ask my digestive system!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, the Faculty of Education here at Memorial University is thinking about going towards an "inquiry-based model" for certain of our foundation and methodology courses. The McMaster model was considered, in that our VP Academic came to MUN from McMaster. Personally, I have been utilizing this model of interactive, social constructivism with Socratic questioning in my web courses, which have been online since the winter of 1997. My students utilize WebCT as their interactive forum. To date, the 121 students in my five web courses this semester have posted nearly 8000 posts, many of them being upwards of three pages if they were printed off. Talk about Monster Threads!  
Seriously, your point about problem-solving over rote-memorization is at the heart of inquiry-based learning.
As well, I especially liked your comment that "...the 'communicators' are an essential part of the process and that they carry significant responsibility." For years, Walter Cronkite, the CBS news anchorperson, was considered in various polls as the most "trustworthy" person in America. However, Peter Mansbridge is a fine news anchor, but I have more faith and respect for my family physician.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stinand:
*Once in awhile you have to spank the child.


Andy( Getting It Off His Chest)*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dear fellow Mississaugan,

If your passion runs so deep, I believe there still remain a few flights to the Iraqi border where you might assist in spilling a little blood. Should you find yourself in possession of the necessary limbs after your conquest, please write and let us know the total collateral damage. And if time allows, could you find out what happened to the hunt for Osama bin Laden?

Thanks!

Your "brain-dead" friend.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mississauga:
*<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stinand:
[qb]Once in awhile you have to spank the child.


Andy( Getting It Off His Chest)*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dear fellow Mississaugan,

If your passion runs so deep, 

Your "brain-dead" friend.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My passion is, if you took the time to read the post about idiot peaceniks who offer no valid alternative to war. In fact these people's very right to demonstrate was gained in many instances from the fight or wars to gain those freedoms.

Get it !!!!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm with stinand on this....I am NOT a 'war-monger', but I think that the justified removal of a murderous psychopath who is sitting on a pile of oil wealth and who has been actively developing horror weapons is a just and right thing.

Something that, by the way, is long overdue. 

So...I just gotta ask, along with stinand, the following question:

Those of you who claim to be "for peace" would prefer some other course of action where Saddam is concerned. 

What is it? Give us some sort of alternative. One that will actually address the problem, please. Not one that will allow him to continue to murder and torture his own people, finance terrorism in Israel, and develop weapons of terror while starving the children of his country to death.

An alternative that will stop him from being a threat to everone, both in Iraq and elsewhere.

Any ideas? I'm listening, honest.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Macnutt, honestly, I thought you not start that line of thought again. You were given some possible solutions back in the other thread where this dance is also being played out. Diplomacy is not a 5 minute solution. It takes time to create solutions. The more complicated the problem, the longer the solution takes. Besides which, your fear of weapons build up by Iraq would not be an issue IF the US would stop selling him the materials to make the dog darned things in the first place. The US is covering up a mess it made in the first place by blowing up the problem.
Please remember your solution to this problem when the terrorist attacks start for real against the US. Then we will see if your solution saved a lot of innocent lives.
Robert


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

> Originally posted by Cynical Critic:
> [QB]Stinand, you talked about not name calling in an earlier post and yet you repeatedly lable "peaceniks" as "idiots"? Do you enjoy stewing in hypocrisy just like the group you're pigeon-holing?
> 
> Fair comment if you believe that I’m thoughtlessly name calling!! Use of the English language should be precise.
> ...


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

I think most people here agree that under certain circumstances war is the only option. WWI and II are often cited here. (Although they are bad examples when used with regard to the US.) The problem most have (my opinion) is that there is little to no proof that a military strike is the last resort at this particular time. Something else is going on in Washington that we probably will never know about. 
As for free speech, we won ours through peaceful means, which is one of our greatest accomplishments and should be an example to the world.
Youyr tone and use of the word idiot is true to the dictionary but most words have other meanings in this day and age. To me you sound blood thirsty and closed minded. But then I don't like violence and can't support it without knowing I've used up all other options.
Robert


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hello macnutt and stinand. You asked for an alternative and I gave one several posts back but it seems to have been ignored. Are you really listening macnutt?

utbjwoodget wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My alternative would be to spend 0.1% of the costs of this war (conservatively put at 100 billion, not counting reconstruction), i.e. $100 million, into a permanent inspection/surveillance program. Hussein isn't going anywhere. The no-fly zones are effective deterrents for expansion - and provide safe-havens. Ship food and medical care to these areas. Harrass the hell out of Hussein. Pull the rug from under him rather than flatten him (along with thousands of innocent Iraqis) with a MOAB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Koffi Annan, Hans Blix, Jean Chretien and others believed the inspectors were making significant progress (and, unlike the US/UK, were able to provide material evidence of it). That option had not run its course, it had just gotten in the way of George Bush's battle plan.

Stinand, I'm impervious to being called an idiot and brain-dead. I've got kids of my own and I get it all the time


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, a fine idea. Might I suggest a "matching fund" to support humanitarian efforts, such as feeding and housing the sick and the poor beyond just Iraq. The billions that are being spend on this war could be spent on this "matching fund" and attempt to alleviate some of the causal factors of war. Some may say that this approach is naive, but it spends the same amount of money and will result, in my opinion, in a far safer world.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Since we are into the definition of words, perhpas it is time to understand the meaing of another word;

*war·mon·ger*    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôrmnggr, -mng-)
n. 

*One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
warmonger·ing adj. & n.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]

*war-monger*

Warmonger \War"mon`ger\, n. One who makes a war trade or business; a mercenary. [R.] --Spenser.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

*war-monger*

warmonger n : *a person who advocates war or warlike policies* [syn: militarist]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


Now let's look up another word that was used in the definition of the previous word (just so we all get it straight)

ad·vo·cate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dv-kt)
tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates 

To speak, plead, or *argue in favor of.* See Synonyms at support.
n. (-kt, -kt)

1.	*One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender*: an advocate of civil rights. 
2.	One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses. 
3.	A lawyer.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Y'all ...

It gives me joy to know that Canada along with the more intellectually developed nations has faced down Bush & Co.'s abysmal and belligerent and moronic stupidity.

It makes me happy to know of the the frustration that Canadian war fans and other right wingers must feel at this time with that flushing sound emanating from the Bush aping Alliance and PeeCees quarters.

It is beautiful to know that for the foreseeable future I can enjoy this socialist commie pinko Liberal life where there is a common wealth serving our mutual concern for the health and dignity of all.

Joe Coors is dead ...... where is David Frum?

G.I.Joe can't touch this: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/mdc_team_5.html


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Stinand, you talked about not name calling in an earlier post and yet you repeatedly lable "peaceniks" as "idiots"? Do you enjoy stewing in hypocrisy just like the group you're pigeon-holing?

I agree with you that a good deal of war protestors are ignorant. However, don't try and tell me the pro war side doesn't have it's own fair share of ignorance and propaganda-inspired misinformation. 

You hit the nail on the head earlier when you said this matter is a large "gray area." There are no ideal answers so you have to position yourself on one side or another - at least temporarily - if you wish to have any agency. However, rudeness and insults accomplish nothing but making you sound like a ranting Republican stereotype. As for the beginning of your post, if you dislike the peace protests on TV so much, just change the channel or better yet make an effor to educate more people so they can make informed decisions - instead of following the crowd or going on half-truth or misinformed opinions.

My summary: I'm enjoying the dialogue in this thread but the sarcasm and name-calling is inappropriate (from everyone here, in my "peacenik-esque" opinion, but, in all sincerity Stinand, you did start the tone of this thread. And to paraphrase Paul, peacenik disciple of Jesus, "You reap what you sow.")


----------



## fül (Aug 14, 2002)

stinand stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>*We have the freedoms that I cherish. We have these freedoms because unfortunately our ancestors had to wage war to preserve them. 
[...]
These anti war protestors stand under the umbrella of military protection and aggression that allows them their freedoms and yet they protest the very tool that gave them the freedoms . I think idiot may be a compliment.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am pretty sure my ancestors sacrificed their lives so I wouldn't have to die for my opinions.

Since Iraq is a sovereign nation, it is the *Iraqi people's sole responsibility* to claim their freedom. Sure, we can help, but it is wrong to act on their behalf. The best way to keep a man from starving is to teach him how to fish, not to supply him with fish... or take the big fish out for him.

As for your 'What ifs...?', well, what ifs is what they are.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

fül paraphrased:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The best way to keep a man from starving is to teach him how to fish, not to supply him with fish <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple and true.
Very timely.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

In response to the message that started this thread...I wouldn't call myself a "peacenik," but I would call myself someone who is not yet convinced by US and UK allegations about Iraq or the need for war. I would also suggest that I am someone who believes in the rule of law...something the US is disregarding by attacking another state without United Nations approval. 

Countries, like the US and Britain, cannot simply disregard international bodies and conventions they have signed when the systems they employ are politically inconvenient. 

In his address last night, President Bush said "America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality." I would argue that the "coalition of the willing" is demonstarting the same disregard.

Diplomacy and continued weapons inspections should be employed, not military action that will surely result in a humanitarian tragedy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> President Bush said "America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remind me again who used nuclear weapons to kill 200,000+ people?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> President Bush said "America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remind me again who used nuclear weapons to kill 200,000+ people?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Okay I get it, you like to run in and out of discussions leaving quotes and other peoples opnions.

Whats your stance because if it's that anybody who takes any kind of action should have a spotless past I think you may need to give your head a shake.

As you like to quote, try this .

Let he who is perfect cast the first stone.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

"let he who is perfect cast the first stone" ... stinand

OKIDOKE! I guess I'm perfect .... as I have never killed nor have I ever advocated the killing of persons ......

The Bush Family and the Conventions of War

An American Aristocratic Family and it's Genetic Flaw

Operation Enduring Greedom.

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating" G.W.Bush April 3, 2000

Mentally retarded are treated equally in Texas - some executed, some elected.

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush. 

By Rick Wiles 
Copyright: American Freedom News 
September 2001 

President Bush recently signed an executive order to freeze the US financial assets of corporations doing business with Osama bin Laden. He described the order as a "strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network.? 

"If you do business with terrorists, if you support or succor them, you will not do business with the United States," said President Bush. 

He didn?t say anything about doing business with a terrorist?s brother ? or his wealthy financier.  

When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn?t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind?s late brother was an investor in the president?s former oil business in Texas.  He also hasn?t leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and  terrorist networks. 

Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family.  Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler?s Third Reich.  Several business operations managed by Prescott Bush ? the president?s grandfather - were seized by the US government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act. 

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis.  Prescott Bush was a director.  Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank?s shares.  Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush.  The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler?s Third Reich.  Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.     

Doing business with the bin Laden empire, therefore, is only the latest extension of the Bush family?s financial ties to unsavory individuals and organizations.  Now that thousands of American citizens have died in terrorist attacks and the nation is going to war, the American people should know about George W. Bush?s relationship with the family of Osama bin Laden. 

Salem bin Laden, Osama?s older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy. ? the Texas oil company started by George W. Bush.  Arbusto means ?Bush? in Spanish.  Salem bin Laden died in an airplane crash in Texas in 1988.  

Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, the family patriarch and founder of its construction empire, also died in a plane crash.  Upon his death in 1968, he left behind 57 sons and daughters ? the offspring he sired with 12 wives in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.  About a dozen brothers manage Bin Laden Brothers Construction ? one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East.  

Fresh out of Harvard Business School, young George W. Bush returned to Midland, TX, in the late 1970s to follow his father?s footsteps in the oil business.  Beginning in 1978, he set up a series of limited partnerships ? Arbusto ?78, Arbusto ?79, and so on ? to drill for oil.  

One of President Bush?s earliest financial backers was James Bath, a Houston aircraft broker.  Bath served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard.  Bath has a mysterious connection to the Central Intelligence Agency.    

According to a 1976 trust agreement, Salem bin Laden appointed James Bath as his business representative in Houston.    Revelation about Bath?s relationship with the bin Laden financial empire and the CIA was made public in 1992 by Bill White, a former real estate business partner with Bath. White informed federal investigators in 1992 that Bath told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role since 1976 ? the same year former President George Herbert Walker Bush served as director of the CIA.    

During a bitter legal fight between White and Bath, the real estate partner disclosed that Bath managed a portfolio worth millions of dollars for Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis.  Among the investments made by Bath with Mahfouz?s money was the Houston Gulf Airport. 

A powerful banker in Saudi Arabia, Mahfouz was one of the largest stockholders in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.  BCCI was a corrupt global banking empire operating in 73 nations and was a major financial and political force in Washington, Paris, Geneva, London, and Hong Kong.  Despite the appearance of a normal banking operation, BCCI was actually an international crime syndicate providing ?banking services? to the Medellin drug cartel, Pamama dictator Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, and Khun Sa, the heroin kingpin in Asia?s Golden Triangle. 

The BCCI scandal implicated some of the biggest political names in Washington ? both Democrats and Republicans ? during the first Bush White House.  The bank was accused of laundering money for drug cartels, smuggling weapons to terrorists, and using Middle Eastern oil money to influence American politicians.  

The chief of the Justice Department?s criminal division under former President Bush was Robert Mueller.  Because the major players came out of the scandal with slaps on the wrists, many critics accused Mueller of botching the investigation.  Mr. Mueller was recently appointed by President George W. Bush as the new Director of the FBI, replacing Louis Freeh who did nothing while William Jefferson Clinton allowed the Red Chinese to loot our national security secrets. 

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the Justice Department, reviewed allegations by Bill White in 1992 that James Bath funneled money from wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen to American companies to influence the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations.  Robert Mueller, the new FBI chief, was in a senior position at the Justice Department at the time of the review. 

White told a Texas court in 1992 that Bath and the Justice Department had ?blackballed? him professionally and financially because he refused to keep quiet about his knowledge of an Arabic conspiracy to launder Middle Eastern money into the bank accounts of American businesses and politicians. 

In sworn depositions, Bath admitted he represented four wealthy Saudi Arabian businessmen as a trustee.  He also admitted he used his name on their investments and received, in return, a five- percent stake in their business deals. 

Indeed, Texas tax documents revealed that Bath owned five percent of Arbusto ?79 Ltd., and Arbusto ?80 Ltd.  Bush Exploration Company controlled the limited partnerships, the general partnership firm owned by young George W. Bush. 

Although George W. Bush?s Texas oil ventures were financial failures, his financial backers recovered their investments through a series of mergers and stock swaps. He changed Arbusto?s name to Bush Exploration, then merged the new firm into Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation in 1984. 

The Bush-controlled oil business eventually ended up being folded into Harken Energy Corp., a Dallas-based corporation.  Mr. Bush joined Harken as a director in 1986 and was given 212,000 shares of Harken stock.  Bush used his White House connections to land a lucrative contract for the obscure Harken Energy Corp. with the Middle Eastern government of Bahrain.  On June 20, 1990, George W. Bush sold his Harken stock for $848,000 and paid off the loan he took out to buy his small share in the Texas Rangers.  The Bahrain deal was brokered by David Edwards, a close pal to Bill Clinton and a former employee of Stephens Inc. Shortly after Bush sold his stock, Harken?s fortunes nose-dived when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  Some critics claim young George was tipped off in advance by his father about the soon-coming Gulf War. 

George W. Bush, however, worked wonders for Harken Energy Corp. before the stock collapsed.    Using the Bush family name, he managed to bring much-needed capital investment to the struggling firm.  George W. Bush traveled to Little Rock, AR, to attend a meeting with Jackson Stephens ? a powerful Arkansas tycoon who helped bankroll the state campaigns of young Bill Clinton. He first gained political prominence as a fund-raiser for President Jimmy Carter. Stephens was also deeply involved in the BCCI scandal by helping the corrupt bank take control of First American Bank in Washington, DC. 

Jack Stephens didn?t need an introduction to young George W. Bush.    Mary Anne Stephens, his wife, managed Vice President George Bush?s 1988 presidential campaign in Arkansas.  Stephens Inc., the well connected brokerage firm owned by Jack Stephens, donated $100,000 to a Bush campaign fundraising dinner in 1991.  When George W. Bush won the contested Florida election in 2000, Jack Stephens made a substantial contribution to the Bush inauguration.  Recently, former President Bush played golf on April 11, 2001, with Jack Stephens at the Jack Stephens Youth Golf Academy in Little Rock.  The former president told Stephens, ?Jack, we love you and we are very, very grateful for what you have done.? 

Perhaps the former president was thanking him for the money Stephens provided young George W. Bush.  Stephens arranged for a $25 million investment from the Union des Banques Suisses.  The Swiss Bank held the minority interest in the Banque de Commerce et de Placements, a Geneva-based subsidiary of BCCI. 

Both Stephens and Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a wealthy and well-connected Saudi real estate investor, signed the financial transaction. The Geneva transaction was paid through a joint venture between the Union Bank of Switzerland and its Geneva branch of BCCI.  

The BCCI connection, therefore, linked George W. Bush with Saudi banker Khaled bin Mahfouz.  Known in Arab circles as the ?king?s treasurer,? Mahfouz held a 20 percent take in BCCI between 1986 and 1990.  Mahfouz is no stranger to the Bush family.  He was a big investor in the Carlyle Group, a defense-industry investment group with deep connections to the Republican Party establishment.  Former President Bush is a former member of the company?s board of directors.  George W. Bush also held shares in Caterair, a Carlyle subsidiary.  Sami Baarma, a powerful player in the Mahfouz-owned Prime Commercial Bank of Pakistan, is a member of the Carlyle Group?s international advisory board.     

President Bush certainly is aware of that his former Saudi sugar daddy is still financing Osama bin Laden?s terrorist network.  USA Today newspaper reported in 1999 that a year after bin Laden?s attacks on US embassies in Africa, Khaled bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis were funneling tens of millions of dollars each year into bin Laden?s bank accounts.  Five top Saudi businessmen ordered the National Commercial Bank to transfer personal funds and $3 million pilfered from a Saudi pension fund to the Capitol Trust Bank in New York City.  The money was deposited into the Islamic Relief and Blessed Relief - Islamic charities operating in the US and Great Britain as fronts for Osama bin Laden. 

The Capitol Trust Bank is run by Mohammad Hussein al-Amoudi.  His lawyer is Democratic Party bigwig Vernon Jordan, close friend of former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.    

Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, the Arab who cosigned the $25 million cash infusion into George W. Bush?s Harken Energy Corporation, appointed Talat Othman to manage his 17.6 percent share in Harken Energy Corp.  Othman, a native Palestinian, is president and CEO of Dearborn Financial Inc. ? an investment firm in Arlington Heights, IL.     

Bakhsh also bought a 9.6 percent stake in Worthen Banking Corporation, the Arkansas bank controlled by Jack Stephens.  Abdullah Bakhsh?s share was the identical percentage as the amount of shares sold by Mochtar Riady, the godfather of the wealthy Indonesian family with close ties to the Chinese communists, Bill Clinton and evangelist Pat Robertson.  Bakhsh is represented by Rogers & Wells, a well-connected Republican law firm in New York whose partners include former Secretary of State William P. Rogers. 

Independent investigator reporter David Twersky reported in the early 1990s that Othman had a seat on Harken?s board of directors and met three times in the White House with President George Herbert Walker Bush.  Organized by Chief of Staff John Sununu, Othman?s first meeting with President Bush at the White House was in August 1990, just days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. 

There exist to this day an Arab-Texas connection.  Khalid bin Mahfouz, financier of both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, still maintains a palatial estate in Houston, TX.  Former President George Bush also lives in Houston.  James Bath, Texas political confidant of George W. Bush, managed to obtain a $1.4 million loan from Mahfouz in 1990.  Bath and Mahfouz, along with former Secretary of Treasury John Connally, were also co-investors in Houston?s Main Bank.  Bath was also president of Skyway Aircraft Leasing Ltd, a Texas air charter company registered in the Cayman Islands.  According to published reports in the early 1990s, the real owner was bin Mahfouz.  When Salem bin Laden, Osama? brother, died in 1988, his interest in the Houston Gulf Airport was transferred to bin Mahfouz.  

Since Osama bin Laden?s bloody attack on America on September 11, the federal government has moved quickly to freeze bank accounts connected to Osama bin Laden, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and a host of Islamic charities.  
Perhaps federal agents should freeze the financial assets of the Bush family too.  It would not be the first time Bush-family assets were seized by the US government for trading with the enemy. 
http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm 

also: http://www.ciagents.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=384 

also :http://www.tarpley.net/bush1.htm


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Adding to Macspectrum's fine array of definitions, might I add the suffix "-nik". This suffix has a Slavic derivation, and converts any word into a name of whatever that word refers to basically. This suffix was widely utilized by both Jewish and Slavic people. "-nik" does not have the cute, trivializing connotation it does in the US today. For example, in 19th century Russia, there was a movement of populists who tried to incite the peasants into a revolt against the tsar. They were called "narodniks", after the word "narod" which means "people". 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration, this linguistic lesson was brought to you by a "peacenik" with "some brains".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

stinand quoted:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As you like to quote, try this .

Let he who is perfect cast the first stone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Been a lot of stone throwing around here it seems.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

The quote is actually "Let he who is without blame cast the first stone."

I admittedly not well-versed in world politics so I don't feel I'm qualified to give a viable alternative. However, that does not mean I have to support the war as the "right" or "best" choice. Or if that's my only option in your view strinand, then I suppose the freedom you've referred to is only freedom to do what you say because you're not an "idiot" and because you're informed or on the side of "side." 

You know the funny thing is I'm not totally opposed to this war. However, fundamentally war is always a last resort and in this situation it's the U.S. who has created the urgency. Isn't it funny that George Senior has subtly derided his son twice. Perhaps this war will be a short-term solution but violence often just breeds more violence. This is cyclical and its occurs to me that this war could be the catalyst for a lot more violence, terrorism and hatred. 

Again I'm dwelling in a possibility but this war as "the best option" or being "for a better tomorrow" is just as much a possibility. I appreciate your opinion strinand; however, a lot of people don't agree with your stance and that doesn't have any bearing on their intelligence. Nevertheless, I do agree that more viable solutions should be (or have been) created. If you're so intelligent perhaps you should suggest some even if they're not as favourable as war in your opinion, strinand. I'm all ears.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

If you're so intelligent perhaps you should suggest some even if they're not as favourable as war in your opinion, strinand. I'm all ears.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the compliment but I don’t consider myself particularly intelligent. I’m happy that many people don’t agree with my stance, particularly as this thread was about peaceniks and their associated lack of alternatives as I have stated many times before. 

Do I have alternatives? NO I’m not as well informed as those making the decisions and don’t know all the facts.

I do, having traveled extensively, see that freedom is something that many Canadians take for granted in their wonderful naiveté. From the average person sitting in his warm comfortable home it may be truly difficult to even comprehend what lack of freedom is. Most of the anti war arguments leave this fact out, which is understandable considering that we as Canadians are so insulated from the horrors of the world.

Try spending time in Ecuador ,Columbia or part of the Middle East where those freedoms don’t exist. I been there and seen it and still I can’t truly comprehend it. If part of the Iraq situation frees the people from a tyrannical dictatorship it is worth while. On the other hand the death suffering and killing of innocent victims is abhorrent to me . The ensuing mess that will arise out of this war between the Kurds and Turks is also very frightening. However everything comes at a price, which is easy for me to say as it’s not a member of my family who may be decimated by a stray bomb. 

A current thought process is that Bush (who I have no particular love for) should not instigate this military action because of the past alleged or real wrongs the USA has committed. I think that line of logic is very faulty, as every country in the world has skeletons in their closet. Heck I’m British and I’m not proud of some of the past deeds of the UK. The atrocities that they committed in Northern Ireland in the name of justice are deplorable. This thought processes applied to religion would make any church powerless to do anything positive.

Often the powers of the world are confronted with moral and humanitarian issues and we armchair quarterbacks love to sit and second guess them. If they stand by and do little we criticize their non caring inhumane stance, if they get involved the anti war weenies cry out in practiced protest.

The other argument is that the country who sticks their nose in to “help” is accused of self interest , well yeah. Most of any person’s actions are at least partly self motivated. This is human nature so it’s not a relevant factor. 

How do you deal with a person like Saddam whose thought process is so foreign to decent minded people? Do you apply your morals, ethics and standards to the situation?
Do you sink to his level? Do you try and treat him reasonably and hope he responds? Do you do what it takes to solve the issues that he has created?

Everyone will have their own answers based on their experiences, upbringing in life and religious beliefs. However decrying one method out of hand without offering some well thought out alternative is idiotic and prepubescent.

There is one thing that I do know that I am thankful that I am not the one having to make a decision like Iraq. 

I’m also thankful that I live in a country where most people have not been exposed to any of the terrors of a regime like Saddam’s or been victims of terrorist actions.

An alternative ? I’ll leave to that to the really intelligent people on this board.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

A fair reply.

While you admit war is necessary at times (which I sadly can't disagree with), it seems to me that you're not convinced this is a favourable course of action - but only the best one. Is that accurate? 

Would you be accepting of the peace protestors if they were better informed and doing more than protesting to help the situation? I for one, feel as of late that while protesting makes an issue known, there are a lot more creative and helpful things that could be pursued. This is where protestors get under my skin. Nevertheless, I'm glad people are standing up for what they believe in and I think it's rude and childish to label them simply as "idiots." That's a generalization and an insult that is as productive as protesting in ignorance.

I suppose now there's not much we can do but wait to see what unfolds in Iraq. Then history will judge--not if this was a "right" or "wrong" situation--but if this was an action with a reasonably favourable outcome. 

I hope most of all that the outcome is good for the Iraqi people - at least in the long run; but I fear that may be a truly naïve, optimistic and simplified sentiment.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Try actually living and working, for months and years, in a country where one man is the absoloute ruler...and where members of his family control every aspect of society and commerce.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that life under a dictatorship is a horrible thing. Only a crazy person would disagree with that.

Will you agree, or at least consider, that;
1. U.S. policy has been inconsistent, to say the least, vis-a-vis oppressive regimes.
2. U.S. has supported and continues to support various regimes.
3. U.S. has effectively taken unilateral military action, without the support of a mandate for military action from the U.N. in the form of a security council resolution

By the way, for the record, my father was forcibly removed from his village in eastern Poland and forced into being a labourer in Nazi Germany. The Nazis considered all Slavic people to be "untermenschen" - sub-human. Being an Ukrainian, you can just imagine how he was treated. 

He rarely spoke of the war. It affected him for the rest of his life. It pains me, even today, to remember the horrors that he endured, oh so many years ago. 

He instilled in me a profound love for peace, democracy and Canada. He also taught me to speak out on issues that I believed in, as he was denied this basic fundamental right for many years.

In summation, I would ask that you not assume that everyone, who has not travelled as extensively as yourself, does not understand the ravages of living under a regime.

Confusing assumptions with axioms makes for a very bad intellectual argument.
Trust me on this.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Experience doesn't dictate knowledge MacNutt.

Whatever your experience with another culture you're an outsider looking in unless you have and continue to live there. I don't dismiss your first hand experience and it is valuable but it is not absolute. I know people who have traveled all over the world that have remained ignorant and naïve to local politics and problems. Obviously, their exposure to such things is highly increased and unmediated for the most part. I'm confident that there are plent of people who have travelled and experienced different cultures (with dictators) who don't share the same viewpoint or conclusions about war as you and stinand. You have made a gross generalization that I thought was uncharacteristic of you.

I respect that you've lived different places and experience the culture. I desire to go more places myself and immerse myself in other cultures; however, I have not had the financial luxury at this juncture in my life. I can't afford it and while perhaps the sitting comfortably in arm chairs comment wasn't necessarily directed at me, I personally find it short-sighted.

The division between intellectual and traveller or thinking and doing is not nearly as clear as you're insinuating.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Cynical Critic...it is one thing to have "traveled all over the world". 

It is quite another to have lived for long periods of time in a foreign country. Especially one that is dominated by a single man and his corrupt family.

My primary mailing address and my home was in Central or South America for more than two and a half decades. On occaision, I visited Canada or the USA. But only for a few weeks. About the same amount of time that most Canadians actually spend outside of Canada every year.

The rest of the time, I was "in country". A resident. Subject to all of the laws and realities of a place that most Canadians can't possibly even imagine. 

And when things got hairy and wierd I couldn't just bail and catch a plane for home.

Because I was already home. I had relationships and a job and commitments to the place.

What happened there was my reality, just as it was to every other resident of that country.

This gives you a unique perspective on the events that happen in that country. No doubt about it.

You become a part of it. And you begin to really care about how it all comes out...especially if you don't have any easy way out, when the sh*t starts to fly.

It gets all of your attention...trust me.


Macspectrum....Michael...I honestly believe that you do hold the truths that you believe in to be real. I respect this. Honest.

And I am quite aware of what your father went through. I have lived through similar situations myself. I have expressed my sympathy and empathy for what your father experienced...both publicly here at ehmac...and privately in emails to yourself.

No human being should have to go through such inhuman treatment at the hands of an unelected tyrant. Not EVER!!

I am totally committed to this cause...just as the peace protesters are committed to what they believe in.

Because I have experienced what your father had to deal with. Many times.

It is unhuman, unfair and must be stopped...before we can move forward into a truly just society for this whole planet.

Saddam and his like are a big part of this problem. Taking him out of play will give notice to the rest of the remaining despots that time has caught up to them, and that they are no longer safe...no matter who they threaten or kill.

And they may just begin to look for a quick exit.

This is a good thing. For everyone involved.

Do you see where I am coming from on this?

Do you see where stinand is coming from on this?

Please consider. 

Just my thoughts...for what they're worth.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

On a possibly good note, Saddam and his sons may be dead. Reports seem to indicate the first strike may have killed the tyrant. If this is true, it's great news for the troops and the Iraqi people. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. One indication is that U.S. tanks are advancing in broad daylight with little to no opposition.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,
I noticed that you didn't even mention any of my points I had asked you to consider regarding the U.S. and its behaviour and foreign policy.

My mentioning of my late father was only to show you that there are ways to understand what it is like living under a dictatorship than just living abroad.

I will not address the relative differences between what you went through on several occassions and how my late father was treated as a sub-human by the Nazis. Opening that wound again will not do anyone any good.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

CC...I never thought that the US/Coalition forces would have much opposition. Especially at this early stage. It will be later when we will find out how much resolve Saddam has been able to muster among the people he holds at gunpoint. (not much, I'd guess)

I echo you thoughts and hopes about Saddam's early demise. This could only be a good thing....if it's true.

I hope it is. So do several million Iraqis, I'd bet.

We will have to wait and see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Michael...I cannot express to you what I have been through or what I have witnessed in my life. 

I was totally on my own, when I lived in South or Central America. I was not working for some big American oil company...I was an employee of a small subcontractor to a service provider to one of these companies. I did not even show up on some sort of "pecking order".

I was thought of as a foreign national who had chosen to live there, for whatever reason. No special status...and no special treatment.

I was, in effect, invisible. 

A foreign-born permanent resident of the country and totally subject to all of the rules of the land.

Nobody was standing by to bail me out of trouble or rescue me from any sort of sh*t that I got myself into. And not at all immune to any sort of sh*t that overtook me...even if I didn't want it to and had no interest in. 

(you can do everything right, all of the time in a dictatorship...and still be dragged off and sent to prison for nothing. Just because the ruling elite doesn't like you.I have no idea why the "Peace Protesters" spend no time at all protesting this little reality. Perhaps they are not even aware of this?)

I won't go into it...but I was subject to some of the same conditions that your father might have experienced. More than once.

And no one...in the country I was living in...or back in Canada...was even the slightest bit interested in removing me from these situations.

I was on my own. In a very real sense.

Let me tell you.....


Anyhow, I survived. And I did not asked to be reassigned. Therefore my company considered me to be "a survivor and a lifer who could handle living and working in a distant land".

They kept sending me to other trouble-prone places for long periods of time and expected me to take over and run things under all sorts of bizarre conditions.

I did this, for some time.

And then I left. 

Now I am here on Salt Spring...loving life and my own freedom. Freedom to speak out on what I believe in. Freedom to vote as I wish...without having to worry about government soldiers showing up at my door to convince me that I am wrong when I express my opinions. And ready to change those opinions..with force, if necessary.

North America...and Canada in particular, is very special. We have freedoms that are quite rare and unusual when compared to the rest of the world.

We have something truly unique here. Many of you have no idea how unique it really is.

Cherish it and nourish it. If you let it slip away, you will not be happy at all. 

Not one little bit.

Many people in this world would give anything to have what we, here in Canada, take for granted.

In a minute!

Any day of the week! I kid you not.

Trust me on this.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Will you agree, or at least consider, that;
1. U.S. policy has been inconsistent, to say the least, vis-a-vis oppressive regimes.
2. U.S. has supported and continues to support various regimes.
3. U.S. has effectively taken unilateral military action, without the support of a mandate for military action from the U.N. in the form of a security council resolution


Your questions are superfluous. What difference does it make on the past actions of any country or person?. Let me pose one for you .

Imagine that you have just been run over (God forbid) by a car in a remote part of Canada. You are bleeding, and are desperate need of medical help. A car appears around the corner, a gentlemen jumps out, it turns out to be Saddam himself but he offers you assistance to stop your bleeding and calls an ambulance.

Do your refuse because of his history on humanitarian issues?
Do you tell him to piss off because of because of his inconsistency in other accident situations?

Of course not!!!

I just don’t get why so many people need to judge (one of the world’s worst words) a present action on a past action.

I’m not saying that the US war is the right thing, but I do think it should be considered on the facts of the present issue.

If this is badly worded it’s because it’s such a messy thought process to begin with.

Perhaps you may want to consider a more practical issue and please give me a straight forward answer.

Do the Iraqi people deserve to live in such a barbarian regime? More to the point would you want to live under that same regime?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dang, I've been called brain-dead, an idiot and now an academic ignoramus who hasn't experienced the evils of the world - in just one thread. I guess its a form of diplomacy - sure beats bullets.

Macnutt, you have absolutely no idea what my background is, what I've seen or what I've experienced. Ditto for most of the people in this forum. Please don't assume something for the simple comfort of your own argument. It is truly beneath you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

stinand typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 
[quoting macpectrum]
Will you agree, or at least consider, that;
1. U.S. policy has been inconsistent, to say the least, vis-a-vis oppressive regimes.
2. U.S. has supported and continues to support various regimes.
3. U.S. has effectively taken unilateral military action, without the support of a mandate for military action from the U.N. in the form of a security council resolution
[end quote of macspectrum]
Your questions are superfluous. *What difference does it make on the past actions of any country or person?.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're serious?
Looking at the past actions of a person or country does not make a difference?
Isn't that the basis of the argument for the invasion/liberation of Iraq?
Or, do we only consider past actions when it they are deemed supportive and dismiss them when they are inconvenient?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

You're serious?
Yes . 

I expected you not to answer the question or deal with any of the issues in my previous post.

It's easier to come up with surrounding issues rather than get to the core problem. 

Now try answering the question

Do the Iraqi people deserve to live in such a barbarian regime? More to the point would you want to live under that same regime?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Nobody deserves to live under such regime(s).
Nobody would want to live under such a regime(s).

Will you answer my questions?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Often, when I read the posts or replies here at ehmac...especially on a subject such as this...I wonder about the background and experiences that have served to form the opinions and beliefs of the citizens who are writing these missives.

What, really, has brought each of us to our own dearly-held views on the world? An interesting question, no?

And I find it particularly interesting that both stinand and myself have spent considerable time in foriegn countries. Places where the word "dictator" is not an abstract term used by the well-groomed talking heads on the evening news. Places where all the rules of modern society that most Canadians take for granted are not part of the current reality.

Not by half.

Strangely (or not) both Andy and I seem to have similar views of the world around us. Amazing,eh?

We are, at this juncture, being roundly opposed in those views by several people here who have backgrounds in academia and who, largely, seem to have lived comfortable well-fed lives living in a non violent modern democracy.

Hmmmmm....

Perhaps...and I say this with all due respect...the rest of you who assume that stinand and myself are "warmongers" who "are not willing to give negotiations a chance"...perhaps we have seen some things that have led us to our present stance. Things that you, who observe the world from a comfortable armchair, cannot possibly imagine...even in your worst nightmares?

Will you grant that this is possible?

And pehaps....again with all due respect...I could suggest that you "get out a bit more often"?

I'm not talking about a visit to a resort somewhere that includes a supervised day-trip to a major city or picturesque village. Complete with a smiling interpreter.

Try actually living and working, for months and years, in a country where one man is the absoloute ruler...and where members of his family control every aspect of society and commerce. 

And where none of them can do any wrong.

And where honest people can be hauled away and "dissappeared" in the middle of the night just for voicing any sort of opposing opinion to this ruling family. Or for simply "being in the way".

Go there and try it on for size. You won't like it, I promise you. It'll shake you to the core.

And I bet that it will colour your opinions on pretty much everything political...for the rest of your life.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Ick. My head is spinning. . .

BTW, thanks for your answer MacNutt. Last night it occurred to me that I wasn't necessarily happy with what I'd written but I'm assuming you understood the frustration and dissatisfaction I was trying to express.

At any rate, I think a positive question is what can concerned people do now? Sit back and wait is not an answer I want. I see protestors here out at UVic and I think couldn't they be doing something constructive and that would make a difference? I can't think of what though. 

Any suggestions because just telling these people do go away or "get a life" or believe something else is oppressive nonsense. I'd like some solutions on the way people opposing the war can contribute in a positive way. In my opinion, their demonstrations are only good for bringing attention to an issue and that's already been done (and overdone as stinand as noted). 

(This should be interesting. . .)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

An interesting question indeed, CC.

I have to think if even a fraction of the energy these protesters expend each year chanting and carrying signs in outrage against (fill in the blank) were actually directed towards _doing_ something constructive about the problem, then we'd see some real change. 

As you noted...public protests are designed to bring attention to a percieved injustice, and we are all pretty aware of what the problems really are. 

Here's an interesting thought:

So far in this war, there don't seem to be any massive human casualties. It's very early yet, and we don't know what the numbers are on the ground in Baghdad...but some of the reporters in Iraq are noting that there doesn't seem to be any extra activity at the hospitals. At least so far.

At the same time, CNN and the BBC are reporting several deaths during the peace marches all across the world because violence has broken out at a number of them. In Yemen, the police were firing live ammo into the crowd (!)

Do you suppose that maybe...just maybe...more people could end up dead as a result of the peace marches than during the actual war itself?

It's a long shot...and all bets are off if Saddam is still alive, and if he decides to unleash something truly awful at the last moment.

But it is possible, none the less. A bigger body count protesting the war than happened during the actual conflict.

Just imagine what that would say to future historians who study this period. About a lot of different things.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

Do you honestly believe that 30,000 lbs of high explosive dropped on Iraq will result in only a handful of deaths? The body count won't come out for months but there will be orders of magnitude difference.

For heavens sake, what do the pro-war lobby find so offensive about people protesting against this war? If you think they are wasting their time, what is it to you?

You are getting your way - there's no need to rub it into the faces of people who genuinely disagree with the invasion of Iraq. I am sickened enough.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I heard something on the radio and it got me thinking.

Is this a "war"? Let's play the semantics game. By definition "war" can be any sort of conflict orderly or disorderly (to be reductive). However, the person on the radio pointed out that for them "war" usually involves a relatively equal opposition or will to fight. 

So is this a war? Or is it an "engagement," an "invasion"...?

The term is almost as suspect as "the war on terrorism." I don't disagree with the sentiment by any means; however, it is like declaring war on "evil" or some other slightly abstracted concept. Perhaps the philosophers could come in useful for Dubya after all.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well said McGuiver! (and BTW...I really liked your TV show as well)  

Seriously...you make several very good points. Pretty much all of the interviews I have seen with Iraqis who have fled Saddam say the very same thing...that he is an inhuman monster who must be stopped.

He certainly doesn't respond to negotiations. We know that.

As for North Korea....I suspect that most of what they are all about is a bluff. Kim Jong Il is crying for help and threatening to hold his breath until his face turns blue if we don't send him some food to help support his dying regime.

George W. is letting him bake.

Why? Especially when he seems to be (at least potentially) an even bigger threat than Saddam?

Well, he hasn't actually attacked anyone in his 61 years. Saddam has attacked virtually all of the countries in his immediate vicinity in his sixty-five years. Kim Jong Il is a sad little caricature of a man who is desperate to hold on to his way of life, and preserve the memory of his much-greater father. If his system fails he will be a nobody and history will forget him.

Saddam...on the other hand is a murderous psychopath. He can, and will, do absoloutely anything to absoloutely anyone. Even his own immediate family. He also sits on a vast sea of oil wealth.

Big difference.

Besides...if North Korea actually did start to attack anyone, then China would be one of the very first to step in and remove the little gnome. They are far too happy with the status quo to let Kim Jong upset their world. 

Japan might have a few things to say about it as well.

The US would probably be only one of several big and powerful Nations that would clamp down on North Korea.

Kim Jong Il knows this.

As for the US sending troops to root out all dictators, wherever they may be in the world...

I only wish it were thus. So do a lot of the people who live in those countries.

Won't happen. Too bad.

Robert Mugabe...a particularly vile form of despot..is one who I would like to see removed ASAP. You know him...he's the one that is forbidden from entering the European Union and who has been suspended by the Commonwealth.

The same despot that was warmly greeted by Jaques Chirac a few weeks back when he visited France.

It was against all the rules, but...well...France sort of makes up their own rules these days.

And so it goes.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*Nobody deserves to live under such regime(s).
Nobody would want to live under such a regime(s).

Will you answer my questions?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\

Sorry to be so long getting back.
Yes Yes And Yes to your questions . What impact doe this have on the Iraq situation? Why not ask the same question about the other 50+ countries.?

Seems to me your an anti American guy .


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

please read page 2, 1st 3 posts, of the thread; " 'Peace' at any cost? "


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm old enough to remember when President Lyndon Johnson declared "War on Poverty" back in the sixties.

I guess it's a somewhat misused term. BTW...I have been saying, for some months now, that I don't think this is going to be much of a war.

And,so far at least, the US seems to be making every effort to restrict the attacks to Saddams command and control centers.

Seems to me that I've been saying that for quite a while as well.

I also said that Saddam would likely be target number one in the opening moments of this conflict. 

Guess what?

On a final note, Donald Rumsfeld has just stated that there have been no discernable communications from Saddam or his immediate family to their commanders in the field since that cruise missile strike on thursday that targeted him.

He _could_ be using carrier pigeons or something, I suppose. Something that the US...with all its sohisticated listening gear can't detect. But the US is also reporting "total chaos and dissarray" in the top military leadership.

Sounds a bit to me like there's nobody at the helm right now.

Perhaps that's why we haven't had an official surrender from Saddam yet.

It's all total speculation at this point...just like my above thoughts regarding body counts in the "war" versus the "peace" rallys.

But I should also note that, despite all predictions of doom during the first Gulf War, more US soldiers were killed while unloading heavy trucks during the buildup of arms than were actually killed in battle by the enemy during the war itself.

Lots of Iraqi soldiers died though...and the memory of that among the average Iraqis makes me speculate that they will be surrenduring in droves this time around.

They already are. The whole 51st Division of the Iraqi army just gave up without hardly firing a shot.

Again...we will have to see how it all plays out.

But I see nothing that makes me think that this will be a long and bloody war. Nothing at all.

Now, the "Peace" Rallys might get downright nasty though.

They already have.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

What an interesting thread.
I have to say I'm hesitantly siding with Macnut and Stinand on this one. When I try to come up with an alternative solution I don't see any viable alternative action that will work. Some suggest more time for the inspectors. I think if Saddam has biological-chemical weapons 1000 inspectors will never find them. Have you guys seen the satellite pix of Baghdad on CNN? That city alone spreads for miles with hundreds of thousands of buildings. The vastness of the dessert surrounding the place could have drums of biological agents buried. Finding them would be like trying to find a golf-ball buried in Antarctica. The sanctions are only hurting the Iraqi people. People have to resort to the black-market to get something as basic as antibiotics. Saddam and his henchmen are still eating lobster and drinking wine. Sanctions could be successfully imposed upon a leader with basic human compassion, he ain't one of them. The other thing that pulls me onside is the opinions of former Iraqi's themselves. I am yet to here one on TV or a callin show oppose the US action. A guy on CBC radio was talking with former Iraqi Canadian and said "it must really disturb you seeing those bombs hitting Baghdad". He says to the interviewer. "You never lived under Saddam, I don't know anyone who hasn't lost someone in a war or have been taken and killed by his regime. He lost 5 family members himself. In other words, he felt the toll of liberation was better than living under Saddam. Saddams neighbors would be pretty happy to see him go too. Another woman on the radio from a British organization (Didn't catch the name) that monitors human-rights abuses in Iraq is collecting testimonials for future prosecution of the regime. The stories are horrific! 32 men being fed alive into a plastic shredder while Saddam's boys watched, women raped by state hired rapists, hung up by their hair, suspended upside down while having their period to humiliate them! And the list went on! I don't see any alternative but to take this guy out. A regime change is the only thing that is going to work. I wish the US had a laser that could take him out from space while having his morning coffee but I think that technology only exists in Hollywood movies.
I will however admit I fear the precedent this action may set. If America becomes the global policeman, North Korea would have to be in their sites too. What about the atrocities in African countries? It's not so much the fact that the US wants to deal with them that scares me but the growing rift with nations like China and Russia. If these guys get too pissed and decide to step in to defend Saddam or North Korea we would be in a world of pain!
Lets hope and pray this operation is quick, decisive and with minimal loss of life. And lets stop bashing our neighbors in the halls of Parliament and childishly ridicule their leader while we stay silent in our protests about the butcher of Baghdad! Makes me wonder if the protest is anti war or anti America?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Please, please, please do not equate opposition to this invasion as being anti-American. Nor should anybody in their right mind equate anti-invasion opinions as being pro-Hussein. Because when you do, any arguments subsequently made in support of the invasion are built on sand.

I just hope loss of life and injury is minimized. Nothing will stop the onslaught until there is complete Iraqi surrender. Hopefully it will be soon, but who knows when you are dealing with people who are desperate?

Lets keep the smugness out of this too. Since I doubt the British are gloating over the smoothness of this operation to date.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi everyone,

I came across a story reinforcng my thoughts that Saddam can not be taken down without the use of force. This story is a testimonial of one of Saddam's apparent mistresses that escaped Iraq. What a bizarre and ruthless man this guy is. A regime change can only make Iraq a better place. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/iraq_saddam_mistress020908.html


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*please read page 2, 1st 3 posts, of the thread; " 'Peace' at any cost? "*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to be very good at quoting other people and asking questions, which is an interesting but unproductive form of discussion.

I started off by being disgusted at the peaceniks who don’t give a viable alternative. This thread, (as many do) has taken some other nasty twists . 


A viewpoint has come out in this thread that I find equally disturbing. The lack of humanitarian concern expressed about the people of Iraq. I cannot believe that many of you think that the US’s past is more important than peoples freedom. If you as Canadians are happy that many of the countries of the world will in the future look at us as non humanitarians, well so be it but count me out. We won’t even go into our lack of support for our best customer, protector and best friend, because that will come back to haunt us for a long time to come.

For those of you that have written these quasi intellectual historical pieces condemning Bush/Blair or worse yet cut and pasting somebody else’s article supporting some inhumane anti war point of view shame on you! 

If, as many of you non-humanitarians have suggested, there are a million other real self motivated reasons that Bush/Blair have invaded Iraq. And the by product of this war is that the people of Iraq gain their freedom. I say hurrah.

If the real reason that this military action is as Bush had said to gain freedom for the Iraq population, then in my opinion the world is a better place. 

I’m sad that there have been few posts in this thread that consider that.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Stinand I appreciate your comments and your standpoint. I'm not in any kind of direct opposition to much of what you've said; however, your tendancy to polarize issues and simplify is frightening. People who don't support Bush and Blair are "non-humanitarians". Please. I'll concede that this military action (which was not a "war" by any standard definition) may have been beneficial for this situation and for the people of Iraq to an extent. There aren't any absolutes however.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Andy, there's no doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people have been subjected to an oppressive regime that ranks among the worst the world has seen in recent years. It would be very good to see liberation of these people but their long term chances are not good. Take at look at the country, its component factions and its neighbours. Throw in the lust for oil, the religeous in-fighting and the inherent instability caused by invasion by countries universally hated in the region and it isn't at all clear that the future will be much of an improvement. We can but hope but containment of Hussein could have alleviated the outside pressure. Whatever the US accomplishes in the Iraq, it will never be seen as positive by the arab world. This irrational position is highlighted by the fact that the arab league has tolerated Hussein for so long even knowing his regime is barbaric.

You also said: *"If the real reason that this military action is as Bush had said to gain freedom for the Iraq population, then in my opinion the world is a better place."*

Agreed but its a very big "if" since George W. has repeatedly said that the primary reason for the attack is because the USA is acting to defend itself against a perceived threat. That is why he believes the world has no business in telling the US what it can and cannot do. Other justifications are secondary (to Bush II) at best.

In some ways, the US also forfeited the argument that it is acting on humanitarian grounds when is chose to act outside of the UN. The argument also rings hollow when the US chooses to ignore similarly oppressive regimes in other parts of the world.

The Iraqi people are in a no-win situation. Let's hope that the future of Iraq after the bombing and shooting ends is left in better hands than Afganistan.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Right on the money Andy! About time somebody else around here tossed the tired old ideology and started seeing things as they really are.

Instead they look for boogymen and hidden agendas under every rock. Bah!

I am also disturbed that this same contingent are now saying that "a march for peace doesn't necessarily mean we support Saddam"

Well then, how about this? If all of these marches for "peace" were somehow successful...and the invasion were stopped cold in it's tracks...who would that help the most?

Certainly not the Iraqi people. Their suffering would go on, just as it has for two decades. The murdering and torture and starvation of children would continue. Tens of thousands more Iraqis would flee this country in fear for their very lives.

Four million already have.

And the UN would have no "big stick" to wave at Saddam in order to force him to negotiate...because he would have faced down the biggest stick we have. And won.

Nope...the only person (and I use the term loosely) who could possibly benefit from a cessation of hostilities at this point is Saddam.

He knows damn well that our weakest link is our own internal dissent. That's why he ordered up hundreds of British and American army uniforms just prior to the attack. If the coalition forces didn't provide enough collateral damage to innocent civilians, then he would have to do it himself.

At best, he could fan the flames of internal dissent up to a bonfire and get the allies to back down before the job is done. At worst , he could taint any sort of victory and prevent any further action against himself or his kind.

So...sorry people...but if you march for "peace" you are, in fact, marching for Saddam. You are loudly protesting the removal of this hideous man and voting loudly to allow him to continue his murderous ways.

Because you will never get him to negotiate an end to this sort of behavior. History has taught us this simple truth.

He has to go. This is the only way that we will have peace. Real peace.

The Americans, the Brits and the Australians are commited to actually _doing_ something about it. Forty-five other countries have expressed a similar sentiment and some of them are helping carry the load, as well.

Canada is not among them.

Apparently, we do not want to remove this murderer. Apparently, our Federal government would prefer things to go on as they have. They want thousands of Iraqis to die each year at the hands of a madman.

So do the "peace marchers".

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

But...take heart..Saddam, if he is still alive, is cheering you on. He hopes you are all very successful in your quest for what you call peace.

Personally, I'm bettin on the good guys.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, I'm sorry to tell you (yet again) but those among us who oppose the attack on Iraq are *not* rooting for Hussein. That may be a convenient delusion that helps pro-war protagonists explain the peace marches but only in the Gaza strip have peace marchers made it a point of showing direct support for the Iraqi regime.

As I noted before, calling peace protesters pro-Saddam and anti-American is not only wrong but conveniently ignores the facts. How can Americans be anti-American (with the exception of jerks like Timothy McVeigh....)? Hundreds of thousands of Americans have marched over the past few weeks.

Please, think positive and try to understand why the majority of the world sees the invasion as unjust instead of dismissing such people as naive, ignorant, and pro-Hussein. That is if you have any real interest in what the majority of Canadians and the world thinks and why.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Marching for "Peace" is marching to preserve Saddam and his ilk. You will not be saving innocent lives...you will be empowering a known murderer to continue to commit these horrific crimes. Against his own people, and countless others.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 NO. Marching for <u>Peace</u> means imploring the "powers that be" to find a solution that does not involve bombardment of Baghdad and the invasion of Iraq.

However, as a good many of us believe that the regime in Washington is not conducting this campaign for the stated reasons, then it is correct to say that we are wasting our time: nothing would stop Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. from their chosen objective.

Millions of people from all over the world oppose this war, including a pretty large chunk of U.S. society. We weren't able to stop the Yankees from going to war.. but perhaps.. _perhaps_ the peace movement played a part in Canada not going to war (overtly, at least).

Do not make the mistake to think that we who oppose this war do so lightly. Our thoughts are most definitely with the people of Iraq; the ones who survive the bombardment and will live with the effects (psychological, emotional, physical, political, etc.) for the rest of their lives.

My partner lived through the destruction of Mogadishu and the overthrow of the Somali state. She can't enjoy Canada Day fireworks, as the explosions remind her of that conflict.

The grenades, ak-47s, and occasional bazooka fired during the Somali disaster are peanuts compared to the monsters being dropped with *cough* _"pinpoint precision"_ *cough* on Baghdad (oops, one got away and went to Iran).

The ongoing fear / oppression / murder that exists under Saddam's regime is indeed terrible and has to be ended. _But there has to be another way_.

There are so many other aspects to the decision to go to war, most of which we'll probably never know. Oil is a part of it. U.S. dominance in the Middle East is a part of it. So is the "hope" for democracy. So is the desire to make use of the huge military investment the U.S. has made. These decisions are often more political than humanitarian, a point which the pro-war crowd should come clean with, rather than cloak themselves in righteousness.

You guys wanted Saddam gone. So do we. But we want the "boys with the toys" to do it in a more _civilized_ way in the 21st century. 

It's silly to ask a peace protester for the alternative to war; how the hell should we know? We can suggest, throw things out there for consideration (see the many other comments by me and my fellow "peaceniks" in other threads). But we're just students / academics / plumbers / graphic designers / mothers / brothers / taxi drivers. What do we know about international political manouevering? 

It all seems a bit neanderthalish to take up the club when confronted with a complex problem like Saddam's containment. 

Those who say "a million Iraqis have been killed in the past 20 years of Saddam's reign... should we wait for another million?" are being rather liberal with their analysis. Hussein lost control of 2/5ths of his country post-1991. The main recipients of his murderous desires, the Kurds, have been all but off-limits to his forces in the North. Even if you included the Kurds in the equation, Iraq would still have no worse daily reality than many other nations in the region and elsewhere.

We "peaceniks" do have lives... and we care about the lives of those hundreds of civilians which have been lost in the past few days. And brains? IMHO, it takes a few more brain cells to believe that bombs could possibly be replaced by something less murderous, and just as effective in achieving the larger stated goals.

But then, as has been stated in this thread already, th Bush regime's reasons for going to war with Saddam have been constantly changing. There is no one goal at hand, certainly not one as simple as "freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well said Mark!  

I think...with total honesty...that George W. is working his way down a list of potential terrorist threats to his country (and others). 9/11 was a pivotal moment in US history and will forever be thought of as a defining moment in his Presidency.

He has a mission...and he has resolve. He will not be swayed from this, even if it costs him a second term.

Afghanistan has, largely, been neutralised as an imminent threat. Usama is on the run (or dead) and his top guys are in custody, singing like canaries.

Next guy on the "most dangerous" list is Saddam. Take him out of play and...just possibly...convert Iraq into a free democracy and we all win. Big Time!

The long elusive "middle east peace" might actually become a reality (freely elected democracies rarely vote for war, after all)

If this becomes reality, then it will take several other major threats out of play...and off the list.

It will also remove the richest market for Kim Jong Il's North Korean weapons. If he can't get petro dollars for his death machines from dissaffected Arab states...then he might just go down as well. All without any more shots being fired in anger.

That will clean all the top names off the list...and serve notice to the rest to settle down and play nice. Or else.

So Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Co. are on the job. They will go in and do whatever it takes to remove this, the next biggest threat, after Usama and Al Queda.

The pivotal threat...who's removal might just change everything.

And all of us on the right...the current majority on this continent (if not the world, BTW)...are rather perplexed that those of you on the opposite end of the political spectrum are somehow trying to slow or stop this process. Aren't you the ones who are so very concerned with social justice? You guys are always so concerned with the plight of the common man...do you think that Saddam is meteing out social justice? How is he treating the common man in Iraq?

That's why we ask you to reconsider your position on this. We are appealing to those things that you hold so very dear (not that we don't, BTW).

You want social justice and an end to the killing of innocents in Iraq?

Fine. It's happening. Please don't try to slow down the process.

Because, if there is one thing that the UN and the whole world has found out over the last twelve years, it is this:

There is _no other way_ to deal with Saddam. Sanctions and resolutions haven't slowed the killing or eliminated the threat. 

Not one little bit.

They haven't stopped weapons production or the search for an unstoppable force by this psychopath. He will...if left on his own...come up with something that will make him a hundred times as dangerous as he is right now. To his own people, and to everyone else on this planet. 

We know this. Hans Blix knows this. Even Jaques Chiraq knows this (he should...he has been supplying some of the equipment to make it happen).

Saddam has got to go. He won't stop what he's doing by any means we can bring to bear on him exept forcible removal. We have twelve years of factual evidence to prove this. He was given a chance to leave, he could have spared his poor country any more suffering, but he didn't take it.

Saddam must be removed.

This process is happening right now.

And why anyone would be opposed to this is beyond comprehension. 

It's beyond belief, really.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I refer you to a column in the New York Times (reprinted in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Sunday):

Bob Herbert: Are Americas Ready for the Peace?

M.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

So how long is Bush's list? The shocking and awful campaign is presumably aimed not at the Iraqi army but to the regimes in Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey..... and you *really* think this will increase world stability? 

The lunatics are running the asylum.

The anti-war lobbyists are comprised of surprisingly normal people from all walks of life. It isn't limited to edges of the political spectrum by any means. These people have thought beyond false justifications and the tunnel vision of the Bush administration.

To resign yourself to the idea that military intervention is the only way forward is to admit defeat. If we cannot rid the world of its despots by working together through peaceful means, then we condemn ourselves to a life of escalating violence. Bush has played his cards. He has used his military in a pre-emptive manner. The stakes are irreversibly higher.

Before dismissing everyone who is against war as being naive, remember that this community includes many veterans of war. 

BTW, the name-calling of anti-war demonstrators is tiresome and, if anything, is an indication that the pro-war advocates are running out of arguments.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim, I would again...and with all due respect...ask you to go back and read my previous post. Carefully, this time.

At no point did I say that the "peace marches" are anti-American. I am fully aware that there are quite a few people in the US who oppose this removal of Saddam. Apparently, ignorance knows no borders, and there are a great number of people who haven't thought this through very well, in a lot of different places. 

And, further to this, I will say again....Saddam is cheering all of the peace marchers on (if he's still alive). He knows that the only hope for his type to survive and continue is by internal dissent among the democratically elected governments who have sworn to remove him. Only we, by our loudest protesting, can save him from removal and preserve his hold on power.

If we stop...then he has won. And no negotiations will ever cause him to change his ways at that point. Think about it.

You want peace? Fine, so do I. So do the Iraqi people. We won't get it by keeping him in power.

And he has demonstrated an uncanny ability to keep murdering his own people and developing weapon systems while he is "contained". He is also able to finance terrorism in Israel (and, probably elesewhere) while he is similarly "contained". 

So...I reiterate my earlier statement of fact:

Marching for "Peace" is marching to preserve Saddam and his ilk. You will not be saving innocent lives...you will be empowering a known murderer to continue to commit these horrific crimes. Against his own people, and countless others.

Perhaps even ourselves, in the not to distant future.

And if any of you think that is a good thing, then I suggest you rethink this whole situation. 

Really.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Stephen Harper says that the US has been defending Canada for decades.
I desparately need to know from someone here of an instance where or when the US defended Canada militarily from a direct threat or act of war of a third nation.
Anyway ....
This certainly is not much of war.(McNutt) 
The reviews are not enthusiastic. 
The peaceniks are getting too much air time.
According to recent line polls, Americans are leaving the TV room for extended periods (some going outside and even downtown). This is very bad for domestic consumerism and for the suffering advertising industry which is paying superbowl prices for the jingle space. 
This hurts my pocketbook directly as I'm in the jingle business. 
It concerns us deeply that the military and the defense industries are getting free PR when honest businessmen have to write off massive funds just to in effect make war look good.

Not much of a show in the "theatre" either. Americans need better production values in their wars than in their reality TV with less silence and better lighting.
And now it looks like the "coalition" forces are doing a better job of killing there own out of negligence "without hardly" a shot being fired.
This is not good PR.
At least it will give us some dead heros for the Republicans. Besides they get an extra $150.00 (U.S.) a week for being in harm's way. 
For those that come home the tragedy is that like so many Vietnam and GW-1 veterans, they will be mostly jobless, sick and all but ignored.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jwoodget wrote "..to resign yourself to war as the only means to settle this is to admit defeat"

Sorry Jim, and all of the others....I know of no other way to deal with Saddam and his crew. Talking won't do it. That has been proven. Seventeen (or was it eighteen) seperate UN resolutions haven't stopped him from doing what he's doing, we know that for a fact. And now that Kim Jong Il has fired up the plutonium factory...and has developed a missile capable of crossing a large ocean...then it is only a matter of time before he flogs some of this to his favorite customer in return for some of the cash he so desperately needs.

If anything, this action should have been taken some months back. I heard a poll recently that said that almost two thirds of the people of the United States think Pres. Bush waited too long to initiate action against Saddam.

George W. tried very hard to get the intractable UN to recognise and approve Saddam's removal, but some members of that body simply voted to keep on giving Saddam more time. And more time. And more time. Time to get what he really wants...

And, if he did, then we would have really been in a pickle. Trust me.

As for Jwoodget's question about President Bush's "list"....I have no idea how long it is. I do know that Iraq is next and that Iran and North Korea are also on that list. Most of the rest...if there are any...are lesser threats and many, if not all, will be rethinking their whole outlook in the face of a decisive removal of Saddam.

Iran, if it were bordered by one or more large self-determining states (like a democratic Iraq for example) would be a different place. This just might give the final push for the new Iranian Revolution that is in its early stages as we speak.

Nobody knows what will happen there, but we can surely hope.eh?

And, if Iraq and Iran were no longer actively purchasing expensive weapons systems from North Korea, then _that_ might just be enough to push Kim Jong Il out of power. His people are starving to death and rely on petro dollars from the more radical Gulf States to buy food. Take away those petro dollars and the food and fuel they pay for, and you have a major crisis in Kim Jongs little backward world of pain and suffering.

He might order an attack on South Korea...and his people might just order an attack on him instead.

Again, nobody knows. But we can only hope.

So Iraq is the lynchpin here. Remove Saddam and make a decisive change for the better in that beleagured country, and several other situations should change as well. There is a better than even chance that they will change for the better.

It could give rise to a whole new wave of terrorism, as some people claim....or it might serve notice to those same potential terrorists that they will be hunted down and rooted out if they start to murder innocents. 

Perhaps, at that point, they will decide that there is some other way to get their message out. 

Perhaps _they'll_ start to talk and negotiate...instead of just lashing out and murdering indescriminately.

Then...maybe we could have peace in the Middle East and no more Islamic terrorism in the rest of the world.

We can only hope.

At least somebody's doing something about it.

And it's not the "peace marchers", that's for sure.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I have never been so proud to live in this country since Trudeau refused at the request of Richard Nixon to forcibly return US draft escapees to military service in Vietnam.
In a press scrum he said " These are the cream of crop and we are honoured to have them here."
Many in Canada as today were horrified at such impertinance from our Government.
As it turned out the US was wrong about that war.
Today they may well win the battle but the war will likely go on for the forseeable future and innocent Americans will be in mortal danger worldwide.
A friend of mine in Paris had yesterday to show her passport at restaurants etc. to prove her Canadian birth. Americans all over Europe (and now in Montreal) are being refused service. The US Government has no way to help it's own citizens outside of the US.
This is sad for the majority of Americans who voted against George W. Bush.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt, did you really mean to say this:

"Then...maybe we could have peace in the Middle East and no more *Islamic terrorism* in the rest of the world."

If so, perhaps you could elaborate and excavate your hole some more? If not, there are about a billion muslims who'd like to hear an apology.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh _PULEEESE_! Let's not start that tired old battle again, macello. Bush was elected by a majority vote, that decision was upheld by several recounts. The American public had another opportunity to speak out against any percieved injustices in that vote two years later during the 2002 Congressional elections. Instead, they handed George W. a Republican dominated Congress and most of the candidates that Gore and Clinton campaigned for were defeated.

Enough of that nonsense...

As for "Americans being refused service all over Europe"...do you have any evidence of this that you would care to post? Is it just in France? Or is it just in some parts of France? Or even some restaurants in some parts of France?

And I should point out the obvious here:

In any sort of economic battle between France and the USA...one where each is refusing to buy each others products...there will be only one clear winner. Guess what? It won't be France.

So...can we get back to our current discussion here? Anybody got anything they'd like to add?

Something that is actually based in reality, perhaps?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jwoodget...yes I DID mean "Islamic terrorism". No mistake about it at all. 

Perhaps you'd like to explain to myself...and to anyone else who is listening here...exactly when it was that any of the major terrorist events of the past period were not planned and enacted by militant members of the Islamic faith?

And..if there is an apology to be made here, it should certainly come from those same militants and be directed at the vast majority of their fellow Muslims. The activities of Hamas, Al Queda, the Taliban and countless other radical Islamic factions runs absolutely counter to the basic tenents of their own faith. Murdering innocent people..for ANY reason at all is strictly forbidden by the Koran. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should apologise, and begin following their faith, which is based in peace. Not war.

This has been stated publicly by numerous clerics of that faith. But they have to step lightly on the subject...if they want to stay alive. Too sad.

It's time all of this nonsense was put behind us, once and for all. Perhaps this current action in Iraq will remove a substantial amount of the money that is used to fund this horror in Israel and elsewhere.

If so...then maybe we can end all of the unnecessary killing of innocents that takes place each year...falsely... in the name of Islam and Jihad. Or perhaps we can slow it down somewhat.

Either way, at least we're doing _something_. It beats doing nothing about the overall problem.

We've been doing that for years...and the killing just goes on. Year after year.

Time to stop it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, actually when you write that "Bush was elected by a majority vote, that decision was upheld by several recounts", the final figures to not support your contention, unless you were referring to the vote count in Florida only. FYI, Bush and Cheney received 50,456,062 and Gore and Lieberman received 50,996,582.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I didn't think Timothy McVeigh was a member of an Islamic terrorist cult. Nor the IRA. Nor ETA. Nor the Saran gas-wielding cult in Tokyo. The anthrax cases in Oct 2001?

Oddly enough, much of the terrorism of the middle-east is being carried out by Christian militias.

Even George W. has refrained from association of Islam and terrorism. For good reason as it is utterly inaccurate and dangerous.

The idea of the US leading a holy crusade against the Muslim world is exactly the evil rhetoric that bin Laden espouses.

Keep digging macnutt.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Stephen Harper says that we Canadians are ungrateful for the fact that the US has been defending Canada for decades.
I need to know from someone here of an instance where or when the US defended Canada militarily.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt, I mentioned previously that I thought the only peace demonstrations that clearly supported Hussein were in the Gaza Strip. Apparently, many Pakistani's marched in Lahore today in support of him.

"One of the biggest protests was organized by Islamists in Lahore, Pakistan, where more than 100,000 people marched, some carrying portraits of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."

This is not a welcome development (quite an understatement). It would be ironic if the next regime change is in Pakistan, with the toppling of General Musharraf.

There were also major anti-war demonstrations in Italy and Australia today (two "willing" countries).


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

It would have helped if they talked American ....

OOPS !
Allies Search for Crew of British Jet Shot Down by U.S. Missile
By JANE PERLEZ

Qatar, March 23/03
"Tragically, evidence is beginning to come to light now that one of our aircraft, recovering from operations over Iraq, may been have been intercepted and shot down by a U.S. Patriot missile," Captain Lockwood said.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As I said in my post on the subject, Jim..."_MAJOR_ terrorist attcks of the last few years".

Tim McViegh's bomb that blew up the Murragh Building was concieved and delivered by a far-right zealot who was railing against his own government. He was trying to blow up the income tax people who he felt were at the heart of the problem. It happened about eight years ago, did it not? How does that equate to the "past few years"?

Same goes for the ETA and IRA . That sort of thing has been ongoing for decades and, unless you were actually present in one of the pubs or cafes that they blew up, you would probably not count it as a "major act of terrorism".

When hundreds or thousands are killed in some place that is not specifically "at war" with some radical group (New York, Bali,etc.)...then that is a major act of terrorism. I should also point out that these two groups (IRA and ETA) have been rather quiet, as of late.

Wonder why that is? 

You don't suppose that part of the reason that Spain and Britain are so very much onside with the US has something to do with wanting to end the ongoing murder of innocents in their countries by homegrown terrorists as well, do you?

Hmmmm..... 

As for George W. not "declaring a holy war on the Muslim people"...

Absolutely! He has taken great pains to state publicly that the muslim people are NOT the target. In fact, I have no idea why you would say such a thing. He...(and I, here at ehmac)....have stated (repeatedly, I might add) that it is the extremist factions of Islam who are responsible for most, if not all, of these horrific acts of terror. NOT the muslim people in general. They are, quite often, among the victims of these horrors.

This is true. There is no question about it. 

And I have no idea what it is you are referring to when you say that "christian militias are responsible for much of the terrorism in the Middle East". Care to elaborate?

No Jim, I'm not digging myself a hole. But I should point out that those who choose to put a negative spin on the words of others in order to make a nebulous point that is rooted in ideology, rather than fact, are often exposed for this when we can look back from the vantage point of a later age. 

Careful with that spin now...it could auger you right into the ground. (But it does save the effort of digging).


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

INGRATE Afghani Peaceniks: 
(after we bomb the crap out of them ... don't they learn?) ....

BBC Sunday, 23 March, 2003, 16:48 GMT 

In Afghanistan, about 1,000 people demonstrated in Metalam, the capital of Lagman province. 

"They wanted to speak out against the war, against the Americans," said a local official. 

"They wanted to speak out against the war, against the Americans" 
Afghan official 

The BBC's correspondent in Kabul, Catherine Davis, said even if the protest was organized by those with their own agenda, it still reflects the widespread anti-war feeling in the country. 

Many Afghans have been surprised and in some cases angry at the decision of their government to back the military action. 

..... they're bringing the burkas for the resurgent Shia faction to hide the unshameful bare faces of the grieving Iraqi women.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"they're bringing the burkas to hide the unshameful faces of the grieving Iraqi women" 

????

What the _heck_ are you saying here, macello?

Are you advocating that the women of the Arab world who have emerged from total subservience (a little) return to covering themselves from head to toe in dark cloth? If so...for gosh sakes _why_??

Because it's tradition? Because women are somehow lesser creatures...and should be kept in their place?

Are you on drugs? C'mon..fess up. We are a pretty forgiving bunch around here. We will understand...honest.

Help is just a twelve-step program away.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Whoops, I forgot that the script for the current conflict only relates to terrorist events since 9/11. The phrase "Islamic terrorist" is not used by the BBC and CBC for good reason. I'd recommend not using it here either. Defending the description indicates to me that you've consciously linked the two. My concern is that the Bush administration feels the same way.

macnutt said: "And I have no idea what it is you are referring to when you say that "christian militias are responsible for much of the terrorism in the Middle East". Care to elaborate"

Beirut, Southern Lebanon, Golan Heights. It isn't just Hamas and Islamic Jihad that have been conducting attacks on Israelis over the past two decades.

Besides, who cares what religeon a terrorist professes to fight for? Recognizing that claim only inflames the problem.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Political correctness is dying fast..but it still holds a hallowed place at the CBC...and here at ehmac. Apparently.

How about if I describe the most recent, and largest, terrorist killings as "the-work-of-radical-Islamic-terrorist-groups-who-are-not-and-have-never-been-a-part-of-the-mainstream-Muslim-religion"? 

Would that make you feel better about not insulting some large group of people who are not Anglo-Saxon? Does it help explain the situation?

And BTW...the reason I clarified myself, Jim, was because I respect you and I know you are an intelligent human being. I thought that, perhaps, you were so busy with the work that you do, there was a possibilty that you had not quite kept up with current events. The fact that you were not at all aware of the situation in Iran sort of reinforced that thought in my mind. As did your references to "carpet-bombing" and "laser guided cruise missiles".

I mean no disrespect in any of this. Truly.

So...a question: How would you prefer I...or anyone for that matter...refer to the radical Islamic terrorist groups who are directly responsible for these terrible attacks on innocent people in non-combatant countries? You know, the ones that have been making headlines and changing history for the last couple or three years? (as opposed to the regular Islamic terrorist killings that go on every week or so in Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel etc. and have done so for decades)

I could use that half-paragraph hyphenated and oh so politically correct name that I used back at the beginning of this post...or I could just list the massive terrorist attacks that _aren't_ caused by some group of radical and misguided rabble in the name of Islam.

That would be MUCH easier! Avoid any reference to any religious or ethnic group altogether! Political correctness in it's purest form!

That's how I'll do it then. I'll list only the massive killings of innocents that AREN'T directly attributable to radical Islamic groups. I'll just let everyone fill in the blanks, thereby directing any outrage away from myself and easing my own conscience about not being born into one of these sensitive groups. 

The list is below:

---------------------------------


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Do drop by Michael! I'll look forward to it. 

We could discuss the current geopolitical situation, over a cool one. 

BTW...you might just find out why I don't need any firearms.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

uh oh macnutt offering to ply me with alcoholic beverages...

my spidey sense is tingling !


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

OmiGod! ...WELL! McNutt ....Ya did not geddit!!

I wanted in a jocular manner to refresh and remind some of the Bushy cheerleaders that there is still no end in sight to the Last Great American War on Terrorism in Afghanistan despite the fact that those unwilling like Canada, Russia, Germany and France are still there trying to get the F***ing mines and cluster bombs from blowing kids and their mommies up. 
(most of the daddies are dead)

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/mdc_team_5.html 

I guess things got boring for the Choreographers of Death in the Pentagon with so little left to blowup.

In numerous past posts, many specifically in response to McNutt's bubbly joy at the success of the Women's Liberation in Afghanistan right after the bombing, I did some painstaking research in an attempt to verify McNutt's claims.
ALAS ...in vain! I could only find evidence of continuing harassment not only of women but especially female children who want to partake in the rebuilding of that nation. 
To trot those posts out again might actually require a reading of that well documented material ....
... Hit "Search" and Look It Up!
Therein you will deduce that my recent remarks vis-à-vis burkas are facetious in the extreme! 
That is to say that since matters in Afghanistan which have conveniently slipped from the memory of most white folks have improved in direct proportion to the humanitarian efforts of the good ole US of A.
As well it is commonly known that women in Iraq have been given free professional higher education for the last 28 years unlike the more US favoured nations where women are lesser creatures such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar the UAE and recently Yemen? can someone explain this?
Anyway ... all this female freedom stuff would make the blood of an Afghan or Saudi elder boil with rage. 
(pretty sly entendre on my part over all?)


Although most in the First World hardly give a **** about Afghanistan since the ramp -up to the current violence, here is a site developed by Sima Samar, formerly the deputy premier of Afghanistan in charge of women's affairs until three months later when she was detained and dismissed for heresy by the religious court in Kabul.
For your benefit there is are exhaustive posts from me on this ....search ok?
http://www.shuhada.org 

Here's a bit of light reading for ya .... and don't come back to me like it's fiction.

The Guardian:Nov. 2002 
The authorities in Afghanistan were last night investigating a series of well-coordinated attacks by suspected Taliban sympathisers against girls' schools in a central region near to Kabul. Four schools in Wardak province, a short drive from the Afghan capital, were attacked last week in a deliberate and systematic attempt to stop parents from sending their daughters to study. The attackers fired two rockets into school buildings in villages near the town of Maidan Shah, demolishing classroom walls and setting the buildings on fire. They also raided a school at a village mosque, set ting fire to its wooden chairs and blackboard. The attackers left behind an unexploded grenade and several leaflets warning parents to keep their girls at home. The attacks are not the first of their kind in Afghanistan and demonstrate that, nearly a year after the fall of the Taliban, the interim government faces increasing and profound resentment from pro-Taliban fundamentalists. There is growing hostility towards the continued presence of American troops in the country, much of the aid pledged by western donors has not materialised, and Afghanistan's leader, Hamid Karzai, who survived an assassination attempt two months ago, has little real power. Instead, local warlords control much of the country. The local administration in Wardak has promised to investigate the school attacks. An education officer for Unicef, who visited the damaged schools, said that many of the girls who turned up the following day were in tears. In one village, the building that was damaged was a roadside restaurant donated by its owner to house the community's first girls' school. Locals have insisted that the attacks were carried out by outsiders and say that their daughters will continue to attend school. A spokesman for Unicef, Edward Carwardine, said the attacks were being "taken very seriously". It was not clear who was responsible, he added. Asked what message the raiders were trying to send, he said: "It may not be [about] education. The message could be to do with western influence. But nobody is trying to change Afghanistan's culture. Education is universally accepted as a right for everybody." Under the Taliban, female education was outlawed and women teachers were sacked, although some girls attended underground schools. Since the Taliban's demise, 3 million children have gone back to school - 30% of them girls. In March, Afghanistan's new education ministry rehired thousands of teachers who had been sacked by the Taliban, including many women who were banned from teaching. But attitudes towards girls' education remain mixed. In the south, much of the conservative Pashtun community remains hostile towards the idea of girls going to school, especially after the age of 10. The arson in Wardak came after an explosion at a school in the southern city of Kandahar earlier this month and the burning of two school tents in another northern province in September. The attacks are normally preceded by pamphlets distributed overnight, which warn parents not to send their daughters to school. They also warn women not to appear in public without wearing the burka, the blue shroud synonymous in the west with the reign of the Taliban. 

U.N. mine-clearers ridding southern Afghanistan of deadly cluster bombs 

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Mine sweepers have almost finished clearing southern Afghanistan of unexploded cluster bombs dropped by U.S. forces, helping the world's most heavily mined nation move closer to being free of land mines and ordnance by the end of the decade. 

ONLY 8 YEARS TO GO (sic)

September 1, 2002 

Afghan anarchy hinders aid 

Descent into lawlessness damages effort to feed remote villages and returning refugees. 

Jason Burke, chief reporter 

Sunday September 1, 2002 

The Observer 

A surge in banditry, crime and random violence is threatening to plunge Afghanistan into anarchy as millions face starvation this winter. 

Attacks by bandits, often demobilised soldiers from the many militias that fought in Afghanistan until the war of last autumn, are making it increasingly difficult for aid workers to get to vulnerable, remote villages. 

Last week the United Nations released a 'hunger assessment' which revealed that 6 million Afghans were at risk - more than were endangered a year ago. 

Analysts in Washington and Europe fear the deteriorating situation threatens the new government in Kabul. For the first time last week the Americans said they would favour extending the UN peacekeeping operation into the provinces. 

But aid workers fear that even heavily armed peacekeeping forces would be unable to patrol the most remote regions where the banditry is worst and people most at risk of hunger. 

Last week Dominic Nutt, of the British-based Christian Aid, told The Observer about how he had been stopped on a mountain pass in central Ghor province by bandits. They had told him: 'Either you give us your car or we will take the next one that comes.' The men, who were heavily armed, had already seized a truck. 

Only after the intervention of a former provincial governor did the armed men allow the aid workers to go. 

'We were very lucky,' said Nutt, who was travelling in the vehicle. 'The gang leader was a known killer.' 

Such attacks are turning parts of Afghanistan into virtual no-go areas for relief workers and government officials. Nutt and his colleagues had been warned by the UN that bandits were operating there but needed to visit a remote village to check on conditions. 'We needed to know if they were OK,' Nutt said. 'If they weren't we needed to get them help.' 

UN sources report dozens of robberies over the past few weeks, particularly in the centre, the north and south-west. Since January the UN has documented more than 70 'serious incidents'. Some offices have had to be evacuated. Aid workers have been caught in crossfire between warring groups of militia or bandits. According to Lakhdar Brahimi, the most senior UN official dealing with Afghanistan, security has 'deteriorated seriously'. 

There are fears that bandits could become terrorists. 

'What are we meant to do with these people?' asked Hanif Atmar, the new Minister for Rural Development and Rehabilitation, in Kabul. 'You have a population of professional warriors who are poor and will do anything for money. These people will find their way back into global terrorism. If the West turns its back on Afghanistan it will be writing its own suicide note. How many 11 Septembers do you want to happen?' 

Last week an unseemly row broke out between the Western powers who pledged to fund the reconstruction of Afghanistan. An American official, Gene Dewey, the State Department's senior official for refugee affairs, accused European countries of not providing their share of food aid to Afghanistan. 

The European Union said the allegations were unfair. Then Pentagon sources revealed that Washington had decided to support extending the mandate of the UN peacekeepers in Afghanistan to allow them out of Kabul and into the provinces where the instability has been worse. 

Previously the US had opposed such a move. Western aid workers said the change was simply because the Americans wanted to free up their own troops for use in Iraq. British diplomats called the plan impracticable. 'There is no nation ready to supply the troops or the funds. It's very unlikely to happen,' one said. 

One problem has been the unexpected return of 1.5 million refugees. Much of the aid that has reached Afghanistan in the past year has been spent on coping with the new influx. There are fears that winter could trigger a new crisis, with refugees moving within Afghanistan. Last year, even with a late start because of the US-led bombing campaign against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation, the UN's World Food Programme succeeded in averting disaster. It delivered food to an estimated 7.5 million people, many in remote areas such as Bamiyan province. Now, however, the WFP says it needs another 250,000 tonnes of grain to keep famine away. It has been pledged by donors but not delivered, the UN agency say. 

According to Atmar only a third of the ?1.2 billion in aid pledged by developed countries this year has been spent. 

'Most of that has been on emergency or short-term projects,' he said. 'We need to look at long term redevelopment.' 

Nutt is back in Britain and has recovered from his ordeal with the bandits in Ghor. The lessons of the incident are clear, he said. 'If Afghanistan's isn't rebuilt then we'll be back to square one. The war on terrorism has to be a war on poverty too.' 

Sorry folks the US of A does not do that!

GEDDIT ???

Beddy bye!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, CubaMark might have been a bit graphic and dramatic with his "...at gunpoint" comment, but he was accurate about the fact that many blacks were being detained from voting and denied, in some documented instances, from their right to vote. Whom they would have voted for is speculation, but the fact remains, they were NOT allowed to vote.

To settle your dispute with Macspectrum over a visit, guns, the need for no guns, a cold brew, protection, let me make a suggestion/compromise -- doxie power!

I send you the doxies for some R&R now, and then this summer, I send them, along with a number of metric tonnes of snow (the amount to be determined later), for a Canada Day bash. They provide the protection you need, since Macspectrum, while fearing no man or beast, is a kind person at heart and would be too involved with playing with the doxies to cause you harm. Thus, you do not need to fear harm from anyone (not that Macspectrum is the "hurting type"), the doxies are free to roam around the island looking for badbers, you and Macspectrum enjoy a cold one on Canada Day while surrounded by two things that are typically Canadian -- snow and a brew. What do you say? Is it a deal?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How would you prefer I...or anyone for that matter...refer to the radical Islamic terrorist groups who are directly responsible for these terrible attacks on innocent people in non-combatant countries? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about just calling them "terrorists?" (note sarcasm). Personally, I am tired of Muslims being painted with a wide-brush that labels them as terrorists. It's a load of BS. 

How the hell do you think that makes people of Muslim faith feel...when the vast majority haven't done a damned thing to anyone, yet they get lumped in with whack-jobs like Bin Laden, et al? 

For instance, my partner is Muslim (not from the middle east) and often feels like he has to hide his religion for fear of condemnation. That isn't right.

We didn't call the FLQ "French Catholic terrorists." We don't call the IRA "anglo-saxon terrorists," so why the hell should we (and the media) label terrorists from the Middle East "Islamic extremists?" A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. What religion they are is a non-starter.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well put, VGG. I recall that immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, people who I knew began talking about "Arab terrorists" being the cause. I was shocked, because there were academics who I would not have thought would "jump to conclusions" and accuse a whole group of people.

VGG, your posting goes a long way to helping reveal the inconsistencies in our stereotyping a larger group for the actions of the few. Kudos on your sensibility.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

VertiGoGo, thanks for putting it so eloquently.

Macnutt: "I mean no disrespect in any of this. Truly."

I know you can't help yourself, truly.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Oh PULEEESE! Let's not start that tired old battle again, macello. Bush was elected by a majority vote, that decision was upheld by several recounts. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*YES*, let's start "that tired old battle again," because it seems as though you have learned nothing from information already provided to you.

Bush was appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to permit and accurate and complete recount.

And let us not forget the thousands of black voters in Florida who were prevented at gunpoint from voting in the election, votes which all observers believe would have gone overwhelmingly to Gore.

I remember reading how the chief electoral officer of one of Florida's counties, a black woman, discovered on election day that she was a 'felon' and thereby forbidden from casting her vote. So much for "real" democracy... or do the votes of black folk not count as much as those of white folk? 

You can put the question of the legitimacy of the Bush presidency out of your mind, MacNutt. The ultimate truth is that the election was stolen from Gore. Not that I think ultimately it matters much when talking about U.S. imperialistic endeavours...

And don't get me started on the recent congressional elections... there's already a thread in here with several referrals to allegations / questions / evidence and upcoming books on the use of touch-screen voting machines operated by companies owned by prominent Republicans, mysterious last-minute 'software updates,' etc. The words "voter fraud" are currently being drowned out by the sound of bombs falling on Baghdad, but once the media starts looking inward again, there will be interesting developments.

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Blacks were prevented at gunpoint from voting in a federal election" ???

Mark...I would have expected more from you.  

And he somehow rigged the Congressional elections as well?

Tell me...is Bush now also rigging all the popularity polls to, falsely, give him _the highest sustained popularity ratings in the HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES_?

Wow! This guy's got CLOUT!

You'd think that the vast majority of the American people...who are, by the way, largely, thinking individuals and are, by the way, _fiercely independant _ and are, by the way, deeply suspicious of any sort of manipulation of their precious democratic rights...you'd think that just a few of these people would get up on their hind legs and start screaming FOUL after two seperate elections and a whole slew of popularity polls had been hi-jacked.

But..oddly, they are not doing this. Certainly not in any great numbers. (Michael Moore is...but he is still crawling backwards in front of large crowds and making a sh*tload of cash for this act)

No...instead George W. is currently riding a continued wave of unprecedented popularity in the US. His numbers are regularly MUCH higher than anything Jean Cretien has ever had. higher, in fact, than anything that almost ANY politician ANYWHERE regularly gets.

Man...ol George sure does have us all hoodwinked, eh? Imagine the sort of massive conspiracy you'd have to instigate to get two major elections, plus pretty much every popularity poll for the last two-and-a-half years rigged up and wired for sound?

I doubt if even the Kennedys could manage a hornswaggle of that magnitude. And they've got dirt on everybody...not to mention strong ties with every shadowy organised crime group in North America.

Yep...George W. is not a legitimate President at all. He STOLE it!

Sure he did.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt, you keep spelling "Cretien", when the name of our prime minister is "Chretien."

you must have the two confused.

Yeah, i know you were trying to make a funny.

But, you don't respect me anyhow, so who cares?

I might be visiting my godson out in Vancouver soon. Maybe I should scare the sh*t out of you and pop by your place. You did mention that you don't keep a gun.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> VertiGoGo, thanks for putting it so eloquently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will choose to take that as a sincere statement and not irony...I am having trouble telling the difference these days.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

VGG, I shall call the posting "eloquent", and I am being sincere. Certain threads need a touch of this form of common sense in a rational and relevant manner. Thus, please accept my compliment as a sincere "merci" from all of us who appreciate such open and honest postings.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I second Dr. G, VertiGoGo. Your post was spot on. No irony intended. There are blind spots in our use of language that should not be dismissed as mere issues of political correctness. There is only so much tolerance for insensitivities. It adds fuel to the fire of the extremists and reinforces subliminal connections between completely distinct entities.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, from your utilization of the terms "irony", "blind spots in our use of language" and "reinforces subliminal connections between completely distinct entities", one would swear that you were a sociolinguist (which is what I am in part). I mean this as a compliment, so please take it as such. Paix.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

But I'm useless at completing crosswords so I think I'm actually a pseudo-socio-linguist with a so-so socialist persona. 

I'm also an existentialist experimentalist with excellent experience in extracurricular extrapolation of ex-vivo exhibition.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, a psycholinguist would be concerned with your inability to do crossword puzzles. A sociolinguist is concerned with how language is learned and utilized in social settings. Thus, your being a "pseudo-socio-linguist with a so-so socialist persona", as well as being an "existentialist experimentalist with excellent experience in extracurricular extrapolation of ex-vivo exhibition" earns you the Dr.G. Annual Alliteration Award Asymetrical Assumptions about language. Kudos.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macello:
*OmiGod! ...WELL! McNutt ....Ya did not geddit!!


GEDDIT ???

Beddy bye!







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe he does but I don’t. Can you without cut and pasting from the highly prejudiced Guardian. State your case in your words in less word than the American constitution.

From my viewpoint you hate the Americans would I be right? What countries do you admire? What groups do you think does an excellent job in the case of humanitarian achievements? 

To me, from an observers point you look a like a highly prejudiced guy who cannot state his own views without grabbing some article to support your viewpoint. 

I can find articles that support the Holocaust but it don’t make me a well informed rational human being.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Great! That should fit right next to my AA and AAA awards!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

stinand

I was just about to reply to your post. (March 24, 2003 03:48 PM). 
But after re-reading your previous posts on this (your) thread and because your posts for me are too difficult to parse, I must decline on principle.
"Parse" in a general sense means to make sense of writing through means of generally accepted conventions of such skills.
As well, in the above post you insist that participants' views be stated without support. This I cannot fathom. It is not a good way to communicate unless baseless ranting is what you seek. That all credible writing should be supported is a no brainer.
One would think this basic to a topic starter.
I appreciate that you might be very angry and are compelled to type so quickly that all conventions of writing be damned or that you have innovated some "post modern pushing the edge" style. I have my doubts.

I quote exactly: (with "cut and pasting")
(posted March 19, 2003 05:18 PM by stinand): 
"First a small correction I WAS in the news and broadcasting business. I now run a communications company who quite often (I love this word) positions what you hear on the news." (unquote)

From the above writing of yours which would not pass an elementary school exam, I can't accept the credentials that you claim to have in professional communications. 
I am saying this nicely; and I don't respond at all to barely intelligible challenges based on unsupported and spurious claims. 

I will however be happy to follow through at some time in the future when you have learned the following:
1/ basic sentence structure.
2/ the fundamentals of grammar.
3/ tense usage.
4/ punctuation.
5/ spelling
....... the list goes on ......

For the fact that I am highly prejudiced toward the type of writing that you are using here, I shall remain so.
Until then I'll pass on your puerile and rabid rants.

I hope that this will ultimately be of help to your writing career.
v


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice dodge macello. You managed to insult Andy's writing skills while totally avoiding his question about the sole source of all of your "data".

And since you seem to be so overly sensitive about spelling skills, might I suggest you try to get my name correct once in a while? You've managed to misspell it almost every time you mention me...which is quite often, I should add.

I don't really mind being the object of your constant attention...just get the spelling right.

Perhaps a little remedial work is in order, eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, linguistically speaking, and staying on the theme of this thread, semantics and linguistic pragmatics, which deal with the meaning of words and the practical ways we utilize these words, has always been strained. In the 60's, the issue of "war" and "peace" became quite confused, and people talked about the same thing, but conveyed a different meaning. It is much the same on this and other threads dealing with the war in Iraq. As well, many people "classify" the views of other people, and then fail to see the full message contained in this posting -- which is a sociolinguistic message.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I thought that I would throw this URL into the "pot" to see what comes of it and the reactions upon reading which companies are getting the initial "rebuilding of Iraq" contracts. Be sure to read the concluding paragraph to assess the full implication of this situation. You be the judge.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macello:
*stinand


Until then I'll pass on your puerile and rabid rants.

v*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I’m surrey that mi English is a problom fur you . I’m wurking on a frase .

ANALLY RETENTIVE did I get it right? Surrey you DON’R ansore stuff frum me.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dr. G. I thought that was an April Fools day post about contracts!!! It's truly sickening - profiting our of the misery of others. Haliburton is acting like big tobacco. Jeez, I hope the coalition forces remember to blow up some bridges to make sure the construction jobs last for a while. That wins my URL pick of the month!!!!

Unbelievable!!!! I hope the American tax payers understand that their $75 billion is underwriting US corporations that are circling like vultures over the cratered Iraqi landscape.

I heard this morning that Basra has been re-defined from an urban centre to a military target. Heck, Koffi Annan must of really pissed someone off with his remarks about Basra being desperate for humanitarian aid.

And, with regards to your earlier post Dr. G, about linguistic semantics, another spot on observation. It's often not what you say but how you say it. Comparison of the speeches of Bush and Blair reveals a dichotomy between two people supposedly on the same side. When they get together, they probably each have translators.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Two countries seperated by a common language"


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt

I am sincerely sorry to jar your spelling sensitivities. I stand corrected. No personal issue with you or stinand is intended.

I do think it bad form to use private identity on fora such as these. Public names are suggested upon registry for a good reason. 
We (some) differ in view and (all) share this forum.

That we spew verbal ordnance here is a given ..... Isn't this fun?
Those with guns hardly care what you or I think. 
Perhaps like fortune tellers, we should preface our exchanges with the disclaimer: " For Entertainment Purposes Only". 
It certainly is that for me, otherwise I would be tending to the wounded and the traumatized in the current theatre of war. http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/mdc_team_5.html 

Because I like good form I object to unqualified claims to authority. False claims are to be exposed. We all know this to be a fundamental principle of a free society and a writer's responsibility.

Stinand's spurious challenge I gladly and unashamedly dodge as I would a bad movie or FOX TV. Some people love what to me is a bad movie so bad movies must and will be made. Not withstanding ehmac's generosity here, the freedom to bitch sells a lot of print space. That's what turns our capitalist crank.

I do find stinand's posts entertaining as I hope mine are and insist on his right to partake in his style. 
It is not his writing "skills" but HIS CLAIM TO AUTHORITY throughout his posts on this topic as a professional writer and "positioner" of news items that offends and insults my trust in the word of others. Such claims (given his language skills) will pass only by fools. Count me out. 

When my teachers would chide me with acerbic comments about my writing skills, I did and still do not consider such constructive banter an insult as it was sound advice and correction for my benefit. I am heretofore selflessly passing some of this purely technical advice along to those in need. To me, your comrade in arms does indeed need some help in this department if only to advance his writing career. 
I myself am far from perfect as I still have the occasional problem with colons.

Perhaps to cool our jets with his delightful insights Dr.G might jump in with some remedial and soothing sociolinguistic parsing.

I'm glad that you paraphrase stinand's "prose" in a manner that I can vaguely understand. 
I do not have a "sole source" of all of my "data" as per the word data, they exist in the plural. Stinand (despite his above post frowning upon support documents) and you will find the answers by searching my posts here at ehmac rather than asking me to re-post all of my well documented and politically varied source URL's.

Strictly speaking 
"Sole Source" has connotations too religiously dogmatic for me. (some insist that "he" has a beard, an index finger and a dick.) 
So my jury on monotheism is chronically out although the concept of a "creative intelligence" with the emphasis on intelligence attracts me. 
Nature does a fine job of destruction without our help.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macello:
*macnutt


It is not his writing "skills" but HIS CLAIM TO AUTHORITY throughout his posts on this topic as a professional writer and "positioner" of news items that offends and insults my trust in the word of others. Such claims (given his language skills) will pass only by fools. Count me out. 
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will tolerate a lot of crap, but a person insinuating that I am a liar is not one of them. Your insecurities are not my issue. 

I find your posts wordy, derogatory, contradictory and presumptuous. Your presumption that I am a writer is interesting, as I am not, nor did I ever claim to be one.

I own a company that deals in communications for corporate clients; I hire writers, the same way as I hire graphics artists, as those are areas I am not strong in. I decide on how the message will be communicated using whatever media I see appropriate. 

I do this for companies such as OPG, Television Bureau of Canada, Imperial Oil and Rogers Media. I am sorry that insults you but it keeps my bank manager happy. I have done this all my life in one form or another. So I guess it is easy to fool you. I am surprised with your apparent passion for research that you did not do a Google search on the name Andy Stinton. 

I find that when people start nit picking on presentation of the argument, or offering personal insults, they are usually insecure of their own arguments. It interests me that when asked a series of direct questions you launch into a personal attack, I think that action speaks for itself.

These forums are supposed to be a fun exchange of views, something that sadly I think you have lost sight of. I am glad you find my posts entertaining, because (correct me if I’m wrong) that is what boards like this are all about. 

As for your colon problem that is evident, oh sorry you know me can’t spell I always get those two meanings mixed up.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, I hate April Fools Day jokes. Sadly, this was no joke. Conflict of interests run south of the border as well as in Canada.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

stinand 
Sorry, brag therapy sucks and I really am not interested in your personal identity.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macello:
*stinand 
Sorry, brag therapy sucks and I really am not interested in your personal identity.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well don't challenge it !!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I guess here we see a wonderful example of what do you sell?

The steak?
OR
The sizzle?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well _somebody_ here is far more interested in the sizzle than the steak...and that same somebody has managed to (quite nicely, I'll add) dodge the question of a sole ideologically-driven source of his supporting links.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am onside with Andy when it comes ideology. No question at all. 

But I am open to all good arguments for the other side. Give me something that isn't horribly biased or factually challenged, and I'll listen. Honest.

Enlighten me. Please.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Don't tune into the coalition news briefings if you want unbiased reporting. This has become (predictably) just another propaganda circus. Rumours spread by official sources (based on third party information). The Iraqis are much worse, but I'd prefer it if the military didn't treat the world as if it was a kindergarden class.

The sandstorms are natures reaction to the spin going on in Baghdad and Quatar.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by used to be jwoodget:
*Don't tune into the coalition news briefings if you want unbiased reporting. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting view I find the briefings to be rather scant in information . I have noticed that the tone has changed dramatically with a little less male bravado and a little more quiet warnings.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Stinand,

The information content of the official briefings has decreased and there is more time devoted to answering questions and showing of the videos. This morning, there were some good, probing questions but the answers were very disappointing, either changing the topic or refuting the premise.

I can fully understand the retiscence of the generals in releasing sensitive information. That is completely to be expected. However, there is absolutely no place for them to be speculating on rumours and parading opinions. The briefing is meant to be a communications link with the world. Instead it is becoming a platform for spin-doctors in uniforms. Surely the actual news reporters can be left to provide the angle? Indeed, the tone of many of the reporters has become somewhat hostile and challenging in reaction to the editorializing.

As was said before the start of hostilities, truth will be the first casualty on both sides.

I think there has been a clear shift in the US's position with respect to the media. After the weekend, there has been a big effort to report Iraqi losses and to shift the attention from the friendly-fire and other setbacks. There are two battles going on - one involving mindshare, the other lives.

The US/UK coalition still seems to be reeling from the fact that Iraqis are fighting back. Someone fluffed the definition of "homeland security" as meaning "American Security".


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

used to be jwoodget 

To me the interesting issue is that the coalition needs to also make this a very media friendly war. They need to sell the product to the consumer. However the product is not exactly as advertised!!!

The embedding of reporters was key to this strategy, however after the incident on the weekend, with the US solider rolling a couple of grenades into the officers tent the US saw another side to their embedding strategy.

Had that reporter not been there, would we have ever heard about this incident? Suddenly the coalition sees that this embedding is a two edged sword and have had to change their spin. 

I am hooked up to as many news channels as is possible, as to me this is an object lesson in communications. The BBC is by far the clear winner in factual reporting though favors the Brits. 

CNN has info to offer but very American slanted and tends (like all the US news networks ) to be broadcasting Survivor Iraq. The great aspect of the continuous coverage is that we do get to see the live feeds of briefings and press conferences, from which one can disseminate some form of truth. 

A really interesting aspect of the coverage is the peace demonstrations, which through either truth or presentation shows them as barbaric hordes. This approach certainly tends to negate their significance.

All in all we are lucky to be able to see this conflict in such detail allowing the discerning viewer to extrapolate the truth.


----------

