War on Iraq has made things worse...

[Neil]

No $hit Sherlock!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/20/iraq-inquiry-saddam-mi5-chief

[SymphonicX]

Totally, I said this to all the football thugs at work who rallied around the telly to watch baghdad get absolutely pissed over by US and UK artillery when the war started. Fucking idiots believed this was actually going to make us all better off.

I love "I told you so" but when it was about a million dead people I'd prefer not to.

Really good pickle we got ourselves into here, I have no idea why our PM was stupid enough to follow the US into Iraq (well, I do, but you know), it's one of the final straws in the "us and them" battle that's been raging since september 2001 - final in the sense it's solidified the conflict between East and West for another 20 years at least.

[Neil]

Totally, I said this to all the football thugs at work who rallied around the telly to watch baghdad get absolutely pissed over by US and UK artillery when the war started. Fucking idiots believed this was actually going to make us all better off.

I love "I told you so" but when it was about a million dead people I'd prefer not to.

Really good pickle we got ourselves into here, I have no idea why our PM was stupid enough to follow the US into Iraq (well, I do, but you know), it's one of the final straws in the "us and them" battle that's been raging since september 2001 - final in the sense it's solidified the conflict between East and West for another 20 years at least.

Utterly inept move by Blair...

[SymphonicX]

Utterly inept move by Blair...

or a very calculating, commercially orientated one...

[Wyldwraith]

Something I've come to believe,
There is, and CANNOT BE any middle ground when it comes to how the West deals with the threat posed by radicalized Islam/Muslims.

Either we hold back use of force as anything but the most final of last resorts and attempt to achieve our objectives against radical Islam by diplomatic efforts and concentrated defense efforts of our own territories alone, or we need to possess the resolve to exterminate Islam in its entirety.

The reason I believe that there are only two, mutually exclusive response-paths to this deadly serious problem is that either approach is mutually exclusive in regards to its counterpart-effort. Military actions nullify diplomatic gains, and diplomatic compromises are perceived by our militant opponents as signs of weakness/weakening resolve which encourage these radical Muslim terrorists and their sympathizers to redouble their aggressive efforts to gain further "diplomatic compromises" from the West.

The only thing that then remains is unrelenting full-scale military annihilation of Islamic populations. To use a more honest word: Genocide.

I know, reading what I've written, even I can't believe I'm advocating such a vile series of actions. That said, try as I might, I don't see any errors in my reasoning or any possible alternatives.

Why? Simply put, it's nothing more than ostrich-like burying of our collective heads in the sand to continue to proceed against the threat of radical Islam without FIRST ADMITTING THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL.

Ultimately, I fear that regardless of our stronger military, economic (mean production self-reliance, not how our currency is doing), and diplomatic position, Radical Islam will find a way to beat the West simply because they're unconflicted about their agenda, and don't hesitate over morality.

When facing an enemy that wants to not only kill every last man, woman and child who won't accept Allah as the One True God, but also intent to tear down everything we've built to make it like we never existed. How do I know this?

Only by doing what I've just described will they be able to attain their cultural/ideological goal of "creatively revising history" to make subsequent generations believe without doubt or the slightest challenge that Islam has been, and always shall be the One True Path to God.

Stop and REALLY think about that for a moment. Think HARD. Everything I've said is OPENLY RANTED by Imam after Imam, and chanted by brainwashed children/future Soldiers of Islam in Madrassa after Madrassa being taught to hate non-Muslims from the very moment they're sufficiently developed mentally to begin absorbing this hateful fanaticism. Radical and Fundamentalist Islam are wholly committed to their Jihads. Their ideology is uncompromising in its savagery.

If you're a non-Islamic culture/nation/population and you're 100% committed to retaining your right to survive physically, culturally and theologically being threatened by the relentlessly uncompromising and unwavering drive of a culture whose religious ideology demands you sacrifice your culture, religion(s) and freedoms and replace your culture/religions/freedoms with the One True Way (according to Them) if you wish to survive as a physical population, what choices are there BESIDES annihilating the threatening Ideology/Culture/Nation(s) or Unconditional Surrender?

Honestly now, who believes I'm off the mark when it comes to the increasing threat of Fundamentalist Islam, or wrong about the REAL AND LASTING options to resolve that threat?

If so, where do you find fault with my reasoning?

Excellent debate. I look forward to seeing the various positions of those involved here.

[SymphonicX]

the threat posed by radicalized Islam/Muslims.
.



Iraq didn't have a huge amount of radicalised muslims until your country and our country fucking raped it for a big oil pipeline.

there's certainly a bunch of radical muslims there now! after all, who wouldn't be radicalised against the group that blew up your baby sister?

Your hardline view is, quite frankly, offensive, idiotic and reactionary - typical tea party response. I mean it's so fucking offensive personally I think you should be banned, from life.

But there you go - just my opinion. You have written off millions, if not BILLIONS of people and tarred them with the extremism brush. All muslims are extremists in your view, and you deserve a fucking slapping for it. Especially from the bunch of muslim friends I've got that would like nothing more than to NOT be assosciated with a fringe group of radicals who the US has specifically helped GROW over the last decade. We have too, and it's very sad.

I don't, however, want to get into a massive fucking debate about this. You've said your bit, I've said mine. You, like eyebiter, have a hard on for islam and it fucking shows you up. I can take a certain amount of assumptions from you and a certain amount of opinions about this subject but when you start the racist rally cry of not only denouncing an entire religion but actively calling for the erradication of a gene pool, you've lost all fucking respect in my book.

[BillyRay]

Wraith, I re-read your last post, and (for fun) substituted the word "Fundimentalist Christian" for "Radicalised Muslim".

The results are pretty much the same.

Islam isn't the problem. Xianity isn't the problem. It's the Fundimentalist mindset. They want Everything their way, by hook, crook, subversion or explosion. They cannot deal with a pluralist, multicultured society that has more than one viewpoint. But there's no avoiding differing points of view in this world.

If this lot hid out in their deserts and caves and compounds and megachurches and left everybody else alone, I'd say Fine. Leave them be. But they don't. They want to be in your face, in my face, with their "One True Path to God". Their egos won't settle for anything less.

Fuck Fundimentalists. They want a Total War I say give it to 'em. But let's not mistake a particular faith or religion for the Small-minded dogmatic 'thinking" of these Fundy nutjobs. They get around. (Like Idiots or Racists, every group's got some)

And before we can go after the Islamic Fundys, we need to step on the necks of the Xian ones in our own country. The American Taliban has had too much say in the workings of the American govvrnment for far too long.

Sorry for the rant -- touched a nerve...

[JDFP]

Argh...

You know what, I'm going to try and sit this one out (just like Roger fighting his reanimation, I'm sure :)). What's the point in arguing really as it's such a political matter? Either you believe that Iraq is better today not under the tyrannical regime of a murderous despot who enjoyed butchering people and oppressing others -- or you don't.

Oh wait, here comes the other side stating it's all about oil, oil, oil... right (:rolleyes:). Pointless debating it is (as Master Yoda would say), although it's a cop-out for not answering the question as to whether the world is a safer and better place without a mad tyrant still around.

As far as extremist Muslims -- I think extremists in any religion are dangerous, whether they are Islamic, Israeli Jews who believe they have the right to perpetrate any crime against their neighbors and are justified in doing it (oh, sorry Norman Finkelstein-haters, it's true), fundamentalist Protestants, or extremist Socialists. They are all dangerous to society. We're more scared of the extremist Muslims though as we're Westerners, so it's fine to talk about annihilating them but if you say the same about extremist right-winged Israelis who perpetrate similar terrorism on Palestinian neighbors its' anti-Semitic or speak thus about fundamentalist Protestants it's anti-American and when you speak thus about extremist Socialists people -- well, heaven forbid we do that!

Most Muslims, Christians, Jews, and (as hard as it is for me to say this) Socialists are decent people that would never intend on hurting others in society. I think talks of "annihilating" anyone based on a few bad apples in any faith (religious or secular) is a bit extreme. :)

j.p.

[AcesandEights]

http://www.shopatmoxie.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/vangoghpilllg300.gif

[Wyldwraith]

::sighs at SymphonicX::

1) Anyone who knows me knows I'm about as anti-establishment, pro-constitution, left-leaning Democrat as you can get. If you hadn't been so offensive in your personal attack on me, I might've laughed at ME of all people being identified as Tea Party or some xenophobic psychopath.

2) Don't you think I KNOW there are tens of millions of perfectly sane, completely rational Muslims who just want to live their lives and extend the same courtesy to everyone else?

What do you think caused the (I thought quite obvious in my written demeanor) tone of serious distress with the CLUSTERFUCK the issue of Radical Islam vs. The West has become?

I just DON'T SEE AN ALTERNATIVE.

3) Thank you for completely ignoring the fact I tried to present what I felt to be the two potential overall methodologies for making progress with this MAJOR PROBLEM, and the problems with EITHER POSITION.

Thank you very damned much for ASSUMING I'm such an unmitigated asshole that the idea of killing tens if not hundreds of millions of people is SOMETHING I WANT TO HAPPEN. To Hell with you for that.

4) I have "A major hard-on for Islam?" Uhh no, try you're way too damned thinskinned, put words ideas and opinions in other people's mind and mouth to suit your view of them, and don't ACTUALLY CARE what the truth is about the individual you so blithely insult and declare should be violently assaulted.

Gee, you want me hit by everyone who might not like my point of view. Violence as means of punishment for disagreeing with your politics. Where have I heard that before....?

I'm done with this. I still can't believe what an unmitigated ass, what a judgmental HYPOCRITE you're behaving like SymphonicX. I always thought you were a pretty decent guy, but that was before you decided to portray me as some sort of bloodthirsty neo-conservative Tea Party mad-dog would be mass-murderer.

FUCK YOU. HOW DARE YOU!?!? Who made you God, to decide via snap judgment and punish blithely in the same breath? All the while holding yourself above it all like your hands are clean.

You're right, you ARE seriously screwed up and need some SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP.

SO DONE.

Edit: If SymphonicX wants to edit his position to appear less damning and judgmental, then I see no reason to continue this idiotic exchange, which has spiraled way out of control after SymphonicX misunderstood me and went batshit on me.

SymphonicX, if you want to work this out like adults, I'm willing to talk this damned mess over when you are.

[Legion2213]

So called "British muslims" who are being "radicalized" by events half way across the planet really shouldn't be living here.

You are either British and loyal to Britain or you are just some foriegner who happens to live here but loyal to another group of people/country...if you are the latter, then get the fuck out of my country.

[JDFP]

:)... And there goes another thread.

Wyld, my apologies if anything I said seemed uncouth against you -- you're one of the few people here that generally make sense of things (even if you attack my general Conservative standings you and Los are two people that do it well :)).

j.p.

[BillyRay]

One word:

Gurkhas.

[SymphonicX]

Argh...

You know what, I'm going to try and sit this one out (just like Roger fighting his reanimation, I'm sure :)). What's the point in arguing really as it's such a political matter? Either you believe that Iraq is better today not under the tyrannical regime of a murderous despot who enjoyed butchering people and oppressing others -- or you don't.

Oh wait, here comes the other side stating it's all about oil, oil, oil... right (:rolleyes:). Pointless debating it is (as Master Yoda would say), although it's a cop-out for not answering the question as to whether the world is a safer and better place without a mad tyrant still around.

As far as extremist Muslims -- I think extremists in any religion are dangerous, whether they are Islamic, Israeli Jews who believe they have the right to perpetrate any crime against their neighbors and are justified in doing it (oh, sorry Norman Finkelstein-haters, it's true), fundamentalist Protestants, or extremist Socialists. They are all dangerous to society. We're more scared of the extremist Muslims though as we're Westerners, so it's fine to talk about annihilating them but if you say the same about extremist right-winged Israelis who perpetrate similar terrorism on Palestinian neighbors its' anti-Semitic or speak thus about fundamentalist Protestants it's anti-American and when you speak thus about extremist Socialists people -- well, heaven forbid we do that!

Most Muslims, Christians, Jews, and (as hard as it is for me to say this) Socialists are decent people that would never intend on hurting others in society. I think talks of "annihilating" anyone based on a few bad apples in any faith (religious or secular) is a bit extreme. :)

j.p.

Agree with you almost entirely there.
Although the notion that the world is safer without "one tyrant" is a fallacy - we've had "one tyrant" replaced by thousands if not tens of thousands of radicalised muslims! London didn't get bombed until after the Iraq invasion and it was cited as a main reason - so yes I do think the world is more dangerous.

Everything else you said though, spot on.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 PM ----------

And to WyldWraith - sorry if it came over too personal it just REALLY narked me when you wrote this:

"Stop and REALLY think about that for a moment. Think HARD. Everything I've said is OPENLY RANTED by Imam after Imam, and chanted by brainwashed children/future Soldiers of Islam in Madrassa after Madrassa being taught to hate non-Muslims from the very moment they're sufficiently developed mentally to begin absorbing this hateful fanaticism"

This is just so sweeping mate, and everything else you said - is way too sweeping and generalised - your retort was far more balanced but that's not what you said there. I am just saying I haven't really read post after post of yours but the last couple have been very aggressive towards this subject to the point of lunacy - in my opinion.

And this:

"exterminate Islam in its entirety."

Sorry dude, that's off the fuckin' chain and whilst I look back and regret my actions, I stand by this opinion. I mean, wtf dude? don't claim "left leaning anti government" credentials for yourself when talking about eradication of a religion.

---------- Post added 21-Jul-2010 at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was 20-Jul-2010 at 11:59 PM ----------


:

Thank you very damned much for ASSUMING I'm such an unmitigated asshole that the idea of killing tens if not hundreds of millions of people is SOMETHING I WANT TO HAPPEN. To Hell with you for that.
.

Finally, I have read your original post maybe four times now and I don't see the second option? I mean you indulged it for what, one sentence, before going off on a fucking racist tirade not far removed from Hitler's speeches about the jews?

Honestly, I know I went off the fucking chain a bit mate but let's not beat around the bush - you didn't for one second propose a diplomatic strategy, you suggested, implied and hinted at it but you strategised genocide - and you found sick ways of justifying it by qualifying these calls as "yeah I know it sounds bad, but think about it"...

And also consider this: you propose these "two option" as though that's set in stone, because in your opinion, ALL of islam is against the west and they ALL want to convert or destroy us - it's that which pisses me off - you're claiming balance in your retort, you're claiming to be so much which a righteous person would retort with right after making a post like this? RE READ IT - it doesn't talk about anything except how the islamic world is fucking evil - yet you retort saying that you're perfectly aware that most of them are normal people - what you're saying is so fucking monstrous it's almost incomprehensible.

I've got it, what I wanted to say to you the whole time: "There is no way, whatsoever, not a chance, of our nations openly and willfully participating in genocide. It's a stupid suggestion and wouldn't be on the menu."

Of course that would be putting aside all the crazy shit you've just said - an unrelenting, premeditated attack on a religion which you quite frankly believe to be tyrannical and power hungry.

Oh and by the way, Imam's are just a voice to the people which any muslim whatsoever can refuse to listen to - its well within their rights according to their culture. The issue with this isn't even fucking religious - it's political, it's about whether you like it or not, oil, territory, economics.

*confused*

really confused.

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------


::Gee, you want me hit by everyone who might not like my point of view. Violence as means of punishment for disagreeing with your politics. Where have I heard that before....?.

Lastly, of course I was speaking metaphorically and wish no harm upon you - I mean, you knew that right? Sure you're just really angry at this point but I mean, don't assume I'm that petty - I'm trying to say that ultimately your stance on this is very offensive and loudly proclaiming this stuff, whether you believe it or not, is indulging in an atrocity and if you did it publicly I wouldn't like to be standing near you, especially in Brick Lane.

My problem isn't with you personally, it's with your approach to Islam which in two posts I've seen from you about the subject have been NOTHING but very aggressive towards the entire religion. It's not even so much your suggestion of genocide as the final solution but your blanket approach to the entire religion which in your first post you gave no credit to whatsoever.

[Danny]

Scarlettjohanseneatingpopcorn.gif

[Mr.G]

I'm not far right or left but I am comfortable letting history be the final judge of the Iraq war.

[Danny]

-and now time for something completely different.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/2vxiudijpg-1.gif

[Wyldwraith]

Ok let me clarify things,

I'll keep it very simple, and attempt to make my language choices misunderstanding-free (an impossible task, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot)

1) I reiterate, I have NO PROBLEM with rational innocent Muslims, or anyone else that thinks everyone involved with, and everyone who even cheered at the events of 9/11 should be tried, found guilty, and executed for war crimes.

2) I recognize that 95% of Muslims don't even want to think about the West, let alone screw with us. Out of the remaining 5%, 4% are sheep-minded morons who, while harmless on their own, cheer and applaud the terrorist atrocities out of some twisted quasi-nationalist/religious impulse.

3) So, to be VERY clear. Yes, I am saying that IN MY OPINION about 1 in 100 Muslims who also HAPPEN to be terrorist psychos want to kill people in the West.

4) I have no idea how you a) Stop that 1% from getting bigger, or identify them when they cowardly hide amongst the Muslim masses after perpetrating their hideous atrocities.

5) I DO believe that if we DO NOT find a means to root out and DESTROY that radicalized element of Islam, which COULD have been any OTHER EQUALLY RADICAL THEOLOGY, but ACTUALLY IS radical Muslims, that they'll find a means to kill millions of people they deem to be their enemies.

6) Yes, if my ONLY options are a) Accept millions of casualties in my own country, or b) A vastly larger number of casualties elsewhere that prevents those casualties. I DO CHOOSE B.

7) #6 DOES NOT mean that I WANT to see a hideous bloodbath, but that I also can't understand how any intelligent person could believe that Muslim Terrorists DON'T want to kill as many non-Muslims as they can.

8) Now I'm going to take some old advice and stop talking politics in mixed company. It's obvious this is not the place for that, and that at least some individuals are not going to be able to agree to disagree over hot-button issues.

I hope this explains my feelings on this subject in a much clearer, far more understandable manner.

[Publius]

I DO believe that if we DO NOT find a means to root out and DESTROY that radicalized element of Islam, which COULD have been any OTHER EQUALLY RADICAL THEOLOGY, but ACTUALLY IS radical Muslims, that they'll find a means to kill millions of people they deem to be their enemies.

They may want to kill millions of their enemies, but what do you think their chances are of being able to accomplish that? In the US, we've managed to prevent them from doing basically anything in almost a decade (since 9/11). Seems like we could reduce risks even further if we had 130,000 extra troops guarding our own borders instead of chasing illiterate militants around Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Eyebiter]

It's easy to blame the US invasion of Iraq for the rise of widespread fundamentalist terrorists. Unfortunately it ignores almost a century of Arab Nationalist efforts in the Middle East, and over fifty years of using terrorism as a political weapon to achieve political objectives.

Find it very funny to hear European citizens as such strident detractors of the invasion. After all much of the conflict in the region is a direct result of the historical actions of your nations during the Colonialist occupation and subsequent division of the Arab lands.

http://ocw.nd.edu/arabic-and-middle-east-studies/islamic-societies-of-the-middle-east-and-north/images/european-colonialism-in-the-middle-east

[Mike70]

Find it very funny to hear European citizens as such strident detractors of the invasion. After all much of the conflict in the region is a direct result of the historical actions of your nations during the Colonialist occupation and subsequent division of the Arab lands.



none of which is germane to this discussion. you cannot get on a high horse with people over things they had:

a. no control over or say in

b. were decades away from being born at the time


no one is in any way, shape or form responsible for things they haven't personally done. that is one of the most disgusting ideas (and at the heart of the idiocy known as "white guilt"- which if you feel, please do us a favor and die) in the modern world. that we are somehow "responsible" for things that happened in different time periods, decades or, in some cases, centuries before we were born.

[Legion2213]

Yeah, but Bush and stuff...and we Europeans are all cultured and wotnot. :p

Anyways you Americans should keep your big fat yankee nose out of other peoples affairs (unless you are saving Europe from Facists, Nazi's and the Warsaw Pact...then it be-ith ok). :D

[JDFP]

Yeah, but Bush and stuff...and we Europeans are all cultured and wotnot. :p

Anyways you Americans should keep your big fat yankee nose out of other peoples affairs (unless you are saving Europe from Facists, Nazi's and the Warsaw Pact...then it be-ith ok). :D

Ah, so the U.S. should stay out of world affairs unless it's a situation where we're saving the rest of the world from disaster/war/etc.

Gotcha. :):p

j.p.

[SymphonicX]

Ok let me clarify things,

I'll keep it very simple, and attempt to make my language choices misunderstanding-free (an impossible task, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot)

1) I reiterate, I have NO PROBLEM with rational innocent Muslims, or anyone else that thinks everyone involved with, and everyone who even cheered at the events of 9/11 should be tried, found guilty, and executed for war crimes.

2) I recognize that 95% of Muslims don't even want to think about the West, let alone screw with us. Out of the remaining 5%, 4% are sheep-minded morons who, while harmless on their own, cheer and applaud the terrorist atrocities out of some twisted quasi-nationalist/religious impulse.

3) So, to be VERY clear. Yes, I am saying that IN MY OPINION about 1 in 100 Muslims who also HAPPEN to be terrorist psychos want to kill people in the West.

4) I have no idea how you a) Stop that 1% from getting bigger, or identify them when they cowardly hide amongst the Muslim masses after perpetrating their hideous atrocities.

5) I DO believe that if we DO NOT find a means to root out and DESTROY that radicalized element of Islam, which COULD have been any OTHER EQUALLY RADICAL THEOLOGY, but ACTUALLY IS radical Muslims, that they'll find a means to kill millions of people they deem to be their enemies.

6) Yes, if my ONLY options are a) Accept millions of casualties in my own country, or b) A vastly larger number of casualties elsewhere that prevents those casualties. I DO CHOOSE B.

7) #6 DOES NOT mean that I WANT to see a hideous bloodbath, but that I also can't understand how any intelligent person could believe that Muslim Terrorists DON'T want to kill as many non-Muslims as they can.

8) Now I'm going to take some old advice and stop talking politics in mixed company. It's obvious this is not the place for that, and that at least some individuals are not going to be able to agree to disagree over hot-button issues.

I hope this explains my feelings on this subject in a much clearer, far more understandable manner.

Whilst I still don't agree, I totally get you when you say it like that - so apologies for the personal attack I obviously read a lot more into it than you meant, so let me offer my virtual hand for a shake.

What you've written there wouldn't have inspired even a miniscule aggressive response from me, so I appreciate the clarification. I don't think it'll ever come to be as totalitarian as that for either side, just for the record. :)

I woke up dreading logging on today because I figured we'd probably get into a massive tennis match so I'm really glad that didn't happen...

Back to business as normal then :) cheers dude

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------


none of which is germane to this discussion. you cannot get on a high horse with people over things they had:

a. no control over or say in

b. were decades away from being born at the time


no one is in any way, shape or form responsible for things they haven't personally done. that is one of the most disgusting ideas (and at the heart of the idiocy known as "white guilt"- which if you feel, please do us a favor and die) in the modern world. that we are somehow "responsible" for things that happened in different time periods, decades or, in some cases, centuries before we were born.

You know that theory about white guilt - I get that - but far away from wanting to die I actually have realised it's not white guilt at all. It's more to do with local guilt....and on a bigger scale, human guilt. Like I feel pretty shit that we, as a species, has managed to fuck up the world so much in the name of so many frivolous things like religion and money.

Just have to assess the iraq invasion on it's current merits, of which there are very few - I mourn the death of any innocents really..

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------


Ah, so the U.S. should stay out of world affairs unless it's a situation where we're saving the rest of the world from disaster/war/etc.

Gotcha. :):p

j.p.

Basically, if you are wrong and it turns out there wasn't going to be a disaster or war, you're at fault.

But if you stick back home and do nothing at all because of this, well, you're at fault.

You guys just have to learn to read minds, it's that simple. I don't know why your country just can't make the effort. I mean, really. Lazy. Just lazy.

[Mike70]

It's more to do with local guilt....and on a bigger scale, human guilt. Like I feel pretty shit that we, as a species, has managed to fuck up the world so much in the name of so many frivolous things like religion and money.


i can see that. i don't buy into it myself nor do i feel "guilty" about anything other people do, have done or will do. that is their own stupidity and greed and they are the ones that have to live with themselves. i cannot control nor worry about what other people have done, are doing, will do. i can only control what mike will or won't do.

[Mr.G]

Ah, so the U.S. should stay out of world affairs unless it's a situation where we're saving the rest of the world from disaster/war/etc.

Gotcha. :):p

j.p.

America: damned if they do, damned if they don't!