28-12-2002 03:13									#31
	Got spare money?

I think Sharon only attacks people who mess with Ozzie.

	28-12-2002 03:34									#32
	Got spare money?

Jimmycrackscorn shut up... I was laughing because Zylka said something funny... geeezz...

	28-12-2002 03:36									#33
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Carver Exactly, you don't understand sh_t, Zylka. You're nothing but an ignorant, racist moron who is too much of a p_ssy to say in person what he types on a computer. Sooner or later someone is going to teach you a lesson and I can't wait until they do.

YOU R NOT THE RACIST LIKE ME BUT ENLIGTHENDE JUST LOOK AT U R AVATAR IT PROOFS IT IN THE PUDDIN CUZ SHE'S BLACK - THAT IS A STIRRING POLITICAL STAITMENT!!!

Regarding real life, I make a LOT of enemies in my lectures - although the profs seem to love it. I imagine you would be one of the usual pothead, guitar strumming res-rats I kicked in the knees after he screamed I was a Nazi?

Unbelievable people around here.

	28-12-2002 03:49									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Zylka certainly has a talent for odd hyperbole.

	28-12-2002 04:02									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

haha that first part looks like one of my pot-alcohol induced all-caps troll fest.

	28-12-2002 05:17									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: I was thinking more of the title, "Sharon's War."

And in what dream world have you been in where Titles to columns aren't simply meant to draw you in (and in plenty of cases have little to do with the substantive material of the article) .

quote: So why is Novak opposed if this is the end result of war?

Because he thinks all it will do (and he's probably right) is piss off the Arab world even more. And secondly, Iraq as a democracy will not survive, because the political will to stay there and 'nation-build' isn't there. Thirdly, all this will simply lead to more terrorism.

I think he's absolutely right. Oh, and he also thinks we've been too pro-Israel as well, and that doesn't help the peace process when we try to meddle, because we are just seen as an agent of Israel (which I also agree with ).

	28-12-2002 05:38									#37
	Support Apolyton

Imran:

"Bush wants to set up a shining democracy"

Bush wants to set up a pro-American secular Arab regime, whether that regime is democratic or not won't really matter one wit in washington. And I fail to see how an Arab democracy would be evry nice to Israel as long as the occupation continues. That notion that democraies like each other: Idiotic!

As for Israel and Iraq. If you read the Israeli press, its all about Iran. Much earlier there seemd to be a hope among Israeli circles that the US would go on invading all the ME regimes unfriendly to israel, but that notion has been dropped. Still, the Israeli government does heartilly approve of the Iraq war, and the fact that the BUshies have postponned any moves towards peace in the ME till aftre elections, and aren't very likely to push Sharon very hard ever means that Israel no longer worries about Bush trying to force peace to "pease" Arabs.

The intersting part, of course, is that in Any Iraqi dmeocracy, Iranian influence might grow, sicne aftre all, the biggest opposition groups is a groups of Ayatollahs from the Shi'a south.

As for the article's title: it does have a vague hint of ani-semitism, but the article itself makes no significant anit-Israel claims, unless you believe that saying the US doe a lot for Israel is somehow anti-Israel.

	28-12-2002 05:43									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Bush wants to set up a pro-American secular Arab regime, whether that regime is democratic or not won't really matter one wit in washington.

Actually he really wants a democratic election. It's one of his main goals for after the war. And it isn't a 'ploy'. It is something he actually believes in.

quote: That notion that democraies like each other: Idiotic!

Democracies do not have to like each other, but history has proven they do not fight wars against each other.

	28-12-2002 05:56									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Imran:

Do you have evidence, beyond Bush's own statements, that he cares for democracy? If statements are enough, then Saddam has no WMD either. I go by his trac record, which as far as democracy goes, beyond words, is piss poor. May I add that the Bushies hav not decided on a post Saddam political plan yet: perhaps they still toy with the occupation regime under Franks.

As for dem. not fighting wars: what about the 1812 war? The two most democratic states in the world at that time had a pretty violent war at that time. And wasn't the confederacy a democracy? I think so. Given the number of democracies and their time on this earth true history, that statment may only be true due to a lack of time and experience, specially since I have seen no worthwhile IR arguments for why it would be true.

	28-12-2002 06:12									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: what about the 1812 war?

A democracy versus a state in transition between monarchy and democracy, but where the monarch had still too much power for it to be a democracy.

quote: And wasn't the confederacy a democracy?

Why would it have been? Was there ever more than one election? Democracies require more than one vote.

Its the closest thing to a law in IR, democratic dyads do not fight in wars against each other. There is no example in history which fits.

---

And it isn't Bush's statements but other people writing about it. And not just Republicans, but Democrats like Michael Kinsley and neutrals like Bob Woodward (read his new book). Every journalist that gets close to him says he has this very Wilsonian pro-spreading democracy view in his mind, which is tempered by Cheney's realpolitik view of the world (which is why they are a pretty decent partnership).

	29-12-2002 02:08									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Off the topic but definitely related to this thread is that certain ppl always seem to post the same threads with "the same" or what could be construed as anti-israeli,anti-semitic or anti-US based. At the very least questions most certainly aimed to illicit highly emotive responses more than a decent discussion.

IMO many posts are not trying to ask valid questions or ellicit responses, but seemingly subtley trying to "have a go" or "prodding" as supposed/alleged israeli/US prejudice/alliances against the "East".

Now once in a while this would be fine, but if one looks at the posters they always seem to be the same ( in general), always on the arab-israeli-US-ME question and almost 100% stated in such a way that israel-US are the defendents/oppressors and the East-muslim regimes the accusers/oppressed!

I personally question the "real" desire to discuss as opposed to "have a go"....

Perhaps its time someone posted something like "IF Saddam apologised to the US and its peoples on national TV would we forgive him?" Comeon! Get real thats hardly a question which could be discussed...its just pure lunacy!

Just my views and observations

Last edited by Paradox on 29-12-2002 at 02:14

	29-12-2002 02:30									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Imran - I am in full agreement with Gegap here. The United States has never been concerned with spreading Democracy throughout the world before, why should they start now? In fact, i doubt there is a country that has done more to stunt the spread of democracy. Of course Bush would publically say that he wants to see a democratic regime in Iraq, do you think the public is going to support the war if he was honest and said that he wanted a regime friendly to american economic interests, whether it was democractic or not is irrelevent? The war already has a very slim support, do you really think that Bush could say anything else? You're a pretty bright guy Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly. If you're serious that is, I have a bit of a hunch that you're actually just yanking our chain on this one.

	29-12-2002 02:58									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd like to make a point why the future regime in Iraq could be friendlier to Israel:

a) for once, no matter how hostile it is , it won't throw ballistic missiles at us ala 91'.
b) Israel had in the past had GREAT relationships with the curds up north. real great ones. Israeli consultants helped create the first informal kurdish autonomous regions back in the 60s-70s, by training and often commanding kurdish troops.
c) however, due to growing relations with Turkey, there is a cooling in the relations with the Kurds, esp. since the accusations that Israel has participated in the capture of Otchelan, the leader of the KPP, back in the late 90s. the funny thing is that kurds demnstrated later in front of an Israeli embassy, and tried to break in, yet noone tried to break into the turkish embassy.

Personally , I believe that the kurds deserve a state of their own. nuff said.

	29-12-2002 03:05									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly.

Why? I think this country has a GREAT interest in spreading democracy to Iraq. It wouldn't matter if it was Bush or Gore in the WH right now, that would be a top priority. Making Iraq democratic would have the effect of showing the rest of the ME that democracy and Islam can work. This would, perhaps, lead to more democratic reforms in neighboring countries. And ANY democratic Arab state would probably be friendlier to Israel (a democratic PLA would try harder for peace since a majority of Palestinians are not liking their kids dying).

	29-12-2002 03:11									#45
	Remove this text

quote: since a majority of Palestinians are not liking their kids dying).

weird, I thought that most approved of suicide bombers.

	29-12-2002 06:28									#46
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Paradox Off the topic but definitely related to this thread is that certain ppl always seem to post the same threads with "the same" or what could be construed as anti-israeli,anti-semitic or anti-US based. At the very least questions most certainly aimed to illicit highly emotive responses more than a decent discussion. IMO many posts are not trying to ask valid questions or ellicit responses, but seemingly subtley trying to "have a go" or "prodding" as supposed/alleged israeli/US prejudice/alliances against the "East". Now once in a while this would be fine, but if one looks at the posters they always seem to be the same ( in general), always on the arab-israeli-US-ME question and almost 100% stated in such a way that israel-US are the defendents/oppressors and the East-muslim regimes the accusers/oppressed! I personally question the "real" desire to discuss as opposed to "have a go".... Perhaps its time someone posted something like "IF Saddam apologised to the US and its peoples on national TV would we forgive him?" Comeon! Get real thats hardly a question which could be discussed...its just pure lunacy! Just my views and observations

Actually, I think the ME discussions of late have improved their tone considerably. We seem to be reaching a consensus of views between the two sides.

I haven't been following what Novak has had to say on Iraq. I just do not like what he had to say or how he said it. Perhaps Novak is going the way of that other ex-Republican lunatic newsman that ran for president on the independent ticket. What was his name?

	29-12-2002 06:34									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So when you don't agree with someone you call them a lunatic. Wonderful... perhaps Godwin's Law can be expanded for you as well .

Of course you know nothing about the person, so calling names is the best alternative, right?

	29-12-2002 06:42									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Imran - I am in full agreement with Gegap here. The United States has never been concerned with spreading Democracy throughout the world before, why should they start now? In fact, i doubt there is a country that has done more to stunt the spread of democracy. Of course Bush would publically say that he wants to see a democratic regime in Iraq, do you think the public is going to support the war if he was honest and said that he wanted a regime friendly to american economic interests, whether it was democractic or not is irrelevent? The war already has a very slim support, do you really think that Bush could say anything else? You're a pretty bright guy Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly. If you're serious that is, I have a bit of a hunch that you're actually just yanking our chain on this one.

The whole point of fighting communism in the first place was to preserve democracy. We were, however, continually frustrated by chaos caused by communist subversion - so much so that we supported military governments that were intent on suppressing the communists and restoring order. It was our experience that once communists took over, they stayed in power through force and essentially became part of Soviet block. However, once communism was suppressed, it was our experience that the military would restore democratic institutions.

The struggle for power between the USSR and the USA was really a war - a cold war. It was a struggle based solely on ideology - communisim vs. democracy. Both sides did their best to win it. In the end, the US won.

The suggestion, monkspider, that the US had no ideological motivation for fighting the cold war is pure revisionist crap.

	29-12-2002 06:47									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui So when you don't agree with someone you call them a lunatic. Wonderful... perhaps Godwin's Law can be expanded for you as well . Of course you know nothing about the person, so calling names is the best alternative, right?

Imran, why are the extremes of both right and left known as the "lunatic" fringe? I personally am afraid of extremists from both sides of the political spectrum. One the left we have communists. On the right we have racist fascists, brutal dictators and Messianic prophets.

Extremists are lunatics, IMHO.

	29-12-2002 06:48									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And Novak is as far from a extremist as you could possibly be.

Like I said, you know nothing about the person, so you call him names.

	29-12-2002 06:49									#51
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh, his name is Pat Buchannan.

	29-12-2002 07:00									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned The whole point of fighting communism in the first place was to preserve democracy. We were, however, continually frustrated by chaos caused by communist subversion - so much so that we supported military governments that were intent on suppressing the communists and restoring order. It was our experience that once communists took over, they stayed in power through force and essentially became part of Soviet block. However, once communism was suppressed, it was our experience that the military would restore democratic institutions. The struggle for power between the USSR and the USA was really a war - a cold war. It was a struggle based solely on ideology - communisim vs. democracy. Both sides did their best to win it. In the end, the US won. The suggestion, monkspider, that the US had no ideological motivation for fighting the cold war is pure revisionist crap.

Ned, if our goal was spreading democracy, then why have we violently overthrown more democracies than any other nation since World War II? Why has the United States propped up so many dictatorships? The statement that the United States is a philanthopic force spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world is a nice one but it just doesn't gibe with the facts.

In regards to the statement that I don't think the United States had any ideological reasons for fighting the Cold War, and that I'm some loony revisionist. Well I do happen to believe the United States had plenty of ideological motives behind their Cold War diplomacy, it's just that that ideology wasn't democracy. If you look at the record of the United States actions, the United States has almost never stood up for democracy anywhere, ever. It has, however, always been quick to defend it's economic interests whenever they were slightly threatend. This the United States is quite reliable about. If perhaps a Democracy or two sprouted up here and there as a result of America's campaign to protect her buisness interests, well great, but it's irrelevent. To America's credit, it doesn't really mind if another country is democratic or not, so long as it's loyal to the interests of American buisness, if not though, a loyal dictatorship is preferable. So there is a clear ideology that prevails throughout America's actions, and it's a pro-American capitalism. Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not.

	29-12-2002 07:04									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not.

Then tell me monkspider. How many democracies have we overthrown since the END of the Cold War?

Oh right... that number is ZERO!

Thank you, you've proven my point.

Ned is right on this. The US went to fight for Western values. One of them being democracy. However, it was foolish to have democracy if as soon as it popped up, Communist influence subverted the 'democracy'. So, instead it was better to back military dictators that would turn to democracy once the communist threat was defeated.

	29-12-2002 07:05									#54
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Without reading the whole thread, I sure hope not.

	29-12-2002 07:13									#55
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not. Then tell me monkspider. How many democracies have we overthrown since the END of the Cold War? Oh right... that number is ZERO! Thank you, you've proven my point. .

Immers- Actually, you prove my point. The United States hasn't needed to overthrow any democracies since the end of the Cold War because it's now achieved it's goal of being boss of the world. As I said earlier, the United States doesn't mind democracy, as long as it's conveinant, but the United States will prefer a loyal despot to a possibly meddlesome democracy any day. Have the Democracies the United States overthrown during the Cold War been restored? Nope, not a single one that I'm aware of. If a legitimate threat were ever posed by any democracy, and it was within the US's ability to crush it, I'm sure that no time would be wasted in doing so. In the meantime, the United States continues to prop up dozens of despotic autocrats, and remains the world's greatest roadblock to greater democracy.

	29-12-2002 07:21									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Have the Democracies the United States overthrown during the Cold War been restored? Nope, not a single one that I'm aware of.

Are you daft?!

Indonesia? South Korea? Chile? Nicaragua? Hell, just about all of Latin America?!

Are you merely talking out of your ass on this one?

And many of those Latin American democracies have gone left (Chile, Brazil just did) and you don't see the Marines going in, do you?

It is absolutely silly and ludicrous to say that no democracy that was overthrown during the Cold War has returned to democracy. Just about every democracy that was overthrown has returned to democracy.

In fact the shift to democracy (and the push for democracy in countries like Pakistan when Musharraf took power) shows that the hypothesis that the US supported dictators only for the short run against communism, to be replaced by democracies later is TRUE!

	29-12-2002 07:27									#57
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Imran, I am beginning to think that CNN really believes that a vast Jewish conspiracy runs the United States. CNN has plenty of Jewish people on their payroll. Novak is a highly respected Republican journalist, who simply believes Israel is wrong.

Novak is a Democrat. A very conservative Democrat as I was until the 98 election. My son was the campaign manager for the Rep. candidate in 1st dist. of Calif. for the US Congress. Just think if he would have won, I would now have an inside track in Washington.

	29-12-2002 07:28									#58
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Novak was a Democrat?!

Since the beginning of Crossfire, Novak was always 'From the Right' and supported Republicans. Didn't sound like much of a Demcrat to me now or then!

	29-12-2002 07:32									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned Oh, his name is Pat Buchannan.

Pat has stated many time NO WAR with Iraq. Even in 91 he was apposed to the war.

	29-12-2002 07:37									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Novak was a Democrat?! Since the beginning of Crossfire, Novak was always 'From the Right' and supported Republicans. Didn't sound like much of a Demcrat to me now or then!

You are correct on the right as a conservative, but still a register Democrate. They, he has said so a few times to my suprise some year ago. I watch crossfire every single day and have my VCR set to record if I'm not home.