Muslims angered over cartoons? These?!?

[seeker007nmss]

As many of you probably already know, Muslims are attacking embassies, protesting...etc. over 12 Danish cartoons about Muhammad. Ummm.... I don't get it. Here they are (and it took awhile to find them- and this from someone who can easily find stuff on the web - bunnies in cups..etc)

Sorry, but I just don't see why they are SO upset. :shrug: I mean, okay these maybe slightly offensive, but come on..... All this fuss over THESE??? I have seen far worse about other people and religions in the opinion section of the local newspaper. A bit TOUCHY aren't they. Can someone clue me in? What am I missing?

<a href="http://photobucket.com"><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/muhammed_cartoon_6.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

Here are all of them for the curious:

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

[irishgrl]

my information was that Mohammed's turban was actually in the shape of a bomb. The problem is, as I understand it, in Muslim religion, you were not supposed to represent Mohammed's image. to be continued.

[SteveMacD]

I just love how the Danish PM is warning of a "global crisis" over drawings. Gee, when Muslims burn the flag of Denmark it's called a "global crisis." When Muslims burn the American Flag, it's called "Thursday."

[bretonbanquet]

This is a big big thing over here at the moment. Irishgrl is spot on - the main point of contention was the cartoon with Mohammed's head shaped like a bomb - and it's a big no-no to actually draw an image of Mohammed anyway.

In London we had people marching about calling for the slaying of those who insult Islam, beheadings, assassinations, the destruction of Europe, you name it. We had our usual reaction of "Well, now look here chaps, this is really rather bad form - do you think you could tone it down a touch?" But some other people took it rather badly. It constitutes incitement to murder / terrorism, and Parliament wants the police to make retrospective arrests on these grounds.

The thing is that these people protesting don't represent the Muslim community as a whole - as usual, we only hear from the ones with the biggest mouths, but it is certainly possible this could blow up into a big thing. Today we jailed a Muslim fundamentalist for 7 years for inciting terrorism, and things do seem to be progressing in an ugly direction. We had a guy on a News Talk programme saying that he wanted Britain to be ruled by Sharia Law... popular stuff among the locals, that :rolleyes:

As for flag burning, well little Denmark isn't used to that kind of thing, and they're also not used to being told they can't express themselves as they wish because it offends people in foreign countries. The irony is that by calling for the death penalty for the cartoonist, the fundamentalists are committing the same crime as the cartoonist - that is, upsetting people using the freedom of speech laws.

[irishgrl]

This is a big big thing over here at the moment. Irishgrl is spot on - the main point of contention was the cartoon with Mohammed's head shaped like a bomb - and it's a big no-no to actually draw an image of Mohammed anyway.

In London we had people marching about calling for the slaying of those who insult Islam, beheadings, assassinations, the destruction of Europe, you name it. We had our usual reaction of "Well, now look here chaps, this is really rather bad form - do you think you could tone it down a touch?" But some other people took it rather badly. It constitutes incitement to murder / terrorism, and Parliament wants the police to make retrospective arrests on these grounds.

The thing is that these people protesting don't represent the Muslim community as a whole - as usual, we only hear from the ones with the biggest mouths, but it is certainly possible this could blow up into a big thing. Today we jailed a Muslim fundamentalist for 7 years for inciting terrorism, and things do seem to be progressing in an ugly direction. We had a guy on a News Talk programme saying that he wanted Britain to be ruled by Sharia Law... popular stuff among the locals, that :rolleyes:

As for flag burning, well little Denmark isn't used to that kind of thing, and they're also not used to being told they can't express themselves as they wish because it offends people in foreign countries. The irony is that by calling for the death penalty for the cartoonist, the fundamentalists are committing the same crime as the cartoonist - that is, upsetting people using the freedom of speech laws.

Of course this could blow up into a big thing. the sad thing is, similar issues have blown up in the past, but you dont see the Christians getting all blown out of shape merely for a depiction of Christ or God or Mary or whatever....especially when you factor in the fact that certain factions of Islam allow pictorial representations. Its all very convenient that the radical element can get themselves puffed all out of proportion over "nothing".
Personally, I cant see that they have any real crediblity...and they never did, IMO.

[DavidMn]

Of course this could blow up into a big thing. the sad thing is, similar issues have blown up in the past, but you dont see the Christians getting all blown out of shape merely for a depiction of Christ or God or Mary or whatever....especially when you factor in the fact that certain factions of Islam allow pictorial representations. Its all very convenient that the radical element can get themselves puffed all out of proportion over "nothing".
Personally, I cant see that they have any real crediblity...and they never did, IMO.I'm not sure it was too good of an idea to depict mohammed's turban as a bomb. That being said, and it's easy for me to say, these people are wayy overreacting.

[irishgrl]

Today we jailed a Muslim fundamentalist for 7 years for inciting terrorism, and things do seem to be progressing in an ugly direction. We had a guy on a News Talk programme saying that he wanted Britain to be ruled by Sharia Law... popular stuff among the locals, that :rolleyes:

As for flag burning, well little Denmark isn't used to that kind of thing, and they're also not used to being told they can't express themselves as they wish because it offends people in foreign countries. The irony is that by calling for the death penalty for the cartoonist, the fundamentalists are committing the same crime as the cartoonist - that is, upsetting people using the freedom of speech laws.

I have to say as an outsider, I am glad that doofus got 7 years. What a maroon. I know that the Muslim community thinks (key word: THINKS) they have reason to rebel......but the sad fact is, they DONT. They are laboring under the mistaken notion that they stlll rule the world thru their math and science ablities.......I am here to tell them, they do NOT. The reality is, the Muslim world lost their claim to dominance many many years ago. I have already hinted at my particular bias in another thread. im going now.

[irishgrl]

I'm not sure it was too good of an idea to depict mohammed's turban as a bomb. That being said, and it's easy for me to say, these people are wayy overreacting.

Ok. I ask you. If you had depicted Jesus wearing a turbin shaped like a bomb, would you use it as an excuse to wreak havoc on other nations/people?

[seeker007nmss]

Ok. I ask you. If you had depicted Jesus wearing a turbin shaped like a bomb, would you use it as an excuse to wreak havoc on other nations/people?


Nope. Southpark made Stevie into a goat and the ledgies didn't attack any embassies..... (I know, but it sounds just as silly to me to get all bent out of shape over this:)

<a href="http://photobucket.com"><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/JP-011005-Muhammed-Westerga.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

Can you imagine what would happen if the film "Last temptation of Mohammed" was made? :eek: :shocked:

[Mari]

Ok. I ask you. If you had depicted Jesus wearing a turbin shaped like a bomb, would you use it as an excuse to wreak havoc on other nations/people?

Nope. I would be offended, though. I don't it's bad at all to have some respect for the various different religions. It's the way these people protest that I find out of proportion. I think it's good to make that distinction.

[Jyqm]

As many of you probably already know, Muslims are attacking embassies, protesting...etc. over 12 Danish cartoons about Muhammad. Ummm.... I don't get it.

As irishgrl said, many Muslims believe that Mohammed's image should never be represented out of respect.

My favorite part of this ordeal: Iran is now holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust. The best ones submitted will be printed in the major Iranian newspaper, in order to see how Westerners like it when their "sacred cows" are made light of.

So foreign cultural policy has officially reached the level of "Your mom!" Fantastic.

[SuzeQuze]

As irishgrl said, many Muslims believe that Mohammed's image should never be represented out of respect.

My favorite part of this ordeal: Iran is now holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust. The best ones submitted will be printed in the major Iranian newspaper, in order to see how Westerners like it when their "sacred cows" are made light of.

So foreign cultural policy has officially reached the level of "Your mom!" Fantastic.

Omigod. The Holocaust is just not funny and it is not even similar to depicting Mohammed in a cartoon. :confused: :distressed: The Koran forbids murder. I think that god would be a bit less happy with murder than a cartoon.

[Jyqm]

Omigod. The Holocaust is just not funny and it is not even similar to depicting Mohammed in a cartoon. :confused: :distressed:

Explain? What makes them so dissimilar? The publishing of the Mohammed cartoons was was more or less a deliberate slap in the face to Muslims. They were specifically designed to provoke by showing disrespect to something that the Muslim world takes very seriously and reverently. Responding with a series of cartoons about the Holocaust, something the Western world takes just as seriously, seems pretty spot-on to me, albeit just as childish.

Personally, I'm pretty excited to see the cartoons. I doubt they'll actually be funny, but it will be interesting to see what people come up with.

[gldstwmn]

Personally, I think this is a way to portray Iran as a nation of fanatics. This is just the begining of the campaign to sell whatever atrocity we're about to commit against Iran.
Am I wearing a tin foil hat? You bet.

[SuzeQuze]

Explain? What makes them so dissimilar? The publishing of the Mohammed cartoons was was more or less a deliberate slap in the face to Muslims. They were specifically designed to provoke by showing disrespect to something that the Muslim world takes very seriously and reverently. Responding with a series of cartoons about the Holocaust, something the Western world takes just as seriously, seems pretty spot-on to me, albeit just as childish.

Personally, I'm pretty excited to see the cartoons. I doubt they'll actually be funny, but it will be interesting to see what people come up with.

Well, one is a subject about millions of people being murdered. The other depicts the god of a group that has bastardized their religion. The latter are still alive, the former are no longer here to speak for themselves.

[SuzeQuze]

Personally, I think this is a way to portray Iran as a nation of fanatics. This is just the begining of the campaign to sell whatever atrocity we're about to commit against Iran.
Am I wearing a tin foil hat? You bet.

:laugh: I wouldn't doubt it. It is a small percentage of Islam that are fanatics. Unfortunately their tactics get them alot of press.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: I wouldn't doubt it. It is a small percentage of Islam that are fanatics. Unfortunately their tactics get them alot of press.

Couple this with the fact that Iran actually attacked us (hostages in the 80's ) and the West's in general hatred of all Muslims over there and the situation needs little prompting by anyone to lead to a war. I truly think most Americans and many Europeans would just as well see every singly Arab dead right now and they do not care that so many will die. The reason I say this is though the facts are clear we went to war on false pretenses and we executed the war in a poor manner, most Americans do not care becuase they do not care about those people; rather, they loath all of them.

[gldstwmn]

Couple this with the fact that Iran actually attacked us (hostages in the 80's ) and the West's in general hatred of all Muslims over there and the situation needs little prompting by anyone to lead to a war. I truly think most Americans and many Europeans would just as well see every singly Arab dead right now and they do not care that so many will die. The reason I say this is though the facts are clear we went to war on false pretenses and we executed the war in a poor manner, most Americans do not care becuase they do not care about those people; rather, they loath all of them.

That pretty much sums it up.

[SuzeQuze]

That pretty much sums it up.

Yup. My roommate told me flat out she hates them. :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

Personally, I think this is a way to portray Iran as a nation of fanatics. This is just the begining of the campaign to sell whatever atrocity we're about to commit against Iran.
Am I wearing a tin foil hat? You bet.
does that improve yer reception my dear? do you get A&E that way?

[Jyqm]

Personally, I think this is a way to portray Iran as a nation of fanatics. This is just the begining of the campaign to sell whatever atrocity we're about to commit against Iran.
Am I wearing a tin foil hat? You bet.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

First off, the issue of the original cartoons has nothing to do with Iran directly (except for the fact that Iran is a Muslim state), and even less to do with the United States - only European newspapers have printed the cartoons; most American publications and news programs have refused to print or air them.

Second, it's Iran's president who has decided to come out in recent months and question the existence of the Holocaust, and it's an Iranian newspaper that has called for the Holocaust cartoon contest.

Third, I don't think Bush has even mentioned Iran directly when speaking about the cartoon ordeal.

Fourth, unfortunately, Iran actually poses a potential threat at this juncture. A whole lot of nations recognize this, as does the UN. And apparently, at least for the time being, the Bush administration is being very cautious as far as gathering intelligence and acting multilaterally, depending upon the cooperation of other nations, specifically in Europe.

The differences in attitue of the White House toward Iran in February 2006 and Iraq in February 2003 are pretty astonishing, actually. They'll never admit it, but they might have learned at least a little something from their previous gross mistakes.

[gldstwmn]

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

First off, the issue of the original cartoons has nothing to do with Iran directly (except for the fact that Iran is a Muslim state), and even less to do with the United States - only European newspapers have printed the cartoons; most American publications and news programs have refused to print or air them.



I never said they did. What I'm saying is that is how the information is being used by the pravda.

[gldstwmn]

does that improve yer reception my dear? do you get A&E that way?

Not only do I get A&E, I get Logo too. I love Graham Norton.

[Jyqm]

I never said they did. What I'm saying is that is how the information is being used by the pravda.

Examples? As I mentioned, I don't think the Bush administration has yet mentioned Iran specifically when speaking about this cartoon debacle. I haven't seen any articles that make much mention of Iran in this context, either, other than coverage of the Holocaust cartoon contest, and none of those articles seemed to me to portray Iran as dangerously fanatical.

If anything, Iran running a newspaper contest and cutting off economic ties with Denmark seems like a more level-headed response (relatively) than the embassy burnings and killings that have been occurring elsewhere.

[gldstwmn]

Examples? As I mentioned, I don't think the Bush administration has yet mentioned Iran specifically when speaking about this cartoon debacle.

They don't have to.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060208-104811-5127r

Russian MP gives date of U.S. Iran attack
MOSCOW, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Russian Duma member Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that a U.S. attack on Iraq is "inevitable" and will occur on March 28.

Zhirinovsky is vice-chairman of Russia's Duma and founder and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

During an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station, Zhirinovsky said, "The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war. Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position.

"The date for the strike is already known -- it is Israel's election day (March 28.) It is also known how much that war will cost."

Zhirinovsky also told his listeners that the Danish publication of cartoons offensive to Muslims was a deliberate psychological operation by the Bush administration intended to "provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world. It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers."

[bretonbanquet]

Yup. My roommate told me flat out she hates them. :rolleyes:

What, all of them? How discriminating... please tell us she doesn't have a responsible job :rolleyes:

And please keep Graham Norton over there :(

[gldstwmn]

And please keep Graham Norton over there :(

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

What, all of them? How discriminating... please tell us she doesn't have a responsible job :rolleyes:

And please keep Graham Norton over there :(

Yes, we were watching a show on the religion of Islam. They had terrorists as well as clergy speak. While the minister was speaking about what Islam really is, and how terrorists and extremists have twisted it, I mentioned how terrorists have bastardized the religion. She said she thought most muslims did. I said, actually, that isn't true, most muslims are peaceful. Then she said "I don't care, I hate them all and I don't care if it isn't politically correct." :shocked: I did not speak to her the rest of the day and had to leave the room even though the show was really interesting. :( Plus it made me really sad since that is the exact attitude the terrorists have toward us, that blind hatred without reason. Plus how can you just hate people? I just don't understand.

[DavidMn]

Yes, we were watching a show on the religion of Islam. They had terrorists as well as clergy speak. While the minister was speaking about what Islam really is, and how terrorists and extremists have twisted it, I mentioned how terrorists have bastardized the religion. She said she thought most muslims did. I said, actually, that isn't true, most muslims are peaceful. Then she said "I don't care, I hate them all and I don't care if it isn't politically correct." :shocked: I did not speak to her the rest of the day and had to leave the room even though the show was really interesting. :( Plus it made me really sad since that is the exact attitude the terrorists have toward us, that blind hatred without reason. Plus how can you just hate people? I just don't understand.That's unfortunate your roomate has strong feelings like that. There are good and bad people no matter what race.

[SuzeQuze]

That's unfortunate your roomate has strong feelings like that. There are good and bad people no matter what race.

She's a good and nice person! That's the thing! :confused:

[Jyqm]

They don't have to.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060208-104811-5127r

Russian MP gives date of U.S. Iran attack
MOSCOW, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Russian Duma member Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that a U.S. attack on Iraq is "inevitable" and will occur on March 28.

Zhirinovsky is vice-chairman of Russia's Duma and founder and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

During an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station, Zhirinovsky said, "The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war. Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position.

"The date for the strike is already known -- it is Israel's election day (March 28.) It is also known how much that war will cost."

Zhirinovsky also told his listeners that the Danish publication of cartoons offensive to Muslims was a deliberate psychological operation by the Bush administration intended to "provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world. It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers."


Ah yes, of course. I had forgotten that the Bush administration's inner circle includes the Duma. No doubt Mr. Zhirinovsky is a very reliable source on this matter, as the White House has been working so intimately with Russian politicans lately in the construction of its foreign policy. The rest of the world clearly has taken notice of Mr. Zhirinovsky's comments, as well. The article's all over the major news sites...

[DavidMn]

Ah yes, of course. I had forgotten that the Bush administration's inner circle includes the Duma. No doubt Mr. Zhirinovsky is a very reliable source on this matter, as the White House has been working so intimately with Russian politicans lately in the construction of its foreign policy. The rest of the world clearly has taken notice of Mr. Zhirinovsky's comments, as well. The article's all over the major news sites...More wars. How lovely.:mad:

[gldstwmn]

Ah yes, of course. I had forgotten that the Bush administration's inner circle includes the Duma. No doubt Mr. Zhirinovsky is a very reliable source on this matter, as the White House has been working so intimately with Russian politicans lately in the construction of its foreign policy. The rest of the world clearly has taken notice of Mr. Zhirinovsky's comments, as well. The article's all over the major news sites...

I never said the administration had linked the cartoons to Iran. That was you.
"Iraq" is a typo in the article and I can provide another article (same story) without the typo.

[gldstwmn]

Oops, looks like I spoke too soon. Is Condi Rice far enough in Bush's inner circle for you J? :laugh:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004751.htm

US's Rice: Iran, Syria stoke Muslim cartoon anger
08 Feb 2006 17:45:19 GMT

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria on Wednesday of deliberately stoking Muslim anger in a dispute over cartoons satirizing Islam's Prophet Mohammad that has sparked deadly protests.

[gldstwmn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4694876.stm

Iran and Syria 'incited violence'

Norway's embassy in Iran was also targeted
The US secretary of state has accused Iran and Syria of fuelling anti-Western sentiment, in a row over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
Condoleezza Rice said both countries used the opportunity to incite violence and exploit Muslim anger.

The accusation came as the UK embassy in Iran came under attack. Western embassies in Syria and Lebanon were set alight over the weekend.

Protests continue elsewhere, with four killed in an Afghan demonstration.

The deaths - at a protest by about 400 people in the town of Qalat - bring to 12 the number of people killed in Afghan protests over the cartoons in recent days.

Afghanistan's top council of Muslim clerics has called for an end to several days of demonstrations.

'Sentiments inflamed'

Speaking at a joint news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Ms Rice said some countries were behaving responsibly with regard to the row but that others "have also used this opportunity to incite violence."

"I don't have any doubt that ... Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it," she said.

During the day about 200 Iranian demonstrators attacked the UK embassy in Tehran, but were prevented by police from forcing entry to the building.

The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Iran have also been attacked, while those in Beirut and Damascus were set on fire at the weekend.

Meanwhile US President George W Bush urged governments to prevent attacks on diplomatic missions.

"I call upon the governments around the world to stop the violence, to be respectful, to protect property, protect the lives of innocent diplomats who are serving their countries overseas," he said.

In other developments:

French magazine Charlie Hebdo becomes the latest to print the cartoons. President Jacques Chirac condemns decisions to republish the cartoons as an "overt provocation"

Hackers attack hundreds of Danish websites, posting pro-Islamic messages condemning publication of the images

Several hundred people march on the Italian embassy in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, but are blocked by police

About 300 Palestinian protesters attack an international observers' mission in the West Bank town of Hebron, throwing rocks and bottles and trying to torch one of its buildings

Thousands demonstrate in Pakistan's Dara Adam Khel tribal region, bordering Afghanistan.

[bretonbanquet]

Yes, we were watching a show on the religion of Islam. They had terrorists as well as clergy speak. While the minister was speaking about what Islam really is, and how terrorists and extremists have twisted it, I mentioned how terrorists have bastardized the religion. She said she thought most muslims did. I said, actually, that isn't true, most muslims are peaceful. Then she said "I don't care, I hate them all and I don't care if it isn't politically correct." :shocked: I did not speak to her the rest of the day and had to leave the room even though the show was really interesting. :( Plus it made me really sad since that is the exact attitude the terrorists have toward us, that blind hatred without reason. Plus how can you just hate people? I just don't understand.

That's sad :( Good job for her she doesn't live in London :nod:

[Jyqm]

More wars. How lovely.:mad:

I was being sarcastic, David. This Zhirinovsky guy is talking out of his ass. There's no possible way that some loudmouth Russian MP knows anything about the Bush administration's foreign policy plans. In addition, claiming that this cartoon ordeal was somehow orchestrated by the US is absolutely ludicrous and completely unfounded.

This idiot also has something of a history for shooting his mouth off and making things up. Check out this wonderful article about his response to Condoleeza Rice's reprimanding of Russia regarding its handling of the recent gas crisis in Ukraine: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html

"Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all."

Even putting aside the fact that he's a Russian MP, does this sound like a guy who would be privy to the White House's foreign policy decisions? (Frankly, gldstwmn, I'm shocked that you actually claim to believe this.)

[Jyqm]

Oops, looks like I spoke too soon. Is Condi Rice far enough in Bush's inner circle for you J? :laugh:

Of course Iran and other Muslim countries are going to be called to task for allowing or encouraging violence in response to these cartoons. But that has nothing to do with an impending war. Do you believe that we're going to launch a war against Syria, as well, because Condi mentioned it in her statement?

[DavidMn]

I was being sarcastic, David. This Zhirinovsky guy is talking out of his ass. There's no possible way that some loudmouth Russian MP knows anything about the Bush administration's foreign policy plans. In addition, claiming that this cartoon ordeal was somehow orchestrated by the US is absolutely ludicrous and completely unfounded.

This idiot also has something of a history for shooting his mouth off and making things up. Check out this wonderful article about his response to Condoleeza Rice's reprimanding of Russia regarding its handling of the recent gas crisis in Ukraine: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html

"Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all."

Even putting aside the fact that he's a Russian MP, does this sound like a guy who would be privy to the White House's foreign policy decisions? (Frankly, gldstwmn, I'm shocked that you actually claim to believe this.)Oh I didnt mean that as any comment on what you were saying. SOrry about that. I was being more general in saying we dont need any more wars. Again sorry

[gldstwmn]

(Frankly, gldstwmn, I'm shocked that you actually claim to believe this.)

:laugh: You obviously don't know me very well. Of course, if you've got better ideas, then I'm willing to read them.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Do you believe that we're going to launch a war against Syria, as well, because Condi mentioned it in her statement?

If they thought they could get away with it, yes. I mean it was rumored to come to that a few a years ago, but it did not. Finally, Syria IMO would be better to rid the world of than Iran if you had to chose.

[gldstwmn]

Of course Iran and other Muslim countries are going to be called to task for allowing or encouraging violence in response to these cartoons. But that has nothing to do with an impending war. Do you believe that we're going to launch a war against Syria, as well, because Condi mentioned it in her statement?

No. I haven't figured out what Syria's role in all of this is yet.

[DavidMn]

No. I haven't figured out what Syria's role in all of this is yet.I'm no expert, but it wouldnt surprise me at al to finf that they've got their hands deep in this cookie jar.

[Jyqm]

Oh I didnt mean that as any comment on what you were saying. SOrry about that. I was being more general in saying we dont need any more wars. Again sorry

No, we don't, nor we do we have the money or troops for one. Unfortunately, within the past few months we've seen the Middle East become a much more volatile place, with various nations now posing actual potential threats that may need to be addressed, unlike the made-up claims used to incite the Iraq debacle.

Personally, I think that behind closed doors the Bush administration realizes that it has f***ed up big time with Iraq, and that it doesn't have any political capital left to spend on other "freedom-spreading" endeavors. Hence the very cautious, diplomatic reactions to the current situations in Iran, Palestine and elsewhere. Can you imagine the White House taking such a delicate tone three years ago in response to these various revelations and upheavals? Bush & pals know they have neither the manpower nor the funding nor the public support to launch any more extensive military adventures.

[gldstwmn]

I'm no expert, but it wouldnt surprise me at al to finf that they've got their hands deep in this cookie jar.

How so? :confused:

[strandinthewind]

No, we don't, nor we do we have the money or troops for one. Unfortunately, within the past few months we've seen the Middle East become a much more volatile place, with various nations now posing actual potential threats that may need to be addressed, unlike the made-up claims used to incite the Iraq debacle.

Personally, I think that behind closed doors the Bush administration realizes that it has f***ed up big time with Iraq, and that it doesn't have any political capital left to spend on other "freedom-spreading" endeavors. Hence the very cautious, diplomatic reactions to the current situations in Iran, Palestine and elsewhere. Can you imagine the White House taking such a delicate tone three years ago in response to these various revelations and upheavals? Bush & pals know they have neither the manpower nor the funding nor the public support to launch any more extensive military adventures.

No, I cannot. In fact, I think they thought Iraq mostly was going to be like shooting fish in a barrell, which has turned out to be anything but.

[gldstwmn]

No, we don't, nor we do we have the money or troops for one. Unfortunately, within the past few months we've seen the Middle East become a much more volatile place, with various nations now posing actual potential threats that may need to be addressed, unlike the made-up claims used to incite the Iraq debacle.

Personally, I think that behind closed doors the Bush administration realizes that it has f***ed up big time with Iraq, and that it doesn't have any political capital left to spend on other "freedom-spreading" endeavors. Hence the very cautious, diplomatic reactions to the current situations in Iran, Palestine and elsewhere. Can you imagine the White House taking such a delicate tone three years ago in response to these various revelations and upheavals? Bush & pals know they have neither the manpower nor the funding nor the public support to launch any more extensive military adventures.

Bombs don't require troops.

[Jyqm]

:laugh: You obviously don't know me very well. Of course, if you've got better ideas, then I'm willing to read them.

Take a look at the language that George, Condi & pals are using. "I call upon the governments of the world..." "The world ought to call them to task..."

Did you ever hear the Bush administration talking about "the world" before? Their line has always been, "Change, or suffer the consquences," with an implied "from us!" This is an administration that previously had never been afraid to act unilaterally when it came to kicking people's asses around the globe.

Now compare SOTU 2003 with SOTU 2006. This is a White House that secretly knows what a mess it's made, and they know they can't get away with making any more, even if they're half-legitimate. Their only foreign policy plans for the year are to keep holding on for dear life in Iraq and hope that somehow everything starts to work out, while trying to get other nations to deal with any other emerging threats. They got bitch-slapped in 2005, and they can't afford to have the same thing happen again during an election year.

[strandinthewind]

Take a look at the language that George, Condi & pals are using. "I call upon the governments of the world..." "The world ought to call them to task..."

Did you ever hear the Bush administration talking about "the world" before? Their line has always been, "Change, or suffer the consquences," with an implied "from us!" This is an administration that previously had never been afraid to act unilaterally when it came to kicking people's asses around the globe . . . .

The language around the time of the pre-Iraqi invasion was pretty worldly in that yes W was talking about retaliation against Al-Q for 9/11, but he usually tried to bring the rest of the world on board - to wit:

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York

10:39 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

____________________________________________________

Note - this is no way makes W less of the horse's ass he is.

[irishgrl]

Yes, we were watching a show on the religion of Islam. They had terrorists as well as clergy speak. While the minister was speaking about what Islam really is, and how terrorists and extremists have twisted it, I mentioned how terrorists have bastardized the religion. She said she thought most muslims did. I said, actually, that isn't true, most muslims are peaceful. Then she said "I don't care, I hate them all and I don't care if it isn't politically correct." :shocked: I did not speak to her the rest of the day and had to leave the room even though the show was really interesting. :( Plus it made me really sad since that is the exact attitude the terrorists have toward us, that blind hatred without reason. Plus how can you just hate people? I just don't understand.

Im afraid I can understand where your roommate is coming from, because it seems to me that while the clerics SAY Islam is a peaceful religion, you dont ever seem to see the clerics telling the radicals to stop their violence, nor is any action taken against them...they seem to have free reign. Thus, by their inaction, they are tacitly allowing the violence. In addition, when you see video footage of villagers celebrating in the streets when the twin towers fell, well, all I can say is, I have a very hard time remembering that not all Muslims are terrorists. I dont think innocent people ANYWHERE should be dying. I dont think innocent Iranians or Iraqis or Americans should be dying. But when those innocent Iranians or Iraqis die, part of the blame should rest with them because they didnt do anything to stop the rising tide of bloodshed by their OWN countrymen. (of course, now Lux will say that Americans are partly to blame for the twin towers innocents dying because we Americans didnt stop our corrupt government from doing its fair share of killing. To which I reply:
you're right, except for this: you DO see some Americans protesting this Administration, this war, and various other bad acts by our government. Not all of us are silent and there are some among us who do hold this corrupt Government accountable, unfortunately we are ignored)

[Jyqm]

The language around the time of the pre-Iraqi invasion was pretty worldly in that yes W was talking about retaliation against Al-Q for 9/11, but he usually tried to bring the rest of the world on board

This was a very faux-worldly tone, though - trying to nudge the rest of the world to get on board, but making it pretty clear that the US was ready to act swiftly and brutally on its own. There's almost none of that "or else" subtext in any of the administration's recent speeches.

[strandinthewind]

This was a very faux-worldly tone, though - trying to nudge the rest of the world to get on board, but making it pretty clear that the US was ready to act swiftly and brutally on its own. There's almost none of that "or else" subtext in any of the administration's recent speeches.

touche' touche'

[DavidMn]

This was a very faux-worldly tone, though - trying to nudge the rest of the world to get on board, but making it pretty clear that the US was ready to act swiftly and brutally on its own. There's almost none of that "or else" subtext in any of the administration's recent speeches.I'm wating for George to utter those famous words "Let's Nuke em...":rolleyes:

[SomeKindaMother]

Im afraid I can understand where your roommate is coming from, because it seems to me that while the clerics SAY Islam is a peaceful religion, you dont ever seem to see the clerics telling the radicals to stop their violence, nor is any action taken against them...they seem to have free reign. Thus, by their inaction, they are tacitly allowing the violence. In addition, when you see video footage of villagers celebrating in the streets when the twin towers fell, well, all I can say is, I have a very hard time remembering that not all Muslims are terrorists. I dont think innocent people ANYWHERE should be dying. I dont think innocent Iranians or Iraqis or Americans should be dying. But when those innocent Iranians or Iraqis die, part of the blame should rest with them because they didnt do anything to stop the rising tide of bloodshed by their OWN countrymen. (of course, now Lux will say that Americans are partly to blame for the twin towers innocents dying because we Americans didnt stop our corrupt government from doing its fair share of killing. To which I reply:
you're right, except for this: you DO see some Americans protesting this Administration, this war, and various other bad acts by our government. Not all of us are silent and there are some among us who do hold this corrupt Government accountable, unfortunately we are ignored)

Well, true. But we've been allowed these rights historically. We really have no way to identify with with some of the citizens of the Middle Eastern countries. We might feel our protests are ignored...but our families aren't tortured and slaughtered for it.

Kelly

[strandinthewind]

Well, true. But we've been allowed these rights historically. We really have no way to identify with with some of the citizens of the Middle Eastern countries. We might feel our protests are ignored...but our families aren't tortured and slaughtered for it.

Kelly

Plus, our media covets the protests to air to, inter alia, stir controversy to create ratings.

[gldstwmn]

Take a look at the language that George, Condi & pals are using. "I call upon the governments of the world..." "The world ought to call them to task..."

Did you ever hear the Bush administration talking about "the world" before? Their line has always been, "Change, or suffer the consquences," with an implied "from us!" This is an administration that previously had never been afraid to act unilaterally when it came to kicking people's asses around the globe.

Now compare SOTU 2003 with SOTU 2006. This is a White House that secretly knows what a mess it's made, and they know they can't get away with making any more, even if they're half-legitimate. Their only foreign policy plans for the year are to keep holding on for dear life in Iraq and hope that somehow everything starts to work out, while trying to get other nations to deal with any other emerging threats. They got bitch-slapped in 2005, and they can't afford to have the same thing happen again during an election year.

If you're looking for me to give the Bush administration a pass or props then you're asking the wrong person. I did that after 9/11. Fool me once...

[SuzeQuze]

If you're looking for me to give the Bush administration a pass or props then you're asking the wrong person. I did that after 9/11. Fool me once...

:lol: (laugh is in response to well-known Bushism on "fool me once") Me too! Jyqm, I hope you are right though and that they do know that they cannot possibly extend us into another war. I feel like they do not have their feet on the ground enough to see this though.

[irishgrl]

Well, true. But we've been allowed these rights historically. We really have no way to identify with with some of the citizens of the Middle Eastern countries. We might feel our protests are ignored...but our families aren't tortured and slaughtered for it.

Kelly

good point. Im not saying my position is right or reasonable, as I think this is the one area I am not so liberal. I dont condone innocent deaths ever, but I cant help how I feel. And I fully realize the other side has its reasons for what they do....and for the most part, I think they have valid reasons. But when they say Israel has no right to exist, and condemn America for being an ally, well, that is where I stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Jyqm]

If you're looking for me to give the Bush administration a pass or props then you're asking the wrong person.

**** no. I'm not asking you to approve of them one bit. Lord knows I don't. I'm just asking you to be reasonable and consider some of the facts we've got on the table (without citing loony Russian loudmoths as allegedly legitimate sources).

I'm all about being vigilant with regards to the utterly amoral will-to-power Bush administration. And if the signs and the rhetoric change and it looks like they're really calling for action in Iran or elsewhere without good reason, I'll be among the first to speak up against it. But for now, let's focus on the scams that they're actually trying to pull, like this ridiculous warrantless wiretapping business, or the ongoing we-should-be-allowed-to-torture-people scheme.

[SuzeQuze]

good point. Im not saying my position is right or reasonable, as I think this is the one area I am not so liberal. I dont condone innocent deaths ever, but I cant help how I feel. And I fully realize the other side has its reasons for what they do....and for the most part, I think they have valid reasons. But when they say Israel has no right to exist, and condemn America for being an ally, well, that is where I stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Do you think they turn a blind eye out of fear of the terrorists? Or do they actually condone the behavior? I'd like to think its the former. Still, they should do something since it is on their soil that the cells are cultivated.

[SuzeQuze]

**** no. I'm not asking you to approve of them one bit. Lord knows I don't. I'm just asking you to be reasonable and consider some of the facts we've got on the table (without citing loony Russian loudmoths as allegedly legitimate sources).

I'm all about being vigilant with regards to the utterly amoral will-to-power Bush administration. And if the signs and the rhetoric change and it looks like they're really calling for action in Iran or elsewhere without good reason, I'll be among the first to speak up against it. But for now, let's focus on the scams that they're actually trying to pull, like this ridiculous warrantless wiretapping business, or the ongoing we-should-be-allowed-to-torture-people scheme.

Now you're talking! Let's make a list!


The get rid of Medicare plan
The lets not fund Head Start plan
The lets not fund PBS plan
The keep the tax cuts for the rich at all costs plan
We are at "war" but congress never declared it
Etc...

[strandinthewind]

Now you're talking! Let's make a list!


The get rid of Medicare plan
The lets not fund Head Start plan
The lets not fund PBS plan
The keep the tax cuts for the rich at all costs plan
We are at "war" but congress never declared it
Etc...


Don't forget Fags are personally responsible for the Agony of Christ - so vote for me :wavey: :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Do you think they turn a blind eye out of fear of the terrorists? Or do they actually condone the behavior? I'd like to think its the former. Still, they should do something since it is on their soil that the cells are cultivated.
and financed. and many families send their sons to Madrassas to be educated in hatred. As for your question I think its a combination of both.
Im sure there is a huge element of fear of reprisal, but when you see film clips of regular folks rejoicing that innocent Americans died, I get the impression that many of them are not at all unhappy about what the terrorists are doing.

[gldstwmn]

Don't forget Fags are personally responsible for the Agony of Christ - so vote for me :wavey: :wavey:

I was going to add to the list but I'm afraid it will be hard for me to top that one. :laugh:

[Jyqm]

Jyqm, I hope you are right though and that they do know that they cannot possibly extend us into another war. I feel like they do not have their feet on the ground enough to see this though.

They do. They're stupid and myopic, but they're not that stupid and myopic. Their main goal, after all, is to amass power and hold onto it. At the moment, they've amassed a ****load, but holding onto it is starting to look like it might be a bit of a problem. They're being bombarded with questions from left and right, nobody thinks that Iraq is going well, and they're actually getting nervous about mid-term elections.

Just look at how cowed their rhetoric has become in comparison to just a year ago. Look at the State of the Union address - no real initiatives, no calls to any kind of action, just a bunch of not-really-saying-anything about various domestic issues and a reiteration of the "stay the course in Iraq and everything will eventually get better" mantra. This was a placeholder speech - let's just try and keep things from totally falling apart and maybe people will stop noticing how much we've screwed up.

Quite frankly, I think they're scared ****less that this cartoon controversy might really get out of hand, or that Iran and/or Hamas might prove to be real threats. Because even if there are legitimate threats, they know that Americans simply aren't going to support anymore foreign incursions against brown people right now, and they're going to pay for it big time come November if it comes to that.

[SuzeQuze]

and financed. and many families send their sons to Madrassas to be educated in hatred. As for your question I think its a combination of both.
Im sure there is a huge element of fear of reprisal, but when you see film clips of regular folks rejoicing that innocent Americans died, I get the impression that many of them are not at all unhappy about what the terrorists are doing.

I was under the impression that such celebrations were rare. That was so awful it made me physically ill to see it.

[SuzeQuze]

I was going to add to the list but I'm afraid it will be hard for me to top that one. :laugh:

:laugh: This is true. Also, if we have them all listed in one place, it may make us vomit.

[Jyqm]

Now you're talking! Let's make a list!


The get rid of Medicare plan
The lets not fund Head Start plan
The lets not fund PBS plan
The keep the tax cuts for the rich at all costs plan


Which are all part of the same let's-screw-the-stupid-non-rich-people-out-of-their-money-because-they're-too-stupid-to-know-any-better plan.

I love how they call things like Medicare "entitlement plans." I mean, nobody likes entitlement, right? Sounds like a bunch of those dirty liberals and minorities mooching off my tax dollars! We'd better start clamping down on all these entitlement plans so I can get some of those tax dollars back...

Without ever making the connection that those "entitlement plans" are going to benefit them, while the tax cuts will be far far away up in the mansion on the hill.

[gldstwmn]

They do. They're stupid and myopic, but they're not that stupid and myopic. Their main goal, after all, is to amass power and hold onto it. At the moment, they've amassed a ****load, but holding onto it is starting to look like it might be a bit of a problem. They're being bombarded with questions from left and right, nobody thinks that Iraq is going well, and they're actually getting nervous about mid-term elections.

Just look at how cowed their rhetoric has become in comparison to just a year ago. Look at the State of the Union address - no real initiatives, no calls to any kind of action, just a bunch of not-really-saying-anything about various domestic issues and a reiteration of the "stay the course in Iraq and everything will eventually get better" mantra. This was a placeholder speech - let's just try and keep things from totally falling apart and maybe people will stop noticing how much we've screwed up.

Quite frankly, I think they're scared ****less that this cartoon controversy might really get out of hand, or that Iran and/or Hamas might prove to be real threats. Because even if there are legitimate threats, they know that Americans simply aren't going to support anymore foreign incursions against brown people right now, and they're going to pay for it big time come November if it comes to that.

I hope you're right. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Which are all part of the same let's-screw-the-stupid-non-rich-people-out-of-their-money-because-they're-too-stupid-to-know-any-better plan.

I love how they call things like Medicare "entitlement plans." I mean, nobody likes entitlement, right? Sounds like a bunch of those dirty liberals and minorities mooching off my tax dollars! We'd better start clamping down on all these entitlement plans so I can get some of those tax dollars back...

Without ever making the connection that those "entitlement plans" are going to benefit them, while the tax cuts will be far far away up in the mansion on the hill.

esp. considering the Rx plan is nothing but corporate welfare to the highest degree. I mean the drug companies will make billions more off of this. Yes, some people will benefit from the drugs, but that is a sep. issue from the raping of the tax dollar to get there.

[SuzeQuze]

Which are all part of the same let's-screw-the-stupid-non-rich-people-out-of-their-money-because-they're-too-stupid-to-know-any-better plan.

I love how they call things like Medicare "entitlement plans." I mean, nobody likes entitlement, right? Sounds like a bunch of those dirty liberals and minorities mooching off my tax dollars! We'd better start clamping down on all these entitlement plans so I can get some of those tax dollars back...

Without ever making the connection that those "entitlement plans" are going to benefit them, while the tax cuts will be far far away up in the mansion on the hill.

Yes, this is what gets me, the populace voting against their own interests!

[strandinthewind]

Yes, this is what gets me, the populace voting against their own interests!

Well, it is a little more complicated than that. I think people drive down the street and see all the people in the projects and think - lazy so and so's don't want to work, etc. Certainly some of the people there do not want to work and are content being there. I submit they are few though. I also submit the vast majority of the people there also do not have the public education to get a job that could get them out of there, and if they did, there are only so many of those jobs to go around as opposed to the plentiful lesser paying jobs like a maid, fast food worker, etc.

In the end, I think there is vast abuse and neglect in govt. funded programs to help the less fortunate and that is a very sad thing. However, it does not mean those programs should be done away with. It means they should be fixed. For example, I still maintain Affirmative Action should go from being based on race to being based on poverty. Two things are accomplished with that change. First, over time, the concept that black people and other minorities are getting an unfair leg up will fade - people do not mind giving the poor a better shot and sadly, the majority will still be black. Secondly, it is a fairer way to distribute money IMO.

Yet, mentioning that gives the R's and the D's fuel to raise money.

[Jyqm]

Well, it is a little more complicated than that. I think people drive down the street and see all the people in the projects and think - lazy so and so's don't want to work, etc.

Although a lot of these "What's the matter with Kansas types?" have never been anywhere near a city large enough to have projects.

In the end, I think there is vast abuse and neglect in govt. funded programs to help the less fortunate and that is a very sad thing. However, it does not mean those programs should be done away with. It means they should be fixed. For example, I still maintain Affirmative Action should go from being based on race to being based on poverty. Two things are accomplished with that change. First, over time, the concept that black people and other minorities are getting an unfair leg up will fade - people do not mind giving the poor a better shot and sadly, the majority will still be black. Secondly, it is a fairer way to distribute money IMO.

Yet another in a string of seemingly obvious, good ideas that for one reason or another seem like they're never going to happen.

[bretonbanquet]

I was under the impression that such celebrations were rare. That was so awful it made me physically ill to see it.

It's important to realise that your average man-in-the-street in Iraq, Syria, Iran etc is even less well-informed than over there in the US. What they are told through their "media" may or may not bear some remote resemblance to what actually goes on in the world. Seeing people rejoicing in the street over 9/11 was hard to take, but we can only vaguely assume that they were told the true details. I also recall seeing people over there weeping when they saw the actual images on the TV. News is spread in different ways over there and is slanted so radically sometimes you wouldn't believe.

[SomeKindaMother]

It's important to realise that your average man-in-the-street in Iraq, Syria, Iran etc is even less well-informed than over there in the US. What they are told through their "media" may or may not bear some remote resemblance to what actually goes on in the world. Seeing people rejoicing in the street over 9/11 was hard to take, but we can only vaguely assume that they were told the true details. I also recall seeing people over there weeping when they saw the actual images on the TV. News is spread in different ways over there and is slanted so radically sometimes you wouldn't believe.

That's very true. I know how hard it is here to see actual news. I'm not making a conservative slam there either....it's more of a pop culture thing I guess. Whatever grabs the ratings. I like to watch FSTV and Link TV. They show actual (dubbed) European and Middle Eastern broadcasts. Democracy Now is interesting too. At least we have options, anyway, if we want. It sounds like those citizens can't realize any news than what is fed to them.

Kelly :)