Re: News Release

Cliff <> wrote:
Ah, then the police in Germany is much better, I see ;-)

From there:

| From Workers Voice
| Organ of the Communist Party of New Zealand
| If the terrorist Red Army Faction killed a Bonn policeman, there would
| be a swift reaction. Special action units would rush into the field. A
| state of siege would be proclaimed.
| But when nazis kill at least 16 people un less than 11 months, this is
| treated as an everyday event in Germany.

Sorry, you did tell me about dumb propaganda. Now you're referencing
dumb propaganda sources. You're even referencing sources of communist

Please be serious.

What do you want to tell me with this source? seems that Germany is just like the US in alot of respects

Of course, we have problems with criminals, too. But: usually the police
comes, before you're dead. And I think, maybe this is true for the US,
too, isn't it?

Because of the possibilities of accidents. Because of the possibilities
of people who will not handle with care. Because of the possibilities of
drunk people with a weapon. Because of the possibilitis of mad or crazy
people with a weapon. I would not feel more secure with an own weapon,
because if he hits me and I'm hitting him, we both have a big problem...
I have carried a weapon for the last 25 years, never had an accident.

I believe that. I'm not talking about you here. And, BTW, I didn't want
to argue here at all.

The same idea is in Switzerland, for example. There every man has a gun
at home usually. But they leave it at home, because Switzerland is a
very secure country, so they don't need to carry one with them. This was
the reason why I was asking why you're carrying a gun.

But: forget that. It has nothing to do with our discussion here.

drunks, mad people, crazy people do not have the right to carry weapons.
This right is reserved for those with clean records and that pass a
stringent background check.

Sounds good.

Here it is perfectly normal but then again I don't live in a city.
Yes, I know that many people in the US feel like you. I just cannot
understand why. But: forget that topic.
It IS one of our constitutional rights:

Yes, I know. Just like it is in Switzerland.

The documents show that we did indeed have good cause for removing Saddam.

Good cause to remove Saddam? Of course, there are good causes to remove
Saddam! I see only good causes to remove Saddam, I cannot see one argument,
why not removing this criminal vermin.

This was not the question.

The question was: who is responsible to remove him, who has to do this,
how can it be done, what can we do to help to remove him. And these are
all questions of public international law, because unfortunately, Saddam
was the official leader of a recognized state.

And the next question was: how can it be done, that things in Iraq are
getting better and not starting a civil war there.

Why did Rumsfeld support
Saddam at all? I really don't understand.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Yes, this is the ever repeating error of US foreign policy. And this
everytime failed and leads into desaster.
Just like the disaster that led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the
tearing down of the Berlin Wall?

No, because this is only polemics. The Berlin Wall did not fall because
the US supported Saddam, sorry. And, by the way: unfortunately many
Europeans supported Saddam, too, to make that clear. This is not only a
mistake of the US.

BTW: when I have a look onto how the DDR was and how the BRD was, then
I know, why I like the US and don't like the communists at all ;-)

Sometimes things are part of a larger
picture. Every body at the time was pissed as hell at Reagan for his posture
against the USSR but in the long term the strategy worked, to the benefoit
of the world.

I'm not arguing against Reagan here, as you might detect yourself. And:
I don't like the communists at all, BTW.

Saddam was just a pawn in the larger picture, that is why
Rumsfeld, actually the US, Rumsfeld was just a spokesman.

Yes. A mistake, as it was a big mistake from French and Germans, too.
We all have to learn not to support criminals any more.

I don't think so. A great leader makes intelligent decisions, which
into a situation, the people she/he leads are benefitting of.
Great leaders make decisions not based on popularity, some of these
decisions are tough decisions.
Yes. But: intelligent decisions, please. Not dumb decisions, which lead
into a situation, people are suffering from.
You call it dumb, but remember we did not start this. We did not declare
war, war was declared against us.

I'm not calling dumb that the US are reacting onto the attacks. This is
their right without any doubt, and I already mentioned, that here in
Europe there is much support - not only, but also because of being under
attack, too, like in Madrid.

We're talking about the provisions to chose here, not about wether we
should do something. Of course, we have to act! The question is: how?

I'm appreciating your efforts to fight for the ideas of freedom and
democrathy, even if I'm thinking that you're spending too much energy
into the completely wrong places.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Thank you.

[trying to help the Arabic people to find to freedom and democracy]
This can work, I think.
Wishful thinking. I also wish that would work but how is that to work
against a country like Iraq? One that was controlled with a strong hand by a

Let's support the opposition with education and money. Let's support
them with intelligence and public withstanding. Let's support them with
sanctions and refusing recognition against dictators. We all did a big
mistake to support Saddam and never support opposition. We all did a big
mistake by never trying to support the opposition.

How would that work against N Korea and kim il?

Really, I cannot see how to help here. This is a very difficult
question. What we could do is to exert pressure against the people who
support him. I'm not having a solution for this problem, and I'm very
worried about that.

I hope, Kim will run out of money at last.

What about Iran
and almedijani?

Almedijani is dreadful. But you cannot compare the Mullahs to Saddam.
The Mullahs have power, because we did fail in supporting the democratic
forces in Iran against the Shah. We supported the Shah, and that was a
terrible mistake of us. The Shah just was a monarch, a dictator. The
Mullahs have power because of a revolution of the people of Iran.

Of course, I don't like the Mullahs at all. But I cannot ignore these
facts, and you should not, too.

And we are doing the same mistake again in Saudi Arabia. Please have a
look onto _this_ regime, please, which is called "friends of the US".

With a weapon, you cannot win the heart of a man. You can hit it, but
not win.
Please think about the fact, that we're not fighting a war in the
meaning of a war between states. We're fighting a war to win the minds
and the hearts of people, for inhibiting them from being abused by
Islamistic criminals, and for convincing them that the ideas of freedom
and democracy will really change their life for their own benefit.
I agree, the problem is that with a dictator form of government how do you
win the hearts and minds of the people when dissent is punishable by death?
Saddam controlled his people with fear, same with kim il. How do you win the
hearts and minds when any form of dissent is crushed.

You're right, this is no easy game to play. But Iraq was not like Northern
Korea is. Iraq is not homogenous at all. There are many different groups
who don't like each other. And Saddam is not Kim.

Northern Korea reminds me to Oceania of "1984" of George Orwell. This is a
real big problem.

Somebody has to stand up against
Muslim extremists and Sharia law. It certainly sounds like you or your
leaders don't have the gumption to.
This is only an error based on misunderstanding.


Or a unwillingness to put your actons and deeds where your
mouth and heart is?

This is just wrong. And it's just not fair from you to allege this about
everybody who thinks, that the provisions taken in Iraq are terribly

You better should have a look onto the results and think about the
possiblity, that I'm completely right here.

Unwillingness to make tough decisions and stick by them.

The opposite is true.

At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain