Quote:
Originally posted by dave
Originally posted by jaguar
So mon ami show me evidence that [ ... ] Saddam supports terrorism.
OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...7004766310.html
And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.
|
Ok, let's refine that then. When has Saddam supported terrorism against the United States? Palestinian terrrorism, which is in response to Israeli Occupation (even according to official US and UN documentation) is one thing, al Qaeda is completely different. Hizbollah (a Lebanese terrorist group and a recognized political party in Lebanon) has not attacked the US since 1982. I don't believe Hamas ever has. al Qaeda, on the other hand, have been linked to a number of attacks. Hussein has supported Palestinian terrorists, but no provable link has been made between him and al Qaeda, besides various claims of shadowy meetings made by the current administration that the CIA refused to back up.
In other words, not all terrorism groups are the same. Left-wing groups of the 60s, for example, are nothing compared to some of the recent religious terrorist groups. In addition, Hamas does not encompass all of the Palestinian terrorist groups. Many of them are secular. And my last point to dave - there are over 160 definitions of terrorism, (a real quick Google came up with
this, which is kind of crappy, but shows the tip of the iceberg of this problem) and scholars can not decide on an all-encompassing one. So keep that in mind when you go to dictionary.com for its definition.
I really want to rip into slang here...I haven't had the time to be online for a few days, and this would be a lot of fun. I can be the un-apologetic left winger to his right winger, although I don't believe I am as far left as he is right (esp. if he is more right-wing than Rush; and with my general disdain for Chomsky).
So I'll just make a few comments.
-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist. Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy, and, eventually, the war on Iraq. As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (but leaning against it).
- If you keep referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton," I'll find a similar name for Bush in any responses to your posts. It is improper and really makes you look like an idiot.
-The UN's sole purpose is to provide a forum for nations to air their grievances, and, with that in mind, I'd say it's done pretty well. Take a look at their
charter. Read some resolutions, some speeches, some statements - and then form an opinion on its validity. But don't disavow it without any knowledge of it. Again, that makes you look like an idiot.
- So do blanket statements. American politics are not right, center right and left. There is a huge middle ground, and it would do you well to not ignore it.
- Gun control != anti-gun.
- China is, by most accounts, no longer Communist. See the recent discussion about the continuing change in leadership that was spawned by last week's directional meetings. I don't feel like looking it up, but try news.google.com. So to say that Clinton was a Communist sympathizer because he supported their introduction into the WTO isn't logically sound (I've never seen anything about sharing nuclear technology with China, so I'm relying on a different argument. If you have proof, please enlighten me.). It should be noted that we've extended MFN status to China for as long as I can remember. While I couldn't find an exact date, I know that there was debate about suspending it after the Tianneman Square massacre.
- What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.
- The people opposing the current war in Iraq in the military are generally not doing so because it can't be done, but because the long operation that would be required (by most estimates, we'd have to pretty much run the country for 5-10 years a la post-WWII Japan) would divert resources from the war on terrorism - which is an entirely different thing. I have a friend in the Army whose unit will probably be called to war, and most of them (the people who will be dying) think there isn't enough reason.
- I agree with you that the Democrats have gone off-center, and don't support the poor and working class as much as they used to. However, I'd rather support a party who gives half of an interest to them than a party that outright disdains them.
- Welcome. Even though spelling and grammar bother me, unless they confuse the message, I think it's a dirty argumentive trick. So you won't hear any of that from me (unless, of course, you've screwed up so badly that I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore).