The War in Iraq

Aw, c'mon.

Frankie's upset because the US supports Israel and thus only "one side" in the Levant. He's also upset because of Israel's (in his estimation) bad human rights record.

So it would be better if we supported more countries with bad human rights records, because that would be more evenhanded policy in the Levant.

But we do support countries with bad human rights records: Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Morocco.

Which would be good (because evenhanded)...

Except it's bad to support countries with bad human rights records in general (unless of course that's only true when Jews are the ostensible perps), and it's a wee bit tough to find liberal democracies in the Levant outside of Israel and, more or less, Turkey.

So we should support only the countries with the less bad human rights records in the Levant.

Which would be, exactly,...???

Now I'm confused.

Oh well, Christmas is coming, an' I can hardly wait for Santa Clausewitz.

 

In my estimation? Even your own State Department agrees with me.

U.S. criticizes Israel, Russia, China on human rights

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/26/rights.report/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department on Monday released its annual human rights report, criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians during the last several months of violence in the Middle East.

The report also cited Russia for "serious violations" of human rights in Chechnya and China for its poor all-around record on human rights.

The report singled out Israel more so than in recent years for its treatment of non-Jewish citizens. It said Israel's human rights record against Arabs had "worsened" in the past year, mostly because of clashes between the Israelis and Palestinians since October.

"Israel's overall human rights record in the occupied territories was poor" during the last few months of the year, it said.

"Israeli security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses during the year" and "sometimes exceeded their rules of engagement, which provide that live fire is only to be used when the lives of soldiers, police, or civilians are in imminent danger."

"Since the violence began, Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators." the report said. Last May, the report noted, Israeli security forces killed six Palestinians and wounded up to 700 at demonstrations in which Palestinians were protesting the continued incarceration of Palestinians in Israeli jails.

It would be better to not preach human rights then turn around and align yourselves with human rights abusers.

While your president paints America as a great defender of human rights and freedom.

That post was funny...gave me a good laugh.

You guys are the liberators of the oppressed and champions of human rights right or is that just an angle utilized to justify your war in Iraq? I wonder...

 

Unk

You should be a Marine chaplain. Then you could say "Kill them all. Let God sort it out."

Then you wouldn't have to worry about those blurry friend/foe distinctions.

 

Re: Re: plscott defending American cause???

Alexis de Tocqueville's writings have helped many generations of Americans understand what IS great about our country, what IS unique, and what is NOT worth sacrificing.

It's sad to see Americans revel in their ignorance of a work that has played such a enormous role in shaping our democracy.

 

No Frankie you are not a basher at all.

You are left down the center my man.

I am sure Bush is the leader of the great Satan nation of America, and Sadam is a martyr, am I right?

Tell us how you really feel about our country.

 

If he's a Brit out of short pants, with a bit of education, he's probably so far left, he'd make Lenin blush.

These are the guys that were fighting over the table scraps in the dying economy of post war Britain for 30 years until Maggie Thatcher straightened them out.

Thank goodness Blair only pretends to be socialist.

I had an economics prof from the London School of Economics. Back in those days that was an oxymoron.

 

Actually I am a conservative. NO JOKE!!!

I will put you in your place tomorrow.

 

As I pomised...

Personally I do not believe in spooks, devils in red pajamas or angels with little dove wings. I would not refer to anyone in such religious terms.

I find it sad that someone cannot criticize American government policy and the government itself without some flag waving patriot flying off the deep end. I simply point out that the U.S. government has engaged in some hypocritical practices and somehow I end up being asked if I believe Saddam is a "martyr."

To make matters worse because I dare to criticize the regimes of the great superpower it is suggested that I am some ultra-communist that would make "Lenin blush." Talk about fanaticism and extremism.

I do not feel any particular emotion toward your country as a whole. I no more hate or love America then the average American would hate or love Uruguay.

 

American Legal History

Liberty University School of Law Dean Bruce W. Green is talking blogging about Tocqueville today.

"In the late 1830’s, Alexis de Tocqueville declared:

“In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity of human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on the earth.”

Tocqueville observed that where the Christian religion retains influence, a nation is enlightened and free. Recognition of objective truth and transcendent authority is necessary to a free and just society. The early Boston lawyer, James Otis, captured well the American philosophy:

“To say the parliament is absolute and arbitrary, is a contradiction. The parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5: Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state is jus dicere only:--jus dare, strictly speaking, belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance, a higher authority, viz. God. Should an act of parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and consequently void: and so it would be adjudged by the parliament itself, when convinced of their mistake.”

Any view of law that contradicts the dominant historic American view, must do so by means other than an appeal to transcendent authority or historical precedent. In the end, contradictory views are supported by nothing more than autonomous private judgment bolstered by popular sentiment."

http://www.liberty.edu/Academics/Law/index.cfm?PID=5054

 

Well tell us, Frankie, what country you're from.

If you choose not to, that means to me that you're embarrassed.

 

I am from Canada.

 

That's OK. Either Roy or Dennis more than compensates.

 

Well, I did commit the unpardonable sins. I questioned the great Emperor Bush and the glorious empire that he rules. So I deserve whatever lashing out I receive.

 

Then you, of all people, should thank God for the United States.

The Canadian military is totally inadequate to defend your country against an invasion or other hostile action by an enemy.

Do I need to give you 3 guesses as to who would defend you & bail you out of such a situation?

 

Of course, how dare a lowly Canadian criticize the great Republican empire...something like that?

This somehow exempts your republican empire from any and all criticism...right?

All hail the empire!

 

I'm not lashing you. I'm laughing at you.

 

I am a conservative.

Yes Frenchie...oops I mean Frankie you are definetly a conservative,

and I am an F16 fighter pilot. (damn that would be cool)

 

I would watch those French references. You are starting to convince me that you are a bigot.

Maybe in the minds of many Americans "Conservatives" have to be French hating militants to qualify as conservatives?...I do not know. But in my nation it does not work that way.

In Canada, Conservatives can respect the oppositions right to present an opinion without labelling them and they can respect civil liberties without being labelled a communist that would make "Lenin Blush."

Maybe our two nations have different views as to what a conservative is?

It is unfortunate that you use mockery to compensate for your apparent inability to present a reasonable argument defending your position.

This is suppose to be a friendly debate, not a war.

 

Not so fast, Scott. The NPD, DVP, and Republikaner in Germany all condemn US imperialism in Iraq as a continuation of our policy during World War II. And y'know what, Volksgenosse? They're right--hard right, that is.
_________

Frankie, what do you want? If anyone criticizes you, you call it lashing. If I laugh at you, you call it mockery. I guess a friendly debate means admitting you are right--hard right--and that your ridicule of our president (for whom I did NOT vote) and our policy of the moment should pass without response save for agreement.
Maurice Duplessis would be proud of you.

 

I think the following is beyond mere criticism?

"Yes Frenchie...oops I mean Frankie you are definetly a conservative"

"If he's a Brit out of short pants, with a bit of education, he's probably so far left, he'd make Lenin blush."

"I'm not lashing you. I'm laughing at you."

"Wherever you are stay there. We have enough american bashers in our own country."

If laughing at somebody is a sign of respect in your eyes then I apologize and retract my statement.

Unlike my opponents in this thread I can easily tolerate an opposing view.

I have not called anybody "Frenchie," suggested that they were a militant communist or told them to stay out my country because they simply disagree with me.

I criticised your government, I criticise my government as well. Hell, I even criticise governments outside of North America when they do wrong.

So what?