What's the chances of Bush being outed before '08?

Would you rather live in a land where women are property, and justice is whatever a Mullah says it is, or would you rather live where Anglo-American Law is practiced and no one is officially discriminated against by reason of their sex or religion?

Notice neither the bombing campaigns in Afghanistan nor Iraq are mentioned, even while you're whining about same.

or the military constraint that typifies British and United States military doctrine

...I mean, this is an incomplete, but very distinguished list of examples of constraint.

Go on shouting at the rain from under the blanket of security provided by your neighbor if you must; but have the decency to address the facts honestly. Your anti-Israeli bias, while defending our enemies, shows only too clearly that you have no idea how to tell friend from foe. You really can't see constraint? Surely it is you who isn't serious (or coherent, take your pick.)

Asherman: "Would you rather live in a land where women are property, and justice is whatever a Mullah says it is, or would you rather live where Anglo-American Law is practiced and no one is officially discriminated against by reason of their sex or religion? "

Because you listen to the Iraqi's that whine the most.

You don't hear the Kurds whining, because they live in Northern Iraq where the civil war is not active between the Sunnis and Shia.

O'Bill wrote:

Notice neither the bombing campaigns in Afghanistan nor Iraq are mentioned, even while you're whining about same.

Since this was a discussion with Asherman and myself, I'm not expecting you to have read the entire thread.

Asherman wrote:

or the military constraint that typifies British and United States military doctrine

Ash was claiming the moral high road and speaking generally of US and British military doctrine....hence my examples, and hence the following statement:

candidone1 wrote:

...I mean, this is an incomplete, but very distinguished list of examples of constraint.

I well understood both Ash and your positions. His was honest; yours was not. When speaking generally; a fair person sums up the whole of the facts, not random examples of exceptions. During war; all army's violate civil standards and pacts like the Geneva Convention. It is a matter of degree. Where you chose to list only examples of bad behavior on the part of the British and United States Military (an ample, even useful list at that) you blatantly ignore the FACT that our current enemies observe no civil guidelines nor the Geneva Conventions whatsoever. For comparison's sake; there is no comparison. Cut down on the hyperbole and make a point about the British and the United States Military being considerably less than perfect and you will have made a good point. Suggesting our tactics are indistinguishable from that of our current enemies demonstrates a total disregard for the truth. Considering the obvious fact that our forces could easily mow down the Iraqis like grass, it is absurd to suggest that spending additional Billions on increased accuracy and thousands of lives to better target our true enemies is anything but a demonstration of constraint.
________________________

candidone1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Go on shouting at the rain from under the blanket of security provided by your neighbor if you must; but have the decency to address the facts honestly. Your anti-Israeli bias, while defending our enemies, shows only too clearly that you have no idea how to tell friend from foe. You really can't see constraint? Surely it is you who isn't serious (or coherent, take your pick.)

You incorrectly assert that Canadians hide beneath the protection of US, alluding to a false assumption that we need protection. We are not a military state and our actions in the world community do not make us a target of hostilities like the US makes of itself.

I suppose that is a fair assessment of my description, which was admittedly over the top. Canadian Forces have proved important allies repeatedly during times of trouble, so my slight was out of line in regards to Canada. However, denying the security provided by your mere proximity to the World's only Superpower is equally naive.

candidone1 wrote:

...and I am addressing he facts honestly. Just because I object to the MO of Israel and the US does not make me anti-Israel, just like opposing the Iraq war doesn't make me anti-American, nor does it make me pro-terrorist. This is not unlike the stark choice offered by Bush in the lead in to Iraq; "you are either with us or with the terrorists."

Degrees and hyperbole, Candidone. Degrees. Your Anti-Israeli sentiments didn't stop at objecting to the MO of Israel and the U.S. What would you have the Israelis do? Do they not have a right to exist?

candidone1 wrote:

This neoconservative polarized world view does not cohere with reality and it's absurd to think that it is me who has lost his grip on it.
If Israel was not a US client, it would be regarded as a terrorist state by the US. Period. The assassination of Khalil Al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) in Tunis by Israeli commandos is a perfect example....
We see the US cozying up to Pakistan, a very viable trading partner primed for exploitation by American business interests, and holding them to a different nuclear standard than Iran. If you are an American ally, you can get away with things a foe would not.

Common sense should be all that's required to understand this. I fear neither the guns of my friends nor the law, but my fight-or-flight mechanism would no doubt be doing cartwheels were I confronted by the gun of an enemy. Given a choice; I would choose to prevent my enemies from obtaining guns, yes. Are you so very different? Does your sense of fair play trump your instinct for self-preservation? Would you forfeit the added security of your superior strength, willingly, on your way to fight? Or would you prefer to retain whatever advantage you could in the face of a deadly enemy? Be honest.

candidone1 wrote:

...and this is not a distinction between friend and foe. I agree that there are terrorists hell-bent on, well, terrorizing the middle east and beyond. But I have a sense of understanding of what they may be feeling, which, in your narrow world-view, entails support for their cause.

Not so. Your sense of understanding doesn't appear that way; your choice of words do. I too put myself in the shoes of my enemy; but reasonably disagree how best to neutralize the situation.

candidone1 wrote:

What I hope to convey, is that there are root causes to certain actions, and they are worth either investigating or, at minimim, considering.
The US, however, would prefer to take the well worn, standoffish posture and flex it's military might.

Broaden your own view and perhaps you can understand that reasonable people disagree as to the best solution to solve the root causes and deal with the present at the same time. I for one think people without hope will rebel forever... so it is imperative to remove the chains of oppression in hopes of giving them hope. There is no blood-lust nor malice in this belief, whatsoever. I despise the terrorists, while recognizing their motivation, and reasonably disagree how best to end the cycle.

candidone1 wrote:

I'm just saying now that perhaps this long history of abuse, exploitation, and combined with clandestine military covert operations may finally be catching up to them by a region completely fed up with the status quo.

Look into the root cause, not cimply write them off as irrational primates, and perhaps you'll be enlightened....but I don't expect that from someone who sees the world in black and white.

I defy you to find one example where I wrote them off as irrational primates or any facsimile thereof. I doubt we disagree as much as you think about the root cause; but we clearly disagree on the solution. The black and white world as you call it; is equally projected by the hyperbole of your previous posts. You'll notice more thoughtful posts are addressed in kind, by more thoughtful people. Asherman has maintained his composure and reasonable demeanor on every single thread I've seen him opine.

Because you listen to the Iraqi's that [sic] whine the most.

OCCOMBILL, we apparently have more in common that even I had originally thought. We both took an unfair and exaggerated stance in order to make our points.
I will now, upon your suggestion, allow this thread to go in the direction that it was originally destined.
We have strayed and I appreciate your perspective, but I will no longer continue the discussion as we have been, as it further hijacks the thread.
Again, I do appreciate your perspective, and find myself in odd agreement with much of what you have said....