[MD] One for Platt & Ham

[Ron Kulp]

 (Ham)
"Okay, so we underestimated the viciousness and intolerance of the
tribal morality, and have paid dearly for this mistake in terms of
mounting casualties and lost prestige.  Does that warrant the wrath of
the free world we were defending?  Would it have been been wiser to do
nothing while the extremists carried out their jihad to annex Europe and
the U.S. under a new Islamic caliphate?  Even now, Europe and the U.K.
are finding it increasingly difficult to contain the Muslim invasion and
are without a clue as to how to assimilate them or prevent the
"Islamification" of their national cultures."
(Ron)
Now, I might be reading into this a bit, but does it sound like the west
views Islam as a threat? Then I am wrong, this is a Holy war.
How Ironic, an Indian defending Islam, well, from a "native" point of
view..the whole "manifest destiny" thing kinda stinks when you're on the
other side.  Heck, you should let the Arabs organize then you're
perfectly justified, you can nuke it , pave it and turn it into a
parking lot..problem solved. The final solution.....wait where did I
hear that before?   

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:32 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] One for Platt & Ham


Ant, Arlo, Khaled, Ron, Platt --


Come, come now, gentlemen.  Intelligent people shouldn't have to resort
to acrimony and insults to get their point across.  And haven't we had
enough
"packaged propaganda" from the politicans over the last few weeks?   I
can
assure you that Platt is not an anti-semite, Khaled, and there are  no
bigots to my knowledge in this forum, although we sure have a
preponderance
of anti-conservatives.   If we can't deal civilly with different
viewpoints
here, how in the world can we expect the secular factions in the Middle
East to agree to a united Iraq?

Khaled mentioned Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" in which he
"talks about the dumbing down of this country and how people are told
not to think."  I agree that there is a "dumbing down of this country";
but most of it comes from apathy and narrow-minded thinking.

Look, we suffered a direct attack on our homeland in 2001, and there was
no historical precedent but to retaliate against the attackers and their
supporters.  We couldn't find Bin Laden, so we did the next best thing.
We toppled the Hussein regime which had harbored terrorists, thown out
the UN inspectors, and murdered thousands of its people.  Despite the
fact that we found no "active" WMDs, we had every reason to believe
Saddam was producing them.  We provided support and opportunity for an
oppressed Muslim population to take control of its insurgents and form a
free Iraq.  Their inability to do this is their shame, not ours.

Okay, so we underestimated the viciousness and intolerance of the tribal
morality, and have paid dearly for this mistake in terms of mounting
casualties and lost prestige.  Does that warrant the wrath of the free
world we were defending?  Would it have been been wiser to do nothing
while the extremists carried out their jihad to annex Europe and the
U.S. under a new Islamic caliphate?  Even now, Europe and the U.K. are
finding it increasingly difficult to contain the Muslim invasion and are
without a clue as to how to assimilate them or prevent the
"Islamification" of their national cultures.

Considering Arlo's litany of arms and missiles supplied to
underdeveloped nations, I happen to be strongly opposed to the U.S.
trading arms for hostages -- or for any other reason -- including the
defense of Israel.  It has seemed to me that the monitoring of arms
across national borders, and perhaps even military intervention to
control it, is a function that the UN is well positioned to perform.
That would of course necessitate an international arms agreement.  Until
we have the insight and gumption to illegalize the international sale of
arms, we're going to be confronted by enemies carrying weapons tagged
"Made in USA" or "Made in China".  This is adding insult to injury, and
we are long overdue for a position statement on the arms issue.

Maintaining peaceful relations in the international community is a
sticky wicket these days.  The introduction of nuclear weapons hasn't
made it any easier.  We have the choice of sucking our thumbs in the
hope that we can negotiate productively with the enemy, or taking
pre-emptive action, which is usually a matter of bungling it through
until the conflict has been "stabilized".  Yes, war is barbaric and
immoral, but I believe Western Civilization is worth defending at the
cost of sacrificing lives -- even mine or my son's if it comes to that.
I would like to think that I speak for the majority of my fellow
citizens.  After all, what would we be today if the American
Colonialists or the doughboys of WWI&II had not been willing to lay down
their lives for their country?

Cheers,
Ham


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/