"p_j" <p_j@postzzzmark.net> wrote in message
news:1gfsgw1.1k4v74f1cf7z1rN%p_j@postzzzmark.net...

Bob <no@email.address> wrote:

we need leaders that have the
courage to oppose evil rather than
appease it (France, Germany, Russia,
Spain, etc.).

Sounds like a good slogan for Hitler, but there is nothing to support
such a weird claim. Having those countries leaders opposed to doing
something evil isn't appeasing evil.

This looks like a good place for ...

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There
is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was
in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an
upper bound on thread length in those groups.

Really, I can't imagine anything more laughable than some cartoon
character world where a guy who is a friend and an ally and even asks
permission to invade the brutal dictatorship of Kuwait from Bush is
mysteriously reinvented as evil because he kills and tortures people
which requires the "good" side to torture and kill innocent people.

That made my head spin.

I could go on, but the idea that anyone is appeasing evil is pathetic.

If you don't oppose evil, what are
you doing?

Blair is still a friend of America, and
a good one.

Phony Tony shafted the citizens of the US, especially with all his made
up BS about attacks in 45 minutes and similar confabulations.

If you are opposed to evil then, standing side by side with Bush while
he tells WHOPPERS of lies before he and Tony go off to gorge themselves
and ignore the dead kids is what you should be condemning.

I am condemning the appeasing of evil.

Just out of curiousity, where do you draw this conception of "evil"?

Radical Islam.

we need leaders that have the
courage to oppose evil rather than
appease it (France, Germany, Russia,
Spain, etc.).

Sounds like a good slogan for Hitler, but there is nothing to support
such a weird claim. Having those countries leaders opposed to doing
something evil isn't appeasing evil.

This looks like a good place for ...

Godwin's Law

Really, I can't imagine anything more laughable than some cartoon
character world where a guy who is a friend and an ally and even asks
permission to invade the brutal dictatorship of Kuwait from Bush is
mysteriously reinvented as evil because he kills and tortures people
which requires the "good" side to torture and kill innocent people.

That made my head spin.

I could go on, but the idea that anyone is appeasing evil is pathetic.

If you don't oppose evil, what are
you doing?

Blair is still a friend of America, and
a good one.

Phony Tony shafted the citizens of the US, especially with all his made
up BS about attacks in 45 minutes and similar confabulations.

If you are opposed to evil then, standing side by side with Bush while
he tells WHOPPERS of lies before he and Tony go off to gorge themselves
and ignore the dead kids is what you should be condemning.

I am condemning the appeasing of evil.

Just out of curiousity, where do you draw this conception of "evil"?

Radical Islam.

Bryan wrote:

Erik A. Mattila wrote:

Bryan wrote:

a poor misguided soul wrote:

steve wrote:

Sumo wrote:

God bless all of them.

Most British voters don't support involvement in Iraq and a huge
majority
opposed taking part in the invasion.
I don't know what blackmail hold Bush must have over Tony
Blair.....but it
must be pretty damn serious.
Bush is an idiot....but I've been following Tony Blair's career
for 15 years
and he is no one's fool.
His agreeing to invade Iraq will one day be explained....

It has not been so far.

Yes it has been explained. Blair kisses Bush's *****.
--

It's sad that neither of the 2 of you are able to appreciate
leadership and resolve when you see it.

If you truly feel that Europe and the U.S. would be better off
negotiating with Islamic Fundamentalists, then you are
significantly mis-guided about the Koran and the Jihad against the
west. At least perhaps in your favor, neither of you are women,
and therefore have no concern about the loss of basic human rights.

Your hatred is clear. Unfortunately it is mis-guided, and blinding
you both from seeing the real enemy. I'll remind you that we are
dealing with a culture that considers it acceptable to de-capitate
someone's head, hands, or other limbs.

Get a grip. What recently happened in Spain can easily happen in
Paris or London. Try to determine who the real enemy is.

Which has exactly what to do with the invasion of Iraq, Bryan?
Don't play coy...most of those who have opposed the invasion of Iraq
do not accept the connection you are implying above.

The connection is not clear and concise to be sure. It does require
a leap of faith to associate various facts and findings, and coupled
with a healthy amount of fear and concern. If none of this meats
your thrshold, then I accept that. Please don't presume that I am
"dishonest" because my threshold is different from yours.

So by arguing that those who oppose the invasion of Iraq somehow
support or condone international terrorism is both dishonest and
reprehensible, as well as logically bankrupt. The message to you is
crystal clear: "Try to determine who the real enemy is."

Europe and Islam!

But that's completely silly. Look, guys like Bin Laden are political
players. Certainly they use religion to create the "precipitating
cause" of war, but if you look at their agenda it is purely political.

In some sense it is the underbelly of globalism. Sure, they say that
they want an Islamist State to control the destiny of each individual,
but that is no different than what Jerry Falwell and, to some extent,
G.W. Bush says

, as Christians. Put that aside and look at the history and agendas
of these terrorists organizations. It is all about control of
political destinies, capital and power.

The truth is that Bin Laden is more interested in Kashmir and Xinxiang
Province in China than America - he's no fool.

Why do you think he set up shop in Afghanistan? He could have set up
shop in Wisconsin, for Christ's sake. And all he has to do to get
recruits is claim he is out to purge Mecca and Medina of Infidels.
But look at what he is really doing! He's a contender...a contender
for geopolitical power...and it's really a longshot. But guys like
G.W.Bush are helping him. Making the longshot less long. The more
Dubya pushes, the strong UBL becomes. That's what has me concerned.

The left and right in America does in fact have a common cause, and it
is neutralizing the impact of international terrorism. It's tragic
that this is becoming a campaign issue - there's no good that can come
out of that. And the more chaotic our collective response to
international terrorism becomes because of partisan spintronics, the
more powerful people like bin Laden become. Don't you find that
ironic? Perhaps dangerous?

Speaking for myself, I don't relish the thought that my political
ideas and values will play into the nefarious plots of a person who is
dedicated to my destruction. But that is what is happening, exactly.

At what point, exactly, are we going to gather our collective
resources and defend ourselves, as opposed to practicing dispicable
opportunism for political gain against our opponents? In other words,
what sorts of luxuries do we imagine we have?

Erik

eam

The truth about reality, normality, society and whatever else I
can think of.
Click here <http://patism66.blogspot.com>