In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> Dave Symn wrote:
> > On 24 Mar 2005 21:09:43 -0800, Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > then go there and live in a place not supported by the middle
> class,
> > > like Afghanistan.  You should be able to keep all your goats there.
> >
> > Iraq too, used to be anyway, until recently.
>
> Iraq had many more freedoms than Afghanistan

Yes, the freedom to see their kids starve to death.
The freedom to be tortured at random...

> and while the country was
> run by a malicous tyrant, that seemed better to the Iraqi people than
> having thuggish clerics rule.

You mean the vast majority of whom voted in free elections
two months ago?  The same elections that caused a huge
turnaround in many european newspapers coming out to
acknowledge that Bush has achieved something?

> However, you won't mention> that, because your extremist left-wing
> idiocy and bias prevents you from acknowledging that the current
> administration, as right-wing as they are, has apparently succeeded in
> eliminating a regime that was terribly misogynistic.
>
> There are "misogynist" regimes all over the world, and yet,
Iraqi women
> could work outside the home, under the brutal tyrant, while Afghan
> women were inslaved under religious fundies.

Yeah, when one thinks of Saddam's Iraq under sanctions, we
imagine "Mary Tyler Moores" pursuing glamourous careers
of liberation!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!

> So you see, there are
> many ways to enslave women, by cutting out their rights or by raping
> them.

Indeed.  You gals sure do need rescuing a lot, doncha? :-)

> And Bush may or may not have accidently created some kind of
> TEMPORARY democracy in Iraq,

You really don't believe in giving him credit, do you?  :-)

"Accidentally" created a "TEMPORARY" democracy?  Gee,
I guess all of his talk about democracy and spending
the billions of taxpayer money to hold elections
there were just an accident. :-)  And the vast majority
of Iraqis clearly indicate how temporary it is.

In fact, judged by voter turnout alone, democracy in
Iraq is more stable than in the US!!!

Maybe the woman protestor who whined about the US not
being more like Germany should move to Iraq.  I'll
suggest that next time. :-)

> but he did so by 1) LYING to the American
> people

"Good Evening America.  I did not have sex with Monica
Lewinski.  Ok, maybe I did.  It was important for me
to say that but not important because I lied about it.
Now where do I sign off on Republican welfare reform
and carry water for Greenspan to save my ass?"

Besides, since when did you care about the STUPID
American people anyway?  Oh, yeah, that's right:
They're supposed to happily vote and give money
for your agenda.  Oops...

> and 2) by limiting the amount of help that would have been
> provided to Afghanistan.  Now Afghanistan is floundering.

How is the situation all that different than it has
been since they held elections some time ago?

>  How do you actually justify your continual ranting against
> > the "fundy" government, when they have accomplished one
of your own
> goals,
> > the liberation of women in the third world?
>
> They have NOT done that.  What Bush did was make vain promises to the
> Afghan people who were under fundy rule by clerics, and use that
> funding to bomb Iraq, a country that was NOT under fundy rule.

Yet, you've been bragging about women exercising their
rights in Afghanistan which could not have occurred if
it wasn't for Bush's war.

>  Bush is
> a warmonger;  war is the only way he knows to bring democratic
> principles to other parts of the world.  Clearly, there are other ways.

Yes, and they were working so well when women were under
the Taliban.

We offered you a trip to Saudi Arabia to prove to us
the number of great ways to gain liberation for women
quickly.  You declined, remember?  Cluck cluck cluck.

> It is truly hilarious to read your posts that the Democrats had a plan
> for the Middle-East.
>
> Bill Clinton, and severl of his predacessors, have tried to broker a
> deal between the two leading factions, and he failed, as did the
> others.  However, Clinton seemed to come much closer this last time.
> In war, no one really wins.

I think the millions of people rescued from Nazi concentration
camps would disagree with you there.

> There is always loss and the desire to get
> even.  If our own country could establish an international policy the
> rest of the world could understand, perhaps then we could broker peace
> elsewhere.  I don't see that happening with Bush at the helm.

Question:

If the "global community" knows so much better about the US
about how to broker peace, why aren't they doing it and
providing the US with an example to follow?

Heck, here's another question:

How much money have the Europeans made from stem cell research
that the US is missing out on?  (Hint, the number if very simple)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/26/05 4:46:25 PM ---