From: Tagnut_McDangleberry@dangleberry.co.uk   
      
   In message , Black   
   Minorca Pullets  writes   
      
      
   >You are a solution looking for a problem   
      
   Eh?   
      
   >-I have no interest in   
   >suffering your america bashing   
      
   In other words, you are unable to address *any* of the issues put to   
   you.   
   You are unable to defend the record of the good ol' US of A in its   
   indefensible friendship with genocidal totalitarian bastards. This is   
   because it isn't totalitarianism which bothers you, its the fact that   
   some other country may cock a snoop at your beloved Uncle Sam.   
      
   > as it is based on lies.   
      
     Now. What have I said that is based on lies? Please be specific.   
   Of course, you'll not be able to answer, at least not without recourse   
   to further vague unsubstantiated rambling and assertion, probably   
   meaninglessly and ridiculously containing the words "Marxist" and   
   "Bolshevik."   
      
   >   
   >You claim the mother goose marxist line of 100000 dead in Iraq and   
   >this has been proven absurd.   
      
      
   Who has *proven* it absurd? Reference please.   
   The lancet is a prestigeous medical journal, and the findings of the   
   study are therefore worthy of consideration. You feel able to dismiss   
   them out of hand despite not having any real knowledge of what's in the   
   study, because they don't sit well with your "party line".   
      
     It wouldn't bother you too much if that many Iraqis *had* died,   
   provided nobody else in the wider world finds out about it. As we have   
   already seen (above), support of regimes (such as that in Iraq in the   
   80s) carrying out aggression and the mass killing of civilians is   
   excused and acceptable to you, if it's US policy.   
      
   You know, just pre-fixing a source you don't like with the word   
   "Marxist" isn't really a substitute for rational argument.   
      
   > Given infant mortality preinvasion,   
   >there are fewer Iraqis dieing now.  Yes, US bombs have saved lives.   
      
   The study describes an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths   
   per 1,000 live births between the pre and post war periods.   
      
   >   
   >Its a shame that the UK has succumbed to marxist relativism and if you   
   >have to ask what is right and what is wrong re: terorism, you are   
   >hopeless.   
      
   Vague insubstantial rubbish.   
   >   
   >Were it not for the US, you would have little hammer and sickles on   
   >your pint glasses.   
      
      
   The main aim of the USSR was to avoid another invasion from the West   
   involving 20 million dead. Hence their need to be insulated behind a   
   cordon of puppet states. I don't think they ever wanted to *invade*   
   blighty.   
      
   I bet some brewery already has put the hammer and sickle on pint   
   glasses. Eastern bloc chic, type of thing.   
      
   >   
   >In WWII, we allied with the USSR to defeat the Nazis and wear down the   
   >bolshevics whom we battled after the fall of germany.   
      
   Erm, yes I know. Thanks.   
      
   >   
   >We did the same in the Middle East with Iraq and Iran and the   
   >predictable reult will be the overthrow of despots and the rise of   
   >democracy (as we did in Eurpoe and Japan after WWII).   
      
     What about the times when you tried to overthrow democracy and install   
   despots (see Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala), with varying degrees of   
   success.   
      
      
   >   
   >This is very much unlike the British hsitory of colonialism and   
   >exploitation of the third world.   
      
      
   Maybe. Unlike you, I am not here to defend and excuse everything my   
   country has ever done, least of all empire. I'm not a *massive* fan of   
   invading other people's countries and telling them what to do, but if i   
   lived in Africa or Asia and someone said "you've got to be colonised,   
   who d'you fancy as the colonial power, you can have the British, French,   
   Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, or Germans?" With the benfit of hindsight i   
   would have picked us, every time. It was a "loose maritime democracy",   
   as Orwell put it.   
      
   Anyway colonialism, as practised during the 18th-19th centuries, was a   
   product of it's age. Our empire became untenable after we had exhausted   
   ourselves in 2 world wars, and we then undertook an enlightened   
   decolonisation with minimal bloodshed.   
      
     You've had your own colonial adventures eg. The phillipines. So don't   
   be too quick on your high horse on that score.   
      
   >And it is very much unlike your part   
   >line that tries to relate a false history of imperialsim.   
      
   More incoherent waffle.   
   What does it all mean?   
   >   
   >   
   >bmp   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)