Joe Lieberman on "Axis of Evil"

[KhanadaRhodes]

but y kan't tori read? (did i spell that right? probably not.)

[z edge]

I can only comment that I agree with you Bubba, and I will not say anything else. You are probably aware of my past, and realize comments made by DGonzo and others are a direct slap in my face if I bother to read them and take them literally. Having said that, I will go the heck back to a forum that will not get me "fired up", but I wanted to say "thanks" to you.

[STING2]

Dr. Gonzo,
This figure of 500,000 dead because of sanctions in Iraq is inaccurate and unverifiable. Iraq is a Police State, and no organization would be able to accurately verify such a statistic. The Oil For Food program allows for 18 billion dollars of oil to be sold to buy what ever Iraq needs or humanitarian concerns are. Do you have any Idea how many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa would like to have their hands on 18 Billion dollars a year in Oil Revenue. Despite Sanctions, Iraq has a GDP per capita higher than 72 other countries and about the same as their neighbor Syria. Iraq is 117 on the list, not far behind "Modern China" at #88.
Massive smuggling occurs on all of Iraqs borders. You can even buy high definition TVs in downtown Baghdad.
I find it strange you would side with Bin Ladin's sick twisted logic. 500,000 is an overestimate of deaths in Iraq since 1991. Any deaths that have occured or by an large the resposibility of the regime in power and not sanctions. Of course, the forces that had large business interest in Iraq before 1990, mainly the Russia and China and to a lesser degree France, are pushing for the lifting of Sanctions. Much of Iraq's 1990 debt of 80 Billion dollars is owed to the former Soviet Union.
Yes the USA bankrolls Israel, the only true democracy in the middle east. The Arabs that hate us, hate us because they know, as long as we support Israel all their pathetic attempts at destroying Israel will never work. Oh, and Bin Ladin uses this as a political arguement for his attack on the USA, yet his attack is based on his own sick and stupid greed of overthrowing moderate Arab governments and elevating his position and influence in the Middle East, he could care less about people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
It behooves the PLO to get a leader that wants to make peace and would have accepted the agreement put together with Clintons help. It is their rejection of that effort that has caused the problems of the past year and a half.

[DoctorGonzo]

First, I find the terribly predictable implication that Iraq is suffering because of "U.S." sanctions, Hussein refusing to do "what Washington demands." Last time I checked, the sanctions were the doing of the United Nations; if what you say is true, the same U.N. that's bravely condemning Israel for targeting Arab civilians is also causing the deaths of a half-million other Arab civilians.

The U.S has blocked every attempt by the U.N to lift the sanctions. So, the sanctions are their fault.

Second, I notice the utter absense of any blame whatsover on the part of Saddam Hussein for the conditions in Iraq: no mention of the attempts to build weapons of mass destruction, the root cause of the sanctions, many of which do indeed restrict military goods.

You of all people should be aware that the actions of a nation's leaders do not give another party carte blanche to target their civillian population.

No word either about the funneling of money earmarked for feeding the people into projects to build these weapons. No mention of the oppression of the Kurds and Shiites, nor the use of chemical weapons on his own people.

Guess who kept supporting Saddam after he gassed his own people?

The U.S of course.

Compared to the damning comments about the U.S., I'd say that the lack of outrage toward Hussein is either an implict condoning of his actions or the sign of complete and utter denial about them.

Nice attempt to smear me, but you failed.

Saddam's actions are irrelevant in my example because I was pointing out that people like Osama are rightfully condemded for targeting innocents because they hate a particular government, but when we target civillians to make a government suffer it's considered OK.

I can only infer one thing: that DoctorGonzo honestly believes that the United States and its leaders are in fact FAR WORSE than al Queda and Osama bin Ladin.

I conclude the U.S has no moral high ground to take because it has no problem killing cvillians for its own ends.

In the midst of these accusations, I get the sense that Gonzo feels the U.S. got what it deserved - that justice was served - on September 11th, 2001.

You are a diseased cunt who should rot in hell for such mindless slander.

But surely there must be statements that are clearly anti-American. Surely these sentiments exist.

To all who read this I now ask, if DoctorGonzo's comments above are not anti-American, what comments are?

I am simply holding the U.S to the same standards it holds the rest of the world. I know it must be tough to actually get some criticsm, but deal with it.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 02-18-2002).]

[zoomerang II]

[Salome]

Originally posted by TylerDurden:
Fuck, alot of people here can't read.

I think a lot of people here only read their own posts + some things they want to see

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 02-18-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

You are a diseased cunt who should rot in hell for such mindless slander.


Hate speech aside, it isn't slander, and it isn't mindless.

I will remind you of your own words (emphasis mine):


In my mind, (Albright) is in the same league as Osama Bin Laden. She has the same total disregard for human life as he does and is willing to sacrifice anyone to achieve her goals. And she is not alone. Her attitude is shared by many in the U.S government.

3,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in the U.S and it is worthy of launching a world-wide war.

500,000 deliberately targeted innocent people die in Iraq and it's an acceptable means of achiving foreign policy goals.

We curse the name of Osama Bin Laden when he does the very things that we dismiss as an everyday means of achiving our goals.

...

If you are a U.S taxpayer, (ethnic cleansing) is what you are paying for. And this is why people hate you.


You accuse the United States of killing civilians on a scale that dwarfs the acts of bin Ladin. You accuse the United States of funding and condoning Israel's so-called ethnic cleasning that you believe also dwarfs the death toll caused by Palestinian terrorists. Moreover, you suggest that the U.S. does this as a matter of course, as our modus operandi.

You not only suggest that the United States "has no moral high ground", you also indisputably imply that the United States is much, much worse than its enemies.

Now, let's look at Palestinian terrorism. Sure, you believe they should realize that "terrorism will get them nowhere", but you don't outright condemn the terrorism. Rather, you ignore the existence of the attitude held by many Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel should be driven into the sea - and you claim that "the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli is something like 5 - 10x greater."

You seem to be excusing the behavior of the Palestinian terrorists, and it seems that outright justification of that behavior isn't far off.

The only alternative to justifying their behavior is condemning it. Between the two, your post is much, much closer to justifying Palestinian terrorism.

Likewise, I could look at your post and infer that you think that America is the evil oppressor (or, as others say, "Great Satan") that engages in genocide on a regular basis - but that 9/11 was still an act that is impossible to justify.

I could infer that, but I don't see anything that actually suggests that. It seems far easier to read your entire post and come to the conclusion that you think America got what it had coming to it.

It cannot be directly inferred, truly. But, for that reason, I said that "I get the sense that Gonzo feels the U.S. got what it deserved."

But I still get that sense, and it isn't mindless slander...

...unlike calling someone a "diseased cunt who should rot in hell."