How Things Have Changed

Why on earth do you include Israel? It seems to me that Israel is not in
that club of nations you mentioned - except according to the United Nations
(which is a questionable, at best...and horribly corrupt - at
worst..."institution" that routinely loathes Israel regardless of
reason/rationality) Israel is a democracy that is so thin in places
geographically, do you even have to wonder why Israel needs to defend itself
fiercely simply in order to defend its right to exist in the face of people
who refuse to even acknowledge Israel's very existence on a map????? Until
Israel's neighbors stop their desire to "push it into the sea" - Israel has
every right to be on guard to the hilt. You may list Israel with N.
Korea...but earlier you also listed the United States in a similar
light....so one must question................................

Also, Iraq is a keystone in islamofascism - which has the greater potential
of all current threats to do us some serious harm. An islamofascist will
not hesitate to detonate a nuclear bomb in Europe - provided they are
killing "infidels" it won't matter if you are European or American. Some
of our friends in Europe seem to be slowly realizing this, in the
Netherlands for instance after Mr. Van Gogh was executed by an islamofascist
simply for his art and exercise of free expression.

N. Korea is withering and is at the end of the day a subject state to China,
which has greater economic interests worth more than N. Korea's friendship
(as if that is worth anything at all). If North Korea sends an
intercontinental nuke, the missile may very well be intercepted. The
aftermath would be grave for the regime of N.Korea - and even more so if the
nuke detonated. They know this. North Korea may very well be closer to the
brink than you realize - and that may be the reason nobody is risking lives
upon it.

With the islamofascist you are dealing with a suicidal desire to kill as
many innocent people as possible. YOU KNOW THEY WILL NEVER HESITATE TO
DETONATE A NUCLEAR DEVICE. Knowing this, which is the greatest threat? The
growth of islamofacism, or Israel???????????????????? Which force seeks
world domination? Which force seeks the return of the caliphate to Spain
and Greece/Europe...then onward to encompass "all infidels". I don't see
that as a choice at all, it is far too obvious. A single detonation could
kill more people than were killed by Stalin if it were placed in a critical
area...and do so in a single day. Appeasing islamofascism and permitting
it to grow and flourish is a dangerous gamble, a type of Russian roulette
with five rounds in the chamber. There is a lot more at stake dealing with
such a mindset than most seem to realize. Re-reading about Mussolini/Hitler
from 1923 to about 1940 might enlighten those who write off this movement as
"harmless" and easily "ignored".




"*david*" wrote in message
oups.com...
The charge of "appeasement crowd" is silly if you want to apply it to
Saddam Hussein but not to other bigger more important more deadly
people, like the current leaders of the Palestinians, of Israel, of
Saudi Arabia, of China, of North Korea, and of most of central Africa.
Bomb them all. Why not?

"TomW" wrote in message
oups.com...
My, what a wobbly grasp of history you have!

Was it better to avoid war and permit Josef Stalin to murder over
eight
million people simply because he had not attacked another country?

Before the war, when Stalin did most of his killing Americans -
particularly conservatives - were far too isolationist to do that.
Moreover, as the Germans found out, attacking Russia was a really bad
idea. Moreover again, asserting American policies overseas was a
liberal doctrine championed by Wilson and FDR. Conservatives hated the
idea of foreign involvements.

Was it better to avoid war and permit Mau Tse-Tung to starve and murder
over
twenty-five million innocent people?

A land war with China, and by treaty with the Soviet Union as well?
The resulting slaughter would have tallied even more than twenty-five
million, with a lot of them being Americans. Bad, bad idea.

Had Hitler not attacked another country, would it have been better to
avoid
war and have "Peace in our time." as Mr. Chamberlain believed....and to
then
permit the extermination of millions of Jews, Slavs, and any group that
maniac Hitler did not like simply because the sanctity of a sovereign
state
MUST be respected by the international community (as the Human Rights
commision of the UN headed by Libya and Cuba so stated).

Uh, if Hitler stopped at the western half of Czechoslovakia in 1938,
the time of appeasement, he would not have had millions of Jews and
Slavs to slaughter. He had to push further east to hit those numbers.
Indeed, if he had stopped at half of Czechoslovakia by way of accepting
appeasement, then Hitler would not have been acting rationally, the war
would not have happened, and a hundred million people would not have
died. Furthermore, retroactively applying a UN notion from much later
is weird and inapplicable.

OR you could actually take into account Saddam invading other countries
(guilty as charged..both Iran and Kuwait), violating all UN mandates and
condemned by both the UN . . .

Oh, now the judgement of the UN is proper and correct, because it
agrees with you. But you disagree again when they refused to support
the war?

The press never calculates the numbers of
Iraqis who have lost their lives in the struggle against those various
jihadist al-zaquari's al-quaeda linked maniacs - it is now over 84,000
people in case you were wondering (killed by terrorists...NOT America).

Those are the fundamentalist terrorists who were not there before but
sure as hell are now? And America is not killing innocent civilians at
a stunning clip at checkpoints and on raids? And was it not America
who caused the destabilization by running bull-headed into a situation
so factional and tenuous that W's dad chose NOT to take Iraq when it
was totally undefended at the end of the Gulf War?

is not just Iraq, it is a proof to the entire festering wound upon the
face
if Iraq grows and
heals, the other Arab states will no longer have any claim over their
people
that tyranny is their destiny and no alternatives exist as they are a
cursed
people

I have never heard the "Arab" states or people of the Middle East claim
they must accept tyranny because they are cursed. By the way, do you
realize that countries like Iran are NOT Arab? Try not to lump too
much together in the very heterogeneous and contentious Middle East.
Simple solutions do not work too often on complicated problems.

One billion people should not be overlooked as being
cursed without even lifting a finger to help them.

They don't want our help. They hate us. They want us to leave. And,
if you feel that we have the right to butt into their lives and
governments, then you must accept that they have the right to come to
America and do the same to us, militarily included. Or are you ethics
situational? And why are the many, many tyrants who America has
supported and continues to support absent from your discussion? Oh
yes, they help us, so they are okay. Situational ethics again. All
those Dirty War deaths in Latin America are justifyable to you, yes?

The ideal response to September 11th - given the viewpoint of history and
the passage of time - may very well be the beginning of lifting the curse
of
tyranny and halting the growth of islamofascism over a billion fellow
human
beings.

That's the Paul Bremmer idea, the one he thought he was doing in Iraq.
Just put the bad leader out of power, say "you're free" and wait for
them to name a square after Bush and watch all the other countries
around it abandon Islam and dictatorships and start their own
Jeffersonian democracies, and it will be Middle East stability
happy-happy time with everyone loving America. Right. Of course, the
team the George Bush sent in to replace Bremmer and his people refer to
their predecessors as "The Illusionists" - a bit of a misnomer, as they
are talking about how deeply illusioned Bremmer's people were. As are
you.

All we have done is destabilize the region in quest of an impossible
goal. All we have done is strengthen the ranks of the terrorists by
radicalizing the Islamic world against us.

The Shiite Iraqis do not care about democracy; they want sovereignty
and power and oil, democratic or not. They would be happy with an
Iran-style republic. The Shiites are closely tied to Iran, not us.
They are playing along because they have everything to gain at the
moment by doing so. But recent events in Basra against the British
should dispell any notions that the Shiites view foreign invaders as
friends. In a way, we did Iran's dirty work for them, because they are
far more likely to benefit when the dust settles that we are.

The Kurds do not care about democracy. They want autonomy and oil.
They are friendlier to us, but if the situation fragments and they do
go autonomous, you can expect Turkey to make good on their promise to
invade their old enemies, the Kurds.

The Sunni Iraqis have nothing to lose by fighting because the troops
and their rivals treat them as if they were all Baathist loyalists.
The Sunnis have nothing to gain from compromises, which is hypothetical
because nobody is offering them anything that resembles a compromise
they can live with.

It really does not matter what either of us believe: Time will tell.
Frankly, I would love to be wrong on this and have you be right.


Amazing. Yes, we can't defend the interests of western
civilization...because it will only make them more angry with us????????
These terrorists are so powerful we must run away in fear of them, fear of
antagonizing them??? Really? You think showing weakness to such a movement
is the RIGHT thing to do? I too, hope you are wrong. As to details such as
the differences between the Saffavid and Persian empire boundaries,
non-Arab - arab....you miss the larger point. Each time editorials state
"Shiite can't be allied with Sunni al-Quaeda Wahhabists...." Damn, that is
just plain blind. Islamofascism has converts in Europe, Asia, within the
ranks of a billion people.... I guess some still missed the Bali
bombings - afterall, they are not "arab". As to the moral questions asked
about Hitler/Mao/Stalin..they were posing a moral set of questions -
"either/or" questions. If you want to argue historical analysis more than
morality, that would be a separate discussion.

Was it better to avoid war and permit Josef Stalin to murder over
eight
million people simply because he had not attacked another country?

Before the war, when Stalin did most of his killing Americans -
particularly conservatives - were far too isolationist to do that.
Moreover, as the Germans found out, attacking Russia was a really bad
idea. Moreover again, asserting American policies overseas was a
liberal doctrine championed by Wilson and FDR. Conservatives hated the
idea of foreign involvements.

Why does that matter? I don't care whether or not it was conservative or
liberal. Why is that even relavant to the point that Stalin was permitted
by the globe...not just Americans (both conservative and liberal) from
killing over eight million people? It is a moral question, as were the
others...and has NOTHING to do with who the hell was conservative or liberal
at the time. You think death has a political preference too?

What makes you think I'm with liberals or conservatives? The threat to life
and limb is islamofascism, and the enemy is our own appeasement of it...be
it liberal or conservative.

Amazing. Yes, we can't defend the interests of western
civilization...because it will only make them more angry with us????????
These terrorists are so powerful we must run away in fear of them, fear of
antagonizing them??? Really? You think showing weakness to such a movement
is the RIGHT thing to do?

Nice straw man argument. I never said any of those things. I guess
you could not counter the points raised and went for this nonsense
instead. I will make it simple for you: All you have to do is explain
to me what the invasion of Saddam's Iraq had to do with the war on
terror. The answer is, of course, nothing. The terrorists roared into
the void we created. Iraq had no links to terrorism when we invaded.
The terrs are there in force now. We not only took our eye off the
terrorism ball in Iraq, we created a catalyst for enlarging their ranks
and their rage.

Each time editorials state
"Shiite can't be allied with Sunni al-Quaeda Wahhabists...." Damn, that is
just plain blind. Islamofascism has converts in Europe, Asia, within the
ranks of a billion people....

You do recognize that the main target for the Sunni fundamentalist
terrorists has been the Shiite population, don't you? And you do know
that the Taliban actively killed off not only the Afghani Shiites but
the moderate Sunnis as well? That is the point: the Middle East is
extremely fragmented, not only by Sunni and Shiite, but within those
groups, and even by clan loyalties. The idea that they will coalesce
into a single group is just ridiculous. Do you really know nothing
about the Middle East? The real problem with the nation-building idea,
Nathan, is that people like you expected the many factions to drop
their various deeply-held loyalties and ties in favor of an abstract
notion of democracy brought in on the tip of an invader's bayonet.

And the term fascism does not fit here, because fascism has nationalism
as a major element and that is not what radical Islam is all about.
Applying the word "fascism" here is as inappropriate as when the
liberals apply it to Bush and the conservatives. Moreover, there is
nothing wrong with moderate Islam. You seem to lump all Islam
together, which is really bizarre but still good for some wild
scare-mongering assertions.

That's it for me. I have said my piece. You make really good ink,
Nathan, and I will continue to buy it.

Islamofascism is EXACTLY the same as Bush's Americofascism and/or
Christofascism (pick your term, doesn't matter). It's simply that Bush
is from the same country as you, so he gets your support. In the end,
your own attitude is the same as the guys you're trying to kill.

The U.S. has caved in to the religious fanatics' view of the world, and
has agreed to play their game. Osama bin Laden is laughing. He is not
just smarter than the Bush administration, which was obvious from the
start - he's unfortunately turning out to be smarter than Hitler too.

As long as U.S. policy is driven by the Christian fanatics' agenda, the
U.S. is doomed to failure, because the Christians don't have the same
level of life-and-death commitment from their soldiers that the Muslims
do from theirs.

America's best chance for success is to get religion out of policy and
out of politics.

That's it for me. I have said my piece. You make really good ink,
Nathan, and I will continue to buy it.


Points made, but please read what al Zaquari and the lieutenants of al
Quaeda write and say. Shiites (especially those that want peace and
prosperity in Iraq! as if that were wrong for people to want....!) are a
pawn in their greater strategy, and it is western civilization that has
consistently been their main target. Hitler may have seemed to be concerned
mostly with a stronger Germany in 1933, but when you read Mein Kampf you
KNEW exactly where he intended to go. Fascists are in your face with their
agenda and always have been - they really do mean exactly what they say and
write! We were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when Beirut, Cole, Kobar, Kenya,
and September the 11th took place....how on earth did we provoke those
events - or is America always to be blamed first just as it was by lead
editorials in 1945-1948 by the very same major newspapers that are doing so
today? What about those members of al Quaeda who are not arabs and were
domestic/natives of Europe and have bombed innocents since? Iraq is an
attempt to head off the rise of islamofascism, because turning our tail and
running or ignoring it has only resulted in progressively larger attacks by
it upon us. The next one is not pleasant contemplation if we fail again.
It must be defeated completely and absolutely exactly as fascism was
defeated in 1945. There is no other alternative I am sorry to say.

I've said my piece too....at least people know why I'm not changing the
label of Iraqi Indigo and do not see it as an affront to civility. Back to
ink and nibs,....... ;-)

General Patton: "The Nazis may be more willing to go to the infernal regions
than we are, so the polite thing to do is to help get as many there as
quickly as possible until they run out!"

You'll never negotiate with a fascist, something it appears SOME people in
Europe have forgotten. It has nothing to do with religion, because
islamofascism is not Islam.

"*david*" wrote in message
oups.com...
Islamofascism is EXACTLY the same as Bush's Americofascism and/or
Christofascism (pick your term, doesn't matter). It's simply that Bush
is from the same country as you, so he gets your support. In the end,
your own attitude is the same as the guys you're trying to kill.

The U.S. has caved in to the religious fanatics' view of the world, and
has agreed to play their game. Osama bin Laden is laughing. He is not
just smarter than the Bush administration, which was obvious from the
start - he's unfortunately turning out to be smarter than Hitler too.

As long as U.S. policy is driven by the Christian fanatics' agenda, the
U.S. is doomed to failure, because the Christians don't have the same
level of life-and-death commitment from their soldiers that the Muslims
do from theirs.

America's best chance for success is to get religion out of policy and
out of politics.

Noodler wrote:


You'll never negotiate with a fascist, something it appears SOME people in
Europe have forgotten.

That's unfortunately true. Neither George Bush nor Hu Jintao is capable
of meaningful negotiation, and yet those hapless Europeans keep at it
with both of them.

You can't eliminate fascism by becoming a fascist country yourselves.
It defeats the purpose.

And if it's not about religion, then there's no such thing as your
"islamofascism" then, is there?

Your country has become a "Christian nation", against its own
constitution. It's precisely the same as an "Islamic nation" - barbaric
in intent, and fuelled only by hatred of the other guys. The fact that
you call your own country's fascism by a nicer name than the other
guys' fascism is irrelevant. The attitude towards religious wars is
what counts - i.e. both sides want one.

Leaders who blur the boundaries between politics and religion in order
to persuade or bully their people (Bush, bin Laden, others) are more
dangerous than the Soviet communists ever were. If Stalin had got
religion, we'd be speaking Russian right now.

The difference today is that the Americans are not fighting the evil,
or even ignoring it, but participating in it instead.

Your country has become a "Christian nation",

It was founded as one based on the concept of the "Judeo-Christian code"
(with such dramatic concepts as thou shalt not bear false witness, etc...),
so how did it "become" one more recently? It seems to me many in Europe
have no moral compass left, having exchanged it for the "moral relativism"
of a statist ideology. Something more akin to Karl Marx in exchange for
dumping the western tradition their ancestors did much to create in the
first place.

I suppose if you believe Israel should be bombed because it is a "terrorist"
state, and the US is "fascist" instead of those people who desire global
domination under pain of death (you take the word of the terrorists over
that of your own historic friend across the pond)....then we must be in good
company. Israel has never turned away from a fight for its own survival the
way some other nations have in the past.

I asked Terry about that when the ink first came out. It was simply an error
in how to spell the word!

Regards,

Norman Haase
His Nibs.com
www.hisnibs.com
Blog: http://hisnibs.blogspot.com