THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

How do you think the GW Bush will accomplish this when many of his own party have been reluctant to enter any foreign engagements except when the US is under immediate threat?

And so what we have we learned, young people? We've learned that one of the most effective ways to shut off debate of American Foreign Policy is to accuse any possible opponent of blaming America first even before they have done it and then ask them to defend what they didn't say. See? It's a pre-emptive strike just like the President's! That way we don't learn anything about what either side thinks which is how those who like to think America is the moral authority of the earth like things.

Does anyone want to actually discuss foreign policy?

Assuming that the spreading of democracy is a bedrock principle of the USA, has the US Foreign Policy in the Middle East since World War II, especially in regard to it's relations with Islamic countries and the Palestinians, fostered or hindered the spread of democracy in the region?

For extra credit: Assume that you are a citizen of Iran, the Arab Emirates, Yemen, Jordan, Syria or any other Middle Eastern country including the Gaza Strip and see if that changes your answer.

Joe (I know she means well.) Nation

Then gell asked him, how did he arrive at a "million" did he just pull that out of thin air. Which is a logical saying that is not hard to understand. Instead bill just kept asking him to rewrord his question because it don't make any sense rather than just saying that his million number was just used as an estimated number.

Just Wonders: I hope you or someone will forward your posted article to the commandant at Guantanamo or perhaps to Atty Gen. Gonzalez or maybe even to Don Rumsfeld. Imagine: results without torture.

Islam is a philosophy dedicated to truth and virtue though it's not presented that way to us in the west, perhaps that why, although we have offered a 50 million dollar reward for turning in Osama bin Ladin, no one has come forward. All Muslims know, and the US officials offering the reward could have checked with any Islamic scholar, that no Muslim can accept a reward for doing the right thing, doing the right thing is the reward.

We haven't a clue what we are doing.

Joe(beginnings are seldom easy or predictors of results)Nation

This is a predisposition to blame America then, yes?

I think the skepticism of those in charge is understandable. I haven't seen any conclusive proof that torture is rampant beyond the few crazies at Abu Ghraib, and there are those same types of crazies everywhere - probably in any country that has a police department you'll find a few every decade or so. I won't condemn an entire military for the wrongs of a few.

I'm not sure if those collecting the rewards for Uday, Qusay and Saddam are Muslims or not, but I do know the Muslim families of some homicide-bombers had no trouble accepting money from Saddam and I don't consider that to be "doing the right thing".

It occurred to me when reading the article that Hittar's methods wouldn't be allowed here in the US given that the ACLU would sue any government using faith-based methods to rehabilitate prisoners. Rather ironic.

I see no truth or virtue in some of Islam's philosophy (their rules concerning apostates is but one of many), nor do I think we are there to impose our Western ways on them.

I don't care what you believe, Bill. Your writing tends towards the obtuse.

You posted this question:

Quote:

This is a predisposition to blame America then, yes?

and I answered it.

I asked you to clarify how you tie "suggesting a 30 year old sin provided some insight into the US' motivation today" with "blaming America first," note, not "blaming America," "blaming America first," which is the charge you originally threw at me.

Things may be crystal clear for you in your own mind, but there's a loss of clarity when these things come out of your mind, and into the world, onto a forum like this.

Bush freely admits to wrongs in the past, which is indicative of a man not planning on repeating them. He didn't have to do that. Your admitted cynicism is the reason you consider relevant that which I consider irrelevant (30 year old wrongs) to the US's current motivation. This is a predisposition to blame America then, yes?

revel wrote:

Then gell asked him, how did he arrive at a "million" did he just pull that out of thin air. Which is a logical saying that is not hard to understand. Instead bill just kept asking him to rewrord his question because it don't make any sense rather than just saying that his million number was just used as an estimated number.

Not so Revel. Bill had already not only answered this question; but linked the evidence to back up the figure of 1,000,000 as well... so it would appear you didn't understand Gel either. That's fair, I still can't either. Like you and Ican and everyone else, I can guess at what Gel may have been saying too, but wouldn't it make more sense for him to just explain it... rather than pretending over a dozen posts that everyone should be able to? As you know full well; I don't feign a lack of understanding of posts I consider faulty, I attack the faults.

I don't understand Gelisgestri either. But just for fun, I'll guess. Maybe he'll tell me if I'm wrong.

Ican wrote: I guess he's alleging all mass murders are equally evil regardless of the number mass murdered. So the murder of 2 million by Pol Pot is no more evil than the 1 million murdered by Saddam, is no more evil than the 10 murdered by Son of Sam.

I also guess he's alleging that we Americans are being hypocritical when we accuse others of intentionally murdering innocent civilians while we are unintentionally killing innocent civilians. That is, he is saying killing is killing and equally evil regardless of the killer's intentions or motives.

Bill, if I'm guessing correctly, I can see why you have trouble understanding him. These two allegations are so incredible as to seem wholly unlikely from any one.

Congratulations to all, even Ican, for reaching Page #666.

What was right there all along was an obtusely worded question sullied and obfuscated by your own emotionally driven assumptions, Bill.

It's not cynicism that makes thirty year old wrongs relevant. It's the thirty year old wrongs right up to the the present day wrongs (e.g. support of tyrannical regimes in pursuit, paradoxically, of our "war on terror." I can provide examples thereof if necessary.) that taint the actions of the present US administration.

Blaming America for its wrongs and then saying this is a predisposition for blaming America is a leap of logic, Bill. You're making a causal link that isn't necessarily so.

And that doesn't address your predisposition to accuse people, not just of "blaming America," but of "blaming America first."

Yes, I blame America first for it's actions in Chile as opposed to blaming, say, Micronesia, for America's actions in Chile.

That's not a "predisposition to blame America." That is blaming America for its own actions you yourself find indefensible.

I don't blame America first for the sins Micronesia has committed.

You have yet to explain how you tie "suggesting a 30 year old sin provided some insight into the US' motivation today" with "blaming America first."

Is what better <shrugs>, Bill?

However this line of thought is getting tiresome so I suggest we drop it.

Just Wonders: I hope you or someone will forward your posted article to the commandant at Guantanamo or perhaps to Atty Gen. Gonzalez or maybe even to Don Rumsfeld. Imagine: results without torture.

Islam is a philosophy dedicated to truth and virtue though it's not presented that way to us in the west, perhaps that why, although we have offered a 50 million dollar reward for turning in Osama bin Ladin, no one has come forward. All Muslims know, and the US officials offering the reward could have checked with any Islamic scholar, that no Muslim can accept a reward for doing the right thing, doing the right thing is the reward.

We haven't a clue what we are doing.

Quote:

The most pertinent foreign policy issue now is how to best rectify the consequences of our and other nations' past behavior in the middle east. I think enabling the people of the middle east, in general, and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, in particular to establish democracies of their own design is the best way to accomplish that rectification.

"...to establish democracies of their own design...." Yes, my brother, may we have the wisdom to realize that all democracies are not images of our own, hopefully they will be better there is plenty of room for improvement.

How do you think the GW Bush will accomplish this when many of his own party have been reluctant to enter any foreign engagements except when the US is under immediate threat?

Joe(beginnings are seldom easy or predictors of results)Nation