Diplomats stage walk out as UK and US are accused of terrorism

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1916552005

BRITISH and European diplomats walked out of a human rights conference in Malaysia yesterday, after the country's former prime minister claimed that the United States and the UK were "terrorist" states and that air force pilots whose bombs killed Iraqi civilians were murderers.

The diplomats, including Bruce Cleghorn, Britain's High Commissioner, left in protest at Mahathir Mohamad's broadside during a speech at the conference in Kuala Lumpur. snip

"The British and American bomber pilots came, unopposed, safe and cosy in their state-of-the-art aircraft, pressing buttons to drop bombs, to kill and maim," Mr Mahathir said of the Iraq invasion.

"And these murderers, for that is what they are, would go back to celebrate 'mission accomplished'. Who are the terrorists? The people below who were bombed or the bombers? Whose rights have been snatched away?"

[Mari333]

1. The truth hurts,

but the truth shall set you free.

[DeadManInc]

3. Too sweet!!

About time someone told them the truth!

[saigon68]

79. THUGS GOONS AND WAR CRIMINALS

The Bush Criminals and their LACKEYS

[ixion]

18. that was my reaction as well

it's time to call killing innocent civillians what it truly is.

[peacebuzzard]

28. my thoughts too

((((hugs)))):hug: I just noticed who posted.

[bribri16]

39. Damn, this is spot on! So true. We can't face ourselves so we

refram, rename, cast blame.

[acmavm]

2. Hey, aren't these guys proud of their killings in their quest to spread

freedom and find them pesky WMDs? What's wrong here? Sticks and stones or something like that?

[Blaze Diem]

4. Thank You..The World Knows the Obvious Truth ..

..as did we, here at DU...long ago.

May they shout this continually and forever, on behalf of those innocents who have suffered, died, and lost their humble way of life, at the hands of George W(worthless) Bush et.al.

Bush & pals are terrorists abroad as well as here in the USA.

Amen.

[oblivious]

5. Dropping bombs on untold numbers of civilians. What else to call it?

I guess they walked out in humiliation.

[pushycat]

8. If they were humiliated

then so am I. They represent me. My tax dollars aren't getting the right value if this is how they do their job. We need competent leadership, not this gang of goons.

[oblivious]

10. Amen to that, pushycat.

Edit: And a big warm welcome to Democratic Underground.

[pushycat]

26. Thanks a lot oblivious

I love DU.

[katty]

70. the Intervention of Truth hurts! too bad!!

[electropop]

17. FIlm at 11:00 - Bush bombs Kuala Lumpur

That dude will pay for his insult.

[Lugnut]

19. Humilation

Is something that is felt by those who have consciences. I've seen nothing to convince me that's applicable in this case. This juvenile behavior proves a very good point.

[leftchick]

6. A very valid point here.

<snip>

"But the Iraqis who die because of the US action or the civil war in Iraq that the US has precipitated are innocent civilians who under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein would be alive."

and this gem pointing out their hypocrisy...

<snip>

Hamdan Adnan, a senior official with the state-backed National Human Rights Commission, described the diplomats' action as "very distasteful". He continued: "If they claim to subscribe to the democratic process, why can't they listen?"

[bigbrother05]

7. I thought it was going to be the other way around, love it

Hamdan Adnan, a senior official with the state-backed National Human Rights Commission, described the diplomats' action as "very distasteful". He continued: "If they claim to subscribe to the democratic process, why can't they listen?

[Maple]

9. I think it's time

grown adults behaved like grown adults. Walking out in a snit is the kind of thing teenagers do.

You don't solve anything by walking away from it.

[Trillo]

22. Maple, I have to disagree with you there

"Walking out in a snit" is something taught in K-12 school. At least in private American schools its a primary lesson for some. Otherwise known as "expulsion" and "zero tolerance." "When the chips are down, quit"

Some tribal cutures might call it "banishment."

[NNN0LHI]

32. Some call it knowing when to held 'em and knowing when to fold 'em

I suspect we are going to be hearing a lot more of these kinds of comments.

Don

[Maple]

41. ??? Don't understand

Being 'expelled' or 'banished' because of 'zero tolerance', is not the same thing as walking out on your own because you are miffed.

'When the chips are down, quit'...is close though.

What am I missing here?

[Trillo]

45. When zero tolerance is taught it then becomes

part of the culture's or generation's consciousness. One, the first portion you didn't understand, leads to the other in practice.

My essential point is that non-success strategies are disseminated in schools by adults based upon the concept of forced cessation. As time passes, the kids grow up into adults and then practice forced cessation upon others. It's a cycle of dysfunction.

There may be bi-polar directions the learning takes dependent upon early authoritarian victimization or the lack thereof. In the latter case, the lesson of example (of others) was still taught in schools. Therefore, I believe in both cases, the value of 'cessation of activity' is realized.

My point of disagreement with you was specifically that it's not exclusively a teen's activity, it's essentially an adults' non-success strategy, which is taught deliberately or by the example of others to children by adults.

Have I made my point more clear to you?

Edited to add: NNN0LHI made what is essentially a sophisticated observation of this phenomenon. With regard to 'cessation of activity,' some rise above the basic lesson and learn to use it as a tool of calculated intent for effect. Whether that's a good use of the tool is another matter: it simply continues the dysfunction.

[Maple]

46. Er...no you haven't

Zero tolerance of something has been taught in many cultures and times.

It has nothing to do with 'non-success' strategies.

Walking out on a conference isn't a 'forced cessation'

It just means they walked out. Not that the criticisms have ceased.

The ones who walked out, in effect, just put their hands over their ears and yelled 'la la la la I can't hear you'

All they did was succeed in making themselves look silly...no one else. Like teenagers who don't want to listen to adults...but the adults are correct anyway.

[Trillo]

47. Sorry I haven't made it clear enough for you.

"Zero tolerance of something has been taught in many cultures and times."

True. Look where zero tolerance has gotten the world today. How many wars have been fought for how many generations now? Time is running short for all.

"Walking out on a conference isn't a 'forced cessation'"

What else can it possibly be for those who walked out? It certainly wasn't a continuation for them--perhaps for the others--but not for those who "dropped out."

"The ones who walked out, in effect, just put their hands over their ears and yelled 'la la la la I can't hear you''

That is essentially what educators do when they expel and teach to the remaining the example of expulsion--they won't be bothered anymore. It is a cessation of activity for the student expelled, and an authoritarian threat to the remaining students to not "do that," as well as a lesson of how to cease activity.

There is an epidemic of this type of thinking in American culture. "Shut up and keep your head down or be fired," as one example.

Think carefully and deeply about it and how it relates first lessons. I will not reply to you further on this topic, you may have the last word.

[Maple]

48. You're reaching

REALLY reaching on this one. :D

[nolabels]

51. LIke even a simpleton like me understands this conversation

The reason China and the US get along so well is they are both working at the same goal of feudalism. Much of the rest of the world and most people in them countries know this is not a winning workable model but the notstalgialistic gripers of power are hell bent for it. Communication is feudalism enemy, so lets keep em talking :-)

[Maple]

62. I'm glad YOU do

but now I need a translator for YOUR post! :7

[nolabels]

71. The route to psychoanalysis works it's self out from here also

But I digress :-) Actually it is a quite common practice or dialectical mode for bringing out the others adult speaker in any conversation (no matter how low your opinion of the other is).

Feudalism in the middle ages
The rise and fall of the feudalism had a dramatic impact on all areas of life in the Middle Ages.

Feudalism was the primary political system of the Middle Ages. The system came about, for the most part, because during his reign of England, King William had two major woes: he couldn't keep the people from rebelling and he couldn't take care of all the land. In order to solve these problems, William created the Feudal system, in which he would give out sections of land, called fiefs, to his most important nobles, his barons, and his bishops in exchange for their services and their loyalty. Peasants, or “serfs” were considered to be the lowest of the lower class, and rather than being given land in exchange for loyalty, they were forced to work the land, and the Lord of that land would offer them protection.

Under the feudal system, everyone but the king had a ruling lord above him to which he owed loyalty and service in exchange for land and protection. The brilliance of this system is that it "killed two birds with one stone", solving both of the king's problems because he now had control over the people and the land. Though brilliant in its conception, the practicalities of this system eluded William. He could not see that he was primarily the only one to benefit from this oppressive system, and that whenever only one person benefits at the expense of thousands of other people, something is eventually going to have to “give”. William threw diplomacy and public relations out the window in order to devise a quick-fix to rectify his own failures and inability to properly rule his country. Feudalism’s biased hierarchy of authority, rights, and power extended from the monarch downwards, creating an intricate network of obligatory situations that infringed on almost every basic human right. Despite its many shortcomings, Feudalism was backed by a complex legal system and supported by the Christian church. However, with the growth of commerce and industry, feudalism gradually gave way to the class system as the dominant form of social ranking

In addition to launching feudalism, the early Middle Ages also spawned the turning of man against women and perpetuated the concept of women as "the instrument of evil". However, due to the spreading of the Cult of The Virgin Mary, the later middle ages greatly improved women's status in the eyes of medieval men. The Virgin Mary was considered to be the ideal woman due to her purity and strength, and she soon reached "idol" status. This rampant worship of the Virgin Mary led to another phase of medieval life in which a man preserved a chaste devotion to a Lady. This was the time in which the classic code of chivalry came into existence. Chivalry tended to humanize feudalism. Within this written code, it is stated that knights must "exhibit manners, be polite and attentive, respectful of host, authority, honour and woman". This was quite a change from the earlier attitude of woman as the embodiment of evil
(snip)
http://nc.essortment.com/feudalismmiddle_rgjn.htm

[Maple]

74. All very nice

but nothing whatever to do with the topic here. :7

[nolabels]

75. Just because you cannot connect the dots doesn't translate into.........

my not understanding what's going on, Yea, patronize and mock, it's all good. Communication has everything to do with it. Feudalism main dictate is authority is not to be questioned ever. Your accusations and or reasoning of why this is off topic are rather sparse. The tactic of calling out the US and the UK as terrorist them selves is well founded. Putting the abusers on notice is the first step in recovery for any co-dependent relationship in need of change.

[Maple]

76. LOL you're very funny

and at least a change from the usual type of post. :rofl:

[nolabels]

77. Come on, I just getting worked up here, don't make me angry....

You wouldn't want to see me angry :P

P.S. that's the line my wife uses when she is waving and flailing her arms in hysteria (after a while you can tell when they are trying to push your buttons)

P.S. about the P.S. sorry to be off topic

[Maple]

78. Heh heh

You had me bewildered there for awhile...but the light finally dawned. :7

[NNN0LHI]

80. Are you two lovebirds just about done hijacking my thread yet?

Don't shoot I am only kidding around.

:hi:

Don

[Maple]

81. Oops sorry

;-)

[rodeodance]

36. it was a political statement-and very effective. We/UK has had lots of

talk, papers and meetings about this to no avail!!

[defiant1]

73. My thoughts exactly....

:toast:

[classysassy]

11. It was too hot in the kitchen

so they got their warm buns out.

[NuttyFluffers]

38. and that's my favorite analysis so far.

:+

:donut: mmm, warm buns

[Zhade]

43. Indeed...hot "cross" buns, at that.

"How dare they accuse us of...what we did!"

[NJCher]

12. You don't know real misery, buddy

"Unfortunately, I found myself listening to abuse and misrepresentation about my country. I therefore left," Mr Cleghorn said.

What if you were an Iraqi--injured, no home because it was blown to bits. No hospital to care for you. Heat of 120 degrees. You'd think you were in hell.




Cher

p.s. don't miss the last line of this article.

[daleo]

64. Sometimes this is a diplomat's job

"...listening to abuse and misrepresentation about my country..."

Although in this case abuse is not necessarily misrepresentation.

[WCGreen]

13. If they don;t have the balls to confront their critics....

Then they obviously can;t defend their policy...

[IndianaGreen]

14. The crew of a B1 bomber that dropped a bomb that killed civilians

by flattening an entire city block in Baghdad received the Air Force's highest decoration for valor, the Distinguished Flying Cross. This was the incident, widely reported in the British press, in which the US thought Saddam was eating at a restaurant in Baghdad. The B1 bomber was called to drop a bomb on what was described as a "high value target." The result was that an entire city block was turned to rubble. Men, women, and, children, including many Iraqi Christians, were killed in the bombing.

The crew of the B1 bomber committed a war crime by dropping a 1000 pound bomb on a residential area of Baghdad.

The crew of the B1 bomber should be ashamed of themselves, and have brought dishonor to the uniform they wear, by accepting the Distinguished Flying Cross when they never came under enemy fire.

George McGovern, a highly decorated hero of World War II, is the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. He earned this while flying over Germany and being subjected to attack from the air and the ground.

There is no honor in the War in Iraq, only shame and war crimes.

[Beam Me Up]

16. I agree. No honor in bombing civilians.

[Peace Patriot]

23. Please don't forget the atmosphere of fear that the Bush Cartel has

created within the military and many other government agencies, with purges of dissenters (or anyone thinking independently), loyalty oaths, rewards to toadyism and incompetence, and severe punishments--not just busting and career ruination, but items like the Plame outing (which put numerous peoples' lives at risk), and the inquisition against Guantanamo Bay chaplains. Not to mention the extreme bullying--and even anthraxing of the political opposition--at home. And these are just some of the more visible forms of intimidation and jackboot tactics against our own.

Military personnel have been put into a terrible bind by this Cartel. They've seen their code of ethics--the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions--spat upon by their COMMANDER IN CHIEF (or, more to the point, by his puppetmasters), and the MILITARY lawyers, who tried to defend the UCMJ, shoved aside. It takes truly unusual moral courage to disobey orders in these circumstances--because there is no recourse. The people at the top are without conscience, without ethics, totally lawless.

What would you say about one of Germany's pilots bombing London in WW II? Are they to be blamed for following military orders? It's easy to say they should have quit and defected, or should have made themselves vulnerable to execution. But it's not so easy for a young man or woman to defy his/her commanders in a fascist situation, or even to be able to see out of the cultural cave that he/she has been brainwashed in?

I would very much hesitate to blame or prosecute people for whom defiance would mean death or ruination, and people under orders who have no recourse--no fair legal system for any kind of appeal. I know this is a very difficult area of ethics and law--and that officers are not supposed to obey commands to commit illegal acts. But I would put it to you that this is one of those exceptional situations in which underlings--starting at about the pilot grade--cannot be personally blamed for not defying their orders. We may think that, as persons, they should address what they've done, and some may do so. But prosecution for war crimes? I would not support that for pilots. It's those who gave the commands who are truly culpable in a criminal sense.

We have the example of the Abu Ghraib underlings. We can have no conception of the pressures and brainwashings that the underlings were subjected to. I think they were severe, and that true justice in those cases would have been a medical discharge, with continuing psychological care provided--and prosecution and imprisonment of the entire Bush Cartel establishment in the White House and the Pentagon.

Pilots may not have been as severely abused, but were equally helpless to CHANGE policy that came from the Commander in Chief. Their only recourse was to disobey, with dire consequences, or to dessert, with potential dire consequences.

That's what Sgt. Camilo Mejia did--he deserted, then turned himself in, and suffered a year in prison. But he is an exceptional man. We might like to see such moral courage in everyone, but we cannot hold people in such a position criminally liable for NOT doing what we would most admire.

If Mejia had deserted in the midst of battle, he could well have been shot on the spot. A pilot, I believe, may be in the air before he/she knows what the target is. And the pilot does not select the target. The target is part of the command. So, if you want pilots to disobey an order, at the moment that they realize that it's a civilian target (if they ever do realize it), you're asking them to dessert in the midst of battle--at the risk not just of being busted, but of being executed. (You can argue that there was no air battle--but you can't argue that US military forces were in a state of war, legal or illegal.)

Again, I'm not saying that pilots who bombed civilians shouldn't have to reckon with it in some way, and are perhaps deserving of some sort of punishment like demotion. I would hope, also, that the military would undergo some kind of reckoning, as a whole, about conducting air wars against helpless countries and populations. It IS cowardly. It is a disgrace. And we have to deal with this as a society. Because, in a sense, WE gave these orders--even though nearly 60% of us disagreed with this invasion and war (--across the board, in all polls, in Feb. '03, BEFORE the invasion). WE permitted our political culture to deterioriate that far, so that we had no say in our government's actions. Should people whom we have trained to obey orders, and who have no recourse, be held criminally liable by US?

[IndianaGreen]

25. The point is that the bomber crew did not deserve the DFC

That's one medal and ribbon that should be stripped from their uniforms.

BTW, the Pentagon posted a picture of the smiling crew after receiving their decorations, despite the fact that a correspondent for the British The Independent had reported from location that the dead and wounded were all civilians and that Saddam was not there.

[Beam Me Up]

53. I appreciate very much what you are saying Peace Patriot.

I certainly do not have the answers to the moral questions you pose in regards to the military. My one line statement was simply that there is no HONOR in bombing (or killing in any form) citizens.

Of course, that is now an old fashioned idea, isn't it? Throughout the cold war, every CITY has been a potential Auschwitz. No need for ovens when everyone gets nuked.

NOW the cabal behind * appears to want to be able to use tactical nuclear weapons in the middle east -- and the REAL question is, are WE going to allow them to get away with that? More, given that we have lost control of the electoral process, given that our votes are no longer verifiable, how are WE going to stop them?

In any case, thank you for your thorough and interesting response.

[JanusAscending]

35. THE BIG QUESTION??????

Because "bushco" ordered the bombing, they are as guilty as sin, but what about our boys over there? They followed the orders. This makes them war criminals too? Are we going to support the troops, but not the war? (as we've all been saying we do) Or, will our boys come home to "shame", the way the Viet Nam vets did? Are we to turn our backs on them too? I don't think that is what the Dem. party has been stressing as our STAND since we went into Iraq. I for one will continue to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BUT NOT THE WAR!!! Am I wrong to feel this way? When I read the headline, I thought I was going to read something about the whole UN walking out on on BOLTON and UK Ambassador !! Maybe I read it too quickly, but I found it misleading.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Suppose the troops invade Venezuela?

Will you support the troops then? I won't!

You must separate "the troops" from the individual wearing the uniform. They may all look alike in their cammies, but if you look closely you will see that each one of them has a name tag that identifies them as unique individuals.

Here is the kicker:

When they act as part of the war machine, they are war criminals. When they act as individual soldiers, they are accountable for their own actions.

The Nuremberg Trials did not exempt soldiers because "they were following orders"! It is true that there were many Germans troops that did not commit war crimes or genocide, but they were few and far in-between.

It is true that many of our men and women in uniform have served honorable, and heroically in this war. The soldiers that complained about the abuses at Abu Ghraib are heroes, and they honored the uniform they wore. The former commander at Guantanamo, a Navy Captain removed from command for daring to post the Geneva Convention rules on the walls of Bush's concentration camp, is another hero that should be commended for bringing honor to his country and the uniform he wore. The same can be said for the Muslim chaplain that was railroaded by the Navy on false charges of spying. He too was a hero!

Historically, US troops have seldom been used in noble causes. US troops were used to put down strikes and progressive causes, sometimes with violence as they did against the World War I Bonus marchers and at Kent State.

So let's stop supporting the troops, and let us support the individual soldier and get him/her home alive before Bush gets them killed.

[JanusAscending]

40. I understand what you're saying,

but I totally disagree with you. They act as a Unit. They are following orders. I would definitely disapprove of an invasion of Venezuela, but it's up to us and the congress to see that this doesn't happen!! If we let Bush get away with another invasion, anywhere, shame on us!! Would you have all of our troops mutiny if they didn't like the orders given them? I think that the "dishonorable" men in the military are far and few between, therefore I will continue to support the troops, and let those who behave without honor, be treated as necessary, individually and not condemn the whole "unit"! I guess you take literally "AN ARMY OF ONE"?:shrug: P.S. and for the record, I want all the troops home too!!!

[Zhade]

63. Soldiers have an OBLIGATION, a duty, to disobey illegal orders.

They don't have the right to go along to get along - it is their sworn duty to REFUSE illegal orders.

If b*s* sent them into Venezuela, they would have a duty not to go if the invasion was unprovoked and unsanctioned by Congress and the U.N.

In the case of Iraq, Congress gave b*s* the power to decide if an invasion was needed. We did not go with U.N. approval, the invasion was unprovoked, and thus soldiers are actually under the obligation of international law to refuse to kill Iraqis who have not attempted to kill them first.

You can disagree with IG all you want, but facts are facts: the war is illegal, an unprovoked war against Venezuela would also be illegal, and a soldier's ultimate duty is to honor and obey the oath s/he swore, which includes not violating international law by aiding and abetting invasions of countries that did not attack us.

By definition, the troops are involved in a massive war crime. That does not mean they must be treated as the Nazis were - there is after all the mitigating factor that the country was lied to about this war - but it by no means excuses the crime in which they are unfortunately complicit.

Take it from someone whose father was involved in other illegal U.S. military activities - it's a bitch to bear, but truth is truth.

We need them home, and the overseers forcing them to break international law need to be in prison.

[Zhade]

44. Just curious - what does the platitude "support the troops" mean to you?

To me, it means supporting their right to not die for lies, as they are in Iraq.

I hear it a lot, but what - exactly - does "support the troops" mean, beyond a reflexive "don't hurt me mr. republican I don't hate soldiers" self-protective utterance?

Does it mean supporting them in doing their job, in this case continuing to commit a massive war crime? If so, count me the hell out.

What does your support entail?

[JanusAscending]

60. Good point!

My support of the troops entails making sure that when the "bastards" at the Pentagon with bushco send our young men into harms way, they send them with the proper armor and protection to complete the mission. To support them when they return home battered and broken, to provide for their families while they are away and to tell the American people the truth about the war!!!!! They lied to get us into war, and In my opinion we shouldn't even be there. They should have gotten out once they captured Sadaam. They should provide leadership that "plans ahead for the peace, instead of the bungled job they did! More money should have gone to the needs of our boys in uniform, than went to Halliburton and the rest of the personal contracters. We should support them when they come home to get their lives back on track, as well as their mental health. We should not be closing VA hospitals and taking away the benefits that they have earned while fighting this immoral war. I have to support the troops, because 2 of them are my very young grandchildren! ages 19 and 18. Cindy Sheehan supports the boys over there , and wants no more of them to die like her son did for lies. She wants them home, and so do I!! Is that good enough for you???:rant: PS It's not a "platitude" it's my reality, and I'm not afraid of any damn Republican, nor do I care what they think! I :puke: on them!!Lying bastards that they are!! edited for spelling error

[Zhade]

61. This answers my question - sort of, but not really.

"My support of the troops entails making sure that when the "bastards" at the Pentagon with bushco send our young men into harms way, they send them with the proper armor and protection to complete the mission."

And when that 'mission' is illegal, as this war clearly is, do you continue to support the fulfillment of that mission?


"To support them when they return home battered and broken, to provide for their families while they are away and to tell the American people the truth about the war!!!!!"

I assume you mean through vet benefits and the like, which I agree with completely.


"They lied to get us into war, and In my opinion we shouldn't even be there. They should have gotten out once they captured Sadaam."

You DO realize that capturing Hussein would ALSO have been illegal, right? Not that he doesn't deserve to rot in prison - he does - but the forcible removal of a head of state is illegal under international law.


"They should provide leadership that "plans ahead for the peace, instead of the bungled job they did!"

So, is your problem with the illegal war, or the way the illegal war was carried out?


"More money should have gone to the needs of our boys in uniform, than went to Halliburton and the rest of the personal contracters."

What needs? Benefits? Pay? Or more weapons and bombs to use in this illegal war?


"We should support them when they come home to get their lives back on track, as well as their mental health. We should not be closing VA hospitals and taking away the benefits that they have earned while fighting this immoral war."

Couldn't agree more!


"I have to support the troops, because 2 of them are my very young grandchildren! ages 19 and 18. Cindy Sheehan supports the boys over there , and wants no more of them to die like her son did for lies. She wants them home, and so do I!!"

Awesome! We share that goal.


"Is that good enough for you???"

The real question is, is it good enough for *you*?

My question was, and remains: what does support for soldiers entail when the mission is an illegal and, as you rightly say, immoral one?


"PS It's not a "platitude"

It is for many. So, to be fair and not assume something about you, I decided to ask instead.

[JanusAscending]

66. Ya know what?

I really don't give a damn what you think of me!! I've got a mind of my own. My statement, that I detest this war , but support the troops is what I said, and it is what I mean! Cindy allowed her son to go, as he had his mind made up! I'm sure she supported him and hated the war even before she found out it was a war based on lies. She wants to bring the rest of the boys home before they die needlessly, and I agree with her! I don't have to answer to you ar anyone else on DU ( except the MODS) I don't know why you have your pants in such a "bunch" over this, except, my opinion of you is that you are a extreme left wing liberal. I, my dear friend am a Dem. Liberal and not a reactionary, although some would accuse me at times of wearing a tinfoil hat!! NOW, we differ in our opinions, do YOU CARE what I think of you???? I thought not. See ya !!

[Zhade]

67. If you can't answer the question, it's okay to say so.

I understand that it's tough to answer the question of how to support the troops and not the mission.

Love the "extreme" part. Yeah, you've got me pegged.

:rofl:

[nookiemonster]

15. Nominated.

:kick:

eom

[Just Me]

20. OH, GROW UP!!!!

These people can't handle democracy, let alone the damn truth.

"Shut up,...I don't want to hear it,...you're lying,...fine I'm leaving!"

Shameful, 2-year old temper tantrum!!!

Embarassing!!! :blush:

[Griffy]

21. The world is starting to stand up to the US... now that we showing...

how weak we really are... with bush in charge! .. and we need it, to remove bush and restore the government to the people, not bush and the corperations!

[ShockediSay]

33. Anybody else notice that China and Russia are a lot stronger

Anybody else notice that China and Russia are a lot stronger now, relative to US, after BushCo took charge?

I mean think about it. What if China decides now's the time to march into Taiwan with a million or so troops? How could we stop them what with the way we are spread around?

What if Russia decides that now's the time to expropriate some more of our international oil properties?

The "war on terrorism" brings us to no good end. We are at war with Al Qaeda's followers (for whom we so nicely opened the door to Iraq.)

[The Wielding Truth]

54. We all knew how weak Cheney GRoup was own foreign policy in 2000.

Yet he was voted in to bring good old boy honor to the sinful WH.They have all been over their heads since before 9/11.Losing Osama bin Laden communication in Feb'2001 was secondary to the profits they saw in the over throw of Iraq.
I think they are clueless because they think of US citizens as consumers.Their only responsibility to them is "Buyer beware."We @ DU have a memory that is longer than 2wks.We can see how destructive Pure uncontrolled Capitalism can be.Money and Religion can not replace Wisdom and Love. I am thankful that there are still a powerful few who can lead us out of this "Texas Mess."

[teknomanzer]

24. SHOCK AND AWE is the goal of all terrorism. n/t

[existentialist]

56. Good point.

And just about as effective--terror begets more terror.

[Gregorian]

27. Pirate administration. Impeach, Indict, Imprison /autocomplete

[yurbud]

29. Wow--count the minutes until that guy gets his...

car accident

plane crash

double shotgun blast suicide

[peacebuzzard]

30. greatest page material.

[slay]

31. Bush IS the world's #1 terrorist

He terrorizes not only the people of Iraq, but most sensible Americans feel terrorized by him too.

terrorism - The use of extreme violence or the threat of violence by states, groups or individuals to generate fear in individuals and thus manipulate their behavior. Currently, most terrorism is drug or religion based.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_t.htm

[Tight_rope]

59. "Currently, most terrorism is drug or religion based."....

Glad to see the definition of terrorism explained in depth.

[Lecky]

34. kick n/t

[jbnow]

42. Darn, from the title I hoped

all the other diplomats walked out on the UK and US.

I know less about the UK, but I know we deserve to be walked out on.

[Andromeda]

49. Why should that surprise anyone?

They are Muslims, but not the extremists you'll find in the ME, and Muslims aren't too keen on G.W. right now. In fact, nobody is too keen on Bush and the US right now because of Poppy's first-born.

I do object, however, to calling the US a terrorist country because we're not. The word terrorist implies something a lot more extreme than the meaning that's being attached to it in this case.

Our soldiers are in legitimate military service and have to obey any and all orders given to them in combat. It doesn't matter if you agree with what they're doing or not, the men and women in our armed forces are NOT terrorists.

Bush is not a terrorist; he is a Hitleresk fascist--a dictator. Don't blame our service people for what Bush is doing. They cannot take the blame for what our government is doing because the government is giving the shaft to our veterans too.

Malaysia isn't such a great place either, you know. They don't have a very good human rights record so love your country even if it's done some things you're not proud of. I'd much rather live here than in Malaysia.

You're all PO'd like I am and hate what Bush has done to this country. I HATE Bush and I wish I never had to look at his face, ever. But this country has a lot of GOOD people in it too who are doing a fantastic job of stepping up to the plate for Katrina victims.

By the way, I DID NOT want to invade Iraq. I think it is the wrong war, at the wrong time in the wrong place. But that doesn't mean I want to spit on our service men and women because they are risking their lives over there and we've lost over 2000 and the injured totals more than that.

The majority of injured have brain damage and will never be able to function normally again in some cases. They are being crapped on by this administration. Their health benefits and pay have been cut and they even have to find their own freakin' way home when they get back to the States.

Family and friends even have to donate money so their sons and/or daughters can purchase flack jackets and other protective equipment because the freakin' government doesn't give a crap about their welfare.

People in NO lost EVERYTHING they own in some cases because the damn troops were in Iraq. When troops from LA did come home they were lucky to have the clothes on their backs and their families in tact. Did they go to a shelter? No, they pitched in to help the victims along side the other volunteers.

End of rant.

I sometimes don't even know why I should give a shit, but I do.

[NNN0LHI]

50. I am glad you mentioned Malaysia's human rights record. From the article:

>>>Washington largely stopped criticising Malaysia's use of a security law that allows indefinite detention without trial after it was used to lock up dozens of terrorist suspects, some with alleged links to the 11 September terror attacks.<<<

What have you got to say about this?

Don

[existentialist]

57. Washington largely stopped criticizing Malaysia

because Washington wants to be doing the same thing--and is . . .

[Catrina]

55. The US used to have the moral authority

(or at least we thought we did) to criticize the human rights records of other nations, but that is long gone since the truth of our torture policies has been revealed.

Any American now pointing a finger elsewhere regarding human rights, is simply laughed at.

They walked out because they refuse to accept responsibilty for the horrors they are responsible for and in their own countries, have scared the population from reminding them that tens of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS are dead because of them.

They have become accustomed to everyone looking the other way with regard to the human toll of their ill-conceived and criminal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, of their torture chambers, of the deaths of their own troops. The press, those who surround them, and when any in Congress in this country mentions it, (remember Durbin?) they are vilified.

Those of us who have mentioned it, are called traitors, not truth-tellers. So, when they are forced to hear the truth for the first time, they simply cannot bear it. Like spoiled children they stomp their feet and walk away, as if that will make the dead rise again, or the tortured recover.

I don't know what could have done to stop them, many of us tried, but they have severely weakened this country now, and what the results of that will be, no one yet knows. Who will be the beacon of light for the rest of the world, in terms of human rights? Is there anyone left who can do that? Let's hope someone can replace these criminals in both countries and show the world that this was an aberration, and that we will right the wrongs and make reparations to those injured.

I only hope those who have been so deeply affecte, the loved ones of all those innocent dead and maimed and tortured, are more forgiving than we are.

[Qibing Zero]

65. Under most definitions of terrorism, we fit as of the last 4 years or so.

And when the definitions go into specifics about terrorism being 'sub-state', the same acts committed by states themselves are war crimes.

[angryxyouth]

68. Our soldiers were lied to. They went to war with good intentions.

They followed orders. If they fail to follow orders they must fear reprisal. We fund the war with our tax dollars. If we refuse to pay our taxes there will be reprisal. We all are guilty of not having enough morality to risk jail and loosing our personal possessions over saving thousands of lives.

[jazzjunkysue]

52. I think they hurt our feelings.

:cry:

[Tight_rope]

58. HOT DAMN....It's about time the rest of the world yell out the truth!

Thank you for calling Bushco's mission what it really is. It was a murderous adventure for the greed of oil. And the Toni Blair was thier partner in crime.

[Mr Rabble]

69. kick. nt

[oblivious]

72. BBC to readers: "Are Mahathir Mohamad's comments fair?"

Perspective 1: Huff, puff, his comments are beneath contempt.

Perspective 2: The truth hurts.

Edit to include link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4229028.stm