[aclug-L] Re: Richard Reid

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:56:27PM -0600, Michael Moore wrote:
> >>I am sorry you don't enjoy comments like "Have you hugged a terrorist 
> >>today"........and I don't enjoy comments that compare Nazi Germany to 
> >>the USA or President Bush Hitler.  And by the way, my comment was 
> >
> >Those are not comments that I made.
> >
> 
> I did not say you made those comments.  Once, again....here is what you 
> did say.
> 
> "What I do not enjoy are comments saying that the Democrats' motto is "Have
> you hugged a terrorist today".  That's not helping advanced any kind of
> civilized discourse."

I fail to see how that is comparing Nazi Germany to the USA or Bush to
Hitler.

> >>Comments like those and others I don't enjoy.  It seems there is more 
> >>concern for these terrorists feelings and rights than there is for U.S. 
> >>Citizens.  If your upset becuase you felt jlweaver would be happy about 
> >Several points:
> >
> >1. I do not believe that the life of a U.S. Citizen is more valuable
> >   than the life of anyone else.  We should respect people because they
> >   are human, not because of where they happened to be born.
> >
> >2. I did not in any way imply that the lives of U.S. Citizens were not
> >   valuable.  I agree that the 9/11 attacks were wretched and wrong.
> >
> >3. I further believe that inflicting more pain on the world is not
> >   going to mend the pain we have suffered; only prolong it.
> >  
> >
> 
> I don't like any of you three points.   In your first point... you say, 
> you do not believe that the life of a U.S. Citizen is more valuable than 
> the life of anyone else.  But, by your own words (see your point 3) you 
> imply that a U.S. Citizen has less value than the life of somebody in 

How do I imply that?  Are not US citizens part of the world?

> another country.  Why, would I say that...becuase you don't want to 
> stand up for America..... becuase you don't want to inflict any pain on 
> the rest of the world.  By doing nothing, and letting Sadam and 
> terrorist continue down their current road you put all of us in danger. 

Oh c'mon, this is silly.  Saddam has never been a threat to the U.S. and
certainly is not now.  Heck, is is barely a threat to parts of Europe. 
There has never been any convincing evidence of links to bin Laden's group,
and what's more, historical evidence that bin Laden thought of Hussein as an
enemy.  The linking of Iraq to any sort of terrorist attack on the U.S. is
flimsy at best, and likely wholly inaccurate.

>  And I do take offense to that.  You say we are inflicting more pain, I 
> say we will be helping to prevent another attack much worst than 9/11. 

I think it is more likely that we will inspire more attacks in that vein
rather than fewer, by inflaming anti-American hatred.

>  I think another attack would not mend the pain we have suffered. 
>  Another attack would prolong it.

A good reason that we should stop the bloodshed NOW.

> >>Reid being murdered in prison......So What.  You do realize we are in a 
> >>WAR.....on Terrorism..... Guess what happened after World War II ended. 
> >It is not a war; that is mere propoganda and a means for evading
> >international law and weakening domestic rights.
> Propoganda, that's were you are wrong......Your domestics rights will do 
> you know good if there is no America left.  Talk about things 
> middle-easterners hate about Americans ....Arrogant Americans....Do you 
> think you can sit back and put your arms around your domestic rights and 
> no other country is going to mess you.  There is politcal propoganda 
> going on; but, the Left is carrying that torch.

This whole left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal thing is really wacky,
but anyway...

Nobody has yet shown any serious attempt by Iraq or bin Laden to remove our
rights.  As far as anyone can tell, bin Laden does not "hate our freedom",
but rather hates our actions to remove freedom from others in the middle
east.  His goal is not to overthrow the U.S. -- and that is certainly
impossible for him to achieve anyway.  There is no need for the senseless
fear-mongering that is going on, implying that we are so vulnerable that a
loosely-organized small band of radical malcontents can overthrow the U.S.
from abroad.  That's ludicrous.  Granted, bin Laden is a "bad guy" and
should be stopped.  That does not justify reducing our domestic rights and
killing thousands of people in a so-called "just war".

There have been far more damaging effects on our freedoms by the actions our
own government took in the wake of 9/11.

> If you do not believe there is a War On Terrorism.  Then you should 
> watch the National News a bit more and see how many are being captured 
> around the world.  And we have a long way to go.

I watch the national news.  I also read The Guardian (UK), listen to the 
Deutsche Welle (Germany), BBC (Britain), etc.  The American media has a
distinct bias.  And it's not a liberal or a conservative bias.  It's an
*American* bias -- the tendency to avoid asking hard questions of American
government, to critize the divergence of our government from its stated
goals of freedom, etc.  Not that the other outlets are different about their
respective governments.  But it is useful to get a more balanced idea of
world events, rather than the corporate spoon-fed useless surface reporting
one.

Even the Washington Post will give far better coverage of events than any
national news TV program, CNN included.

Want to see something interesting?  This is how the British viewed the Space
Shuttle disaster Friday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,887474,00.html

It's a much more insightful commentary into how this impacts Americans than
you'll find from an American media outlet.  Even if you disagree
wholeheartedly with it, you'll at least have to agree that it is
thought-provoking.

So, my question back to you is: if you base your opinions solely on the
national news and other organizations that just act as a mouthpiece for the
administration in power, how are you able to differentiate between
propoganda and fact?

> War On Terrorism........If you are not with us you are against us. 
>  Once, Iraq is liberated you will see how may Iraqies (sp) will be happy 
> we did.  If you really care about the inhuman treat of people you would 
> want Sadam out of power.  

I highly doubt the the families of the thousands of inevitable Iraqi deaths
due to "collateral damage" will be happy with us.

> "A  means for evading international law"  Give me a fricking break.  You 
> are spouting so much propoganda it makes me sick.  The propoganda is 
> coming from Terrorist, Sadam, countries with other political and 
> financial agendas; such as, Germany and France and some other mis-inform 
> factions and less I forget the Leftist.  You need to check you 
> facts!!!!!!  We are not evading international law,,,,Sadam is doing that.

Yes, Hussein is doing that.  We are evading international law with respect
to the "detainees" in Guantanamo Bay.  And yes, Germany and France do have
political agendas.  So does the USA.  Are you so blind that you do not see
the ills at home?

Here's what it comes down to.  I do not hate the USA.  I do not want to
overthrow the USA nor to have others do so.  I want to *improve* the USA,
and the first step to that is to take an honest look at what is wrong. 
Until we are capable of such introspection, we have little hope of making
the world, and our own country, a better place.

> >Which is why we should not be so eager to engage in it.
> >While we're thinking of the pain inflicted, what about the far more
> >far-reaching consequences of the two nukes we dropped?  Or are you saying
> >that American lives are more important than Japanese?  If so, I submit that
> >this bigoted attitude puts you at odds with a great deal of modern thinking.
> 
> You call me a bigot.  This is so sad.  You just don't get it do you?  I 

No, I said that "If you hold position x, then I would consider that to be a
bigoted attitude."  I did not say whether or not you hold position x, and in
fact asked you if you do.  You have yet to reply.

> never said I think my life is more important than someone else's.  But, 
> that doesn't mean I will let my enemy kill me and other Americans (even 
> you).
> 
> You want to know the consequences of dropping the two nukes.  It saved 
> 250,000 American solders lifes.  Now, you are going to tell me that the 

Any such numbers are pure conjecture.  My own pure conjecture runs along
these lines: had we been a little less hard-nosed in our surrender talks
(such as not demanding the virtual head of their emperor), we could have
resolved the situation without causing terrible human suffering for either
side.

> life of our enemy is more important to you than your fellow country men 
> and the solders that die for you so you can have your freedom. 

Japan at that time was not a threat to our freedom.

Some people have the notion that every time our troops are somewhere, they
are protecting our freedom.  That is just not the case.  They accomplished
nothing in Vietnam, yet millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans
died.  In the end, we retreated, yet our freedom was not reduced.  Yet many
at the time said our soldiers were protecting our freedom.  If that was the
case, what freedoms have we lost due to our retreat?

>  Remember, we did not start WWII; but, we did end it.

And started the Cold War due to the shoddy way in which we ended it, but
that's another story...

> If you want to call me a bigot then I say, So Be It.  But, I am proud to 
> say I am not ....Anti-American.  Unlike you I love my country and my 
> countrymen and will not sacrific their lives to save a few lives of my 
> enemy.

I think there is nothing anti-American about being opposed to war; about
being in favor of taking funds away from the DoD and investing them in
education; or similar proposals.  America is supposed to be about freedom. 
Let's stop inflaming the debate by calling dissenters anti-American.

I am not anti-American.  I am anti-war.  I am anti-big government.  I am
anti-privacy invasion.  I am anti-murder.  And I am pro-democracy.

Now I maintain that our government is currently at odds with these positions
of mine.  I am therefore using the remaining rights I have to communicate my
dissatisfaction, to explain why I am unsatisfied, and to call for a change
in policy.

(Yes, I said that a Republican administration is not anti-big government.)

> >Why do I say that?  Is it because I did not get my way?  No, that's not it
> >at all.  I say that because "my" government is over in various contries in
> >the mideast killing people, incarcerating others, supporting repressive
> >dictatorships, and generally pretty much acting to make life miserable for
> >the people over there.

You have yet to respond in any way to the reasons behind the hatred from
groups like bin Laden's.  Do you deny these facts?  If not, why do you
ignore them?

> >I care about all human life, American and otherwise.  I believe that the
> >best way to help the human condition is not to support repressive
> >dictatorships and engage in overseas meddling, but to be a constructive
> >member of the global community.  And yes, that will help Americans too. 
> >Don't you think that acting to remove the impetus for such hatred will be
> >beneficial to us?

And you have yet to respond to this.

> >>But one of the things that bothers me about the internal discussions about 
> >>what we are doing and what we should be doing is that it
> >>usually gives the benefit of the doubt to other countries before ours.
> >>Nicely said by Scott.  That is my problem with these other views in a 
> >>nutshell.  In all these discussions the USA is the bad guy.  And since I 
> >>am sticking up for the USA than I am the bad guy too.
> >That is only because that seems to be the thing about which there is the
> >largest amount of disagreement.  Presumably you agree with me that bin Laden
> >is a "bad guy", that Reid is a "bad guy".  What point is there in discussing
> >that at length?

Or this.

> >Perhaps you do not agree with me that Ashcroft is doing more to hurt our
> >civil liberties than bin Laden ever could.  Ahh, now there is something to
> >discuss.

Or this.

-- John
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi