Mandela on Bush

[BuckyXTC]

Nelson Mandela is a very bright, estute man. Too bad so many folks are hoodwinked by Dubya's arrogance and machismo.

[BuckyXTC]

"should have said "astute".

[Guest ncm2169]

Bucky?? It's been a while.

 

Hey, machismo doesn't cut it dude. Try "the most cynical 'keep-the-subject-off-the-economy/re-election ploy' we've seen in years." IMHO, W is classic 3rd generation (Prescott, GHW, GW) ...high on looks, good marks on getting rich by pandering to Daddy's friends, dumb as a post).

 

The prob is, Karl Rove is a true modern political genius. x( Couple that with the fact the W has undeniably perfected his communication skills, and there's a formula for a two-termer. :-(

 

Course, if the economy stalls and Saddam shoves his finger up W's ass...well, there's still hope!:+

[BuckyXTC]

high on looks, good marks on getting rich by pandering

>to Daddy's friends, dumb as a post).

 

I sure as hell don't think Dubya is "high on looks". Looks utterly neanderthal to me. I suppose he might be attractive to desperate women and roving chimpanzees.

 

The Bush/Rove formula for saving the economy is worse than "fuzzy math".....it's downright wooly math.

 

Considering the fact that he plundered a budget surplus through his idiotic tax cut, and plans to do more of the same while spending more and more on his war appetite, I suspect practically any elementary school student of normal intelligence can figure out that won't work.

 

These horse's asses are their own worst enemies. They've done nothing to remedy the economic ills, and their penchant for war will probably (hopefully) be their undoing. When the economy hits bottom, and it's not far from there yet, Bill Clinton's words to GHWB will come back to haunt this appointed, not elected moron. Sadly, lots of folks will suffer in the process until people finally wake up to reality and realize that Bush is doing for the nation what he did for Texas.......creating an economic morass. He bankrupted several oil drilling companies, and it looks like he's on the same path to disaster.

 

As you said, dumb as a post. Except posts don't have much capacity for doing damage.

[taylorky]

>As you said, dumb as a post. >

 

 

 

well maybe not so dumb...........he did get the supreme court to appoint his cowardly ass, and he has convinced a lot of self hating dumb ass fruits to support him..hmmmm maybe one of their old asses will take some kids place in iraq.........nahhhh it's easy to promote a war when you know you won't have to fight it.......taylorky@23:56-01/30/03

[Bilbo]

I find it interesting that when implicated with racism, instead of replying that there were African leaders who agreed with him, or Arab leaders who agreed with him, Bush et al said that there were European leaders who agree with him. Aren't the majority of them what we refer to as white?

[ad rian]

>I find it interesting that when implicated with racism,

>instead of replying that there were African leaders who agreed

>with him, or Arab leaders who agreed with him, Bush et al said

>that there were European leaders who agree with him. Aren't

>the majority of them what we refer to as white?

 

Are Italians or Spanish "white"? Don't forget W's daddy was from Connecticut WASP, and he himself is Texas version of the same!

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

Although I can't stand Bush (he's a fucking idiot), I don't think his reference to the support from the Europeans was racist. It was in response to France and Germany who have been the MOST vocal opponents of his Iraq plans. Ya know ... the old Europe, new Europe thing? The issue with Bush and Iraq has nothing to do with race! And I'm really, really sick of the race thing being used as a weapon in politics.

 

And although I agree with Mandela about Bush being arrogant, I take exception to his remarks about our country and all of the "atrocities" we have committed. While we are far from perfect and are many times hypocritical, we have done more good (IMHO) and made more sacrifices for the world than all other countries combined. If you look at his statements as a whole, you'll see he wasn't just railing against Bush. Mandella has the right to say what he wants; but as a proud American, I found his comments very offensive!

[Guest JT]

>And I'm really, really sick

>of the race thing being used as a weapon in politics.

 

What about using age, gender, sexual orientation and class as weapons of politics? Or are we just really sick and tired of politics, period?

 

 

>While we are far from perfect

>and are many times hypocritical, we have done more good (IMHO)

 

True!

 

 

>and made more sacrifices for the world than all other

>countries combined.

 

Not sure about that! What kinds of sacrifices for the world we're talking about here? Sacrifices for the world than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED? Are we stretching a bit too thin here? Or we're really talking about US "sacrifices" for the world when it's in American interests to do so?

 

 

JT

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>What about using age, gender, sexual orientation and class as

>weapons of politics? Or are we just really sick and tired of

>politics, period?

 

I'm absolutely against using any of those. But Mandela didn't make any references to age, gender, or sexual orientation. He referenced race, so that's what I responded to. Not sure where you're coming from here.

 

>Not sure about that! What kinds of sacrifices for the world

>we're talking about here? Sacrifices for the world than ALL

>OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED? Are we stretching a bit too thin

>here? Or we're really talking about US "sacrifices" for the

>world when it's in American interests to do so?

 

Of course we had interests to protect in the sacrifices we've made. But I'll give you just a few examples. If it weren't for America:

 

1) The Nazis would be ruling the world. Freedom as we know it would be non-existent.

 

2) There would not be a South Korea; just one communist Korea. We lost 38,000 men in that war and no one can say THAT was about oil! (Vietnam unfortunately was a failure and cost over 50,000 lives.)

 

3) Kuwait would still be a part of Iraq. And most likely, Saudi Arabia would be too. Yes, that WAS about oil. But it doesn't change the fact that our actions benefited many nations and people.

 

Our right to criticize and openly protest our leaders and their policies is one of the many things that makes our country great. (In many other nations, including Iraq for example, you're executed.)

 

But to those Americans who want to go beyond just criticizing Bush and his policies, want to just rail about America, and do not acknowledge that over all, we have done much more good than bad, that with all of our faults, we are basically a good and decent country and people, I say this:

 

*** Canada is to the North; Mexico is to the South. Pick one and I'll help you pack! ***

[ad rian]

>The issue with Bush and

>Iraq has nothing to do with race! And I'm really, really sick

>of the race thing being used as a weapon in politics.

 

Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are many parts of the world, most indeed, where folks find it hard to understand what makes Saddam Hussein and Iraq or North Korea more dangerous than the European Jews who run Israel. The latter have a poor record when it comes to UN resolutions and also wrt WMD. If you selectively prosecute based on race, don't be surprised if you are accused of selective persecution. This is what the Europeans understand, and what a small but influential element of the American public fail to understand. If you take a consistent non-racial position position to UN resolutions or to WMD, you won't be accused of racism. If not, well you will hear from Mandela and others to the same effect.

[Guest JT]

>>What about using age, gender, sexual orientation and class

>as

>>weapons of politics? Or are we just really sick and tired of

>>politics, period?

>

>I'm absolutely against using any of those. But Mandela didn't

>make any references to age, gender, or sexual orientation. He

>referenced race, so that's what I responded to. Not sure

>where you're coming from here.

 

Where I'm coming from? Well, why single out Mandela? How about those Republican and Democrat politicians who keep using race, gender, sexual orientation, and class as weapons of politics every day? Is that what politics has become and is all about these days?

 

 

>>Not sure about that! What kinds of sacrifices for the world

>>we're talking about here? Sacrifices for the world than ALL

>>OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED? Are we stretching a bit too thin

>>here? Or we're really talking about US "sacrifices" for the

>>world when it's in American interests to do so?

>

>Of course we had interests to protect in the sacrifices we've

>made. But I'll give you just a few examples. If it weren't

>for America:

>

>1) The Nazis would be ruling the world. Freedom as we know it

>would be non-existent.

 

Well, I don't think the US was the first country to declare war on Nazi Germany. The US did not really get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour was attacked by Japan, Nazi's ally at the time. Self interest or sacrifice for the world? I guess the answer is crystal clear.

 

And according to many historians, US was not the sole factor for the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler himself made huge mistakes in attacking Russia to hasten his own fall. Plus, was US the only country that suffered loss of soldiers and civilians in WWII? And for that matter, was US the country that suffered the most severe loss?

 

 

>2) There would not be a South Korea; just one communist Korea.

> We lost 38,000 men in that war and no one can say THAT was

>about oil! (Vietnam unfortunately was a failure and cost over

>50,000 lives.)

 

The Korean War was fought because the US wanted and needed to maintain control of the Asia Pacific region for it's own military and political reasons. Same for Vietnam.

 

>3) Kuwait would still be a part of Iraq. And most likely,

>Saudi Arabia would be too. Yes, that WAS about oil. But it

>doesn't change the fact that our actions benefited many

>nations and people.

 

But it also didn't change the fact that the US fought these wars primarily because of self interest. So trying to say that the US "sacrificed" FOR THE WORLD more than all other countries combined is really stretching the truth.

 

>Our right to criticize and openly protest our leaders and

>their policies is one of the many things that makes our

>country great. (In many other nations, including Iraq for

>example, you're executed.)

 

Sorry I don't live in Iraq or the US. But I guess if you were black and were living in the South in the old days, trying to become a "free man" could get you executed too. And as far as I know, openly criticizing government leaders without fears of persecution is not an exclusive right of Americans. On the other hand, openly questioning and criticizing government leaders can also get you jailed and/or killed in many countries other than Iraq, including many American allies in the Middle East.

 

 

>But to those Americans who want to go beyond just criticizing

>Bush and his policies, want to just rail about America, and do

>not acknowledge that over all, we have done much more good

>than bad, that with all of our faults, we are basically a good

>and decent country and people,

 

If you read my previous post carefully, I already agreed with you that overall, the US has done more good than bad.

 

>I say this: >*** Canada is to the North; Mexico is to the South. Pick one

>and I'll help you pack! ***

 

Thank you for your offer, but I'm already living in Canada.

 

JT

[ad rian]

Great Stuff! I could not have said it better myself. Sure am glad, I held back. The ony thing I would add is that while you can credit the U.S. with victory in the Pacific, thanks in part to the first and so far only use of atomic weapons as an act of war, by the time the U.S. entered the War, the Soviets had already turned the Germans back at tremendous costs. We speak English today because of Joe Stalin, not Franklyn Roosevelt, and Churchill himself acknowledged the great strength of Uncle Joe and his brave Soviet nation.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

I'd have to disagree about Israel being the same or more of a threat than Iraq or North Korea. At least not to the United States. But I can certainly see how they are viewed as a threat to their neighbors (and vice versa!).

 

<sigh> (I can't believe I'm letting myself get embroiled in political issues on an M4M message board. Oh well.)

 

... <tapping my foot debating on whether I should continue with this post ... ... ... ... hmmm ... .... oh, what the hell>

 

While I don't share your very open hostility towards Israel, I will go on a limb and make the following observations/opinions:

 

* Israel has never committed itself to the destruction of her Arab neighbors. The same cannot be said about her neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) towards Israel.

 

* The U.S. is VERY hypocritical and severely damages our credibility worldwide when we don't insist that UN resolutions pertaining to Israel be equally enforced.

 

* Sharon is NOT a man of peace. This was just another idiot statement from Bush. Sharon is more committed to satisfying his hatred for the Palestinians and Arafat than he is for the welfare of the Israeli people.

 

* Sharon is in office because Arafat fucked up when he refused to accept the agreement pushed by the Clinton administration. That has given the Israeli people the idea that peace can never be achieved with the Palestinians. As a result, a more hawkish leader was elected.

 

* Arafat is a terrorist. We shouldn't be holding Israel back from attacking and killing Arafat and his cronies. But we turn the other cheek when it comes to Arafat and hold Israel back from dealing with him the way they need to. If we're going to have a war on terrorism, it needs to be against ALL terrorism. We shouldn't be selective as to which terrorists we'll fight and which ones we'll turn the other cheek on so we can preserve our other alliances on other issues. Dick Cheney (or was it Rumsfeld?) said that "the coalition does not define the mission; the mission defines the coalition." I agree with this statement. But it's not being practiced.

 

* The suicide bombers and those who help them need to be hunted down and exterminated like all terrorists.

 

* The arab countries in the region do not do enough to put pressure on Arafat to stop these suicide bombings.

 

* Israel treats the palestinian people like shit. Israel is very belligerent and heavy handed toward the Palestinian people (and we provide them the means).

 

* Although I whole heartedly support Israel's policy of targeted assinations of terrorists, I don't support them when they fire a fucking missile at a single terrorist in a crowded street with women and children all around.

 

* Israel needs to stop building and expanding these settlements. The U.S. should be insisting on this. There is no need for these settlements in the Palestinian territories. It is in my view just a belligerent action.

 

* I make a distinction between the Palestinian people and the Palestinian terrorists.

 

* Bush has no business criticizing Clinton for the failed agreement. Although Clinton wasn't successful, he was so damn close. And I give him credit for trying! Bush hasn't done shit to try and resolve the problem but give lip service about the creation of a Palestinian state (which I support).

 

* I understand why the Arab world hates and does not trust the U.S.

 

* I think it's sick that many in the Arab world think that suicide bombers are martyrs, that killing innocent people is justified if it's for their cause. They are as sick and evil as the terrorists themselves.

 

* The U.S. has to continue to make it clear to the whole world that Israel is our friend and we'll use any means necessary to defend her and her right to exist.

 

* The biggest problem is that everyone even remotely involved in the middle east conflict have completely taken one side or another. The truth is there is blame to go around. The Palestinians (the militants) fuck up by resorting to terrorism in their fight with Israel. Israel fucks up by being belligerent toward the Palestinian people and building/expanding all of these settlements. The Arab countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) fuck up by tacitly condoning the suicide bombers and not putting enough pressure to make them stop. The U.S. fucks up by "blindly" supporting everything Israel does. Since we provide them the aid that allows Israel to bully their neighbors, we are accomplices.

 

 

Sorry guys, I'll get off my soap box now.

:7

[ad rian]

>While I don't share your very open hostility towards Israel, I

>will go on a limb and make the following

>observations/opinions:

>

>* Israel has never committed itself to the destruction of her

>Arab neighbors. The same cannot be said about her neighbors

>(with the exception of Egypt) towards Israel.

 

....except for that one "neigbor" whose land it has occupied since 1948, Palestine!

 

>* Sharon is in office because Arafat fucked up when he refused

>to accept the agreement pushed by the Clinton administration.

>That has given the Israeli people the idea that peace can

>never be achieved with the Palestinians. As a result, a more

>hawkish leader was elected.

 

I can't agree with that, even Powell this week acknowledged that the Clinton/Barak proposal was not a "real state" but a series of disconnected cantons or Bantustans. No leader of Palestinans would or will accept that, and the skillful marketing campaign by Israel and its ethnic supporters in the U.S. will change that FACT.

 

>* I think it's sick that many in the Arab world think that

>suicide bombers are martyrs, that killing innocent people is

>justified if it's for their cause. They are as sick and evil

>as the terrorists themselves.

 

Ok, fine but two questions: (1) If we could ask dead people killed in war whether they preferred to die by grenade, land mine, nuclear weapons, M-16, F-16 or suicide bomber, do you think they wouls be able to state a preference? (Isn't this all like the advocates of the death penalty who recoil at the firing squad, the electric chair and the gas chamber, but who just love lethal injection?) (2) What mechanisms of resistance would you suggest for the Palestinians given the asymetry of power between the two groups, short of acceptance of Israeli occupation or its take it or leave it offers?

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>Where I'm coming from? Well, why single out Mandela?

 

Good grief. Check the title of this thread! If you want to start a separate thread about using age or sexual orientation as a political weapon, I'd can respond as well. And we'd probably be in agreement.

 

 

>Well, I don't think the US was the first country to declare

>war on Nazi Germany. The US did not really get involved in

>WWII until Pearl Harbour was attacked by Japan, Nazi's ally at

>the time. Self interest or sacrifice for the world? I guess

>the answer is crystal clear.

 

I agree. The U.S. resisted until the very end to get involved. And only did so after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Matter of fact, we resisted even when the English and French were pleading with us to help.

 

 

>And according to many historians, US was not the sole factor

>for the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler himself made huge

>mistakes in attacking Russia to hasten his own fall.

 

Of course the U.S. was not the *sole* factor. But very much the major factor! Many men from many countries made the ultimate sacrifice. And Hitler also screwed up by trying to conquer too much too soon.

 

 

> Plus, was US the only country that suffered loss of soldiers and

>civilians in WWII? And for that matter, was US the country

>that suffered the most severe loss?

 

Of course not. Many men from many coutries made the ultimate sacrifice. I never said they didn't. And as far as who suffered the most losses in this particular war, I'm going to make an educated guess and say Russia. But I could be wrong on that. Any history buffs reading this?

 

 

>The Korean War was fought because the US wanted and needed to

>maintain control of the Asia Pacific region for it's own

>military and political reasons. Same for Vietnam ...

> ...

> Sorry I don't live in Iraq or the US. But I guess if you were

>black and were living in the South in the old days, trying to

>become a "free man" could get you executed too. And as far as

>I know, openly criticizing government leaders without fears of

>persecution is not an exclusive right of Americans. On the

>other hand, openly questioning and criticizing government

>leaders can also get you jailed and/or killed in many

>countries other than Iraq, including many American allies in

>the Middle East.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And generally I agree. But ahhh ... you're not from the U.S. Now this makes sense for I'm sensing an awful lot of hostility from you towards America. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that America does that you agree with or support?

 

 

>If you read my previous post carefully, I already agreed with

>you that overall, the US has done more good than bad.

 

Hmmm. Well I must not have read it carefully. I certainly didn't get that. It must be buried somewhere in all your anti-U.S. rantings.

 

 

>Thank you for your offer, but I'm already living in Canada.

 

Well, that certainly explains a lot. :7

 

 

I've always had a rule about not getting into a lengthy tit-for-tat exchange with anyone on this board. And I've violated it. I've said everything I need to say on this subject. We'll just have to agree to disagree. While I believe you've made some good points, I don't really care for the spirit behind them. But it's your perogative. The last word is yours.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>Ok, fine but two questions:

 

(1) > If we could ask dead people

>killed in war whether they preferred to die by grenade, land

>mine, nuclear weapons, M-16, F-16 or suicide bomber, do you

>think they wouls be able to state a preference? (Isn't this

>all like the advocates of the death penalty who recoil at the

>firing squad, the electric chair and the gas chamber, but who

>just love lethal injection?)

 

I'm not sure if they could or would. But I'm also not sure what your point is here.

 

(2) > What mechanisms of

>resistance would you suggest for the Palestinians given the

>asymetry of power between the two groups, short of acceptance

>of Israeli occupation or its take it or leave it offers?

 

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian militants are justified in the suicide bombings of Israeli civilians!?

 

As far as what methods I would recommend, I'd start with not attacking and killing civilians! That only makes a bad situation worse! But I'll admit I don't have a simple answer as to what would be best. If there was an easy solution, it would be done. But I do believe that it is to the Palestinian's advantage to garner as much political support as they can in their dispte with Israel, which by the way, I do feel is justified. But resorting to killing innocent civilians does not increase their support. Just the opposite. Especially now with the world's emphasis on the war on terrorism.

[ad rian]

>As far as what methods I would recommend, I'd start with not

>attacking and killing civilians! That only makes a bad

>situation worse! But I'll admit I don't have a simple answer

>as to what would be best. If there was an easy solution, it

>would be done. But I do believe that it is to the

>Palestinian's advantage to garner as much political support as

>they can in their dispte with Israel, which by the way, I do

>feel is justified.

 

If I came into your house, took it over and expelled you, and you killed me to repell me, would I be "innocent"? Not in the eyes of centuries of common law or customary international law, but I suppose you want the Palestinians to hold to a higher standard?

[ad rian]

Mandela lambastes 'arrogant' Bush over Iraq

By Rupert Cornwell

31 January 2003

 

 

Nelson Mandela delivered a stinging personal attack on George Bush and his Iraq policy yesterday. Mr Mandela said the President was shortsighted and arrogant and implied he was a racist in his readiness to ignore the United Nations.

 

Urging Americans to take to the streets in protest, the former South African president said Mr Bush was a leader "who has no foresight and cannot think properly". Mr Bush, he said, wanted "to plunge the world into a holocaust".

 

Delivering a speech in Johannesburg, Mr Mandela asked: "Why is the US behaving so arrogantly?" He went on to accuse Tony Blair of acting like "the foreign minister of the United States". He suggested the countries were acting in such as way "because the secretary general of the UN [Kofi Annan] is now a black man. They [the US and Britain] never did that when secretary generals were white".

 

The White House brushed aside Mr Mandela's remarks yesterday, pointing to the statement of support for action in Iraq by eight European leaders.

 

The President was grateful to the many leaders of Europe "who obviously feel differently" from Mr Mandela, Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman, said. He chided "people more comfortable with doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust".

 

But Mr Mandela went even further. Referring to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, he declared that "if there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America".

 

Such sentiments are not voiced here. But concern at the damage to the reputation of America is widespread. Washington should be wary of actions "that make us look like a bunch of cowboys", Joe Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, warned yesterday.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=374183

[Guest fukamarine]

>I'm not sure if they could or would. But I'm also not sure

>what your point is here.

 

Well don't waste too much time looking for it. As usual - he doesn't have one!

 

fukamarine

[ad rian]

>

>>I'm not sure if they could or would. But I'm also not sure

>>what your point is here.

>

>Well don't waste too much time looking for it. As usual - he

>doesn't have one!

 

And as usual, you can't make a logical argument. I just wish I could get better value for my property taxes!:*

[Guest JT]

>I agree. The U.S. resisted until the very end to get

>involved. And only did so after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

>Matter of fact, we resisted even when the English and French

>were pleading with us to help.

 

>Of course the U.S. was not the *sole* factor. But very much

>the major factor! Many men from many countries made the

>ultimate sacrifice. And Hitler also screwed up by trying to

>conquer too much too soon.

 

>Of course not. Many men from many coutries made the ultimate

>sacrifice. I never said they didn't. And as far as who

>suffered the most losses in this particular war, I'm going to

>make an educated guess and say Russia. But I could be wrong

>on that. Any history buffs reading this?

 

Good that we can at least agree on something. The fact that I pointed out US government policies always have an self-interest element doesn't make me anti-US. Criticisms of the US government, its leaders and policies are not anti-US rantings! What I'm trying to point out repeatedly is my disargeement with your assessment that US made "MORE SACRIFICES FOR THE WORLD" than all the other countires combined, especially considering US only has a relatively short history of existence. Turning our different assessment on your statement into me being "anti-US' is distortion of my position and a way to avoid other issues I raised (e.g. by single out Mandela in the first place?)

 

 

>Yeah, yeah, yeah. And generally I agree. But ahhh ... you're

>not from the U.S. Now this makes sense for I'm sensing an

>awful lot of hostility from you towards America. Just out of

>curiosity, is there anything that America does that you agree

>with or support?

 

To assume someone who is not from the US is automatically hostile toward America is a simplistic worldview. I'll be the first one to recognize the many significant contributions of Americans and the US government. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have volunteered themselves using their (professional) skills, time, and money for the better being of others in the world. Doctors without borders is one such example. The US government has also through its aid program, allocated significant amount of financial and human resources via the World Health Organization to help many developing countries in the area of medical aids including children immunization programs. As I mentioned more than once, I agree with you that the US has done more good than harm overall. That said, I still don't accept the premise that the US has "sacrificed for the world more than all other countries combined"!

 

 

>>If you read my previous post carefully, I already agreed

>with

>>you that overall, the US has done more good than bad.

>

>Hmmm. Well I must not have read it carefully. I certainly

>didn't get that. It must be buried somewhere in all your

>anti-U.S. rantings.

 

Below is "cut and paste" from my first response. The first few sentences were written by you, and I responded "TRUE". Hope this helps. If agreeing with you that the US has overall done more good is anti-US rantings, I guess you've started it yourself.

 

">While we are far from perfect

>and are many times hypocritical, we have done more good (IMHO)

 

True!"

 

 

>>Thank you for your offer, but I'm already living in Canada.

>

>Well, that certainly explains a lot. :7

 

It's unfortunate that instead of focusing on the merits of our discussion, you seem to have taken things personally and equated my posts as anti-US rantings. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are patriotic Americans who do not share your views. Just because they live in the US, they do not necessarily agree with your assessment that US has sacrificed more for the world than all other countries combined, especially in light of the relatively short existence of the US in world history. That doesn't make them anti-US and any less patriotic than you.

 

 

 

>I've always had a rule about not getting into a lengthy

>tit-for-tat exchange with anyone on this board. And I've

>violated it. I've said everything I need to say on this

>subject. We'll just have to agree to disagree. While I

>believe you've made some good points, I don't really care for

>the spirit behind them. But it's your perogative. The last

>word is yours.

 

My last words are in. If you maintain that I'm anti-US, then there is really not much more I can do to change your mind. My posts are clear. I stand by them and will let others to decide for themselves.

 

 

JT

[phage]

>Thank you for your offer, but I'm already living in Canada.

 

JT,

 

It’s been a long time since you participated. It’s good to get the Northern perspective, but see what happens when you stay away so long? Some people don’t know you’re a good guy who isn’t anti anything…let alone anti-American. You need to keep pointing out when any of us get a little too American-centric. (Is that a word?)

 

BTW, I hope you’ve been reading long enough to get a feel for who ad rian is. Trust me, you do NOT want to hang out with him. None of the nice children will play with him anymore.

[ad rian]

>BTW, I hope you’ve been reading long enough to get a feel for

>who ad rian is. Trust me, you do NOT want to hang out with

>him. None of the nice children will play with him anymore.

 

Well as a lawyer from the Northern climbs, let me just say that I am four square behind the positions of the Chretien Government wrt to Israel/Palestine and Iraq, to say nothing of the people of Canada as reflected in current opinion polls. Perhaps he won't want to play with the nice on-line Zionist children if he reads the record! What amuses me Mr. Phage is that you don't realize how out of sync you are with the rest of the world!

[taylorky]

adrian this has nothing to do with this post, but i am just curious....what is your heritage......besides american of course;we .my family and me are of german descent.....and are jewish by religion.........this is not meant to attack you in any way.........i'm just curious..........taylor@21:32-02/01/03