Hamas sweeps to election victory

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Oh your God, no, no, no, don't take away the big macs, well in my case quarterpounders. I do not think anyone has a problem with McD, well at least not in Europe.

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera.

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera.

The "bully" title gets thrown at the strongest country. England held this title for a long time, then the Soviets, and now it's the U.S. I believe that much of the source of European pacifism is the result of being the center of two World Wars. Ultimately, as a result, much of western Europe embraced and adopted much more liberal policies. Here's where I differ with you. I do believe that some Europeans are growing tired of the neutral, socialist, liberal stereotypes that the world is giving them. There are nations that have been actors in regards to the War on Terror... and not reactors are some nations have become. The German's recently elected a right wing chancellor, Angela Merkel. She's a woman that even accused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of anti-Americanism. She is now being compared to Margaret Thatcher. Here are the European nations originally part of the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey (some claim they're European), and the United Kingdom.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Your teachers taught you well, slavery was one of the darkest spots in the history of the world AND it was essential to the economy of the south, the latter is also true, but that didn't make it morally viable.

The same can be said about Iraq, Saddam was a terrible dictator and in general lots of Iraq's people had much reason to fear his reign, but at the same time in every day life in Iraq before the American invasion (for freedom, if you wish) women did have much more rights than in any other Arab/Muslim nation. Both statements are true and not mutually exclusive.

We both know that most islamic-based terrorism comes from fundamentalism, and again I am no way saying that Saddam was a good guy, but he was just as much a fundamentalist as you might say about Bill Clinton. Most dictators care just as much about religion as they can use it to influence the masses and Saddam was maybe the best example for that.

Yes, but Hussein also used religion as a means to genocide. He wiped out masses of Kurds and Shia... partially because they weren't Sunnnis and because they voiced out against him in opposition. Women are terribly repressed in Arab nations... still today. The goals of Islamic fundamentialists is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. That means, not allowing women to be leaders (or educated), that means indoctrinating children with rhetoric that teaches them to hate non-Muslims, that means discouraging diversity, and that means racism.

I don't see the harm in allowing women or minorities to have a voice in Arab nations.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

They must not be very good teachers, if you've been there for 3 1/2 years or do you only visit lectures by the other 5% .

Btw I don't think there is anything wrong with the school system in the States, not that I am really knowledgeable enough about that, to give a good opinion on it.

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult. Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).

Here's the way I look at that issue:
+ talk radio is dominated by conservatives
+ tv is dominated by liberals (particularly CBS, ABC, and NBC--all channels for which any American with a TV set need not pay; Fox News is conservative, but is a cable--and, therefore, pay--station. At least in St. Louis, the over-the-air Fox affiliate doesn't simulcast any Fox News programming)
+ newspapers tend to be left of center, depending on the publisher.
+ it also seems that the media, in a capitalist society, is inherently liberal. this is because the corporations are driven by profit, and the notion exists that, the more sensational the news is, the better you sell your "product." Hearst was all over this back in 1898 in blaming the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine on Spain or Cuba (?), rather than on what is likely the actual cause: an accidental explosion in the ship's munitions bay. in any matter, even though the war in Iraq might be going fairly well, we tend to hear more about how 'xx number of soldiers were killed yesterday' or 'a suicide bomber took out civilians in an iraqi market.' as the old adage says, it's not news when dog bites man; but when man bites dog, that's news.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Here's the way I look at that issue:
+ talk radio is dominated by conservatives
+ tv is dominated by liberals (particularly CBS, ABC, and NBC--all channels for which any American with a TV set need not pay; Fox News is conservative, but is a cable--and, therefore, pay--station. At least in St. Louis, the over-the-air Fox affiliate doesn't simulcast any Fox News programming)
+ newspapers tend to be left of center, depending on the publisher.
+ it also seems that the media, in a capitalist society, is inherently liberal. this is because the corporations are driven by profit, and the notion exists that, the more sensational the news is, the better you sell your "product." Hearst was all over this back in 1898 in blaming the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine on Spain or Cuba (?), rather than on what is likely the actual cause: an accidental explosion in the ship's munitions bay. in any matter, even though the war in Iraq might be going fairly well, we tend to hear more about how 'xx number of soldiers were killed yesterday' or 'a suicide bomber took out civilians in an iraqi market.' as the old adage says, it's not news when dog bites man; but when man bites dog, that's news.

This is all true... and using the U.S.S. Maine analogy is good way of explaining it. Talk radio is a conservative safe haven... whereas TV and newspapers are mostly to the left.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera.

I won't deny that the Bush Doctrine is damaging to our image abroad. But it seems to me that your characterization of Europe as one big, happy, monolithic family is fairly inaccurate. The majority of Great Britain's population is opposed to its involvement in the EU. Meanwhile, on the island to their west, Ireland (which is very pro-EU, partly because the EU helped them substantially, and partly because Britain isn't) and Northern Ireland don't exactly have the best relationship. Sticking with British problems, London has been dealing with Welsh and Scottish calls for independence from Britain (in fact, I believe each recently acquired its own separate legislature).
On the opposite end of the continent, I highly doubt that the Balkan Peninsula is very close to being stable. And what of France's rejection of the EU Constitution a few months ago? Spain has been dealing with problems of Basque separatism for years. Danes and Swedes aren't too keen on their states' inclusion in the EU, either. And what's this I hear of countries across Europe placing an unflattering caricature of Muhammed on products and in newspapers? I suppose that does count as being united against something (which I can't say the same about Iraq). So, at least from an educated American perspective, Europe is hardly in agreement on everything.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera.

We're not party to this whole international justice dealywhopper because, if our soldiers are accused of wrongdoing, we'd rather prosecute them ourselves (and, yes, it does happen... Ft. Leavenworth for life sure doesn't sound like fun).
Kyoto could've been a stepping stone? You're hating on the U.S. because we didn't sign something that could've led to something greater?
Another resolution in Iraq? What a crock of shit. I'm not sure of the exact number, but the U.N. had passed numerous resolutions against Mr. Hussein since the 1990s. Also, sanctions really weren't getting him to comply. One such stipulation to which he'd previously agreed (in the '90s, I believe, perhaps as part of an agreement for getting his ass handed to him in the first Gulf War)--allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to make sure he wasn't trying to build The Big One. Then, he kicked them out, which pretty much violates that prior agreement. The U.S. deemed that Hussein was a pesky stain that desperately needed cleaning. So we did.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

The "bully" title gets thrown at the strongest country. England held this title for a long time, then the Soviets, and now it's the U.S. I believe that much of the source of European pacifism is the result of being the center of two World Wars. Ultimately, as a result, much of western Europe embraced and adopted much more liberal policies. Here's where I differ with you. I do believe that some Europeans are growing tired of the neutral, socialist, liberal stereotypes that the world is giving them. There are nations that have been actors in regards to the War on Terror... and not reactors are some nations have become. The German's recently elected a right wing chancellor, Angela Merkel. She's a woman that even accused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of anti-Americanism. She is now being compared to Margaret Thatcher. Here are the European nations originally part of the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey (some claim they're European), and the United Kingdom.

Well, your theory about the strongest country may be true, but the situation that we have now is pretty new, since the USA is the only true economic and military superpower that is left. At the time of the cold war the USSR was not considered as a 'bully' so much, they were just the 'enemy'.

Angela Merkel isn't a right-wing politician, her party the CDU is a centerparty, which means she is more leftbased as your democratic party. And she is in government with Schröders party the SPD, so it is basically a center-left coalition.

In most of the major European countries the social democrats are in government at this time with the exception of my homecountry, The Netherlands, and Italy. And I can tell you that the polls here are showing a significant defeat for the center-right coalition that's leading now for the upcoming local elections. So I wouldn't set my hopes up too high for a move to the right in Europe.

And let's be honest, how many of your coalition of the willing are left in Iraq now? A great deal of them are also former sovyet-allied states, who do anything the US want, because they look to them for protection against their former dominatrix Russia. I am and was sad that The Netherlands were indeed part of that coalition, although not for any military help only for aid to the Iraqi people, but still the majority of our population was against participating and I'm glad we're out of there now. Alas our prime-minister Balkenende is even more of a lapdog to Bush as Tony Blair.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Yes, but Hussein also used religion as a means to genocide. He wiped out masses of Kurds and Shia... partially because they weren't Sunnnis and because they voiced out against him in opposition. Women are terribly repressed in Arab nations... still today. The goals of Islamic fundamentialists is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. That means, not allowing women to be leaders (or educated), that means indoctrinating children with rhetoric that teaches them to hate non-Muslims, that means discouraging diversity, and that means racism.

I don't see the harm in allowing women or minorities to have a voice in Arab nations.

My statement was that women had more freedom and a voice under the more liberal islam rule of Saddam, than they will under the more fundamentalist government that has been elected now.

The goals of fundamentalists of every religion is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. In Holland we have a Christian party who doesn't allow women to become fully-fledged members, naturally because they feel 'the bible says that is not the role of women'. And I don't think the religious right in the States is much better.

Therefore my position remains keep religion out of politics throughout history the rule of religion has caused disaster after disaster.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult. Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

I guess every family has its black sheep No, seriously, looks like I misjudged your upbringing, must be my lack of understanding of how one can come to a conservative/republican worldview out of their own mind.

I would be interested, who did inspire you to your current worldview. I mean there must be some sort of rollmodels, who you admired. So how did you come to the point that you are now at, and especially did religion play a major role in that?

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

I won't deny that the Bush Doctrine is damaging to our image abroad. But it seems to me that your characterization of Europe as one big, happy, monolithic family is fairly inaccurate. The majority of Great Britain's population is opposed to its involvement in the EU. Meanwhile, on the island to their west, Ireland (which is very pro-EU, partly because the EU helped them substantially, and partly because Britain isn't) and Northern Ireland don't exactly have the best relationship. Sticking with British problems, London has been dealing with Welsh and Scottish calls for independence from Britain (in fact, I believe each recently acquired its own separate legislature).
On the opposite end of the continent, I highly doubt that the Balkan Peninsula is very close to being stable. And what of France's rejection of the EU Constitution a few months ago? Spain has been dealing with problems of Basque separatism for years. Danes and Swedes aren't too keen on their states' inclusion in the EU, either. And what's this I hear of countries across Europe placing an unflattering caricature of Muhammed on products and in newspapers? I suppose that does count as being united against something (which I can't say the same about Iraq). So, at least from an educated American perspective, Europe is hardly in agreement on everything.

I never stated that Europe was one big happy family, but it's a federation based on compromise. And as the nature of compromise demands you have to give a little bit in order to get something, sometimes the part that you give leads to unrest in that country, but we still remain negotiating.

And especially the swift growth of the EU has led to unrest in the smaller nations, who fear the loss of their own identity and giving up to much legal power to a Europe dominated by the big nations.
The Netherlands and France both voted against the so-called new European Constitution, as did I personally, the UK is afraid to hold a referendum on the subject as their population would also probably dismis it.

The difference between Europe and the US is that we do not consider ourselves Europeans, we are Dutch, German, English, French or whatever and we cooperate to our mutual benefit, but in fact we want to hold on to our own identities. For me personally the new constitution is going not only one, but a few steps too far in removing powers from the national parliaments to the European especially in an EU that is now 25 nations big. Also the common ground between the former Eastern Europe and Western Europe has to prove itself. I think the democracies in the East are relatively stable, for as far as you hope so in reasonably young democracies. The exception, ofcourse being Russia itself, where Poetin seems very much in control of the media and doing everything to undermine any possible opposition.

All of the above mentioned problems I would however describe more as quarrels, than as huge problems, step by step we will find new compromises and we will find ways to shape the EU into the form that will be desirable to the European population.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

We're not party to this whole international justice dealywhopper because, if our soldiers are accused of wrongdoing, we'd rather prosecute them ourselves (and, yes, it does happen... Ft. Leavenworth for life sure doesn't sound like fun).
Kyoto could've been a stepping stone? You're hating on the U.S. because we didn't sign something that could've led to something greater?
Another resolution in Iraq? What a crock of shit. I'm not sure of the exact number, but the U.N. had passed numerous resolutions against Mr. Hussein since the 1990s. Also, sanctions really weren't getting him to comply. One such stipulation to which he'd previously agreed (in the '90s, I believe, perhaps as part of an agreement for getting his ass handed to him in the first Gulf War)--allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to make sure he wasn't trying to build The Big One. Then, he kicked them out, which pretty much violates that prior agreement. The U.S. deemed that Hussein was a pesky stain that desperately needed cleaning. So we did.

What is wrong with an independent court of justice? Does the US consider itself to be above the international rule of law? Aren't the rules of warcrimes something that have to be agreed upon by all nations, as wars are usually (with the exclusion of civil wars) fought between nations? Should therefore a court for warcriminals not be independent of one nation? The US agreed upon courts like this for warcrimes in the Balkan and Rwanda, so people of these nations can be judged by independent courts, but US citizens cannot?
The US also refuses to sign an international treaty to ban mines, the US is also one of the few remaining countries in which minors can get the death penalty. I'm not saying there aren't any good things in the US and let's be honest we share most of our western values, but the US shouldn't paint itself out as the big upholder of morality in the world. The recent news about the CIA-camps/flight in Eastern Europe and the lawlessness of American military prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, at the very least show that the USA is not the moral standard of the world, that Dubya makes you out to be.

About Kyoto, or rather the environmental issue, Kyoto was already a compromise to some nations including the USA, because they didn't want even harsher treaties. The general consensus of scientists around the world is that something needs to be done about global warming and other pollution issues and it should have been done not now, but 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I think for all of us, for me too, it's hard to imagine things going so bad as some of them want to make us believe, but where there is smoke there is fire. Therefore we need to deal internationally with environmental issues and the biggest industrial nations need to take the lead in this as they are responsible for the majority of the pollution. Bush's policies on the subject have caused a standstill for 6 years now, no further negotiations can start, just because he/you refuse to agree upon already agreed compromises. Sure economic issues are important, but clean air for our children is too as well as them being able to enjoy some sun now and again without fearing cancer all the time.

Well in hindsight it seems that the sanctions on Iraq did what they were supposed to do, make it impossible to construct new WMD's. In fact the US were trying to get a war resolution, but when it became obvious that they wouldn't get one, suddenly the old resolutions were good enough to go to war. I never heard the US making a complaint about the numerous resolutions against Israel that weren't being adhered too btw.

In fact now there is a nation, led by fundamentalists (remember, these are the people that usually create terrorism), that is truly on it's way to getting the most dangerous WMD's and the world finds itself in a problem, because we cannot forcefully act, because last time the reasons were not convincing enough in hindsight. Not to mention that the military power to go get them isn't there now, because of Iraq. Ironically you can't blame Iran for wanting WMD's, because the position of North Korea proved that if you have them, you are probably safe against the dominant power.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

The difference between Europe and the US is that we do not consider ourselves Europeans, we are Dutch, German, English, French or whatever and we cooperate to our mutual benefit, but in fact we want to hold on to our own identities. For me personally the new constitution is going not only one, but a few steps too far in removing powers from the national parliaments to the European especially in an EU that is now 25 nations big. Also the common ground between the former Eastern Europe and Western Europe has to prove itself. I think the democracies in the East are relatively stable, for as far as you hope so in reasonably young democracies. The exception, ofcourse being Russia itself, where Poetin seems very much in control of the media and doing everything to undermine any possible opposition.

Actually, if you check the Eurobarometer, there's actually a fair number of people living in Europe who do consider themselves "European" ahead of their ethnic or national background (i.e. "French," "German," etc.)
Yeah, Putin is a douche. I've heard some people explain that he's doing what's necessary to rein in the country after it very nearly fell apart under Yeltsin, but I don't buy it one bit.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

What is wrong with an independent court of justice? Does the US consider itself to be above the international rule of law? Aren't the rules of warcrimes something that have to be agreed upon by all nations, as wars are usually (with the exclusion of civil wars) fought between nations? Should therefore a court for warcriminals not be independent of one nation? The US agreed upon courts like this for warcrimes in the Balkan and Rwanda, so people of these nations can be judged by independent courts, but US citizens cannot?

well, in a manner of speaking, our argument follows that, because we play such a vital role on international stage, and because we have troops stationed in numerous countries around the world, we're not above the law, but we certainly feel as though these 2 characteristics allow us to have special circumstances. We don't want some idiot GI from Iowa stationed in the DMZ in Korea getting carted off to The Hague because his gun accidentally discharged while cleaning it, killing a North Korean solider (I admit, that's a fairly innocent, if not far-fetched, example, but we'd rather have jurisdiction over our own soldiers who are stationed around the world).

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

The US also refuses to sign an international treaty to ban mines, the US is also one of the few remaining countries in which minors can get the death penalty. I'm not saying there aren't any good things in the US and let's be honest we share most of our western values, but the US shouldn't paint itself out as the big upholder of morality in the world. The recent news about the CIA-camps/flight in Eastern Europe and the lawlessness of American military prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, at the very least show that the USA is not the moral standard of the world, that Dubya makes you out to be.

I agree we do need to sign this treaty. Actually, one of my professors, Dr. Ken Rutherford, has worked and traveled extensively with the U.N. to promote landmine awareness and resolutions and agreements banning their use. He actually lost his legs in a landmine accident in Somalia in '93 (he was there w/ the U.N. on a separate assignment, not the U.S. forces).

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I never heard the US making a complaint about the numerous resolutions against Israel that weren't being adhered too btw.

that's politics. you also don't hear Bush outing Egypt or Saudi Arabia for their unfair elections. it's just not cool to act like that towards allies, at least in a political sense.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

In fact now there is a nation, led by fundamentalists (remember, these are the people that usually create terrorism), that is truly on it's way to getting the most dangerous WMD's and the world finds itself in a problem, because we cannot forcefully act, because last time the reasons were not convincing enough in hindsight. Not to mention that the military power to go get them isn't there now, because of Iraq. Ironically you can't blame Iran for wanting WMD's, because the position of North Korea proved that if you have them, you are probably safe against the dominant power.

I agree as to Iran's motives for wanting nukes. I also don't think that any sort of invasion is realistically possible. Even airstrikes might be a stretch. The younger and wealthier portions of Irani society aren't too thrilled with Tehran right now, but military action by either the U.S. or Israel (since it appears unlikely any of the EU-3 will lead anything--thank God) would most likely have the effect of uniting all Iranis against the West under the clerics. This, of course, would be far worse than the situation is right now because, at least there's some hope of disposing of the current radical gov't with such a large group of opponents.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

My statement was that women had more freedom and a voice under the more liberal islam rule of Saddam, than they will under the more fundamentalist government that has been elected now.

The goals of fundamentalists of every religion is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. In Holland we have a Christian party who doesn't allow women to become fully-fledged members, naturally because they feel 'the bible says that is not the role of women'. And I don't think the religious right in the States is much better.

Therefore my position remains keep religion out of politics throughout history the rule of religion has caused disaster after disaster.

Many non-Sunni women in Iraq were raped by Iraqi officials while in custody. You call it "freedom," I call it "rape." The rampant cases of rape that were the resulf of Saddam's officials are one of the major human rights violations that he committed while in power. Aside from the genocide that took place, the Iraqi courts should try him for the disgusting treatment of women.

The majority of the religious right in America aren't conspiring to go to Mecca and drive commercial airplanes into Islam's holy sites. I don't like America's religious right at all, however, comparing them Islam's religious fanatics is like comparing night to day.

The Arab world is dependent on Islam when it comes to politics. That's one reason why they don't like European political thought... because of the atheism that's associated with it. I'm not saying the United States and Europe should be governed by religious democratic republics, but I am saying that most of the Middle East can't function that way. At all.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Many non-Sunni women in Iraq were raped by Iraqi officials while in custody. You call it "freedom," I call it "rape." The rampant cases of rape that were the resulf of Saddam's officials are one of the major human rights violations that he committed while in power. Aside from the genocide that took place, the Iraqi courts should try him for the disgusting treatment of women.

The majority of the religious right in America aren't conspiring to go to Mecca and drive commercial airplanes into Islam's holy sites. I don't like America's religious right at all, however, comparing them Islam's religious fanatics is like comparing night to day.

The Arab world is dependent on Islam when it comes to politics. That's one reason why they don't like European political thought... because of the atheism that's associated with it. I'm not saying the United States and Europe should be governed by religious democratic republics, but I am saying that most of the Middle East can't function that way. At all.

Well we've seen the examples of what happened to Iraqi's in American custody, but I don't use that to describe the total state of affairs in Iraq after the invasion, and therefore I do think that a comparison of women's right in general under Saddam, with certain women being abused in prison is just as wrong, by which I don't say that the things that you describe did not occur, we do know they did.

The MAJORITy of islamic fundamentalists is probably and hopefully also not conspiring to terrorize the west. Sure there are the radicals who do so, but I like to think and hope that they are in the minority, just like I think that not all members of the religious right want to bomb abortion clinics or agree with Pat Robertson if he's stating that the Venezuelan president should be killed. But I hope we can agree that religious fundamentalism is a basis on which radical ideas are born. I think the general level of education and the higher standard of living in the west makes it harder for this radicalism to spread in our countries, nonetheless it is there.

If you're spreading a democracy with a high level of religious participation, it's hard to say to them that they cannot have that, just because you don't agree with their religion, that's sort of discriminatory. Let's get rid of all religion in politics, just my humble opinion.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult.Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

Wow...Im so sorry for your dad's failure!!!!!!!

lol

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Wow...Im so sorry for your dad's failure!!!!!!!

lol

But at the end of the day... you're in the thrid world... and I'm in a superpower.

... Just kidding.