More needed to topple Saddam

[Michelle]

The problems in the Middle East will not be resolved as long as there are Arab countries who benefit from the chaos. More drastic steps must be taken to rid this region from the top instigator, Saddam Hussein.

Michelle

[NewsGuy]

Michelle,

How about discussing the issues instead of just trying to promote the book?

What specifically do you want to tell us about this topic?

[AmericaNumber1]

By chaos you mean.........

Anyway, the only reason anyone would want to "topple Saddam" is to take control of his assetts or to rid him the possibility of protecting his people from an invasion.

He is already in negotiations with the UN with inspecting his arsenal of protection. Now, the world needs an excuse to "topple Saddam".....what has he done? and dont give me a Miss Cleo prediction of what you think he will do because there's many world leaders who are capable of even MORE brutal destructions than Saddam Hussein (Ariel Sharon comes to mind).

[elke]

Originally posted by AmericaNumber1
By chaos you mean.........

Anyway, the only reason anyone would want to "topple Saddam" is to take control of his assetts or to rid him the possibility of protecting his people from an invasion.

He is already in negotiations with the UN with inspecting his arsenal of protection. Now, the world needs an excuse to "topple Saddam".....what has he done? and dont give me a Miss Cleo prediction of what you think he will do because there's many world leaders who are capable of even MORE brutal destructions than Saddam Hussein (Ariel Sharon comes to mind).

You mean, you actually don't know what he has done?

Here is a partial list:

-He is paying the families of suicide murderers a small fortune, while his own people are starving
-He is building palaces, weapons of mass destruction, having fancy Birthday parties, while his people are starving
-He used poison gas on his own people
-He plotted to assassinate George Bush Sr.
-He invaded Kuwait, because Kuwait asked him to re-pay his debts

Should I go on, or are you capable of reading on your own and putting two and two together? Hussein is in the league with Hitler and Stalin in brutality. Sharon "more brutal"? Ha! You really don't know much, do you?

[Morpheus]

Saddam has killed thousands of Kurds during the first Gulf War. The world was watching, but didn't react, because America was on the side of Saddam, against the evil empire of Iran. Iran also had biological weapons, but they didn't retalliate with it. Saddam is one of the biggest mass-murderers of the 20th century and the US is also responsable for this by supporting his evil regime in the 80's. Rather than staying out of the whole conflict, the US gave weapons to Saddam (or bought them for him). When Iran tried to defend its coasts, US wanted to get envolved so they just gave Kuweiti ships the American flag, which meant now the US could do whatever they want to defend their tankers. Some nice examples of how the US tries to protect 'democracy'.

[StephenNichols]

So what? Iraq, like so many other nations, has killed lots of people. Whooppeee!!! That's no reason to force a western-friendly regime change in the country. And, that's exactly what the US wants to do -- create a western-friendly government in Baghdad.

Morpheus is completely correct in pointing out that the US provided much support to Iraq during the "evil" years. Clearly we (the US) think we can just support killing of anyone we like, without restriction. It's quite sad, really.

Elke seems to think that Saddam's spending habits are what cause his people to starve. That's total bunk. What's causing his people to suffer and die is the unfair and crippling sanctions that the US holds against Iraq. We are responsible for the suffering of Iraqi civilians, not Saddam. We undertake this siege to try and force a regime change in Iraq. It's disgusting...

Here's a link to my site where I talk a bit about the facts in Iraq. At the bottom of the page are a number of good links to other resources for educating yourself about this situation. Enjoy!

Iraq: The Facts (http://www.embracetheenemy.com/rants/iraq_the_facts.htm)

Or, if you don't want to read my site, check out this link at least:

Iraqi Sanctions Myth and Fact (http://www.peacemagazine.org/0201/lindemyer.htm)

steve

[elke]

As anyone not born with a silver spoon in their mouth knows, food and other necessities need to be bought, with available resources, and difficult choices have to be made to forego one thing in order to get another. When someone spends the available resources on things that cannot be eaten, that money cannot be spent on food.

When Saddam Hussein makes a choice to pay a family of a Palestinian suicide murderer $25,000, which could have been used to feed a village in his country for a week, it tells us something about his priorities. This has nothing whatever to do with sanctions of any sort, since he obviously has this money.

This is reality, not opinion or anything else.

[Mediocrates]

I agree with you that sanctions are ineffective because either:

They work but only against the wrong people
or
They don't work at all.

Because sanctions don't affect the government of Saddam. Now whether he and his brutal regime are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their own people is I suppose a difference of opinion. You feel that whatever his brutalities, that the US doesn't support him and play along it must be our fault. I wonder if the nerve gassed Kurds feel that way about it?

The reason that sanctions against South Africa worked is because ultimately, South Africa was not a closed society, a rogue state beholden to no one. Similarly the sanctions against Myanmar were effective because they affected only the leadership of the country who are in fact running a country that interacts with other countries in the region.

In Iraq's (or North Korea's as closed society) case though, it's a different case altogether. One would think that the oil shieks would find a way to help the hapless regime of Iraq if they felt even the slightest twinge of regret over the starving children of Iraq. But I guess that the US sanctions are SO SO effective that the oil shieks tremble in fear of the Great Satan and possibly angering all the soccer moms in Topeka. Praise Allah - they must be hiding under their camels!

What is the purpose of sanctions anyway? I hear all the time on this board the practically divine right of the EU to levy sanctions against Israel? What the **** do you think would happen? Do they not bleed too? I think it has to do with something more subtle than that. I think it has to do with the EUs own understanding that they are toothless. They can levy any sanction they want and pronounce any proclamation and in the end there is always someone else, like the US to clean up the mess. I think that lies at the root of objections to sanctions against Iraq. We (the US) have not left the EU any opportunity for them to play their conciliation card. They can't threaten sanctions of their own because we've already done that. They can't risk defending or supporting (a-la 'peace keeping) the Iraqis because that would put them in direct conflict with the US. So they have to sit on the sidelines and complain that we're mean people.

I can live with that.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by StephenNichols




Elke seems to think that Saddam's spending habits are what cause his people to starve. That's total bunk. What's causing his people to suffer and die is the unfair and crippling sanctions that the US holds against Iraq. We are responsible for the suffering of Iraqi civilians, not Saddam. We undertake this siege to try and force a regime change in Iraq. It's disgusting...

There's only one person to blame for conditions in Iraq and that man is Saddam. Sanctions were put in place when he refused to let weapons inspectors to inspect for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

[StephenNichols]

What's the purpose of sanctions? It's the latest form of non-violent siege. You can liken it to the middle-ages when an army would surround a castle for weeks, cutting off supplies to the population therein. It's a method that is used to force a change in a nation against its will. Sadly, it's the civilians that suffer the most in these situations. And the civilians are the ones that are made more bitter and angry because of them.

Most Americans believe that it is our right -- nay, our responsiblity -- to intervene in Iraq and force a regime change. I disagree. We have no right to be forcing the Iraqi government to do anything. You cannot liken Saddam to Hitler -- there is no comparison. Iraq is not equivalent to pre-WWII Germany. Not even close. Iraq does not pose a global threat. And, once more, what allowed Germany to accept Hitler's insane ideas is the west's lack of reconstruction support after WWI. The Germans were left increadibly poor and angry, leaving open the possibility for hate and violence to take root. I believe that America should be involved with other countries in constructive and peaceful ways. We should not be using our might to destroy other nations. We should be using our might to build up other nations and improve the lives of their people. If some nation decides to invade another nation, the world should intervene to stop such actions. Yet, we need not embark on mass killings to do so.

And, Elke, you make the assumption that Iraq has the food stocks to feed its people. It's not as easy as writing a $25,000 check at the local Iraqi grocer for a vilalge. And, actually, the biggest problem for Iraq is not getting food (although that is a big problem). It's getting clean drinking water and medicine. The sanctions that the Iraqi people are suffering under -- the evil siege that the US is supporting -- keeps vital chemicals necessary for sanitizing water out of the government's hands. This lack of potable water has caused severe outbreaks of disease -- especially in children. No amount of cash will produce the "dual use" chemicals that are needed for water treatment. They are not allowed to be imported.

There has not been a single good reason why the siege on Iraq must exist. The only reason that's been floated is that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction. Although there is no proof that is the case. Let me repeat that: There is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction! Now, it may be likely that Iraq will get such weapons at some future time. However, there are many nations that have such weapons -- merely possessing such weapons should not mean that we need to replace their government.

My view is different than many. I believe that we can do far more to avoid the imagined catastrophes that our leaders foresee by embracing the Iraqi people instead of starving them. I know, it sounds crazy that we should strive to befriend the world's people instead of using our might to force them to do as we wish. Regardless of our country's need for national security, we cannot preemptively attack and overthrow regimes that we disagree with. That way lies the Amerikan Empire, where the stars and stripes become signs of oppression and terror for all that we dislike and disagree with. That does not represent who I am. I do not wish to support such un-American actions as overthrowing other soverign nations. I would much prefer a peaceful and constructive approach to solving the Iraqi "problem".

Perhaps all of you would rather the US rush out, murder and overthrow all non-western regimes. We could then be done with these harbingers of global dissent. We could stick the Amerikan flag all over the world... how glorious!

steve

[Mediocrates]

Regardless of our country's need for national security, we cannot preemptively attack and overthrow regimes that we disagree with.

Why not?

That way lies the Amerikan Empire,

What's wrong with that?


I read your answer but I need more - what is so fundamentally wrong with America with the American system and with Americans that it can't and shouldn't be exported?

What is so fundamentally necessary about Saddam that killing thousands of Kurds (with chemical weapons) is acceptable and that regardless of the demonstrable proof of WMD - the tyrant himself has made public claims about attempting to develop and use them.

[Mediocrates]

And, Elke, you make the assumption that Iraq has the food stocks to feed its people. It's not as easy as writing a $25,000 check at the local Iraqi grocer for a village.


But it is a war crime to sit on billions of dollars of wealth and 58-something alabaster palaces while people starve. The French Revolution was initiated and justified with less.

[elke]

To be perfectly honest, I am not decided whether or not sanctions are a good idea. I don't see much of a result from them; but then again, I am no expert.

I do, however, think that sanctions or no sanctions, Saddam Hussein is bad news for the whole world, and not just for Iraq. To say that he is not threatening is akin to being an ostrich.

Saddam Hussein is indeed like Hitler. The main difference is that Iraq has 41% illiteracy rate. But the nuclear jeanie is out of the bottle, so it doesn't take a large, sophisticated army to hold the world by its throat. All it takes nowadays is to possess a nuclear arsenal and make the world believe that you would use it.

I don't see anything wrong with any country protecting its interests, security or otherwise. In fact, that's one of the cardinal purposes of any government, IMHO. Whenever possible, US more than others, tries to do that via diplomacy and other peaceful means. However, to think that this is always possible is naive, not to say stupid.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

Whenever possible, US more than others, tries to do that via diplomacy and other peaceful means. However, to think that this is always possible is naive, not to say stupid.
Give me some examples where the US has solved a problem through diplomacy and other peaceful means. I'm drawing a blank here. It seems to me that the US is first to use military force to resolve its problems and protect its interests. Peaceful resolutions are always possible. Show me the naive and stupid nature of that statement. Show me the error in my thinking. Cite some examples.

You say that Iraq is a global threat. Show me some evidence. Prove to me that Iraq can undertake world conquest. They couldn't even conquer Iran with US support at the height of their power. What makes you think that they can -- in their currently weak position of power -- embark on any global conquest operations?

If Saddam gets his hands on nuclear weapons and uses them, Iraq would be destroyed. There's no two ways about it. I'm sure that Saddam is ruthless, but not suicidal. There's not one shred of evidence that Saddam would use nuclear weapons to hold the world hostage -- none. Please give me some evidence if you know of some...

steve

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

I read your answer but I need more - what is so fundamentally wrong with America with the American system and with Americans that it can't and shouldn't be exported?
You clearly think that the American way of life is better than all others -- and that it's okay for America to force this "better" life on all others in the world. It seems to me that such a course is dangerous for America. It is the course of global conquest. Making war on other countries to force pro-American regime and society changes makes us conquerers. It makes us no different than the Romans or WWII Germany. I'm sure each conquering group believes they are doing good for the conquered. Our incredible military strength does not give us the right to dictate to the world. Surely you can see that...

As a freedom-loving people we have no business in taking freedom away from others. Yes, yes... I know. But you don't like the Iraqi government. So what? Their country is governed the way their country is governed. It is not our place to choose governence for their people. That's what freedom is.

I agree that if a nation invades another nation, the world should intervene. Not just the US, but the world! Invading another nation should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Even for a country as powerful as the US.

As for me, I believe that a free and open society is a noble goal for any country. We can do much to encourage such changes in closed societies -- without resorting to bombing them into openness. Look at our relationship with China. Theirs is a nation that is becoming more open all the time -- mostly through our positive interactions with them. We haven't resorted to bombing Bejing to force them to open up faster. And, guess what? We don't agree with China's governance either!

Let us be a shining example of what a free and open society can be. That will do far more to affect lasting change in the societies we interact with over bombing them into submission.

steve

[elke]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Elke:
Give me some examples where the US has solved a problem through diplomacy and other peaceful means. I'm drawing a blank here. It seems to me that the US is first to use military force to resolve its problems and protect its interests. Peaceful resolutions are always possible. Show me the naive and stupid nature of that statement. Show me the error in my thinking. Cite some examples.

You say that Iraq is a global threat. Show me some evidence. Prove to me that Iraq can undertake world conquest. They couldn't even conquer Iran with US support at the height of their power. What makes you think that they can -- in their currently weak position of power -- embark on any global conquest operations?

If Saddam gets his hands on nuclear weapons and uses them, Iraq would be destroyed. There's no two ways about it. I'm sure that Saddam is ruthless, but not suicidal. There's not one shred of evidence that Saddam would use nuclear weapons to hold the world hostage -- none. Please give me some evidence if you know of some...
steve

Well, here is a partial list of examples of US using non-military means to resolve a conflict:
1. Former USSR - the BIG one. The problem was solved through diplomacy and economic means. See information on the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other things.
2. Japan, currently. There are many trade problems, as you probably know better than I ever will. No military threat has been made to them. Problems are being worked out via diplomatic means.

As far as Saddam not being suicidal, it would not be necessary for him to actually blow anyone up. All it would take is a nuclear arsenal to be used as blackmail. Would you call his bluff? I wouldn't. No one will want to take responsibility for potentially ruining Planet Earth.

[Mediocrates]

If Saddam gets his hands on nuclear weapons and uses them, Iraq would be destroyed. There's no two ways about it. I'm sure that Saddam is ruthless, but not suicidal.

It would be too late then, wouldn't it? For everyone.

Let's say he's not suicidal - who's to say he'd perish, that he wouldn't consign his own people to flames instead?

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

1. Former USSR - the BIG one. The problem was solved through diplomacy and economic means. See information on the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other things.
The former USSR was not dealt with peacefully. We never got into a serious confrontation because we feared total annhilation. However, there were many times when we fought via proxy (i.e. afghanistan). We also used our considerable economic strength to put pressure on their government -- which is hardly peaceful.

2. Japan, currently. There are many trade problems, as you probably know better than I ever will. No military threat has been made to them. Problems are being worked out via diplomatic means.
Japan is our ally. Our interests would not be served by attacking them fiscally or otherwise. I wonder what diplomacy you're talking about in regards to these trade problems. Obviously Japan is having economic problems, but I'm not aware of any serious trade-related issues.

As far as Saddam not being suicidal, it would not be necessary for him to actually blow anyone up. All it would take is a nuclear arsenal to be used as blackmail. Would you call his bluff? I wouldn't. No one will want to take responsibility for potentially ruining Planet Earth.
Would I call his bluff? Absolutely. I feel confident that deterrence is a workable defense. If Saddam knows that we would obliterate him without hesitation if he were to use or "hold the world hostage" with his nukes, he would not risk it.

What makes it so difficult to engage Iraq in a more constructive and peaceful way? Is it impossible to make friends with the Iraqi people? We were friends before, why not again? Explain this to me, because I must be too naive (or stupid) to see it myself. :)

steve

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

It would be too late then, wouldn't it? For everyone.

Let's say he's not suicidal - who's to say he'd perish, that he wouldn't consign his own people to flames instead?
Our nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to ensure that he would not survive. And if he did survive in some super-deep bunker, being a leader of a nuclear wasteland is hardly desirable. Either way he would be neutralized.

steve

[victot]

StephenNichols,
goddam, you leftists make me sick. saddam hussein is evil, and if a good guy ever was in power in iraq, the united states would send aid to iraq. you declare how evil the united states is, and then you defend saddam hussein.
imagine if saddam hussein controlled the united states. it would be the end of the world.

why do you defend evil and then madly critisize the imperfect yet striving to be good united states?

[Mediocrates]

Here is one approach to it published in the American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/05/kushner-a-05-29.html

FWIW I don't think of American Prospect as a particularly right wing publication. In fact it's rather progressive and (even) it alludes to the mass destruction that Saddam has wreaked on his own helpless people. I wonder what your view of this is, Stephen for if I read you right, Saddam:

Isn't that bad a guy
and/or
We don't have any right to do anything about it if he is.

[StephenNichols]

Victot:

You can be disgusted all you want... But, instead of whining about how much you hate what I'm saying, why not use that energy to challenge what I'm saying with rational arguments.

I've never once used the word evil to describe the US. Corrupt, yes. Money-worshipping, yes. Based on a fundamentally flawed and unequal economic system, yes. Evil, no.

Saddam is a ruthless leader. Many people call him evil. I have still not heard any information that gives us the right to overthrow the Iraqi government. He gassed the Kurds? So what! The US is not below using poison and nerve gas in conflicts. As far as Iraq is concerned, we've killed far more of their civilians than Saddam has. So, who's the "evil" ones here?

You think I'm defending evil -- I am not. I am defending the right of nations to govern themselves as they see fit. I am simply stating that Iraq poses no threat to us. I'm simply stating that we have no right to overthrow governments that we disagree with. I'm simply stating that we can resolve our issues peacefully. You believe that it's okay for us to kill thousands of Iraqis every month -- men, women and children. You believe that it's okay for us to force our will on other nations without cause. That, in my opinion, is wrong and un-American.

And, for the record, I'll state this again. I fully believe that the world should intervene if any nation invades another nation. Such attacks should not be tolerated. However, we have no right to rush in to other nations and dictate to them how they should live their lives.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

I view the Iraqi government's treatment of its citizens as disgusting. Totally. However, I have similar views of how nearly all nations treat the mass of their citizens. The leaders of all large nations are "bad" in my opinion -- that is, they don't have the interests of their common citizens at heart in any decision they make.

Iraq is run by a dictator that squashes dissidents like bugs and has supposedly gassed 200,000 Kurds in the north. I say supposedly because no bodies have been found -- only stories. 200,000 people is a lot to hide. Let's assume that Iraq did gas the Kurds. What difference does that make? The Kurds were not exactly pro-Iraqi. They must have been seen as legitimate targets of the Iraqi government. Specifically, they were resisting the Iraqi government. Resistance is grounds for all manner of violence, in Iraq, Israel and the US. Using nerve gas is an effective means to strike fear in those you wish to control. I think it's disgusting, but it is effective -- that's why it was used. Perhaps you would have been more comfortable if the Iraqi soldiers went in and slaughtered the Kurds via some other method. Perhaps with machetes? What's so "evil" about using poison gas over other weapons? Weapons are for killing, like it or not...

To the point of suppressing political dissidents I say so what? There are many countries, including China, that do this. Should we go in and overthrow each such government? Neither of these issues prove that we should overthrow the Iraqi government.

Iraq is a country under siege. It's military is no match for the US. It's civilians are being killed by our sanctions against them. Yes, Saddam has done terrible things to hold on to power. Yes, Iraq is not a free country. Neither are many of the nations in the world. However, we should not use our military might to force countries to be "free" by our definition. That is un-American and wrong.

There is a fine line between defining something as wrong and working peacefully to make change and assuming that only your view is right and using lethal force to ensure others embrace it.

steve

[NewsGuy]

True. Saddam Hussein is a genocidal maniac with the blood of thousands on his hands. (Not unlike any of our Arab "allies").

But I agree that Iraq does not pose a specific threat at this point in time to the U.S., and therefore the U.S. should focus on the real threat to our American interests, which is Iran.

Iran is the source of most of the world's terrorism and instability and is actively engaged in building a nuclear weapons capability that needs to be eliminated. At the same time, the brutal regime of the Ayatollahs needs to come to an end.

For my tax dollars, I rather see Iran targeted than Iraq, even though I would also not shed a tear if in the course of an attack in Iran, a stray cruise missile or a dozen just happen to find their way to some well-chosen startegic targets in Iraq.

[StephenNichols]

You people are so filled with hate that you condone the outright murder of innocent people, with different views, in other countries. It's really very sad. Nobody stops to ask the question "Why do they hate us?" It's not because we're free! It's because our actions have made them angry. We're so arrogant that we don't care that it's our actions that have caused them to be angry. We're gonna kill them instead!

Our country will not last forever. Our actions will catch up to us.

steve

[Mediocrates]

Curious though, it seems you ignore the murder of innocents. You know I was watching an old movie last night "The Man Who Captured Eichmann". Robert Duvall was Eichmann and in there is a scene where he goes to great lengths to explain that he did not hate the Jews and even studied Hebrew. His interrogator asked him how he felt about murdering his (the interrogator's)sister, and most of the rest of his family. And the response was, "but they were Jews, it was the law."

That's kind of the read I get from you -.


N/G - I disagree with that. Iraq is an enormous risk. Whether or not they have fission weapons, they certainly have missiles that can hit Tel Aviv now. They have germ and chemical agents, no matter how hard they are to monitor they are simply too easy to make to ignore. And FWIW, it's the poor man's dirty nuke that much more likely than a fission weapon. To make one all they need is a concerted effort to gathered up all the depleted uranium we shot at them in 1990-1. If anything Iran is a country in flux srtuggling to head away from fundamentalism and should probably be left alone for now no matter the support they give to terrorists. It's probably too short sited to force them to stop, which we can't and they won't.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
It's not because we're free! It's because our actions have made them angry. We're so arrogant that we don't care that it's our actions that have caused them to be angry. We're gonna kill them instead!

Yes, Steve, the U.S. is perceived as arrogant when we take actions that are unpopular with Islamic countries and therefore they hate us when we try to defend ourselves from their Islamic terrorism.

But I think that your position is arrogant just the same, because you refuse to even give them the courtesy of listening to what the Muslim countries themselves are saying.

The Islamic countries (with the possible exception of Turkey) are saying that they hate the U.S. because our free secular society is in itself contrary to Islam. We grant personal freedoms to all citizens and equality to women, which is the number-one source of hatred against us in the Arab world.

The second reason for Arab hatred is that the U.S. props up brutal and corrupt dictators like Hosni Mubarak, the princes of Saudi Arabia and other so-called Arab "allies." The people of the Arab countries hate their dictators and therefore hate the U.S.

The third reason is the U.S. support of Israel. The Arabs, by and large, whole-heartedly believe that Israel's Jewish population should be massacred in some big Jihad-genocide.

These are the reasons that the Muslim hate the U.S., and like I said previously, it is arrogant not to listen to the Muslims themselves. They are saying clearly through words and actions that they believe that they are entitled to massacre Americans and Israelis because they disagree with our policies.

Obviously, we cannot allow the radical Islamists to carry out more 9/11 attacks, or explode dirty nuclear bombs on Washington DC, and we had better act forcefully and even preemptively, as President Bush said last week, before these Islamic terrorists kill us all. It's a matter of survival, not arrogance.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

Show me where freedom is noted as a reason for hatred. I've not seen any such information. Osama bin Laden certainly has said nothing similar to this...

We've been giving women much more freedom than Islamic countries for a long time. Why are the terrorists only recently causing problems if that's the reason for their hatred?

Regardless of the freedom issue, the other two reasons you provide are directly caused by our actions. We are hated because of how we treat the world, not our internal affairs.

If you truly believe that we will stop more terrorist attacks by waging war against them, you're wrong. Our own leaders are saying the opposite. The truth is that, as an open society, we cannot stop such attacks with 100% certainty. But we can do much to change our actions and to respect the beliefs and ideas of others. How about stopping the support of corrupt regimes? How about giving more of a voice to the Palestinain people and helping them to get the state that they deserve? That would do more to affect their opinion than trying vainly to kill all that oppose us.

steve

[Mediocrates]

If they want to kill us then how is not fighting back going to affect that.

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

Why not work toward peacefully changing their desire to kill us? Engage them in peaceful and helpful ways. Give them unconditional support and assistance. This has never been tried in modern history between Islam and the West. Why not give it a try?

steve

[Vic]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Engage them in peaceful and helpful ways. Give them unconditional support and assistance.One of the finest examples of contradiction in terms I've ever seen ;)

As for
This has never been tried in modern history between Islam and the West. - well, take a look at this thread http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=585, an expensive experiment, with utterly disappointing results so far.