« Broadband Speeds of 50 Mbps for $40/month by 2010 | Main | Why is Bush Becoming Soft? »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lieberman Loses : The Democratic Party Moves Further From Electability:



Left wing nut jobs took control of the Democrats with McGovern. That was great for republicans. Look for the silver lining.


Lieberman’s loss makes me wonder if this conventional wisdom is incorrect. Perhaps addressing the base increases volunteer and donating efforts, thus making you more likely to win elections, even though you less represent the middle.

So yes, the Democratic party is moving away from the middle. But the volunteers and donators of both parties are politically active, principled, and respond more to absolute stands on principle (for Democrats the principle is Socialism). This ‘fires them up’ and gets more people donating and knocking on those moderate’s doors. Perhaps this can overcome the effect of alienating the middle, a group which by definition doesn’t follow politics as closely.

I don't actually think this is true, but the Republican party should debate it.


quick update, I don't think it's true b/c the extremists haven't won a general election, & there is a world of difference b/w a primary and a general. But this fall will be the real test, b/c it's the first general where one party is obviously more extremist than the other.


>>You can ask : "You are still upset tht he did not become the VP six years ago, but you don't even want him as a Senator?"

Haha, I love simple questions like this that force the shrill left into a corner!


Getting more people knocking on doors isn't going to make moderate people vote for extremists. People ultimately vote for ideas and for people, not because one party or another has more volunteers or more literature.


It's possible some people supported Gore/Lieberman simply because they liked them more than Bush/Cheney. That doesn't mean Lieberman was their ideal candidate for VP.



But not even wanting him as one of 44 Senators is quite extreme.

If Gore had won in 2000, Lieberman, even as VP, would have advocated the invasion or Iraq (just like Bill Clinton did too).


Still, when you have a choice, you choose the one you dislike least.


The leftward lurch of the once great Democratic Party is good news for the GOP, but not necessarily for the country. FDR once thought to ally himself with Wendell Wilkie to create a new Liberal party, thus dividing the country into two political ideologies instead of the then current system of two centrist parties each with a politically impotent extreme wing. This ideological separation has now come about. The reality is that the GOP will not always win the election, and the country will be turned over to the radical Left. For an understanding of what this will mean, one needs only look at Britain when the electorate voted out the Conservative Churchill and voted in the Labour Atlee.


wenovel, Atlee is considered to be the best, most visionary Prime Minister that Britain has ever had:

Sensible populations soon tire of war & war-mongering, so-called rulers; your own Eisenhower warned against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" [in the] "military-industrial complex", & he was hardly a 'dove'.

I know Americans generally aren't the most astute students of history, but fortunately the internet is here to help & share.



Americans are not astute students of history? As opposed to what, Europeans who are repeating the exact same mistakes of the mid-1930s? Or the British, who have taken in 1.6 million Muslims, of which almost all are sympathic to terrorists who strike against Britain?

17 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the US.


I glibly said not the *most* astute, but if you mean "the same mistakes of the mid-1930s" of appeasement then you highlight the point; to think that appeasement is the name of the game now.
Most British Muslims, like most British non-Muslims, oppose Tony Blair's sycophantic support of Bush's disastrous foreign policy, which is an imperial oil war in all but name. It's also been an absolute boon to the terrorist recruiting sergeants.
Britain though, is the past master of imperial conquest (& subsequent debacle) so who better to show America, as a young country, how to have it's imperial phase?
"Much further ahead...intellectually & technologically"? The numerous & powerful pre-Enlightment proponents of Intelligent Design, the death penalty & stretch-SUVs (amongst other things) would tend to contradict this.



Your knowledge of history appears to be below even what I thought.

So terrorism against non-Muslims only started from Bush's Invasion of Iraq in 2003?

It appears you haven't heard of the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing (241 dead), the 1993 WTC bombing, the 2000 USS Cole Bombing, and the 1998 Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombing. All of these were before Bush.

Plus, it appears you have not heard of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Beslan, Bali, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, etc. What does this have to do with US 'foreign policy'? None of these countries are allies in the Iraq Coalition.

It looks like you need Americans to educate you on recent world history.

'Most British Muslims, like most British non-Muslims, oppose Tony Blair's sycophantic support of Bush's disastrous foreign policy, which is an imperial oil war in all but name.'
So you approve of the murder of other British citizens on 7/7 as a response? You could die too, you know.

Lastly, how has Bush's foreign policy failed if the US has not had another attack in 5 years? It appears to be a stunning success (at least for those who are opposed to terrorism, which you appear not to be).

The last statement reveals sheer, uninformed anti-Americanism. America has 17 of the top 20 universities in the world, and Britain just has one or two. Even per capita, there is no comparision.

Which British companies are tech leaders, like the US has produced Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, Genentech, etc. It is indisputable that the US has a much greater knowledge density than the UK or any other country for that matter.

Why the US will be the only superpower in 2030.

Data showing the Bush voters are more productive and successful than Kerry voters.


No, I didn't say that anything started from Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, but thanks for saying that it was indeed Bush's War (along with his poodle Blair).
My point was that Bush's blundering in Iraq has, as I said previously, provided the perfect justification & training ground (where there was none before), for al-Qaeda's medieval take on the world. Iraq & the recent hypocrisy involved when dealing with Israel, have radicalised many; consequently the bombers of 7/7 said they were motivated by the Iraq war.

I think you'll find the Bali attacks were against Westerners, mostly Australians, who are absolutely allies in Iraq (as were Spain for Madrid). Thanks for educating me on that recent history though. The other rather hysterical examples evoke a discussion on the roots of Islamic fundamentalism which is beyond my scope this lunch hour, but try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Unlike many in the US who supported Irish Republican terrorism against the UK during the 70s & 80s, I obviously don't support terrorism in any form, but I can see simply that many of the causes are exacerbated by our respective governments' policies.

"A stunning success"? Civil war in all but name in Iraq, a re-run of the mujahideen guerillas versus superpower battle of the 80s in Afghanistan (when the CIA trained Osama to be be so effective) & 1000s of your soldiers killed. That's a strange sort of success if you ask me.

An array of very rich & powerful companies to be sure. Obviously it was a Brit who invented the internet, but it would be a bit odd if the richest & most powerful country in the world didn't dominate the capitalist system it has built, wouldn't it? Your favourite stat of 17 out of 20 was carried out by whom, using what criteria? It could simply indicate that US has the resources to buy whatever manpower it needs to stay ahead.

Rich folks vote Republican? Well I never, I'll mull that shock revelation on my commute home through the London underground...

Apologies to the blog-owner for going off-topic for this posting too.


"Britain though, is the past master of imperial conquest (& subsequent debacle) so who better to show America, as a young country, how to have it's imperial phase?"

The man's arrogance is unbelievable.



You have avoided the simple questions :

1) What about the terrorists attacks in Mumbai, Beslan, Bali, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, etc. What does this have to do with US foreign policy? None of these countries are allies in the Iraq Coalition, none are Westerners, and some are other Muslims. Or are you unwilling to admit that Islamic extremism would exist even without US actions, because you excuse their behavior?

2) The Bali nightclub was in 2002, BEFORE the Iraq War. How can this be due to the Iraq War? Yet, it seems you approve of killing innocent Australians. Is this just because Australia is even more right-wing than the US?

3) Do you also disapprove of the War in Afghanistan in 2001? Is this also 'US imperialism'?

4) In Iraq, the US has created a fragile democracy, where two elections were held, all for just 2100 US troops lost to hostile fire. By contrast, the US lost 300,000 troops in WW2 to save Britain, 50,000 in Korea, and 50,000 in VietNam. Plus, it has helped prevent any new attacks against the US in 5 years. Normal people call that a success. The only people who think it is not a success are those who desperately oppose democracy in general, or who are blindly anti-American and will support any opponent of the US, even if that opponent also wants to kill innocent Brits.

5) Anti-American socialists never have any solutions of their own. What is your solution for dealing with Iran (on which America, Britain, and France are on the same page, BTW)? No solution, eh?

6) Does Israel have a right to exist, despite being a democratic society where women have the same rights as men?

7) You admit that the middle class and rich in America voted for Bush, and only the poor voted for Kerry. Yet, you still think Bush voters are 'dumb'? So high income people are dumber than low-income people? Only a socialist would could believe both these things at once.

8) 17 of the top 20 universities are in the US - as per the Economist, a left-wing British magazine. Britain has just one or two - there really is no comparison. It is true the US imports talent - the US can attract these people while the UK, with more racism and less opportunity, cannot.

Thus, the US attracts scientists and engineers, while the UK attracts radicals that would happily kill innocent Brits (including you, despite your sympathy for them). The future looks grim for Britain, it pains me to say.

All wealth-creating technology corporations are in the US, as per my previous list. Not one is in Britain, so there really is no comparison (although many smart Brits wisely leave to come to the US and work at those companies).


Oh joy. Yet another anti-American European parroting his favorite talking-points (yawn). Interesting to see a Londoner, for a change though, its usually Germans and French that I deal with.

The sad thing is, Europe and America could empower each other so much against radical islamists in crazy wartime we're living in.

It really does pain me to see the world's two closest continental "cousins" unable to harness each other's ideological SIMILARITIES (yes, similarities) for maximized impact against the greater evil we're fighting.


Also, Fawkeasy, a side-point in your post but I must respond.

America doesn't "BUY whatever manpower it needs to stay ahead", it "ATTRACTS people which is what inherently makes it stay ahead."

I can't decide which is more amazing - the uniqueness of the American fabric that has internalized immigration AND assimilation in a way NO other country has been able to replicate, or, how hard this concept is for so many (particularly Europeans) to grasp.

I can't tell you how many times my European friends introduce me as being 'from India' rather than being American (I am 2nd generation Indian-American). They just don't get it.


Last things first, thanks Kosha, I agree, the US does attract & keep people, probably
because it can afford to provide the best rewards.
I also agree about the success of the US immigration and assimilation model; France was
in flames last year & Britain has problems with it's multi-cultural model, both could
learn (& the UK tries with recent citizenship initiatives) from the US, so I like to
think I do get it.

GK, does my anti-Americanism include praise for many parts of the US model, or is that
label applied to anyone who doesn't agree with your POLITICS: just one part of the
whole? I thought democracy was all about constructive criticism? Yesterday, the leader
of the opposition party here, criticised the government's terrorist policies. Is he, an
establishment figure of a traditional right-wing party, anti-Great Britain?
It's grey areas like these that you seem to struggle with, is it simply a black and
white struggle between good (you) & evil (everyone else)?

Most of the world's best universities may be in the US for the reasons I stated above &
yesterday, although your beloved set of rankings apparently has a 'bias' to the natural
sciences, whereas my original, somewhat ironic, comment was a generalisation about
history from a US perspective.

Onward, with your cunning rhetorical device of 'simple questions' employed, thanks for
breaking these down to bullets, but they are not simple questions. They warrant
detailed analysis & thoughtful assessment, nevertheless, as brief as possible due to
time & space:

1) Mumbai & Beslan are regional, separatist conflicts, for Kashmir & Chechnya
respectively, & just because the protagonists are Muslims I wouldn't lump together with
your war against Islamic extremism. People throughout the ages have fought for
self-determination & 'freedom', especially against overbearing imperial powers, as you
should well know, being American.
"[Would] Islamic extremism...exist even without US actions"? Many people dispute that
it would, attributing it's rise from the Mujahideen who fought against the USSR in
Afghanistan with US help. Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, why there when it's arguably
the Muslim country most closely tied to the US?

2) Australia is more right wing? The Bali bombers attacked Westerners & Western values
(read US). I merely corrected your earlier point that Australia weren't allies in Iraq:
they were.

3) Did I disapprove of taking revenge on the Taliban for 9/11? Did anyone? I am no
Do you agree with letting Bin Laden escape, so he can mock America from a cave, in
order to fight a war in Iraq where there were no WMD (as the UN team reported
before the invasion) & no link to 9/11? Do you agree that there are similarities with
the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s?
Imperialism? Maybe; check out Zbigniew Brzezinski.

4) See point 3. There was no terrorist or weapons threat from Iraq to the West. 10
years of sanctions after the first gulf war were successful, just as the politicians
told us they were. Were they lying then or were they lying in 2003?
Was that 'phoney war' worth 3000 lives?
Are US general who are concerned at the looming civil war in Iraq anti-American?
(The Battle of Britain in which Britain defeated the Nazi invasion was summer 1940.
America 'saved' us a year later, 1941, two years after Britain declared war on the
Nazis [1939], & only after Pearl Harbour, which Britain explicitly warned the US about.)

5) America is only on-board with the EU regarding Iran as it knows military action
would result in more chaos, as with Iraq & Afghanistan. I believe in continued
dimplomacy & incentives for Iran to not develop nuclear weapons: the current EU & US
position. There is a lot of oil there though.

6) Yes.

7) I did not say "only the poor voted for Kerry"; please don't put words into my mouth
to back-up your own weak rhetorical arguments.

A couple of questions for you:
a) If the Irish Republican Army or a splinter group bombed the UK or British interests
in Northern Ireland would you advocate UK planes bombing the border regions of Ireland?
b) Was NATO wrong in 1999 to help the Muslim Kosovans against the Serbs when they
wanted an independent Kosovo?
c) Were Zionists in British-administered Palestine wrong to bomb the King David Hotel,
killing 91 people, in 1946 to try to establish Israel?

Finally, wealth-creating companies are #1 in the US. How does a company create wealth?
By controlling limited or dwindling resources - supply & demand - like: oil.


One thing I have yet to figure out. How does this differ from how right wing Republicans are trying to unseat Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) even though defeating Chafee in the primary would insure a Democrat would take the Senate seat?

Seems to me that ideological purity on the right is just as rabid as it is on the left.



Not at all. There are huge differences.

1) Chafee was not elected to his seat, he ascended upon the death of his father. He never went through a GOP primary as a new entrant.
2) Lieberman is different from other Democrats only by his continued support for the Iraq War. He is with them on all other issues. On the other hand, Chafee has voted against the GOP every time. He is the ONLY GOP Senator to vote against the Iraq War in the 77-23 vote, the only GOP Senator to vote against Alito and Roberts (who also got 20+ Democrat votes), and he even openly stated he didn't vote for Bush in 2004. He is ideologically out of bounds on ALL issues, not just one.
3) Republicans are not suggesting the ouster of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, etc. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani are also comfortably in the GOP.
4) Lieberman was the VP candidate for gods sake. Now they don't even want him as a Senator.

So in short, Chafee is about as far from the GOP as Zell Miller would be for the Democrats. Lieberman is only as far from the Democrats as McCain or Giuliani would be for the Republicans. Yet the GOP is even willing to nominate them as President, not oust them from the party altogether.

If you look at ADA ratings, they further prove that Chafee is much further from the GOP median than Lieberman is for Democrats.

The GOP has no one make-or-break issue, while the Democrats have proven that Iraq War/BDS trumps everything else. Hillary is between Iraq and a fifth-column place.



1) So you classify all terror acts as either justifiable reactions to the Iraq War (London, Madrid, etc.), or regional separatist movements (India, Russia), or attacks against Westerners (Bali). You conveniently omitted attacks that kill other Muslims (Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt). You also are avoiding the 1983 Beirut bombings, 1993 WTC attacks, the USS Cole Attacks, and the Kenya/Tanzania attacks, which all were before George W. Bush was President. Yet you insist none of this is a pattern that has to do with a radical strain of Islam, despite the fact that all of them say the same things of killing Infidels?

Why do you think you would be spared from a subway or airport bombing in Britain?

2) You say attacks against Australians are justifiable even if it was in 2002, before the Iraq War, just because of US policy? Yes or no?

3) Only a lunatic of moral equivalence would equate the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where Russia killed 1 million Afghans, with the US Invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, in response to unprovoked terrorism. Are you so anti-American that you won't even give credit to the US to freeing women from the Taliban rule they were oppressed under? Russia made no effort to help Afghan women.

4) 10 years of sanctions against Iraq led to the death of 500,000 children and the UN oil for food scandal, neither of which you apparently disapprove of. Do the lives of Iraqi civilians mean so little to you, as long as your precious UN and criminal George Galloway is stealing money?

And why did Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladimir Putin all say Iraq had WMDs? Why did Clinton attack Saddam in 1998, specifically to destroy his WMD program?

It appears your lack of knowledge about history is leaving you inequipped in this debate.

5) So no attack against any country is allowed ever, as long as the US is doing it? Do you think the world is safe if Iran has nuclear weapons? Or does Iran have the same right to nuclear weapons that Britain has?

6) So if Iran openly declares that it wants to destroy Israel, is Israel justified in attacking Iran?

7) You admitted that the rich voted for Bush. The middle class also voted for Bush (see that link). Therefore, by your own logic, and the official data, the poor voted for Kerry.

So if you think Bush supporters are 'dumb', how can they also be rich at the same time? What is your logic here?

8) The companies I mention, Google, eBay, Microsoft, Yahoo, Intel, Cisco, etc. are all KNOWLEDGE BASED companies. They have nothing to do with oil, by the way, so stop trying to use your memorized anti-American talking points suited only for those incapable of thinking.

They are proof that the greatest concentration of knowledge exists in the US. Certainly not in Britain, which has created not even one such company, against dozens in the US.

9) You said te US can 'afford to pay them'. You still can't admit that qualified immigrants actually EARN money in America, as that would concede that the concept of 'earning' something exists, and that socialism is a failure. Is socialism preferable to a free-market system?

Your questions :
a) Yes, if that would actually disarm the Irish terrorists. I note that the IRA has actually agreed to disarm.
b) Thanks for pointing out something the US does to help oppressed victims, while Europe did nothing against atrocities in their own continent.
c) That was in the context of war, just months after the Nazi holocaust ended. Do you condone the 1972 massacre of Israeli atheletes in Munich? Or does that still have nothing to do with Islam?

If you are so deeply anti-American, why not just admit it? A strongly held belief is one you should be openly proud of, no?


Sure I'll admit to being anti-American if you admit to being a war-mongering, Islamophobic bigot, & despite the fact that I've written here that I admire many aspects of the American system.

1) I haven't actually justified any terrorist attacks (unlike you do later on) but are you denying that 'India' & 'Russia' aren't self-contained separatist struggles? Or do you think they are part of some global, evil masterplan by Muslims to terrorise the rest of the world?
I've stated the Iraq War has given the radicals (that you don't deny that the US were involved in creating) further motivations as well as a vast training ground. If however Bush hadn't taken his eye off the ball by attacking Iraq but had instead destroyed the radicals his country helped create (as you agree), including Bin Laden, then it could have been snuffed out there & then.
1983, Beruit: who did that? If it was Iranian-backed then that wouldn't have had anything to do with the Iranian antipathy created by the US's support of the murderous Shah regime would it?
Yes the other attacks were before 'Dubya' but all against America, & I don't deny that there is a radical (I've called it medieval) Islamic movement.

Essentially you want to link all the attacks your fevered Fox News-fed imagination can regurgitate to a global conspiracy by Iran/Arabs/Muslims to crush America & to destroy it's values, like the Communists tried to? Yes or No? I find it interesting that you have that view whereas I am much more even-handed, yet I'm at much greater risk every morning in the underground, than you in the US. However I won't be frightened by you or the terrorists into curtailing my freedoms for an ideology; Islamic or Neocon.

2) Again, I don't justify any attacks, but repeat that the Iraq War has fanned the flames of the 'radical Islamic strain'. And you haven't denied that this radical strain's genesis was helped by the US in Afghanistan, so how can US foreign policy not be at least partially to blame?

3) Are you seriously suggesting that the US invaded Afghanistan & killed ~3000 civilians to help oppressed women as much as to avenge 9/11? It helped them by bombing them did it? There are similarities between a superpower fighting Mujahideen (which it helped in the 80s) if not casualties.

4) Who instigated the sanctions? Your very own George Bush senior because he would not back the uprising of Iraqi civilians after the first gulf war. Tony Blair, not me, wholeheartedly backed the sanctions & the Saddam 'containment policy' which he defended as being successful at the time. So again, was he lying then or in 2003?
George Galloway - agreed; with attributes like that he should be alongside Rumsfeld.

In 1998 Clinton bombed due lack of cooperation with UNSCOM & lack of evidence that it had disarmed rather than any eveidence that it had WMDs. Iraq did a good job at destroying it's arsenals in the 5 years to 2003 if that's not the case.

5) How do you go from my comment of favouring the current diplomatic efforts which the US agrees with to 'no attack...is allowed ever, as long as the US is doing it'? I favour the current efforts to stop Iran developing weapons indicating that I do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Maybe it has a right to have them. Who decides if it does? The US? Who gave the US (& Britain) it's right to nuclear weapons?

6) Do I support bombing a country & killing civilians on the basis of empty threats, no. The actions described in (5) which I support, should ensure they will always be empty threats.

7) So no rich folk voted for Kerry? Are rich folks' votes worth more? And you have to be clever to be rich? Bush supporters are dumb for the myriad reasons you've laid out here, it has nothing to do with their IQ or their bank balance! You must be 'dumb' if you cannot see that, maybe you should go back to one of the world's best universities you say you have so many of over there.

8) Does the old saying 'knowledge is power' mean anything to you? What is knowledge if it isn't a resource like any other, like oil? The infrastruture & experts that contribute to it can all be controlled. Do you know what ICANN is, I'm sure you do, & that you're also aware of the recent struggles to get it away from US control?
And again why WOULDN'T the US have many more of these companies than the UK? It is world's largest economy after all. It would be a funny sort of superpower if it didn't have the world's strongest companies within the capitalist system it has build.
How did the US become the superpower? Was Britain the superpower of the 17th & 18th centuries because everyone likes tea & our funny accents, or was it because we had the world's best navy & a ruthless intent to build & exploit an empire?
Why are you so uncomfortable with the concept of the US as an imperial power, is it anti-American to say it is? Do you deny that it is?

9) How else does anyone (immigrant or not) get paid if they don't EARN their money?! Don't people earn their money under a more socialist system? Bizarre. Do you think that it's right to discard & exclude those less fortunate than you, denying them healthcare & education because they can't afford it?
Communism is a failed ideology just like radical Islamism & Neoconservatism will be.

a) Hurrah! You do note that they agreed to disarm. Why? Was it because the UK bombed Ireland? Or was it because of intense diplomatic efforts to find a compromise? Or was that appeasement?
b) The US under a democrat. The EU failed as a military organisation; not much of a shock there, between continental laissez faire & US disapproval of any European armed force. But the US did help Muslims, so would you be happy for the same thing to happen now, or would you say that they are part of the 'radicals' for wanting independence?
c) So you DO condone a terrorist attack as long as the context is palatable? I abhor all such attacks. Try to remember that if you reply. (Although it is your blog so maybe I should 'butt out' & leave you to enjoy your right-wing opinion in peace - free speech & all that!)



1) I must repeat this again. You classify terrorist attacks in Beslan (children murdered) and Delhi as mere 'regional separatists'. You justify Bali, London, and Madrid as attacks against the West as 'US foreign policy'. You dodge questions on the attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey against other Muslims. You avoid the inconvenient reality of genocide by Arabs in Darfur. You also dodge the fact that the 1993 World Trade Center, USS Cole, and Kenya/Tanzania attacks were all before Bush was President. All of these attacks were done by Islamic radicals. Yet you claim that this has nothing to do with Islam.

At the same time, you claim that the US/UK toppling of Saddam is creating radical Islamic terrorists, despite the many, many attacks before that? (but none in the US after the invasion, I might add)

This is the most gaping chasm of logic I have ever seen in my life. Are you truly this illogical to not be able to see the contradiction in your spoonfed opinions?

This, despite the chance that Islamic terrorists would kill you. It is as though you have been programmed by nature to take actions to weed yourself out of the gene pool, acting as a disposal vehicle of sorts, by which nature can remove waste matter generated from the evolutionary process. This is unprecedented in nature; Fascinating.

2) What is with the anti-American obsession with Fox News? This is the creation of Rupert Murdoch, but your anti-Australian hatred is well-recorded here. Anyway, no one interested in balance would be offended by the existence of 1 right-wing channel amongst 7 left-wing channels. This is a basic trait of fascist leftists - shutting out any opposition even though they are unequipped to rebut it logically (as your loss in this debate demonstrates).

3) So you think the USSR deliberately killing 1 million Afghans in an attempt to annex territory is no worse than the US toppling the Taliban and giving women the right to vote and educate themselves? Your hatred of Bush is such a fanatical religion that you can't even give him credit for improving the condition of women in Afghanistan. This is the typical moral idiocy of the left. Your false support of women's and minority rights is a phony fascade, nothing more.

4) Clinton's bombing of Saddam was specifically to disarm him of WMDs. Of course, you have already demonstrated a very weak knowledge of history. So why do you support Clinton, but oppose Bush for the same thing?

And by the way, why are Britain, France, and Germany not doing anything about Darfur? Where is their humanitarian obligation? Or are they 'above' such difficult work?

5) You claim the 'lack of WMDs' is the reason you oppose the war in Iraq, but Iran openly says it is pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet you still don't think military action is justifiable against Iran. Not only does this prove you to he a hypocrite, but reveals your logic and 'oppose America no matter what' worldview.

6) You claim Saddam obediently dismantled his WMD program (despite Clinton, Blair, and Putin all thinking he had WMDs). Yet you think Bush 'lied' about WMDs. You actually think Saddam was telling the absolute truth and is not the type of person who would lie - that noble, wonderful Saddam would NEVER *gasp* lie. But Bush - he WOULD lie.

7) You concede that the middle class and rich voted predominantly for Bush. Yet, you insist Bush voters are 'dumb'. This suggest you think most of the rich are dumb. The only people who could actually hold this belief are those who carry a deep inner shame, due to not being able to succeed in a meritocracy like America. This is the classic socialist's excuse for his own failure.

The biggest event of the last 15 years is the stunning defeat of socialism.

8) At least you admit that America has created almost all the great knowledge-based businesses of the modern era, due to a higher concentration of knowledge. Britain's economy is about 1/6th the size of the US, but Britain has not created 1/6th as many high-tech companies as the US. It has not even created 1/100th.

The depth of knowledge and education in the US is so far ahead of Britain that there really is no comparison.

9) Communism and radical Islam are failed ideologies. American values are a huge success, as the gap between America and the EU continues to widen. I understand that this is a cause of envy, but the US will still be the only superpower by 2030.

10) Britain was a superpower for the same reason the US is, and Australia would be if it had a larger population. The Anglo-Saxon Protestant value system is Britain's greatest gift to the world, and the only reason the world evolved past the 16th century. That the Protestant value system is superior to all others in the world today is something I fully agree with you about.

No superpower has even trod so gently on or exhibited so much compassion towards the rest of the world as the USA. Fanatical anti-Americanism is the byproduct of personal shame, failure, and insecurity.


GK: Stop beating up on Fawkesey! The poor guy can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth then proceeded to swallow it. His posts have been the most revealing and hilarious examples of leftist idiocy I've seen in ages. What is scary, however is the thought that his kind might be prevelant in England. If so, that country has had it.


Rob, this country has them too.

Fawkeasy - things get lost in these super-long posts. I'm not blaming you for this, as this is how debate normally coils, as each long post demands a long replay, as we can see from both you and GK.

As a 3rd party reader, however, let me summarize the salient points from your posts that jump out to me. Pls let me know if I am off-base or missed out on something else big you were trying to convey:

1) You think America, today, is an "Imperialist Power" much like Britain was in the colonial era.

Q to you: What countries, pray tell, have we colonized, occupied, annexed or conquered since our existance (despite being the most powerful nation in the world)? And please, for the love of god, before you scream "Iraq!" look up the meanings of the 4 words I just used above.

2) You concede that "certain aspects of" the American model are praise-worthy, but I do not know which ones, exactly.

It sounds like it is our ability to attract and assmilate people from all around the world like no other country, that you admire. Its just that your characterizations like "American can afford to 'buy manpower' to stay ahead" end up contradicting any praise you say you have for that aspect of our model.

3) Other than that, you, like many of your European friends think Americans are 'dumb', ignorant about history. And even in the off-chance you were being 100% facetious, you strangely chose that as your opening post on this thread.

4) You think the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in '03 is no different than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan previously. You also think that we attacked Afghanistan to "avenge" 9/11.

4) You think the Kashmir and Chechnya conflicts are unrelated, separatist conflicts and have nothing to do with radical Islam.

The immediate cause for which these people are fighting may be about regional conflict (e.g. who has the right to Kashmir) but are you aware of the methods employed by the Islamic extremist part of these conflicts? Suicide bombings and other staple terrorist activities abound there, btw.

So why are you excusing these conflicts as something different? You are trying to marginalize the grim reality of a sweeping global radical islamic movement, calling those who see it "phobic."

I think if would be helpful if you explained to us your definition of Terrorism, and why the Islamic extremists fighting for Kashmir are any diff from Al Qaida, for instance, when both brands conduct suicide bombings, unprovoked killings of innocent civilians, and offensive tactics out of uniform??

I think your problem is you're looking at the face value of the conflict (fighting for territory vs. bringing down the WTC), while ignoring the clear ideological measures that underscore each case.

These leads nicely into the 5th and final point you seem to have made:

5) You really don't grasp the threat of Islamic Extremism. You think "talking" and "diplomacy" are as effective in dealing with Terrorist/rogue regimes as military action. And if someone MUST engage in some form of military action, sending a remote-fire missile is preferable to ground-combat.

This is why you think "talks" with Iran are better than Clinton's missile fire, which is better than Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I would ask you what your prediction is of what is going to happen with Iran? i.e. Do you truly think the "talks" are going to magically cause the nut to disarm? But then, I know what you'll say as you already said it in a later post - if Iran doesn't disarm, is that so bad? Who are we (US and Britain) to decide who gets to own arms or not?

So essentially, you're applying moral equivalency to every country in the world. Modern, democratic, secular societies like the US or Britain have the same rights to own nuclear arms as Iran.

Is this what you believe?
What do you think would happen to the PLANET (the PLANET, not the world - notice the difference) if everyone country were granted such moral equivalence you think they should?

* * *

Perhaps this will help shed some light to you on how you've come across, and hence been received here on this blog.

Stay safe.


UK is becoming a haven for terrorists of the muslim variety. Muslim terrorists are great for exposing appeasers, such as the socialists in UK. Western civilization has many faults but compared to the muslim systems of government, western civilization is wonderful. The fact that the UK welcomes stone-aged terrorists to procreate wildly in their country suggests that the leadership of the UK has sold out the average citizen.


Well GK you just spout more rhetoric or 'simple questions' for every point I address whilst completely ignoring mine. You come up with no solutions other than more militarism.

1) Where have a I dodged questions? I've answered your bulleted ravings whilst highlighting the current medievalist radical strain of Islam. This sprung up from the Mujahideen, aided by the US. It's ideology attacked more secular Islamic countries (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey) where they hoped to foment a Sharia revolution. It failed. The radicals also attacked the West (1993 World Trade Center, USS Cole, and Kenya/Tanzania [US embassies]). Is this explicit enough for you?
You show a pitiful lack of understanding of the roots & motivations of this movement.

I've criticised Bush (& Blair) for helping the radical cause, I don't say they CAUSED it, with an unconnected war in Iraq. Before the war there, there were no terrorists, now there are. All reports from Iraq state that it's undoubtedly proved a massive recruiting exercise for the radical Islamic ideology where none existed previously.
You completely fail to address this point.

You again dodge this assertion by raving about Darfur & Arab 'genocide'. Is this to highlight your bigotry to Arabs & your Islamophobia (although the 'rebel' groups in that region are also Islamic)?

2) I mention Fox News as an aside & you pounce on it as my obssession?! You really are clutching straws. You use this nonsense as a tangent to completely avoid my previous rational response that the radical strain, helped in it's genesis by the US, attacked Westerners around the world.

3) Again you say the Taliban were toppled to free Afghan women? Would the US have done that if 9/11 hadn't happened? In fact Bush appears to have bankrolled the Taliban.
The USSR invaded to prop-up the Marxist government in Afghanistan, you could say much like the US invaded Vietnam to prop up the nationalist government there.

4) I oppose Bush's war in Iraq as it was unrelated to 9/11 & we were lied about that it was; that it was an attack on a sovereign country; that it was an attack with the benefit of freeing up the vast oil reserves there. Do you think the attack was to combat the non-existent terrorists there? Or do you think maybe that it was to free the oppressed women & children of Iraq (by bombing them)? Is the oil there being exported to the US or not?

After 1998 Putin advocated lifting the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM (the chief weapons inspector of UNSCOM, Scott Ritter, stated that Iraq had lost 90-95% of it's WMD & what was left wasn't a threat) so obviously Putin wasn't worried.

5) Iraq didn't have WMD in 2003, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons now, so I oppose(d) attacks in both cases. Where is the hypocrisy there? Do you think the rhetoric of a Iranian presidential nutjob will speed up the 10 year process most people say that it will take to get nuclear weapons, whilst the rest of Iran's economy crumbles?

You again raise Darfur to obfuscate your previous 'simple question', which I answered.
Do you advocate attacking Iran now, & killing civilians, for daring to challenge US & Isaeli hegemony? Or maybe, again, you think women are too oppressed there?

6) As with point 4), the UNMOVIC team followed UNSCOM's reports by saying that they could find no weapons. Saddam's bluff had been exposed by the diplomatic measures on the ground, yet we were told of a fanciful, imminent 45 minute WMD threat (amongst many other things).

7) Once again (sigh), I think people who vote Bush are dumb because of their politics; they espouse half-baked, militaristic views like yours. Whether they are rich or not is moot & your psuedo-psychological reasoning of a "socialist's excuse" is completely laughable, especially when you narcissistically link to another opionion piece as though it's objective proof!

8) No, I say that America has a great many knowledge-based businesses due to a higher concentration of WEALTH & RESOURCES (one follows the other). I have stated this explicitly & for which you have no answer.
Britain has about one fifth the population (resources) of the US & consequently one sixth the GDP (wealth). Are you surprised by that? Any British companies competing are soon bought out by more powerful & richer American companies. This is how a capitalism system works, so why the denial?

9) American values ARE a huge success; it's the values & freedoms that people do admire & generally hope to find their own path towards a similar system. It's a pity that it's accompanied by such reactionary, militaristic bullying that you so neatly exemplify here with the provided links to more opinion pieces.

Points a, b, c you unsurprisingly completely ignore as they neatly highlight your abject ignorance of anything outside an Ameri-centric view of history (my very first point) & the hypocrisy of your reactionary stance.

And who said Americans don't do irony? You unbelievably say none "has trod so gently on or exhibited so much compassion towards the rest of the world as the USA". Symptomatic of your arrogance & ignorance. I doubt the peoples of (deep breath) the native American tribes, Mexico, Phillipines, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan & others would see it that way.

You really must try harder, & read wider, rather than continuing to proclaim a hollow victory like your hero W. Bush (such a fine example of US meritocracy) did on that aircraft carrier after the Iraq Invasion, whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

702 military bases in 132 different countries



Before I demolish you again by pointing out your gaping contradictions, moral idiocy, and jealousy, I would like you see you reply to Kosha's points. I will not have you just dodge her whole post.

Your one-line reply of '702 military bases in 132 countries' alone reveals your ignorance. Many countries WANT US bases there, because they not only bring in a lot of investment and economic growth, they are also an insurance policy against foreign aggression.

Do you really think the 50,000 US troops in Japan are there against Japan's wishes? How about the US troops in Germany? South Korea? Are those troops being asked to leave?

So reply to Kosha in more detail, lest we think you have no answer.



OK, let me summarize your illogical anti-Americanism and moral idiocy.

1) As Kosha pointed out, you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp Islamic extremism. First you said that all the terrorist attacks are the result of the Bush/Blair action in Iraq. When attacks before this are presented (1993 WTC, Kenya/Tanzania, Munich 1972, USS Cole), you then concede that they 'hate the West'. When terrorism against India and Russia is mentioned, you clumsily try to dismiss them as justifiable regional separatist movements. When terrorism against other Muslim countries is mentioned, you claim that 'this stared with the US creation of the Mujahideen' (even though that was after Munich 1972, the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, or the 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut).

Yet, you are ignorant and phony enough to say none of the blame goes to Islamic extremists. This, despite the honesty of the terrorists in stating they want to kill all who do not submit to Allah. They are clear, yet you expect us to believe that they don't mean what they say.

Once again, I present these simple questions to you, that you continue to dodge in a shameful display of cowardice :

Why are you defending an ideology that could easily kill you, as the 7/7/05 subway attacks and the recent plane plot have shown?

Who is more likely to kill you by bombing the tube, a Muslim, an Israeli, or an American?

It is as though you have been programmed by nature to take actions to weed yourself out of the gene pool, acting as a disposal vehicle of sorts, by which nature can remove waste matter generated from the evolutionary process. This is unprecedented in nature. There can be no other explanation for such stubbornly suicidal beliefs. Fascinating.

2) You claim Iraq had no ties to terrorism. Of course, there was an anthrax mail scare in the US in 2001, and Saddam wasw known to have used Anthrax. Of course, Saddam was paying $25k to families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which you support as an anti-Israeli bigot).

You also claim Saddam is not a bad enough person to actually 'lie' about his intentions (despite expelling inspectors). Bush - he lied, but Saddam would never stoop to such lows, according to you.

3) A hatred of Fox News is evidence of intolerance and fascism. No one interested in balance would be offended by the existence of 1 right-wing channel among 7 left-wing channels. You have been exposed.

4) You oppose the Iraq War as it is 'unrelated to 9/11', but you also oppose the War in Afghanistan too, which was directly in response to 9/11 (since Afghanistan is a 'sovereign nation', after all). Furthermore, you earlier said 9/11 was in response to US Imperialism.

Are you really this stupid to not see the contradicions? Are you really this cowardly to not admit that you excuse any and all terrorism against the US (but actually, against anyone for that matter, as we have seen in 1)).

5) er.. Iran actually SAYS they are pursuing nuclear weapons and want to blast Israel off the map. Of course, you suggest that he doesn't mean it, even though he is clear and open about his intentions.

And hence, you think 'diplomacy' is the solution. Even Chirac does not think that. Then again, you believe Iran having nuclear weapons is no more dangerous than the US, Britain, France, or India having them, so it is clear which side you are on.

6) Clinton attacked Saddam in 1998 specifically to destroy his WMD program. Clinton, to this day, says the toppling of Saddam was justifiable for this reason. So do Tony Blair and John Kerry. Your knowledge of history is weak, and avoiding facts because you love Saddam and hate democracy means losing this debate (yet again).

7) Israeli hegemony over Iran? You actually think little Israel has hegemony over a country 15 times it's size?

Of course, you will never admit that it is not Israelis that bomb the London Tube, hijack planes, behead innocents on videotape, or resort to suicide bombing. To admit this requires common sense, which in turn precludes leftism and anti-Americanism.

Your anti-Jewish bigotry combined with your hatred of democracy make you dangerously Hitlerian.

8) So people who make more money vote for Bush (including the middle class). Why do they make more money? Because they have intelligence, a work ethic, determination, and ingenuity. Yet, you call these same people 'dumb'.

This explains your hatred for capitalism, and your fear of how poorly you would do in a meritocracy.

9) An absence of facts again. Name one British high-tech company that has been bought out by US companies like Google, Yahoo, Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, eBay, etc.

10) You can't have one without the other. American values have survived because Americans have the courage to defend them. Europe does not have the same. America defeated Hitler (saving Britain and France), and then defeated Communism (saving your cowardly hyde again). American value systems and economic systems exist because America fights off threats to them. Once again, America will fight of the latest threat (Islamic Fascism), saving the European lotus-eaters.

11) Given your sympathy for oppressed Muslims and all, are you willing to live under Sharia law? It looks like you soon will have to. Answer yes or no.

12) Aha! More proof that you are always opposed to democracy and in favor of Communism, dictatorships, or theocracies. In the below conflicts and ongoing disputes, which side are you on in each case?

Allies vs. Axis, WW2
US, Britain vs. North Korea, China (Korean War)
US and South VietNam vs. North Vietnam
US, NATO vs. USSR (Cold War)
Israel vs. Arabs (1967).
Israel vs. Palestinian suicide bombers.
Israel vs. Hizbollah (2006).
Taiwan vs. China
US, allies vs. Taliban in Afghanistan (2001).
US, allies vs. Saddam (1991)
US, allies vs. Saddam (2003)
India vs. Pakistan.
US, Britain, France, Israel vs. Iran (2006).

Tell us which side you support, in each case.


Interesting debate. I tend towards the middle. Both Gk and Fawkesey have good points. I see Fawkesey as being more honest and reasonable in the debate, whereas GK seems to thrive on distorting his opponents views and picking out the worst possible interpretation of his points.

What I disagree with Fawkesy about is the notion of the US as an imperiaist nation in the old British model. This shows a lack of understanding of history, The British did, indeed, built their wealth and power from imperialist exploits. THe UK is a small country without much natural resources - it had no other way to builld wealth. The US, on the other hand is a large country rich in natural resources. The US built its wealth domestically, through protectionist economic policies rather than imperialist ones. It only entered the imperialist game reluctantly, and half-heartedly, with a few minor involvements in the Phillipines, Cuba, and central america - none of which paid off economically in any serious way. America's wealth has been built almost entirely from within, through its greatest resource - its highly industrious and creative people, largely immigrants from around the world fleeing more oppressive governments.

It was only after WWII, which was won by America's amazing domestic industrial strength - lend lease saved Britain long before we actually entered the war - that the US became something of an imperial power. But even then, the source of US wealth was always domestic, not international. Even up till recently, 95% of the US economy was the result of domestic production, not international trade. Yes, we had imperial motivations in Vietnam and elsewhere, but we failed to capitalize on them. We have a far flung military, but unlike the British Empire, it does not secure any occupied colonies, but only ensures a free flow of trade, and prevents the development of outside threats to the US and our allies around the world, of whom we have a great many.

That said, Fawkesey is right that our war in Iraq has been a growing disaster that has hurt us rather than helped us. Even if there were imperial motivations having to do with oil, the effect of the war has been the opposite of what would have been intended. It has indeed made the war on terror harder to fight, not easier, it has led to huge recruitments within the Islamic world, rather than less. The cause of terrorists has been enhanced by the Iraq war, when of course the only purpose of any such endeavor should have been to reduce the risk of terrorism. Bush's foreign policy is an abject failure than any sane person ought to be able to recognize.

Regarding Lieberman's loss - the origin of this thread - I think the idea that the democratic party is lurching to the far left is absurd. There are many other democratic senators who supported the war, and none of them are facing any problems getting through democratic primaries. Lieberman's problem isn't a widespread national purge of democrats who supported the war, it's a very narrow purge of one man, Lieberman, whose arrogance and nearly romantic relationship with Bush has led to his downfall. The man simply destroyed himself within his own party, and needlessly I might add. Still, it doesn't mean he's done for. I bet a fair number of democrats will vote for him in the fall, feeling that he got the spanking he deserved, if he shows the signs of having gotten the message. He tried at the end of his campaign to make clear his differences on Iraq, but it was too little too late. He may have sense enough to put more distance between himself and Bush by November, as most republicans are already doing. This is becoming a very unpopular war over here, and voters tend to punish those who don't recognize and respond to their sentiments. If we had a parliamentary government, Bush would be out of power already, and the Democrats would be sweeping in. Those are the consequences of failure. It's not a sign of some hard-left surge in either the Democrats or the country as a whole. That's more a right-wing fantasy and spin-doctoring. Lamont isn't even a left-wing candidate. He's simply an anti-war candidate. In every other respect he's a basic middle of the road democrat. He's not a socialist, but a high-tech entrepreneur who's made hundreds of millions of dollars the old-fashioned American capitalist way. Labelling him as some kind of socialist icon is just laughable.


GK -

While watching you demolish the opposition is always a joy, I think in this case the larger point of Fawkeasy's argument is getting lost in this ping-pong debate.

I think Fawkeasy's main point is that the Radical Islamic-based terrorism IS bad - or 'medieval' as he says - (though he doesn't think its as globally expansive as it is), but I think what he's trying to say is that the US invasion of Iraq has only COMPOUNDED what has already existed.

I've seen a lot of people make this argument (not saying its Fawkeasy's, as he hasn't yet articulated it in this way) - it is an idelogical debate of which is a better STRATEGY for defeating radical Islam - pre-emptively installing a democracy in the middle-east hoping it will ripple-effect through the region, whereas others argue that you cannot "install democracy" as a country has to have a certain economic base to be ready for it to work.

I believe in the former - I think the intrinsic human desire to be free, and to have a fair, meritocratic chance at life, supercede everything else and hence a democracy will ultimately prevail in any country which has a chance to have it, regardless of the existing culture/economic base.

A lot of people, however, do not believe in this.

Finally, he does seem to 'support' the US toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but he thinks it was for the superficial reason of "avenging 9/11" rather than, again, toppling terrorists and the regimes that support them for the larger ongoing ideological battle between freedom/democracy and Islamic Extremism, yes, triggered (finally, by 9/11 since the previous American president (Clinton) was unfortunately too complacent about this brewing mess.

Other than that, I think you demolished the rest of his silly comments brilliantly.

As a side-note, with his 'Americans are dumb' comment, he seems to believe that they are dumb politically, while smart economically which is why they are rich.

He seems to think that a person's ability to "think and analyze" (also known as intelligence) is compartmentalized and therefore mutually exclusive between different spheres. i.e. it is possible to be "smart" in life but "dumb" in politics. Hilarious.

And Fawkeasy - you made another snide comment about Bush's election being a mockery of American meritocracy. Don't tell me you're one of those people that believes he only made it because his father was prez before? I hope thats not what you meant because that's one of the more ridiculous arguments Bush-opposers make.



Note that 'Fawkeasy' doesn't believe Islamic extremism exists, except to the extent it can be blamed on America. He keeps accusing others of 'Islamophobia', while at the same time insisting a number of inconsistent things, such as 'the Iraq War is the reason for all recent terror attacks', to 'Islamic extremism started because the US created the Mujahideen' (despite the fact that Munich 1972, Beirut 1983, Iran 1979, etc. all happened before that), to terror attacks against India and Russia 'are justifiable regional separatist movements against oppression'.

He even goes so far as the claim that if terrorists kill him in a London attack, it is indirectly America's fault for creating these extremists, rather than the fault of those actually killing him despite his sympathy for them.

At the same time, he is very anti-Israel, and in any conflict between a democracy and a dictatorship, communist, or theocracy, he seems to support the latter in almost every case.


Yeah, I know... he's definitely displayed a lot of inconsistency, and also completely dodged my post.


GK the only thing you're demolishing with your hysterical & juvenile bullet points is your credibility as a rational person. Fortunately more objective readers like Conrad & Kosh can see & UNDERSTAND the issues I'm raising.

I'll summarise your points to get away from this ping-pong (thanks Kosh).

Like Communism, Islam is nothing but a worldwide terrorist network which conspires to destroy America & by extension the West. To achieve this goal, Muslims have attacked American & Western interests. Whether Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris, their motives are the same: to bring down America & democracy & to enslave everyone under Sharia Law. All Muslims are terrorists & they are happy to behead people, kill children & blow themselves up in order to bring about their masterplan of the destruction of the West. American & the West are completely blameless & innocent victims.

The ONLY way to combat this is by using the American & Western military to engage in armed combat around the world. Any attempt to understand the reasons behind any of the attacks, or to consider that they might have different causes, so that further attacks can be prevented, is simply copying the Nazi-appeasement policies of the 1930s. It follows therefore that anyone who advocates not entirely relying on a military solution is an appeaser, a facist and a neo-Nazi. Specifically, anyone trying to understand how the Palestine-Israel conflict has a wider affect on the Muslim terrorists, means that person is also an anti-semite, Holocaust-denier who wants to see the extermination of the Jews.
Not enjoying the output of Fox News is also a sign that a person is a facist & probably an Islamic terrorist (or Communist), as they obviously despise America & the West.

As long as he relies on a military solution George W Bush can do no wrong. All Muslims are terrorists so the foreign policy decisions he makes cannot exacerbate the terrorist threat since the entire network must be eliminated.
Iraq is a Muslim country, hence populated by terrorists, the campaign there has been a success. It has been a success because the only way Muslims can continue to be allowed to worship their god is by choosing an American-imposed democratic, capitalist system that recognises the US as number 1. All other democracies in the Islamosphere are bogus & simply serve to 'elect' theocrats who are religious demagogues & terrorists.
Muslim women are freed under US democracy which is reason enough on it's own to fight the Islamic terrorists.

Saddam is (undoubtedly) a very bad man, a Muslim, & therefore a terrorist, who lied about his WMD capability to the West. The West knew no better about WMD than what Saddam said (or didn't say). He should probably have been removed after the first gulf war but was probably still too powerful then & the risk of a civil war from his 'power vacuum' too great. For unspecified reasons that no longer applies now.

Iran is a Muslim & therefore terrorist country. Their president says he would like to have nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map, despite the fact this would result in Iran's removal from the map. (Mutually) Assured Destruction theory does not apply in Iran's case as they are all Muslim terrorists, part of the aforementioned worldwide network of terrorists, who would gladly pay with their lives to defeat the West & to provide future Iranian presidents with the ultimate vote-winner.

Within the framework laid out above you are also happy to condone terrorist attacks as long as the context is palatable to you, & as long as these attacks don't harm US interests.

It must be remembered though that the US is completely benign in all it's dealings with the world (apart from those that oppose it - see above), which makes it unique in human cultural history. It's military bases around the world are there at the request of all the countries in which they reside. The fact that America is the sole remaining superpower in the world has nothing to do with it's military bases, it's just a happy, God-given coincidence. Although it is the superpower, other much less rich & much less populous countries should compete & outperform the US because competition in a capitalist system has nothing to do with capital.

A person's politics cannot be misguided (AKA dumb [SO obsessed with that word!]) if they are rich. The fact they are rich means they are clever & so their politics is beyond question. If a person is rich AND they voted Democrat then they are probably Fox News-hating, anti-Semites who love Muslim terrorists & who probably desire to live under Sharia Law.

Is this your position, yes or no?

GK, I prefer to summarise your arguments now since reading mine & coming to some sort of educated understanding of them, like Conrad & Kosh are easily able to do, seems completely beyond you. This despite the fact you number each one so that you can easily keep track of your hysteria. Maybe my English English is a bit too sly & subtle for you & we are "separated by a common language" but since you have a Shakespearean tagline for the blog, & Conrad & Kosh are able to comprehend the thrust of my arguments, it's puzzling. It's probably because, as Conrad says, you're just distorting my more honest views & are not sane enough to see the sense in them.

GK just as I don't have time to answer all of Kosh's comments in full (but hoped to cover them in my replies to you), for which I can only apologise to Kosh, you apparently don't have time to answer Conrad's rational & lucid comments. Conrad introduces a very interesting & intelligent point about the differences between the UK & US as well as a much more insightful perspective on Iraq from a US point of view. As with most of my arguments you also completely ignore Conrad's contribution.

Kosh, I do state quite plainly that I think Bush & Blair made the "War Against Terror" worse with their invasion of Iraq, so stating "what I'm trying to say" seems rather odd. I do like your analysis of the arguments about STRATEGY though. I disagree with you - I am one of "A lot of people". I believe you cannot impose freedom; different people & cultures must find their own way to it. I alluded to this with my comments about the rightly lauded US value-system.
I don't see any 'silly comments' & inconsistencies though but you're entitled to your opinion.
Let's also just say that Bush didn't cover himself in meritocractic glory before he was 'elected' in (or more accurately, awarded the result of) the 2000 election.

GK said: "Do you really think the 50,000 US troops in Japan are there against Japan's wishes?"

Japan doesn't sound that ecstatic and is even willing to pay for their removal.



While my style may tend more to the diplomatic side, make no mistake that I pretty much disagree with all your positions and also called out several of your arguments along the way that I found inconsistent and/or based on selective history and/or snide and arrogant.

Hence my asking for clarification, which you found "odd", oddly.

One quick side-note, though -

GK never said "all Muslims are Terrorists", which was essentially the jist of your 'summary.' I will agian give you benefit of doubt and assume you were being facetious, though something tells me you weren't.

Of course it is true that most Muslims are NOT terrorists. It is, however, also true that most terrorists ARE, indeed, Muslim.

And this is driven not by poverty or recent history (such as U.S. policies) alone, but by something much much more deeper-rooted and ideological.

Also, note that I said a lot of people believe freedom cannot be INSTALLED... I never said, 'IMPOSED' btw, which has a very diff meaning. By definition, freedom cannot be "imposed" for it is every human being's birthright and innate desire to be free. An 'imposition' of 'freedom' is an oxymoron.

Which is why I fall in the OTHER camp - of why installing a democracy can work. Also, its more than that. We can't afford to let crazy rogue regimes take a 100 yrs to organically evolve into their own democratic model, if during those 100 yrs they are sponsoring harm agents that harm not only their own people, but others. And THAT's the fundamental difference between people who whole an OFFENSIVE rather than DEFENSIVE view in this new era we're in.

You are of course entitled to disagree, and I'll even say that in an ideological sense, its a valid position. As I said, "a lot of people" hold that view.

But do also note, however, that when I said "a lot of people", I did not imply "most people", just in case that's how it read.

Sorry - not trying to wage word wars here.. must be that "dry British sarcasm" you keep cautioning us of.

(but not at the cost of freedom) :)



First of all, all 3 people (me, Kosha, and Conrad) have proven you unaware of history (3 Americans, I might add, which disproves your very first claim), and have demolished your anti-US shibboleth of the US being an 'Imperial Power'. It is just not true, no matter how badly you would like to construct that false bogeyman.

To summarize your other defeated points (again) :

1) You claim terrorism today is due to the Iraq War. When presented with attacks in India, Russia, Bali, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, riots in France, etc. unrelated to that, you claim those are simply regional separatist movements or attacks on secular Muslims. When presented with attacks before Bush became President, you claim it is because the US created the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. When presented with incidents BEFORE THAT (Munich 1972, Iran 1979, Beirut 1983, attacks on Israel in 1967 and 1973), you have no answer other than to scream in desperation that others are 'Islamophobic' or bigots, still foolishly insisting that radical Islam does not exist except to the extent it can be blamed on America. You are totally crushed and vanquished on this point.

It still appears that if terrorists kill you in the tube, you will blame America, rather than those who are actually killing you. This is probably the same psychology that leads one to think that Bush voters can be more financially successful than Kerry voters on average, and yet 'dumber' in understanding politics. What the left wants its followers to believe is certainly not easy for normal people to believe.

2) You steered very wide of my last question, because you know I can expose you as being a supporter of just about any opponent of a stable liberal democracy. Prove me wrong and tell me which side you support(ed) in each conflict below :

Allies vs. Axis, WW2
US, Britain vs. North Korea, China (Korean War)
US and South VietNam vs. North Vietnam
US, NATO vs. USSR (Cold War)
Israel vs. Arabs (1967).
Israel vs. Palestinian suicide bombers.
Israel vs. Hizbollah (2006).
Chinese annexation of Tibet
Taiwan vs. China
US, allies vs. Taliban in Afghanistan (2001).
US, allies vs. Saddam (1991)
US, allies vs. Saddam (2003)
India vs. Pakistan.
US, Britain, France, Israel vs. Iran (2006).

Come on, answer. Why hide your beliefs if you are proud of them?

These two points summarize your flawed worldview.

3) You actually think the US is somehow occupying Japan militarily today in 2006? You think US troops are there against Japan's wishes? Insane.

4) I disagree with Conrad that the Iraq War has increased terrorism. The US has had no attacks in the last 5 years. Libya abandoned their WMD program after Iraq. 72% of Iraqis voted in their elections. 15 of 18 Iraqi provinces are peaceful and stable and essentially close to what we had hoped they would be.

This may not be enough to decidedly say that the Iraq War made the world safer, but there is similarly no evidence that it has made the world more dangerous. If it were the case, the same could be said for the Afghanistan War (which you also don't support, even if women have gained basic human rights through it). The jury is out on Iraq, and time will tell.



I'm glad you're showing a little more flexibility on Iraq. I agree that the jury is still out, simply because history ain't over yet. We may not know for decades what the overall effect of the Iraq war has been. But in the present moment it sure does seem to most people to have been a fiasco. It didn't have to turn out this way, it could have been done differently, and far more competently, but we have to assess what did happen, not what might have been,

You say that Americans have suffered no terrorist attacks in the last five years. This conveniently excludes the 2500 Americans who have died in Iraq, mostly at the hands of terrorists. This is almost as many as ided on 9/11. If they were there to attack terrorists, that would be understandable. But as is well known, there were very few terrorists in Iraq, no serious threat to the US, certainly nothing to mount an invasion over. So putting our troops in Iraq has made them easy targets of terrorism, and so the terrorists have focused on attacking our troops there.

Has this helped protect our homeland? There's no real way of knowing, but I don't think so. The lack of attacks on the US mainland over the last five years demonstrates as far as I can see that even the fairly modest efforst we have made at protection and intediction, and cooperation with law enforcement and intelligence agencies around that world has been more than enough to stop most further terrorist attacks. Not that something can't ever happen again, but I think its becoming clear that Al Qaeda's capabilities to attack the US at home is severely limited, and we can stop them with ordinary measures not requiring foreign invasions.

Clearly Afghanistan had to be invaded, since that regime directed supported Al Qaeda. But Iraq is an entirely different story. Clearly it has been a huge recruiting and training enterprise for terrorists. It has also brought Iranian financing and direct involvement into the effort, since they have clear regional interests in Iraq. There's no question that Iran is supporting and driving shiite extremists to attack Americans and try to provoke civil war with the sunnis. And they seem to be succeeding, while we seem to be stuck in a mire that we can't get out of. I call that a victory for the terrorists so far.

Has Iraq increased terrorist activities around the world. Again, I think the truth is closer to Fawkesey's views. Clearly there were terrorist attacks before Iraq, and there would have been terrorist attacks since even without Iraq. It's not entirely clear whether attacks such as those on London were the result of resentment over British involvement in Iraq, or if that is just an excuse. One thing you can't say is that Iraq helped that situation at all. Most likely it has hurt us, and helped inspire muslims to go in the radical, terrorist direction rather than towards moderate views.

Few people even on the left objected to the Afghan invasion. If we had stopped there, and concentrated on Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda's leadership was concentrated, the world would not have turned against us, not even the muslim world. But by invading Iraq we fed into the worst views of the muslim world, and helped bolster the arguments of the terrorists. Fewer Americans would have been killed by terrorists (meaning our soldiers) without the invasion of Iraq than have been killed with it. Less money would have been wasted, and our prestige abroad would be monumentally higher today.

Personally, I think the war on terrorism is important, but overblown. Comparisons to the cold war or nazi germany are simply inappropriate. These terrorists have extremely limited capabailities to strike us, and we should not give them the oppourtinity to do so by invading countries like Iraq that we cannot control and stabilize. This is really a war within Islam about the future of their civilization, and we are only helping the extremists gain credibility. Bush's strategy has been ass-bsckwards, and shows a real inability to appreciate the situation we are in. We are, basically, bystanders to a war within Islam. We would like to influence the outcome of that war, because it does effect our security, but we are doing exactly the wrong things to help our cause. Iraq has hurt our cause, and helped the terrorists, no question about it. The situation is not irreversible, because fortunately there are still plenty of good reasons for Islam to modernize and moderate its views. We just have to stop giving them reasons not to.


Kosha, (sorry about the Kosh before) & I'm not mistaken, so no worries.
Although I agree that GK has never actually said "all Muslims are Terrorists" I'm pretty comfortable that he pretty much thinks that, especially when he's very comfortable labelling me anti-American & an anti-Semite who's "dangerously Hitlerian".

You appear to be saying that Islam is inherently pre-diposed to producing terrorists which, although I in no way condone or defend the actions of the Muslim terrorists, disagree with.
I do believe that poverty and/or recent history (including U.S. & European policies & history) have played a very important role in radicalising sections of Islam & that along with a strong self-defence some of these issues should be addressed. Not appeasement but not choosing ignorance either.
The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims are peaceable practitioners of their religion & they also suffer, & have been murdered, in the attacks of 9/11 & 7/7.

To me installing & imposing are the flip sides of the same coin. For the country involved, installation still usually involves an outside, often considered occupying, force putting a system in place. It may be installation to you but it's absolutely seen as an imposition by others. Did the US take kindly to the tax system George III's Parliament 'installed' to cater for the American colonies?

I guess I just have a more optimist view of human nature, & unlike GK sometimes, I believe Muslims are human too. I've also said before that people do want to have the freedom to choose, the lauded freedoms that the US embodies. Many Islamic countries argue, like Syria did last week, that they are being denied this choice by US foreign policy, which rightly or worngly adds to the radicals cause.

You didn't imply "most people" but perhaps it is now most people as 57 percent disapprove.

GK (here we go again), Conrad actually said after WWII "the US became something of an imperial power" & "had imperial motivations in Vietnam and elsewhere". It's true, I confess, that the because of the US's "amazing domestic industrial strength" the nature of Empire has changed from Britain's distant heyday, but the US is an imperial power if only to ensure "a free flow of trade", in which it HAS to have a vested interest if it wants to retain it's superpower status? You can't see this though?

I'll indulge the points once more:
1) I do not & have never said terrorism today is due to Iraq. I've reiterated this in almost every post I've made. As I said last post, & which Kosha & Conrad both easily recognised, I have said that the Iraq War has COMPOUNDED (to quote Kosha) the terrorism.
The attacks "before" that you cite, DO have different causes, but you insist on saying that all the attacks are part of the global Islamic terror network, a position which I summarised in my previous post. You also don't deny that I captured the essence of your thinking in my last post.
I've also addressed the individual countries/conflicts you've raised before, but you hilariously just throw more out there by way of repartee.

2) You're right! I steered clear last time & I'm going to steer well clear of the juvenile nonsense again.

3) You first asked "Do you really think the 50,000 US troops in Japan are there against Japan's wishes?" which I answered. Now you squirm away & distort my reply by asking "You actually think the US is somehow occupying Japan militarily today in 2006?". I'm merely proving to you that your view of the cosy tete-a-tete in Japan is wrong.

4) There is ample evidence from many sources, including from the people who actually fight there, that the invasion has made Iraq more dangerous. Perhaps your statements here finally shows that you are deluded, or worse. With those statements it seems that you are not an ex-military man as I suspected you might be, but a civilian well out of harm's way, hopefully in the mid-West somewhere.


Before I address your other (already defeated) points, I will not yet you get away with not answering this question. You dodged twice already, because you know this is truly the crux of the whole debate. I challenge you ability to distinguish between the morality of liberal democratic societies, versus that of dictatorships, communists, theocracies, and terrorists. Answer this now (if you are such a student of history as you claim.)

Tell me which side you prefer/preferred in each conflict below. It shouldn't take that long :

Allies vs. Axis, WW2
US, Britain vs. North Korea, China (Korean War)
US and South VietNam vs. North Vietnam
US, NATO vs. USSR (Cold War)
Israel vs. Arabs (1967 and 1973).
Israel vs. Palestinian suicide bombers.
Israel vs. Hizbollah (2006).
Chinese annexation of Tibet
Taiwan vs. China
China vs. India (1962)
US, allies vs. Taliban in Afghanistan (2001).
US, allies vs. Saddam (1991)
US, allies vs. Saddam (2003)
India vs. Pakistan.
US, Britain, France, Israel vs. Iran (2006).

Come on, answer. Why hide your beliefs if you are proud of them? Or are you secretly ashamed?



While you are right that I describe post-WWII America as an imperial power, you seem not to get the point that I don't see this as entirely a bad thing. There are good empires and bad empires. Even the British Empire had some positive sides to it, certainly in comparison to other empires. The American "empire" is a very different animal in so many ways its even a bit misleading to call it an empire. Rather than militarily dominating other countries, we mostly have a network of alliances with them. Those countries that we have tried to dominate militarily, such as Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq, have resulted in either mixed or negative outcomes. Our military is mostly in the service of keeping the peace, and allowing a free flow of trade, rather than of demanding tribute and forced trade. Much of that has resulted in the enrichment of our allies, not their impoverishment. We run a huge trade deficit, for example, not exactly the kind of thing an imperial oppressor does.

But there are negative sides to our imperialism as well, and stupid uses of our military, Iraq is one of those negatives, for reasons already given.


I can fully understand why Fawkesey refuses to answer some of your stupid questions, such as having to declare what side he'd root for in about 15 different historical wars. This is just your way of trying to change the subject away from Iraq. It's dishonest debating, and irrelevant to the debate itself. It makes it look like you are fishing for some reason to dismiss Fawkesey as a crazy leftist rather than actually address the points he makes.

Also, it seems really hypocritical for you to hammer Fawkesey for not answering your every silly question, when you are avoiding addressing the matters I've brought up, such as the widespread criticism of Bush's Iraq war from right-wing conservatives and not just leftists. Also, you make no response to my comments about Lieberman, Lamont, and the Democrats, which is the source of this whole debate. Likewise, you are avoiding Fawkesey's questions about Iraq like the plague, and trying to change the subject to whether or not he supports the Chinese annexation of Tibet. What possible relevance does that have? Are you proposing an invasion of Tibet next?

Please show a little more maturity and seriousness in these matters, and stop sounding like a Stephen Colbert clone without the satire.



If you read my earlier posts here (which you understandably may have not due to the length), I have addressed his points on the Iraq War.

As I told him and you, I don't think there is any evidence that Iraq has hurt our cause in the WoT. There are definite positives that I listed previously (Libya giving up WMD programs, an end to Saddam's paying $25K to Palestinian suicide bombers, ensuring that Saddam does not have WMDs). While time will tell whether the long-term effects are positive or negative, the jury is still out.

Most who oppose the Iraq War merely hate Bush, and refuse to admit that Clinton also initiated Operation Desert Fox in 1998 (see link in earlier posts), specifically stating that the US reserves the right to declare war on Saddam due to his WMD program suspicions. Remember the Anthrax terrorist deaths in 2001? Saddam was known to have used Anthrax at one time.

Many who oppose the Iraq War also think diplomacy is going to be effective with Iran (even though Iran openly says it has WMDs), so their worldview is questionable to begin with.

Also, read the Brookings Report on Iraq. It tracks many metrics, and shows that about 75% of the data in Iraq is trending well, and about 25% is trending badly. For example, Iraq ranks much higher on political freedom measures than any neighboring country. This is certainly progress.

If you disagree, tell me what percentage you would give to data trending well vs. badly. Surely you won't say all 100% is trending badly. Let's quantify how far apart our assessments are.

15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are stable, functioning, and sufficiently peaceful, essentially becoming what we had hoped they would become. The 3 that are not have dogged us for over 2 years, and the mistake Bush/Rumsfeld made was not quashing them early.

To say Iraq increased worldwide terrorism is very weak logic, as so many terrorist attacks and other violent incidents were not even against coalition countries. Mumbai, Beslan, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, etc. have all had attacks. The riots in France, the genocide in Darfur, and Hizbollah attacks against Israel would all still have happened even if we had not invaded Iraq. Any sane person would recognize this.

Regarding Lieberman, his loss shows that the far-left Kos crowd and Soros have a substantial grip on the Democratic party. You don't see the GOP trying to oust Chuck Hagel. Lieberman has an ADA rating of 65, (100 being most liberal, 0 being most conservative) which is not even the most conservative in his party. In every other issue than the Iraq War, he has not split with Democrats, but the anti-war groups have shown that this issue, and this alone, is a makre-or-break litmus test.

Read the Irish Trojan link in the article for more.

It is a very reasonable question to ask Fawkeasy which sides he would have backed in recent wars. Throughout his posts, he exhibits a tendency to side against liberal democracies, excusing terrorists and others as justifiably lashing out against 'oppression' by the US, Israel, and others. That is a very legitimate question.


Your cretinous nature is also highlighted by your insistence that I choose a side in every war you can think of. I guess this is simply the best you can offer the discussion after completely ignoring all my other points.
Again I shouldn't be surprised that this is what all your arguments come down to & fortunately sensible people, like Conrad & Kosha, can see straight through it & see how utterly pathetic it is.

You SIMULTANEOUSLY accuse me of being a leftist and a supporter of oppression.
As you're probably too clueless and/or deraged to realise, those with more 'leftist' politics are "dedicated to personal liberty, social justice and secularism", so you berate me for being a 'leftist' & against Bush yet think I "side against liberal democracies"? How do you explain that complete contradiction in your reasoning?

My previous posts summed up your belief in a global Muslim terrorist network, which you again highlight with more deluded ravings, this time including France!
I do want to correct you about the 2001 antrax attacks. Even a quick read on wikipedia reveals that there are many suspects in that case, one of the LEAST likely being Iraq, based on the evidence.

You have not one billionth of the bravery of a soldier serving in the war there that you so applaud.

Fortunately I am on vacation for 2 weeks so I can leave you to gibber in peace. You'll probably delete this post & crow that I have run off because I can't answer your 'arguments' though.



You still won't answer my simple question about indicating which side you prefer in historical wars. This is because you know that you are usually a supporter of dictatorships, theocracies, and communists against democracies.

You don't answer because you know that this will expose you, and you are deeply ashamed of your true beliefs.

Readers, note how this individual is actually ashamed of answering simple questions about his beliefs, despite his deep convictions in them. Remember this tactic to win debates with his type (who all repeat the same memorized slogans) easily.

Thanks for providing instructional material, Fawkeasy.

And Kosha clearly said that she disagrees with just about your whole set of beliefs, AND you dodged her posts entirely. Yet you hide behind her now? You say Kosha is sensible (and I agree), but she says I demolished most of your points brilliantly (her August 20 message). Does that mean you agree that you have lost, if a sensible person said so?

My previous posts summed up your belief in a global Muslim terrorist network
It appears you are the only person who has never heard of Al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, LeT, etc., despite them openly announcing their intentions. You just cannot admit that such a thing exists, despite dozens of incidents (including in London), even to literally save your own life. Amazing.

And you also hide behind the bravery of US soldiers. Of course, 70% of them voted for Bush in 2004, which means they actually (surprise) SUPPORT the War in Iraq. Do you still speak positively of them, knowing they voluntarily joined the US army, which is fighting a war they support, but you hate?

Vacation for 2 weeks starting frum THURSDAY, eh? Not a very clever excuse for an ashamed, cowardly retreat.


What a loser you are! On the one hand you're happy to have US soldiers die in Iraq to defend freedom yet you deny free speech on something as inconsequential as your blog? How so VERY typical of your politics & the cabal you vote for!

I did answer your question; I'll post it again:
You SIMULTANEOUSLY accuse me of being a leftist and a supporter of oppression.
As you're probably too clueless and/or deraged to realise, those with more 'leftist' politics are "dedicated to personal liberty, social justice and secularism", so you berate me for being a 'leftist' & against Bush yet think I "side against liberal democracies"? How do you explain
that complete contradiction in your reasoning?

-edited by siteowner for inappropriate content-

Your truly are a deluded invidual, I can only hope this blog is part of your therapy to help you come back to the real world.

Yes GK from today. Where you are, they probably don't let you out very often so your jealously is understandable.



Nope, you did not answer the question. You have to list which side you prefer in each of those historical wars. The reason you are not is because this will expose your opposition to democratic states in favor of dictators, terrorist regimes, and communists.

You know it and you are ashamed. That is why you won't answer.

And deluded 'leftists' like yourself are not about social justice, secularism, and liberty. You just claim you are, like the USSR did and China does (with their 'People's money' and 'People's Republic' propaganda.)

If you really stood for this, you would be able to admit that US action in Afghanistan has brought freedom to women that did not exist before. But since you are so obsessed with hating Bush (the leader of a country you don't even live in), you will not concede that this good deed has occurred.

You hide behind troops, but refuse to answer whether you still like them knowing that they voted 70% for Bush in 2004, and still support the Iraq War that they fight in.

Lastly, you say Kosha is sensible, but she said tht you have been defeated in this debate. So do you agree with her or not?

You can't answer, so you hide in cowardice.

And yes, I will delete vulgar and offensive content. You think the ends justify any means, but that is why your type is so much unhappier than normal people.

Inappropriate content will be edited out, but you still can't answer simple questions.


Why don't you answer it for me you cowardly fraudster? If my answers show you for the sly fool that you are, which I am very happy that they have done, you'll just delete them anyway.

"Vulgar and offensive content"? What a laugh, as I said, so VERY typical of the backward morality that 'your type' exhibits.



Why don't you answer it for me you cowardly fraudster?
Because I (and others) already know where you stand. We just want you to admit it, and you effectively have. The sentence above is itself an admission of defeat.

I have answered everything of yours (including your question about why leftists are quite the opposite of what they claim to be), but you have not answered many of my questions. This is visible for everyone to see.

Even in the last post, there are 4 questions posed to you, that you are too cowardly to answer.

1) Answer the question about women in Afghanistan, about why you can't exhibit any approval of the freedom they now have, just because the freedom was the result of George W. Bush.

2) Answer the question about troops voting 70% for Bush and supporting the War in Iraq (because, you know, they can see the good being done first hand).

3) Answer the question about why you think Kosha is on your side, when on August 20, she said you have been demolished in this debate.

4) Of course, you never, ever will have the courage to answer the question about historical wars. This is because you know this will expose you as a predictable supporter of dictatorships, theocracies, and communists against secular democracies. You know that you can't distinguish between good and evil, and you are secretly ashamed of your beliefs.

And why do most Britons now see Islam (not merely Islamic radicalism) as a threat? Are the majority of Britons Islamophobic now?

You won't answer any of this, because you lack the courage or morality.



I don't have the time to get into this thread anymore, but I did want to make one quick point for integrity's sake.

As I've said before, while my style may tend more toward the diplomatic side as compared to you or GK, make no mistake that I have never supported any of your positions. Nor do I "see through" GK for by and large, I agree with his positions as opposed to yours.

Just wanted to clarify, in case you misinterpreted my posts into thinking otherwise, as you never really replied to them directly so we were never given the opportunity to truly engage.


The comments to this entry are closed.