Gratefully (and regretfully) you are NOT an American!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Ehm, sorry, ya lost me there. Are you grateful and I'm regretful, or am I regretful that you're grateful? Wait a second, did you just trick me into one those secret word games that you don't know that you're playing a game until you break the rule and someone has to put pistachio flavoured pudding on your head? If you come near me with that shit, I'm going to become rather upset.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You got somethin' against pistachio pudding, ya damn feriner!?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I think what Anna meant is that she, like I am, are grateful that you aren't an American, we already have to many Americans that don't seem to appreciate this great country of ours. Although, it’s not perfect it’s still the greatest nation on earth.

I'm going to make an assumption from the "el" in your handle and that's that you are from Mexico or some South American country. We’ll try to remember your hatred for the United States next time you need to be bailed out of one of your economic messes. Of course then we’ll be friends and allies. I've said this before it's funny (not really) how the world hates us until they need us to fix their messes. Of course, as soon as we've helped we are back on their shit list.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well sir, I am a voting, tax paying, American and I think el bow is correct, regardless where he is from.

I didn't realize being an "American" meant being a "yes man" to the current administration.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

BTW, you should also be more mindful of world opinion. Thats the reason we are in this Iraq mess to begin with. If it wasn't for GW casting world opinion aside we probably would have UN help and our GIs wouldn't be dying out there.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

>I'm going to make an assumption from the "el" in your handle and that's that you are from Mexico or some South American country.

Astonishing dectective work Matlock. No, try a bit further North and on the other side of the Atlantic. I'll give you a hint, it's Scotland. Mac Bow just didn't have a good sound to it. BTW, isn't Rivera a hispanic name?

>We’ll try to remember your hatred for the United States next time you need to be bailed out of one of your economic messes.

I'm shocked that you (I don't mean America here, I mean you personally) can remember out how your keyboard works. I won't lose too much sleep over you remembering my hatred.

>Of course then we’ll be friends and allies.

Yah, hold your breath on this one.

>I've said this before it's funny (not really) how the world hates us until they need us to fix their messes.

Are you retarded? It's not funny, it's scary. Wake up. The rest of the world doesn't hate your country, they hate what your government is doing to the whole human race, Americans and non-Americans alike.

Further, I happen to like a lot of Americans (for example, Ryland seems like a good guy). I even do the Sturgis run every year, except last year (how American is that!), and have travelled up and down and back and forth across your country many times and will do again (can you put me up the next time I'm near your trailer?) . You're like a little 5-year old who can't handle critique... "No joey, I didn't say your whole country was bad, just that there are some bits that could be better" (this is where you begin to stomp your feet and wet yourself in an angry fit).

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

> BTW, isn't Rivera a hispanic name?

Elementary! My dear Watson! One of the great things about this country is that Americans come in all shapes and forms. You are right I myself am of Hispanic descent that doesn’t negate the fact that I’m 100% American as are my loyalties.


>I'm shocked that you (I don't mean America here, I mean you personally) can remember out how your keyboard works.

LMAO, don’t know what you mean by this since you don’t know anything about me or my education how could you possibly know about my keyboard skills?

>Of course then we’ll be friends and allies.
>Yah, hold your breath on this one.

Apparently you Scots can’t read sarcasm. Go drink a pint of something mate.

>Are you retarded? It's not funny, it's scary. Wake up. The rest of the world doesn't hate your country, they hate what your government is doing to the whole human race, Americans and non-Americans alike.

**ALERT FOR THE SCOTTISH: The following sentence is sarcasm. **

Yes, we are the ill of the world. I think I’ve said this on this site before, if we do nothing we are chastised for not getting involved in world affairs and if we get involved we are accused of pushing around the little guys (Damned if we do, damned if we don’t). Humor me, what is it exactly that you think we are doing to the human race (this is going to be good)?


> (can you put me up the next time I'm near your trailer?)

Well since you got personal. Why is it more people want to move out of Scotland than migrate to it? Must be the great quality of life. About the only thing of value that you Scots gave the world would have to be AC/DC and that was indirectly. Yes, you can visit my “trailer,” I think you’ll be surprised how hard-working educated Americans live. Of course, you must return in kind, I’d like to visit your caste-system society. Maybe visit the Queen Mum’s castle (get over it already they’re about as Royal as Queen Latifah). Then we can visit the run down, dilapidated tenement your likely to live in.

I think I respect the extremist Muslims more than people like you at least they have the balls to admit that they hate us. People like yourself claim to like America but hate it's politicians, yet you wish this country ill-will every chance you get. Here's me imitating you....I love the Scottish people but i hope their country goes down in flames. LMAO, how about a little honesty.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I must apologize, don't know what I was thinking. Of course, there's another contribution the Scots have made.....Scotch Whisky.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

>you must return in kind, I’d like to visit your caste-system society

Joe, do you have a passport? Have you ever been to Scotland, or anywhere other than the good ol' USA, Joe? As I said before, it's a lovely country with some good people living there but it's not the whole world. Further, the other parts of the world are not just a bunch of shit heaps, sitting around hating America for being a success. When you see this, I would bet that a lot of your views will start to change.

>Humor me, what is it exactly that you think we are doing to the human race (this is going to be good)?

Well, for you personally, I fear breeding may be near the top of the list of your antisocial behaviours. As for the rest of your country, I can only recommend that you sign up for an international relations course or start reading some material other than what shows up on drudgereport.com

>Well since you got personal. Why is it more people want to move out of Scotland than migrate to it?

If this is an example of you getting personal, it's no wonder that you confused my original comments. I am not Scotland, I am a person living in Scotland, much the same that you (or GWB) are not America. The only thing that I can possibly imagine is personal about your comment is if I were to suppose that people were moving out of Scotland because of me. This is a power that I cannot claim.

Hey Joe, here's a tip for you, sarcasm isn't another word for poorly written material and poorly informed thoughts.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

> Here's me imitating you....I love the Scottish people but i hope their country goes down in flames.

Just a follow-up thought for you, Joe, and please read this carefully. I don't now, nor have I ever, wanted the United States of America to "go down in flames". In fact, just the opposite. If America is going to be a (the) world leader, I hope that it is the best it can be, for everyone's sake. The fact that I see some short comings in your temporarily and illegally elected leaders does not negate this. An America lead by responsible and mature leaders, who treat their posts and the public with respect (something this current administration does not do), is in everyone's interest.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

By my count that's Joe 3 Mac 3, with all to play for.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

By my count that's Mac 3 Joe zip. Mac is clearly opening a can of whoop ass here.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Mac Bow, my experiences are much more extensive than you'll ever give me credit for, just another example of people from other countries assuming that Americans have never been outside their borders.

>Hey Joe, here's a tip for you, sarcasm isn't another word for poorly written material and poorly informed thoughts.

Mac Bow you and I will never see eye to eye and although I would normally welcome a healthy discussion you seem to lack the ability to do so without getting personal. I’m bored with you and will not respond to your “educated” thoughts anymore. Unlike you though, I don’t wish for the demise of your country/society, besides I can’t do without my Glenlivet.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Hey, doesn't this mean I win? Horray, I win.

BTW, in 2003 the US passport population stood at 18% of US adults and many of those represent immigrants who have gotten passports to ease daily life, so maybe world perception isn't that far off.

Thank you for not wishing the demise of my country/society, in return, despite that fact that I never did in the first place, I won't wish for the demise of your's. If you were here we could raise a dram to that (although I would advocate for Laphroaig).

I feel like I need a hug now.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So we agree to disagree. Cheers!

Looked up Laphroaig and apparently it's not readily available in the States. :(

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Oh man, I can't believe I fell for that one. I only made peace because you already said you weren't going to reply and I wanted to get the last word. Typical American Imperialist deception. You may have won this battle, but not the war. The fact that you can't get Laphroaig just proves that GWB is running your country into the ground. Vote him out of office before the only Scotch you can get is Glenfiddich Special Reserve.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

It's called American Ingenuity. :)

I like Glenfiddich but my favorite's still Glenlivet. Peace.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Way to go Joe! I find the best way to win is to lie too!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The trouble with sarcasm is that it relies heavily on the tone of voice employed by the speaker for identification. That's why, if you speak in a monotone, people will often ask you if you're being serious when you say something patently foolish.

That makes it very difficult to read sarcasm without some obvious cues. The Elementary! My dear Watson! part is clearly sarcastic, but the sections you point to in the previous post (rather, that Mac Bow, formerly el bow, points to) aren't as obvious.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

*READ THIS AS SARCASM*
I'm beginning to wonder how you can tell what other people are thinking. Really you'll have to teach me that. Its amazing, first you can take an ambigious(sp?) statement that could be read a number of different ways, and know exactly what the person saying it meant.
It only gets better also. I'm personally amazed at how you can tell exactly what sociopolitical clique someone falls into just from one of they're statements.
You'll have to teach me how to do that.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

There's no direct link between Phelps and Bush, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The only way they relate to one another is that they are both (IMHO) examples of religious extremism that is damaging our country.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I agree Matt, I wish we didn't have this damn war. I pray that it be over as soon as possible. I long for the days when you could turn on your TV watch the news and not hear about our troops being killed overseas, or of operations against the enemy.

Unfortunately, this is not the case and if it comes down to us or them, I pick us.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Next time Ted Kennedy advocates violence against someone or says God hates someone for being different, let me know and I'll spring into action.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm not completely sure who your comment was directed to, but I assure you what you are doing is much appriciated.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Compared to your average Iraqi, we are safe. Let's face it though, if we'd gone into this war with evidence instead of earnest, if false, intelligence then Bush could sit a smoke his pipe in the faces of the naysayers. When Bush rolled the tax cuts when we had a great big heaping surplus, he was doing a pretty good thing. You can't spend on a war in a surplus budget though and you shouldn't start wars unless you've got every duck in a row.

And Private, why aren't you mad that Bush has tried to stop restitution for POWS? Why aren't you mad that Bush's military budgets have sometimes not included lines like "Operations"? Where's the reason you were sent there, Private? You're supposed to be making the US safer, if everyone in Iraq loved you then why was it necessary to occupy their streets and blow up their towns? How many Muslims hate us now that didn't before, because we're no longer liberators by imperialists? If we're not imperialists and we hand everything over on schedule, what good have we done except deposing one dictator in a reasonably stable country and replaced it with chaos? The American military machine is bar none Private, but this is about politics and when you finish proving that you're a man maybe you can step up and be one - that means looking at ALL of the consequences of your actions. That means politics. Ex-soldiers make fine politicians, but they have to grow up first. We're waiting.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Let's get one thing straight: I think our troops are doing a great job, especially considering that they've basically been hamstrung by their own superiors - not enough troops on the ground, not enough weapons and ammo, not enough money. I don't fault them for the Bush administration's bad foreign policy. They are doing their jobs in a tough situation, a situation they never should have been put into.

You seem to think that because I disagree with the Bush administration's foreign policy, that means I'm a coward, or terrorist sympathizer, or something. That is the point where your black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mindset fails you. George Bush is not America. He is merely the current president, and a bad one. And his black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mindset is what is making it more dangerous for America, not my second-rate punditry. Do you honestly think that just because I'm not in the service, I'm not allowed to judge my government's foreign policy?

Attacking Iraq for no good reason (or for any number of reasons, depending on what mood they're in or what the polls say) does nothing to fight terrorism. On the contrary, it breeds terrorism. America's heavy-handedness and stupidity proves to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries that we are just what they think we are - bullies, imperialists. Our efforts should have been concentrated on finding Osama bin Laden and his gang - you know, the ones actually responsible for attacking the United States, and the ones still at large, in case you haven't been keeping up with the news.

I don't cheapen your sacrifice. George Bush cheapens your sacrifice. Donald Rumsfeld cheapens it. If it were up to me, nobody would have had to go into Iraq in the first place, because attacking Iraq solves no problems, it only creates problems.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, a combat veteran of 2 operations - am I supposed to be impressed? Let me tell you something: I am a combat veteran of just about every operation dating back to 1987, and I am still in the military waiting for my last couple of years before I can retire. I have gone into war zones thinking like you did, that I was making a difference, but when all was said and done, not a fucking thing had been accomplished.

I was in Panama when we took down Noriega - there's still a drug problem down in that region of the world, and the last I saw Panama wasn't enjoying the fruits of our labors much.

I was there for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and I saw more death as a result of people blindly following their "fearless" leader, who were just as convinced of the rightness of their cause as we are of ours. The last I looked, there was still non-stop strife going on, and OPEC still has us by the short-hairs. That's gratitude?

I was there for Operation Allied Force, the only operation I actually volunteered for, because I saw in that conflict shades of Hitler's Final Solution, with the ethnic cleansing and all. As positive as I felt about that job, and the fact that the operation as a whole went as smoothly as it did, still doesn't change the fact that those people still hate one another there and are still trying to kill one another. Nothing has changed.

I was there when Shrub finally decided that bin Laden was actually a threat and went after al Qaeda and the Taliban, and I felt we were doing the right thing until our bombs started falling indiscriminately on the wrong people, and I had to ask myself, "When does retaliation become terrorism?"

And now, like some third-rate mouthpiece for the Faux News Channel, you try to blow sunshine up our asses and say what wonderful things we've done over there in Iraq, after we were yanked out of Afghanistan without accomplishing our primary goal (capturing bin Laden), leaving the remaining troops there high and dry, to go chasing after a bullshit fantasy cooked up by BushCo so we can get to Iraq's oil.

I have seen more death and destruction than your sorry candy-ass will ever see, so why don't you tell me, please, why I don't have a right to be fucking pissed, and why anyone with half an ounce of sense has no right to be pissed? Why don't you tell the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children of the servicemen and women, many of whom felt as you did and are being killed in this fiasco, how fucking "noble" it all is? You want pictures? I'll fucking DROWN you in pictures, you self-righteous piece of shit!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sir Craig gets a cookie.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Cool! Thanks.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I don't mean any criticism, either personal or national, but there have been an awful lot of problems with 'collateral damage' in the Iraq invasion and occupation. I enclose a link from an eminantly respectable (Conservative, broadly more in favour of Republican than Democrat,) source. You'll need to copy and paste as I don't think it's polite to create hyperlinks from other peoples' sites.

With my respect for a serving soldier.

link [post edited by Ryland]

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Actually, Dan, I prefer people to make actual links instead of putting in very long URLs that mess up my beautiful layout. :) I edited your post to make a link, hope you don't mind.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Not at all. Sorry.

I'm not really a computer whizz.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sorry, sorry, I take back the bit about respect for soldiers.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

For the most part I reject criticisms about collateral damage. It's not that I don't think they are unimportant or irrelevant, it just this: I believe no other dominant military power in history has gone to as great of lengths to eliminate them. Whatever you think of the war, you must realize that there is a strong effort to do this by our forces. The have a difficult, difficult task on their hands, and complaining about collateral damage is tantamount to complaining that they aren't perfect. Who is?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm sorry, I had no idea that people aren't allowed to take advantage of the freedoms protected by this nation's armed forces. Or are they only allowed to take advantage of them to applaud GWB and his desire to take away our basic civil liberties and force his own belief system on us?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

If you're going to whine about this administration, when next election comes around, vote for the other guy, don't bitch and moan because you're not getting your way, or don't like what you hear.

It's really instructive to see how people who, for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, constantly bitched about how he was a tax and spend liberal, how he lied, blah blah blah, and never missed a chance to say that Hillary was a lesbian and Chelsea was ugly ("raising the level of discourse"?), are now the people who are telling me to shut up about Bush. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

What we're doing for Iraq is liberating the people from a ruler who tortured and killed many of it's people. In the name of God, Allah, whatever the hell you believe in, just because Bush is using that as his "excuse", do you believe killing is wrong?

Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of this stupid war, a war started for the wrong reasons. Saddam's regime killed them, now we're killing them. I don't see how they were better off dying from our cluster bombs than from Saddam's bullets. I actually do believe killing is wrong, even if we do it.

Oh, and for all of you "we're over there for oil!" freaks, then tell me, how have all the gas prices risen instead of fallen while we control most of Iraq.

What gives you the idea that U.S. control of Iraqi oil will ever equal cheap gas? That's the same kind of assumption that people make when they claim that Halliburton and other contractors will never make money because the war cost so much - do you think Halliburton will ever pay a dime for the cost of reconstruction? They are profiting from the reconstruction, not paying for it. They are sucking on the government tit, getting fat, no-bid construction contracts, and you and I are paying for it. Same with the oil - it's not about making cheap gas for you and me, it's about rich guys getting richer because control of Iraqi oil gives U.S. oil companies a club to use on OPEC.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Wow Ryland! I just discovered your blog today, and I am now a total fan! Keep up the good work!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Anon. Is it your official stance that we are there because there was torturing and murdering going on and that oil has nothing to do with it? I also notice that you're questioning why gas prices have risen when we control most of Iraq.

First of all gas prices have little to do with Iraq. There are many reasons why our gas is so expensive. Much of it has to do with sulfur regulations that are just now getting into full swing. This is a good thing as it's an environmental impact that we need to fix.

Next I would like to ask you if there are any other countries that treat their people badly and if we should be there too? If so, then why do you suppose we are not? Why were the US and UK supporting Saddam during the worst of the Iraqi atrocities?

What does Iraq have that all of the other places we ignore don't? I mean besides a history of fucking with GW's dad.

As for the comment about where every other country in the world would be without the USA. I think most of them would be just fine. You're assuming that we help everyone without anything in return. We import the most because we can't make anything of quality for a good price anymore. I guess you're saying that without the steady climb of need throughout the years all of the countries that rely on us now would have gone into extinction or just turned into empty wasteland? They would have changed with the times with or without us, maybe they would have found better ways to support their economies without dependance on the USA.

Sorry, I only had a couple minutes to write this, so it may have tons of flaws. Help me out here people.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Even if this war isn't EXPLICITLY about oil, it is ultimately about oil.

Let's use the way back machine, shall we?

Back when Iran had a democratically appointed ruler (pre-Shah) he wanted to nationalize Iranian oil. Thus we threw him out and installed the Shah.

The Shah was brutal, and some days had hundreds of citizens killed. The Iranians revolted and we got the Ayatollah.

Now what do we do? Okay, we take Saddam and Iraq off the list of bad guys. Since the state department started keeping a list of problem states, Iraq has been on it for all but two administrations: Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.

We armed him, gave him the chemicals, and gave him the biological agents. If he was a threat, we are the ones that made him so.

But ultimately, through the tangle of all the issues surrounding the middle east, it is oil that tugs our strings the most, that leads us to doing what we might not otherwise do. Even if it is not the primary reason for any of our policies in the middle east, i believe that ultimately it tends to put its thumb on the scale at times.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So the guy I didn't vote for is President and that means I have no right to badmouth him on my own private website.

By that rationale, if I'm wrongly imprisoned for a crime I didn't commit, I shouldn't complain about the bars, armed guards, bad food and surly inmates.

Or if I contract cancer I should probably not spend a moment opining my chemo, loss of hair, fear of death and horrid side effects.

No. If I am eating a burrito at Taco Bell and there's a hair in it, I should definitely march right up to the counter and compliment the staff on the stellar job they are all doing.

Oh yeah, oil prices rise because we can't purchase oil from Iraq. It's illegal. (We can, however, purchase refined Iraqi oil from Russia) It's not about oil IN Iraq. It's about maintaining a military prescense in the Middle East. If you listen carefully you'll hear quite clearly that "Stability" is defined as United States military intervention. No troops pointing guns are foreigners? Then the area is not "stable."

And who said the oil companies wanted the prices to go down anyway? Plus I faintly remember something about OPEC jacking up their rates.

It's all simple economics. We aren't trying to steal Iraqi oil. We want to keep control on the region so the oil from the entire region (the Caspan region mainly) continues to come here. I know that concept may be difficult for so many of the pro-war people to understand but, sorry... them's the facts. Ask yourself this important question: why do we not tangle with much more serious human rights violaters in Turkey, China, Korea, Nicauragua, etc.? Why no forced entry and overthrow?

You think Nicauragua doesn't plan and execute terrorist plots against us? They had a plan to fly airplanes into the Pentagon some fifteen years ago. But it was thwarted.

Dictators and madmen in that country have easily killed, maimed, murdered and raped many more innocents then Saddam. And unlike Saddam, they actually do plan and execute terrorist plots against us and our people. (It bears mentioning at this time that Saddam, being a dictator, had no tolerence for terrorists of any kind as they represented a threat to his power base. And suddenly, with him out of power, our troops succumb to terrorist act after act and now more people have died since the war "finished" then had died during its duration which is exactly how I predicted it).

So why aren't we there, safeguarding our South American friends suffering at the hands of a madman? It's closer, more violent and so forth. Don't give me that "We can't solve all the problems" bullshit. If we were telling the truth about our actions, we would certainly be handling the big problems first before moving onto the smaller ones.

THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

Pro-war folk better get their shit straight.

Not a single damn one of the reasons for Iraqi occupation have held the test of time and in fact most of them have been exposed as outright lies (WMD's, imminent threats, nuclear capabilities, connection to 9-11, et al).

Liberation was so important we waited a full ten years after the most heinous crimes were committed to swing into action. Woah. Talk about a delayed reaction.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

E_B_A gets a cookie, too.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

My browser doesn't accept cookies.

Nah... thanks, Ryland!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

more people like you need complain about it cry loud enough and we will go there and get our troops killed there as well squeeky wheel get the grease cry louder! I think if we are going to be the cops of the fing world then pull an lapd and just wack em no sissy shit go in level the place and leave. I don't think we should be doin anything that we are doing.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

#1
The last I recalled, the Constitution has something called the Freedom of Speech. And in it, it affords the right to complain about the government as much as you want. The reason for this is because it leads to the right that you can "petition the government for a redress of grievances" if you find your government has totally gone out of wack. If you don't understand what that means, may I suggest a more detail explaination of the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html

#2
You do realize, the purpose of a democracy is to diseminate the power to the people. Thats why people go to vote and thats why everyone else should too.

#3
The United States may be the largest importer in the world, but the US is building a very large trade deficit (which is bad). And to quote the New York Times "To finance its trade deficits, the United States has been borrowing record amounts from foreign investors and banks. The risk remains that investors could balk at continuing to lend the money needed just to finance that deficit." It would be analogous to buy things with your credit card when you don't have the money to. Of course, you can keep on doing that, until your credit company refuses to loan you any more money.
To understand how this works, please read: (NY Times article)

Unfortunately, the world has much poverty and starvation. For example, I personally think North Korea is probably one of the most desolate situations. Not only does their government brainwash them, then starves them to death. They have been suffering for a long time under a dictatorship hell bent on developing weapons for the last 60+ years.
(http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/oh20031201.htm)
If anything, they pose more of a threat. They are starving their own people and the world community is pretty sure they are developing WMDs. In fact, they are telling the world they are developing WMDs? Where's the American heavy handedness here?
Unlike Iraq, North Korea has no oil. Not only that, but chances are, a war with North Korea would destablize that region: politically and economically. And as the previous article about the trade deficit illistrated, China and Japan are some of the US's biggest trading partners. A war in Asia is bad business. And bad business is bad for the US.

But what about Iraq? The Middle East already highly dislikes the US and probably does minimal business with the US. I may be stereotyping the region, but I believe their major export to the US would be oil. But that is mainly controlled by OPEC and prices are going to be high regardless of war. A war in Iraq unforunately offers the opportunity for more oil and possible economic growth from fighting a war (which did not really happen as Bush invisioned it).

Where is your compassion for the rest of the suffering in the world? Why have the US not invaded every other impovrished country in the world? The unfortunate truth is that they have little to offer in return to the US. I'm sorry, but helping out a stranger so you can rob him of his stuff is not quite as honourable as helping out a stranger regardless of what he has.

This is my rationalization of the war. This is probably a more economic approach to the problem then most, but feel free to exercise #1 in your responses.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

U. N. Owen, I edited your post slightly, because of that super-long NY Times URL (I made it into an actual link). Hope you don't mind.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sure, no problem and keep up the good work!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The dissimilar treatment of Iraq and North Korea by the US becomes all the more striking when you look at the arguments that were presented to justify the war.

The official reason for attacking Iraq was always that the country posed an imminent threat to the region (and even to the US), while NK did not.

The truth is just the opposite: NK more than likely possesses WMD, but it is too dangerous to invade NK beacuse they pose a threat to their neighbors (especially South Korea). Iraq was not a threat to their neighbors (read: Israel), which the US administration admitted before the war. And the fact that Iraq didn't have WMD just makes the comparison even more ironic.

Also, the humanitarian in NK is worse than it was in Iraq, making the humanitarian arguments for the war even more hollow.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Actually, you are right to some extent. North Korea is a great threat to its neighbors and world stability the problem is that we let that fester for too long without acting on the threat. I think it's obvious, the NKs at least have chemical weapons and according to some of their own statements "nucular" weapons (he, he, couldn't help myself Ryland).

Remember Clinton had contemplated bombing some of their weapons facilities and didn't. Now we have a country that is openly hostile not only to its neighbors but to the U.S. and it's allies (I use the term loosely) that is more difficult to diffuse.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Granted, in time Iraq could potentially become a threat. I'm just saying it's a bad argument for going to war when there are other countries which already pose a threat.

That probably sounded a bit paranoid, but I still believe it's true.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

One of the reasons I've heard brought up for why the North Koreans were basically ignored as a threat—in spite of their saying that they had womads (I'm just amusing myself by typing it that way)—was that they do it every few years.

"Hey, Yankee dogs! Pay attention to us and give us stuff."
Here's a cookie North Korea, now you promise to never take up your nuclear ("nuke-yew-lar") program again?
"We promise"
time lapse five years
"Hey, Yankee swine! . . ."

Considering that it is likely just a cry for attention, I can see why the States (given every other point made about preferring Iraq, not ignoring every other point) would not choose dealing the North Korea. Or putting them on the back burner.

There is a valid argument for Iraq's being a more pressing threat to U.S. security. But there are all of those other influences to consider too.

Anyhoo, I'm digressing from where I started. Let's just say that I agree that the States should not have wound up in Iraq, that they lied about their reasons for going, and that I understand the politics and economics that you point to. That's why I like your post.

That, and no impassioned plea for the children of Iraq, whom Uncle Saddam (pronounced Sodom) was grinding under the heel of a polished boot, nor a God bless Uncle Sam (pronounced Psalm) for his saving that poor, starving, grateful child.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That may be true about North Korea. But do you think that the President makes us safer by calling the bluff of a nuclear power? Who wants another round of missile crisis? Anyone? Anyone?

No, if they keep doing that, what we must do is find a solution to that situation somehow. We shouldn't just ignore them.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Let's not forget that this president's budget is leading to deficits that the IMF thinks will destabilize the global economy.

I find it strange that the poster was proud of our uncontrolled consumerism that has us chugging down oil and other imports without the ability to save at either the personal or national level, leading to tremendous deficits, and actually reducing our ability to invest capital back into the economy.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Why not North Korea? Tibet? Taiwan? One word, and it's a big one with the largest standing army in the world and nukes: CHINA.

Where is your compassion for the rest of the suffering in the world?

No other country in the world can hold a candle to the quantity of humanitarian assistance that comes out of the United States.

Why have the US not invaded every other impovrished country in the world?

Are you suggesting we should invade every impoverished country in the world?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

First off, interesting topics going on...
Okay, so yeah, the whole "we're there to get rid of an oppressive regime" argument again....
Yes yes yes... Saddam was a meanie-pants who did horrible things, how'd he get his power? Us...
Also, if we're such do-gooders with no personal interests (ignore the "he tried to kill my daddy" and "bring it on" comments... along with the reading of Bible passages live on TV as if that would help the Muslims not think this was a religious thing...) if we are, in fact, just trying to liberate those people who have suffered at the hands of a man we put in power, caught, let go, etc etc, then why the hell aren't we in Tibet, too? Or North Korea? Or Saudi Arabia (wait, they're our allies... sorry bout that, everything they do is GOLDEN!) etc...
If you can answer that, I would LOVE to know... why Iraq? Why did the great Eva Peron America choose the Iraqi People to help live their dream of an American style regime? (Isn't that the goal of regime change? One regime for ours?)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I don't think anyone wants to hate you...usually not right off, anyway, Jason.

But when I read your comments, I get the impression that it is all about you.

Maybe that is the root of some of your disquiet.

I think Ryland gets it right when he cites being ones brother's keeper. We just need to get an understanding of what the brother really needs.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I wish some people would spend as much time in English class as they apparently do watching Christian network programming.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, as a Nazarene, I find it intriguing that ANY Christian would propose war for any purpose other than to prevent the harm of innocents.

Jesus preached peace and love and understanding. He did not judge people (and last time I checked, he was God, which you would think would give him a certain amount of license to do so).

So What Would Jesus Do, to use the over-exposed and ugly marketing schema of modern Christianity?

Would Jesus put up a website about his dad hating fags? Would Jesus start a war in Iraq? Would Jesus own the biggest, most expensive car in town.

Christians should be "Christ-like."

If Christ wouldn't do it, you probably shouldn't either. At the same time, if Christ would do it, you probably should be doing it.

I'd like to think that's simple, but it's not.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

But if Jesus doesn't shower someone should really tell him that, you know, that stuff isn't cool anymore.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Benson, people who are "fag haters", or indeed anyone who feels the need to hate someone for being different from them are not doing anything good in this world. They are merely creating hostilty and unhappiness.

Furthermore, just because I am loving and supportive of my former sister-in-law and her life partner, who are lesbians, I am in no way even REMOTELY supportive of terrorists. The vast majority of people who support terrorists are drive by religious fervor, not tolerance.

Perhaps you need to rethink the statement made in your last paragraph. Creating more hate towards a particular group of people "during this critical time of world change" is not "doing something". On the contrary, it is detracting from where we need to be going as human beings who have to live together on this planet.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Speaking for myself, Benson, I don't point the finger of blame at 'evangelicals' because I respect their basic rights of expression. However, when they're fascist cretins trying to spread their own sexual hang-ups, I reserve the right to mock, despise or ignore, whichever is most likely to take the sting from their evil.

My right to laugh at you is just as inviolate as your right to talk hateful shit. The problem comes when we try to impose our views, as, for instance, the Neo-Con jackbooters in the White House are doing.

PSSST! It doesn't matter what message Osama Bin Laden and his 'Al Quida' cronies get; he's a raving nutter and believes whatever he wants to believe. The Spanish are simply demonstrating more self-respect than us Brits, by deciding whether they want to follow Bush Quixote against the WRONG TARGET!!!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That was just about the weakest argument I've ever heard. What you're saying is that Jesus was the ultimate good guy and we shouldn't even try to be good people because there's no way we could be as good as Jesus? "Why bother!"...nice motto.

I will go along with you though about not trying to do what Jesus would do. I really don't care what Jesus did or will do. I'm not some mindless drone who can't figure out the difference between right and wrong with out checking some list at the local courthouse.

But I'm sure Jesus would have been leading the charge into Iraq because it was such a difficult political situation that could not possibly be resolved without war.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Wayne: the entire sentiment I expressed was directed to Christians who do care. If you don't care, then it shouldn't matter because I wasn't talking to you.

So don't take it that way.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

E_B_A: I was actually replying to Benson, not to you (I really like this site but sometimes the flow of the threads are hard to decipher).

If people ask What Would Jesus Do and that helps them to make the right/ethical/responsible/honest/most rockin' decision then that's great. I think Jesus would be happier that they came to the right decision in the end rather then they thought of him when they made their choice. It seems like some of the right wing nutty christians invoke the name of Jesus as some sort of get out of jail free card.

Personally I think Jesus would want to kick GWB's ass.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Wayne:

That's cool man. Sorry I misunderstood.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Personally I think Jesus would want to kick GWB's ass.

But Bush doesn't fight, even when he was in the military he proved that. It's much easier to convince others to die for you I suppose, at least Jesus took it like a man.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

YEEEEHAWWW Wayne!! Let's whoop them Ayrabs, 'cos Jeesooss would want us to murder their babies.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I must be bad at this comment thing because everyone keeps misinterpreting what I say.

To clarify:
I don't believe in God but if there was a Jesus he probably wouldn't be in favour of bombing other countries.
I think George Bush is an idiot.
And according to Kirk Cameron I'm going to hell. (But for $150.00 he can save me)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I checked out the link, wonderful stuff. I looked for an e-mail address for Kirk Cameron but couldn't find it. That's too bad as I would love to write to him and tell him how much I enjoyed his acting skills in that 1980's sitcom "Growing Pains", and appreciate him taking the time to be concerned for my soul. I would also like to ask him about that little prick that played Ben on the show. I wonder if Kirk ever beat the hell out of him, you know, not the hell in the spiritual sense but "beat the hell" in terms of a real shit-kicking.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Ryland: Say it isn't so, it can't be...your not a *gasp* a Christian?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm not Christian, no. I figured he was referring to Fred Phelps' site.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Ahhh...Fred Phelps. I would have thought the obvious verse for thoughtful Christians to deal with Phelps would have been 1 Corinthians....Chapter 6 ..verses 9 through 11. Yes the same passage that has some things to say about gay people..also has some things to say about 'revilers'. Revilers. Now there's a curious word. Not used a lot now. What is it to 'revile' someone? It's to verbally abuse them.

So here we have this comical situation where a minister is condemning gay people ..with the sin of reviling. If it was in some obscure part of the bible...you could possible understand Mr. Phelps missing it....but condemnation of 'revilers' (verbal abusers) is in the same scripture verses he uses to attack gay people. If everyone..(including the Phelps supporters)..had that basic bible understanding....Phelps would be starved of oxygen.

I have emailed our good friends at godhatesfags twice on this....asking them how they can justify their reviling..when it's a practice clearly and unequivocally condemned in scripture. No answer..of course.

The bible also describes being proud (hubris) and haughty (now there's another old and not understood word) as being an abomination (eg. proverbs 16:5). Submitting to that teaching of the bible alone...would knock out about 98 % of what Christians say publicly about gay people.

I've been researching the attitudes of Christians on homosexuality over the past couple of years. They often use the term 'sinful lifestyle' to describe homosexuality...but when pressed on their own sinful attitudes and actions..they eventually admit that they sin every day. Every day. Sounds like a sinful lifestyle to me. The way many Christians think of their own sin is ...'messing up...falling short of the mark...missing the target....not being perfect......making mistakes.....having weaknesses...being a work in progress....not having arrived yet.....' etc. It's as if they're nearly 'there' ..but God is the great rust and tarnish remover...who comes along every day and shines them up. Total theological nonsense. The bible clearly teaches (in Romans if you want to have a read) that ALL people are sinful and depraved..and require a saviour...and God gladly steps in out of love (not out of some maniacal dictatorship) and fills the gap for those who believe..and that he's especially interested in establishing a relationship with 'naughty' sinners....not 'nice..respectable middle class self-righteous' sinners ('pharisees they were called back in those days'). Jesus Christ would have the same problem today with religious leaders that he had 2000 years ago. The concept of a 'Moral Majority' was the greatest theolgical lie of the last century. 'Flaunting' their sinful lifestyle of pride and arrogance and a haughty attitude in public.....sheeshh...

Yes....most Christians should 'shut the fuck up'.and read what the bible actually says. Start telling the truth about THEIR OWN sin..would be a good start.

Phelps claims that in 1947 he repented of sin..and turned to Christ. Did that repentence from sin include repentence from reviling? I think not.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

My use of quotes was misleading...I was suggesting that "Why bother!" should be your motto.
You said: "How could you even suggest that we should act like Christ. When there is absolutely NO way that we could."

The key word there is "like". You don't have to turn water into wine, but a good start would be not hating fags and not cluster bombing children (Benson(n), I am in no way implying that you hate homosexuals or condone bombing civilians). To say that there's no way possible to be like Christ is a great way to use human falibity as a crutch for people in positions of power to do what they want and repent later.

Right now Bush is doing what he wants, when he wants. He runs America through a strategy of fear mongering, denial, spin and stonewalling. He admits to no faults and is resistant to change. All these seem very unchristian but many christians flock to him and believe every word of his inane babble. Why is that? Why can't they see the hypocrisy of it all?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top