cbacon

Wasn't this GWB's excuse too? Not necessarily wrong facts from Blair, but loose evidence to enter a war that they were planning for a while anyway? All it takes is common sense to realize the Iraq War was not justified, and the Tories should have known that too. Another reason to love John Cleese. I would have voted LibDem if I had organized my overseas voting ballot in time. I guess i'll remain content trying to keep the Conservatives out of power here in Canada.

Where is this craaazy message board you speak of?

Incorrect.

Seasons 3-8 were the best seasons of any TV show, ever. Season 9 is when it started to go downhill. Episodes like The Principal and the Pauper were just awful and it was the beginning of the non-sensical plots, cop-out ending, and the overexposure of Homer's stupidity which has him running around screaming in pain every episode now. The rest of the Season 9 is hit or miss but it didn't get really bad till Season 10 and progessively worse in 11, 12, 13, etc like the New Kids on the Blecch episode where Bart forms a boy band. The Halloween episodes remained consistently good for a while despite the crappy later seasons, but even those began to suck a few seasons ago.

*shrugs* I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

I did the test again (since I just copied and pasted my results from last Novemeber) and it appears i've fallen further to the left in the past 6 months: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -7.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67

Bush didn't plan 9/11 or anything like that, but it was extremely convenient for his administration and the PNAC

Genius? If you can't find inspiration in Zombie Hitler or Cross Dressing Jesus, then i'm afraid your a lost cause.

Absolutely. I'm loving the duel male/female vocalists some of these bands are working with Just started listening to that Stars album yesterday. I think I have a new favorite for '05.

Profound diagnosis Sigmund, but a little off. Anyways,jumping back into the Nicaragua thing: Sources? And please, no frontpagemag. Although the relocation was not jusitified, the majority of Human rights groups that investiaged the Miskita relocation (which was a response to Contra activity in the first place) have placed the death toll around the 1000 area. Also the Sandinsta government have acknowledged the error of the relocation and have granted the Indians automony. Outside of the closer of La Prensa, which was claimed to be receiving funds from America, the Censorship of the Sandinistas was nothing out of the norm for a nation at war, even more so for a central American country at war. Would you be refering to Virgilio Godoy Reyes of the PLI? In which case it should be noted that the reasons for the withdrawn of his candidacy are still largely unknown with speculation on both sides. And that the rest of the PLI running for National Assembly (along with the vice-president of the PLI taking up the slack) remained in the race. Also, the top challenger (if it was the PLI,) got a measly 11% of the vote. In comparision to 63% for the Sandinistas. The Un was just one of many organizations that had oberservers in the country. The results of the election were accepted worldwide excluding Reagan's America. That's great, too bad Jimmy couldn't use his magical power and stop the Contras from holding the country hostage (not to mention the American Embargo). Since I know you love Chomsky so much, allow me to quote him and get my point across. ""Suppose that some power of unimaginable strength were to threaten to reduce the United States to the level of Ethiopia unless we voted for its candidates, demonstrating that the threat was real. Suppose that we refused, and the threat was then carried out, the country brought to its knees, the economy wrecked and millions killed. Suppose, finally, that the threat were repeated, loud and clear, at the time of the next scheduled elections. Under such conditions, only the most extreme hypocrite would speak of a free election. Furthermore, it is likely that close to 100% of the population would succumb. Apart from the last sentence, I have just described U.S.-Nicaraguan relations for the last decade." --Noam Chomsky, The Boston Globe, March 4, 1990 " Correction, the party the slight majority didn't want in. Dan Ortega (A man I greatly dislike by the way) received 43% of the vote, while the party that DID win got 51%. Not exactly a landslide victory. Also, the Sandinistas are still the main party when it comes to municipal elections. Please, There were plenty of economists predicting the economic fall of the USSR before Reagan even got in office. Have some common sense. You are very quick to point out the Sandinistas bad side (regardless of how inaccurate your facts are), yet you overlook some of the good things they have done. Such as completely turned around the enviroment and launching quite possiblely the most successful campaign for reading the world has ever seen. While the Somozas did nothing in the interests of the people.

I believe it ultimately comes down to the question: do you think the first world has a duty to help support the third world?

Here's another one You are a Social Liberal (78% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness

Economic Left/Right: -7.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

Then the Sandanistas marched into pediatric wards and dumped babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor and carried the equipment over to their socialist hospitals. Anyways, I've been studying and thinking about this question for a long time and I've noticed there is a gaping chasm between what Americans think about their government's intervention in south and central america and what the rest of the world thinks. But you don't have to look too closely to spot the pattern: democratic governments overthrown and replaced with right-wing, U.S friendly dictatorships (Haiti, Guatemala, Chile) or progressive revolutionary movements opposed with American-backed terrorists (Cuba, Nicaragua). I've read all the pro-Reagan arguments and in my weaker moments have almost been seduced by them. Then I ask myself: who jailed Pablo Neruda? Who shot Cardinal Oscar Romero? As a thinking person, I cannot be on their side. Two quick questions for Mike and Justice though - what kind of information would you be willing to listen to with an open mind in an attempt to sway your opinion? What kinds of sources do you accept as being valid? I ask because I know of a variety of sources I can use to back up most of what I've said in this topic, but I don't want to waste my time searching through the BBC archives or whatever only to find that you think the British are all closet Commies or something.

You honestly believe that the Sandinistas were worse than the (american backed) Somonza family dictatorships? -The Kleptocratic rule of the Somonzas, which resulted in Anastasio owning 20% of the country's farmland. And exchanging favorable trade terms(terms that included not having to re-forest clean-cut areas) for money straight into the Somanzo family account. -The uncountable numbers of deaths due to the Garbia? - Landless peasants working on large plantations for less than 1 dollar a day. - The water contamination that led to 17% to all Nicaraguan deaths. - The forced relocation of peasants into colonization projects in the rainforest. - The wide usage of chemicals such as DDT. - The bombing of residential neighborhoods, killing tens of thousands of people in an effect to kill a few "sandinistas". Do you honestly think that the Sandinstas were worse than the Somanzos? Hell, most of their actrocities were committed in response to Contra action. Did David Horowitz forget to mention the actions of the Somoza family when he was ranting about the Sandinistas? Really? Because if I remember correctly, the people DID choose the Sandinistas in 1984 during an election that was deemed "free and fair" by and independant observers and the UN alike. Could the 1990 elections also be considered "free and fair"? Not really, considering the Contras had a gun up to the population's head saying "Don't vote Sandinista, or will continue our bombings of soft targets". Not to mention that even to this day the Sandinistas are the offical oppisition. Yeah, but they TRIED. Jesus christ, end your life. Not every scholar who believes that the USSR fell for reasons other than Reagan were also telling reagan that the USSR would never go away.

There's no evidence of the kinds of things you're claiming. They're typical Reagan-ite claims that have no grounding in reality. It's like American media trying to paint the Venezuelan government of today as destroying freedom of the press, imprisoning journalists, etc., none of which is true but all of which has been printed in mainstream American press. The Sandanistas weren't communists, that's a bunch of CIA propaganda that no one outside the U.S. honestly believes. They accepted weapons from the U.S.S.R., yes. When the United States is funding an armed insurrection against you I'm not entirely sure what other option is available (rolling over and playing dead, perhaps?). Because Bush isn't Reagan? They were against the war almost unanimously because Bush isn't Reagan? How does that work? "Are you in favour of the war in Iraq?" "Nah. I mean, if Reagan was still in office it would be all right, but Bush, no way." The enormous popular opposition to the wars in Iraq in Afgahnistan in the region of the world most familiar with U.S. military intervention wasn't related to said military intervention? Are you for real? It would have been a good idea to not invade. I said before the war, and I'm still saying now, that as soon as the invasion was launched the situation was irreparably fucked. Iraq is going to be a mess for years to come, just like Afghanistan is now. Having elections in January, having elections later, not having elections at all, it's all the same at this point. And how is my statement misguided anyway? The U.S. tried to prevent elections, but were faced with massive non-violent resistance led by Ayatollah Sistani. They tried to force through a constitution written by the Americans, but were met with massive non-violent resitance led by Ayatollah Sistani. No, wait, I'm making this all up because as we all know, Muslims are all evil violent people. They certainly wouldn't be capable of organizing non-violent resitance en masse. Apparently you are the one missing the carpet bombing of Fallujah. Entire city blocks are in rubbles. The majority of the casualties in the city after the major assault were civilian. And, I mean, it's not like that was hard to predict. The U.S. announced that they were going to attack Fallujah long before they actually did. Do you think the insurgents were just going to sit back and wait for the U.S. to crush them? Obviously most of them left the city before the attack took place. The military declared the city a free-fire zone during the assault, meaning that soldiers could fire their guns at anyone they saw without any idea whether or not they were soldiers. Or perhaps you could do some reading on how the U.S. determined which houses the insurgents were using? The insurgency, as far as I know, doesn't have airplanes, so I'm not exactly sure how you believe they're carrying out bombing runs. I've all ready addressed the second half of that, but Reagan freed half of Europe? I'll assume you're referring to the end of Communism. If that's the case, you've proven yourself completely uninformed about 20th century history, since few if any serious scholars genuinely believe that Reagan was responsible for the end of Communism, as RJ also alluded to

Here we go: So priests like Falwell and Robertson who claim the US is in a holy war against Islam aren't doing this? How do you figure advocating the killing of people based on their religion doesn't count as that? I don't know if you've ever been in a Christian church, but I've been in plenty of Christian churches of several different sects, and every single one of them follows the Old Testament. You've never heard a Christian praise another Christian for carrying out a bombing of an abortion clinic? If not, you should probably open up a newspaper or turn on the TV or something. Grow up. I know some extremely peaceful Muslims, including several professors at my university. They teach Chemistry, rather than bombing support pillars as you seem to suggest their faith would require them to do. Do you know any Muslims? Can you explain how the ones you may know fit the description of what you suggest? Can you explain how this may or may not be universal to all Muslims, and why or why not? If you're going to make statements like this, let's see a serious effort to support them. Onward Christian Soldiers! Why does this expression exist? Almost all religions claim peace. The violence enters when the political situation intrudes into the religious doctrine. Come on now. It's a reference to Christians who follow Old Testament rules, not ones who disregard the New Testament. So persecution of minorities justifies retaliatory persecution of minorities? You're trying to claim the superiority of Christian and Judaic faiths and supporting discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims, and the evidence you're using is the discrimination shown in Muslim states. If it boils down to "let's discriminate because they discriminate", then you're operating under a logical fallacy that undermines your claims. And if you would study up your history of colonialism, even if you're insisting on using that logical fallacy, Judeo-Christian societies were the instigators in this case. It's a weak analogy, and ultimately false, I'd suggest dropping it. This passage is so full of blatant ignorance I'm not even sure where to begin, but here goes nothing: 1. I don't favour violence as a resort against them aside from exceptional cases, but if you truly believe that violence is the only acceptable solution to what you view as problems we've found your problem right there. 2. I never challenged them? You say that on what grounds? On no grounds. You're making baseless assumptions because if the people you attack don't fit into the ridiculous stereotypes you have of them your statements all fall flat on their face. So having a conversation with a Muslim person about issues of faith and politics automatically means complete and total acquiesence to their ideas? And it automatically means conformity to the stereotype of the weak-willed liberal who is so wan and permissive as to refuse to punish actively violent members of society? You can't honestly tell me that you don't know in your mind and heart that people aren't that easily stereotyped, and that there is tremendous complexity to the human character. If not I recommend you email some members of the psychology department of the nearest university to you to ask some questions on the topic. As for the rest of that comment, disregarding the ridiculous notion that inter-faith or cross-cultural discourse should optimally operate from a position of challenge, I'd like to comment on your mention of the misogyny of the Sharia law. I recently attended a lecture in Women's Studies, and one of the lectures consisted of speakers from different faiths examining the role of women in each faith. There were four speakers, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Protestant, and a Muslim. The issue of Sharia law was brought up, to which the speaker conceded that many interpretations of Sharia law result in the subjugation of women. What was evident from the discussion from all speakers, however, was that all four faiths included have variations of interpretation in doctrine, and in the more orthodox interpretationsof all four, women occupy a subordinate role. Only in Buddhism was this subordination not of a particularly misogynistic kind. It's the result of faiths that originate in patriarchal societies. If one looks at the faiths amongst Native American groups who were matriarchal, they priviledge female members of society. In some cases men are considered almost property, as women are in patriarchal religious forms. So yes, it's misogynistic, but that's not an exclusive trait, nor is it universal to the faith. Do you challenge the beliefs and misogynistic traits of all Christians and Jews you discuss issues with? So your definition of cult is based on a perceived benefit? Perhaps after looking up the term "discussion" in your nearest dictionary you should look up "cult". "Religion" might be a good one to look up to. Knowing what the words you use mean tends to help your arguments. Anyway, two last things to say, this will probably be my last post in this topic: 1. I'm thinking at this point odds are pretty good that you don't actually believe what you're saying and you're just trying to start arguments because you have nothing better to do with your time. 2. If you would like to continue, try this - respond to things that have actually been said, and things that you know to be true. Stop constructing your arguments around baseless assumptions and bad stereotypes. Also, since you were throwing around excerpts from the Koran, I thought i'd throw one in from the Bible: I just love crazy shit like this: (Exodus 31-15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. That's why I didn't get out of bed on Sunday, I was afraid God would bust a cap in my ass.

Is it possible for me to believe in Communism as a principle ideology yet condone all the human rights issues and all that 'evil' stuff, Mike? Similarily, if I read Mein Kempf am I automatically anti-semitic (as you claimed somewhere else) even if it's merely out of curiousity?

I had to read this again. Its so...perfect. Sounds like a General Surgeon's Warning of sorts that should come at the beginning of every MikeSC post.

I'll get to Mike's ludicrous 'rebuttal' to my points on Islam in the morning, but right now it's fun watching RJ point out what (sadly) the minority on this board fail to see when it comes to the average MikeSC post. *kicks back with a bag of pop corn*

I haven't seen you say that trying to remove the Sandinista regime was a mistake. How many people died at the hands of the Sandinistas, and how many died at the hands of the Contras? As for apologies, about all I can think that they did wrong was treat the Native Americans terribly (though much better than any other government in the area). If Reagan was such a liberator, why is it that opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were higher in Central and South America than just about anywhere in the world? It couldn't have anything to do with their intimate knowledge of what it's like when the U.S. interferes, could it? In the Middle East, Afghanistan is a mess and Iraq isn't much better. And, for that matter, the elections in Iraq happened despite attempts on the part of the American government to prevent them, and then further attempts to rig them once they were set in motion. It also dosent change the fact that the U.S. still runs bombing missions in Iraq constantly.

That's right... Islam passed that death sentence, not muslims. I have read translations of it, and I don't see how it's more violent than Judaism, or for that matter, christianity sects that follow the old testament. Only about death? I must be talking to the wrong muslims, because that isn't exactly a hot-topic word for them. Most of them spew rherotic about "service", "loyality" and "praise" alot more than "death". Where exactly do you get these stats from? Because considering that there's roughly 1.4 billion muslims in the world, I would think that if the "extremists" were the mainstream, 9/11 would be the least of our worries. It must be. I believe that regardless of the growing popularity of Mein Kampf in places such as turkey (a growing popularity that could be contributed to the fact the book sells for about 3 bucks). But of course, if you read it, your automatically a neo-nazi right? Umm... Just about every religion excluding Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. That's right... Islam did that. Not Muslims In an attempt to understand your incoherent and radical mindset, i'd like to pose this: How might you describe the side of the argument you're on? That's a patriotic form of argument. Would you say that gets often confused with as an argumentative form of 'prejudice/discrimination' the rhetoric suggests on your part? I'm taking a defensive role until you clarified the argument positionally as you already have done. I've met a number of Muslims in my life, and none of them have been particularly violent people. And I've had conversations with them about topics such as religion and politics, topics where you would think violence or obsession with death would come up (though, for that matter, aren't all religions "death cults" to some degree? I mean, one of the main focuses of any religion is death, and almost all religions have martyrs). At any rate, here's a question I'd like you to answer - what makes Islam a cult if Christianity and Judaism aren't? Islam is an extension of Judaism, just like Christianity, so it seems to me as though if one were a cult the others would have to be as well.