The France/Syria/China Connection.....

[RedRed]

Gurm... your comments are plain silly.....

'I see lots of resolutions coming from Arab states demanding that Israel stop being "mean".

I see lots of resolutions saying "we ask you nicely to play fair", and "we urge you to think twice about being mean".
'
Everything else has always been veto'ed by the US......

RedRed

[Dr Mordrid]

A generic increase in terrorism is irrelevant. The issue is that one more state won't be sponsoring terrorism, which is a greater danger to the world than generic terrorism itself because it is very likely to put even more powerful weapons in their hands.

As far as the arab-Israeli conflict vs. UN goes:

yes, the Palestinians have a bitch, but they had a way out of it back in 1999 when Israel offered them 99.9% of what they wanted and Arafat turned it down!! Even he now admits that was a major screwup, at least for PR purposes. After this epipheny his next move wasn't contrition and an attempt at reconciliation back to that point but was instead to encourage the current rounds of homocide bombings. So much for common sense on their part

OTOH the UN has been refusing to condemn the Palestinian Authority, and its militant wing, for its transgressions as well as the Israelis. In my mind this exposes their anti-semitic leanings and fully justifies our vetos.

Their constant hammering of a nation that has been under constant attack for defending itself borders on the rediculous.

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

A generic increase in terrorism is irrelevant. The issue is that one more state won't be sponsoring terrorism, which is a greater danger to the world than generic terrorism itself because it puts more dangerous weapons in their hands.

I think i disagree here. It is A LOT easier to control, or even destroy, a state than thousands of thousands of loosely (or not at all) knoted terrorists who are spread all over the world.

[Dr Mordrid]

I think i disagree here. It is A LOT easier to control, or even destroy, a state than thousands of thousands of loosely (or not at all) knoted terrorists who are spread all over the world.

Which is why we're going to do exactly that in order to choke off state sponsorship of terrorism by Iraq at the source.

Those "loosely knotted" terrorists will be there regardless of what we do vs. Iraq....they will just have one less sponsor and be less likely of getting more powerful weaponry for a time.

Hopefully that time will be long enough to dry up their other state sponsored sources; one way or the other.

Either way state sponsorship for terrorism is about to become a very risky proposition. Why? Because vast majority of the US citizenry is royally PO'ed and finally willing to address this problem at the source instead of trying to talk it to death.

Dr. Mordrid

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
A generic increase in terrorism is irrelevant. The issue is that one more state won't be sponsoring terrorism, which is a greater danger to the world than generic terrorism itself because it is very likely to put even more powerful weapons in their hands.

As far as the arab-Israeli conflict vs. UN goes:

yes, the Palestinians have a bitch, but they had a way out of it back in 1999 when Israel offered them 99.9% of what they wanted and Arafat turned it down!! Even he now admits that was a major screwup, at least for PR purposes. After this epipheny his next move wasn't contrition and an attempt at reconciliation back to that point but was instead to encourage the current rounds of homocide bombings. So much for common sense on their part

OTOH the UN has been refusing to condemn the Palestinian Authority, and its militant wing, for its transgressions as well as the Israelis. In my mind this exposes their anti-semitic leanings and fully justifies our vetos.

Their constant hammering of a nation that has been under constant attack for defending itself borders on the rediculous.

Dr. Mordrid

arafat IS a screwup......

and please sont tell me you are saying that arabs are anti-semits

[SpiralDragon]

DR. M ... military action will decreese terorisem ... for the short term ONLY.... mesuers other than military action are needed to insure the longterm reduction of terorisem

change of tactices and better suport for education is the real way to deal with the problem... not military action and not blind... yes blind... diplomacy

[Wombat]

I'm sorry, but how will removing one of the biggest supporters of terrorism <B>not</B> decrease terrorism in the long run?

[The PIT]

Whats this about is revenge and has been ever since someone whispered it might be Iraq in the whitehouse. It also about setting an example to the rest of the world. This is , if you do send terrorists over to the US it will blow your regime of the face of the earth with or without the UN.
Iraq is an easy target. The proper terrorist nations Syria, Iran and Pakistan (Now being helped by America, I wonder what India thinks about that) would have certainly caused a bigger uproar in the Arab world.
The whole inspection thing has been a farce as America is going to go ahead anyway with poodle Blair following. The whole thing is window dressing although with UN support it would have been better.
The next thing how long will the pupper Government last in Iraq after the war.

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Wombat
I'm sorry, but how will removing one of the biggest supporters of terrorism <B>not</B> decrease terrorism in the long run?

simple.....others will come to replace him..... regardless of the military might of the US.... again as the old saying goes.. violence will only breed violence..... same thing for opretion

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by ex RedRed
KV
Without a doubt that was the best post I have ever seen you make.....

Thanks

RedRed

Heh.. thanks, but you mightn't like this one..

The mass immigrant invasion of Arabs/Muslims into Europe, with some of those setting up terrorist cells in our ancient homelands, and many more advocating setting up a Muslim state there or at least writing into law their OWN traditions, is a de facto act of war. It is a boldfaced act of aggression, plain and simple, aimed at the destruction of our culture, our traditions, and yes, our people. The good thing about this is that the nations of Europe could stop this infiltration quite easily without bloodshed. They could simply eject all Arabs/Muslims from their territory.

If you would actually refuse to allow yourselves to become paralazed by preconceived notions for a moment, about both racism and the nature of war, you might just come to understand that this is a different kind of conflict altogether.. different culture, different ways of doing things.. Do you really expect the Muslim hoards to appear on horseback atop some hill one day and invade in a normal warlike fashion? Why should they? They have invaded quite peacefully, losing none of their own in the process. Once here, they began to establish their own cultures and traditions (what would Arab reaction be to this if we went into Saudi Arabia and tried to displace their local traditions and people? Guess we found out, eh? And we were only there as a force to protect them.)

Yes, there are many Muslims who are not actively attempting to overthrow the West, but they are the biggest weapon of those who are. They provide cover for the terrorists and extremists, and a constituency for whom they can profess to speak. Why are we so worried about Arab terrorism in the West? Without Arabs or Muslims there would be no terrorism, no Islamic extremism. It's very simple.. put them all on boats and send them home. That isn't evil or warlike, but it is a measured, in-kind response to aggression which will eventually avert a destructive war from within. Would you all really rather it comes to that? I would NOT.

Why are we starting a war elsewhere, when the REAL war has been brought down upon our naive, trusting selves so close to home? Everyone has a right to fight for their homes and families, for the sovereignty of their nation, for the lands and traditions of their fathers, yet some completely inappropriate guilt complex prevents us from doing this? The situation is completely out of hand and requires immediate action NOW. Iraq isn't worth it, but this is.

[Brian R.]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Why are we starting a war elsewhere, when the REAL war has been brought down upon our naive, trusting selves so close to home? Everyone has a right to fight for their homes and families, for the sovereignty of their nation, for the lands and traditions of their fathers, yet some completely inappropriate guilt complex prevents us from doing this? The situation is completely out of hand and requires immediate action NOW. Iraq isn't worth it, but this is.

It is unconsionable for us to fight or deport a group because of the behavior of a small minority of their members. If this were done, all Italians would be deported or killed because of their association with the few in organized crime. All South Americans would be deported or killed because of their association with the few who smuggle cocaine. In fact, there would be no WASPs because of the few of us who advocate overthrow of the US government by force. There would be no African Americans because of the association of a few of them with groups that advocate violent social change. The list is long and pretty much would depopulate any nation on earth.

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Yes, there are many Muslims who are not actively attempting to overthrow the West, but they are the biggest weapon of those who are. They provide cover for the terrorists and extremists, and a constituency for whom they can profess to speak. Why are we so worried about Arab terrorism in the West? Without Arabs or Muslims there would be no terrorism, no Islamic extremism.

This logic also holds true for any Italian criminal, sociopath, white supremacist, black extremist, South American, Native American, etc.

This type of solution to security may be available to some countries whose rulers have no regard for civil liberties or world opinion, but we must (as Americans) maintain our Constitution as written.

I, for one, will fight to the death to uphold our Constitution.

[SpiralDragon]

ok i am to tiered to realy coment other than the folowing ....

i am arab.... on paper i am muslim...... i dont want to live here in lebanon i want to live in canada.... i have no intention of trying to change cnadian culture to sute mine.... i actualy like and enjoy canadian culture..... i need to imigrate becuse my spirit is dying where i am .... i simply dont want to stay here in leb any more i am sick of it ...... acording to your staments i should never be alowed to make such a geographic change becuase i am arab and muslim.... i find that unfair... btw my speling sux becuse i am dyslexic and not becuse i dont know the english language...

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
ok i am to tiered to realy coment other than the folowing ....

i am arab.... on paper i am muslim...... i dont want to live here in lebanon i want to live in canada.... i have no intention of trying to change cnadian culture to sute mine.... i actualy like and enjoy canadian culture..... i need to imigrate becuse my spirit is dying where i am .... i simply dont want to stay here in leb any more i am sick of it ...... acording to your staments i should never be alowed to make such a geographic change becuase i am arab and muslim.... i find that unfair... btw my speling sux becuse i am dyslexic and not becuse i dont know the english language...

It is not so bad for those who really want to adapt. Too many do NOT though.

Another point to ponder.. In Germany after 1848, many liberal-minded Germans emigrated to the United States because of the failure to achieve a more democratic state there. It did come eventually.. after 2 world wars. So running away from bad conditions in your country does no favors for those left behind.. there is just one less voice for positive change there. Could not Spiral Dragon help Lebanon become more the Lebanon he wants it to be? Would that not be something great to aspire to?

By the way, Brian, I did NOT advocate killing anyone.. and Europe is full to the brim with people already.. the native population. Even if declining birthrates caused a reduction in population, it would still be a fairly full place. Why should they invite more people of any kind in, especially those unwilling to adapt? Having just a few is not so bad, IF they are capable of fully adapting. They might bring a restaurant or two, or some other interesting part of their culture to add spice, but spice is only palatable in small amounts. One does not dump an entire jar of pepper into one's soup.

[SpiralDragon]

god knows i have tried...... the problem is every one wants change but they all want it served on a plater..... if i stay it means i have to give up.... if i leave it means loosing everything and starting anew....... i prefer to start all over then to give up..... i am tiered... really tiered..... meny times i have i wished to just simply sleep and never wake up.... thats how tiered i am

[Brian R.]

Sorry Kv, I interpreted your statement "Everyone has a right to fight for their homes and families, for the sovereignty of their nation, for the lands and traditions of their fathers, yet some completely inappropriate guilt complex prevents us from doing this? The situation is completely out of hand and requires immediate action NOW. Iraq isn't worth it, but this is." to mean fighting literally.