'Axis of Evil' Making U.S. Allies Nervous

FOX ^ | Wednesday, February 06, 2002 | The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[MadIvan]

As you're reading mere cue cards from Millbank Tower, I expected such a nonsensical response from you. Just remember, if the readership numbers are any indication, there are 3 times more of us than there are of you elitist leftist snobs.

By the way, I don't remember you leftists complaining much about foreign ownership when Murdoch got his stable of papers to endorse your boy. But then again it's only an issue that is relevant when they say things you don't like.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

You're indulging in the same leftist palaver that just because the US made a mistake in misjudging Osama's true utility in fighting the Communists, that somehow they ought to be less hard on him and his associates. Mistakes will occur; that is not a reason to not hunt down Osama and kill him, nor to deal with terrorist regimes with sufficient severity. For you see, that is correcting the mistake. Shutting down other terrorist regimes is a further correction. Not shutting them down, letting them live, is perpetuating a mistake.

Finally, appeasement is not an option. Appeasement only works if the other party is rational and has rational goals. The radical Islamists have shown every indication of hating us for who we are and what we represent - our culture, our values, the freedoms we give to women, etc. all exist in opposion to their system of beliefs. One wonders why your fellow leftie Christopher Hitchens sees this and why the Guardian reading left wants to just appease and run away.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

I just pointed out to you that thumping great majority of those polled by the Mirror supported the Americans in their treatment of the Al Quaeda prisoners, which is the most recent data we have. Which is more representative, that, or the pathetic ramblings of an elitist of the Islington set?

As for suggesting I grovel to the Americans, the numbers of Americans who have gotten an earbashing from me for insulting the UK would tend to disagree, I dare say. I was doing that before your membership here was a glimmer in your Internet Explorer window.

Finally, I am sure that anyone with brains and some courage recognises that a foreign policy based on "Please Mr. Terrorist, please don't hurt us, we'll do whatever you want and be nicer next time." is not realistic. But in the end, that is what you Grauniad people want - surrender, appeasement, accomodation. I don't agree with the Americans on everything, but I certainly agree with drawing a line and saying No to any such notion.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

Yes when did you ever say anything about Murdoch - you've only been on FR since January 27th, can we have specific references; So long as he was puffing smoke signals for Blair, you had no complaints I'm sure. Come now, really, I suspect you're just making up this so-called opposition to foreign ownership to try and make yourself seem more credible than you really are.

Secondly, the numbers raise a point. You're calling yourself a true Brit when a lot more people read a newspaper that expresses an opinion that is contrary to your own. Maybe you're "True Guardian Reader" then.

Ivan

[dighton]

By the way, do you have problems typing words like ****, ******* and ****?

Here's chapter and verse.

BTW, pay special heed to the following:

Final comment, liberals and liberal causes. This board was established for discussions by conservatives of events and concepts that are important to us. The media is dominated by liberals. The government is infested by liberals. Our educational institutions are overrun by liberals. The liberal viewpoint and liberal "debate" is forced upon us every day from every news broadcast, TV program, newspaper, school room, congressional debate, and on and on, ad infinitum. We are not suffering for a lack of liberal input. . . . This is not a government funded or approved project and we do not need to offer you equal time. If you are a liberal and want to post on FR (and several long-time posters are), you'd best watch your step and take care not to offend anyone, especially me [Jim Robinson].

[MadIvan]

The Americans were injured most by the Al Quaeda; strictly speaking, the crime occured on their soil, why the hell do they need the approval of Brussels or the UN to proceed to prosecute the crime?

In any event, your whole post is a disguise for a single intent - "stop the Americans, make them not hurt the terrorists, restrain them, hold them back". Well pardon me, but these people want us dead too. Or did you not hear about the planned attacks on London as well? Were you not around for the supporters of the extremists in Luton saying that Islam was going to take over the world? Or for that matter British Muslims presently in Pakistan saying on ITN that they'd be delighted to kill Britons?

Even Blair is more rational than you are. You've read the Guardian for so long it's switched off even your survival instinct.

Basically your answer is to do nothing except chatter away in Brussels and the UN about doing something and in the process restrain the Americans as if them putting Al Quaeda in their graves is a bad thing. Give it a bloody rest, would you. If the savagery of the WTC attack indicated anything, it was that we are not dealing with civilised people - they are unlikely to be impressed by a massive show of idle chatter. Nor are we going to buy peace and security by showing our unwillingness to show our resolve to punish terrorism.

Ivan

[F16Fighter]

It is clear there are TWO Americans...

Those of liberal Demo-cRATic persuasion who are virtual Europeans with hearts of a frighten little girls, and with gonads of eunuchs; And those real Americans who understand the responsibility, sacrifice, and courage it takes to preserve the freedom so many take for granted.

[M. Thatcher]

Pssst: We don't care if we're loved. Here's a simple lesson for you and the rest of the world: If you plan to attack us, we will unleash hell.

[dighton]

If being offended by naughty words is a problem, don't go drinking with your buddies. If being offended by different points of view is a problem, stay home and don't listen to anyone else, ever.

Listen, jerk. Those were not my words, but Jim Robinson's. He runs this site.

Get it?

[MadIvan]

My my, aren't we showing our true colours, socialist. As soon as a bit of opposition rears its head, losing one's temper. Terribly bad form.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

In what way was US policy wrong - Israel is a tiny, beleagured state; the only democracy in the region, and the only one that doesn't have an inclination to rip the fingernails out of its feminists for wearing nail polish. Oh, so the US was wrong not to abandon them to their fate.

Give me a bloody break. To suggest the Americans somehow invited an attack of this barbarity is a barbaric suggestion in and of itself. Again, your sole solution to it is capitulation, surrender, giving the terrorists whatever they want - and proving to them a point which they will take to heart: terrorism pays. You want to live in a world in which it does? If so, shudder for your posterity.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

Very convenient. This shutting down - I believe it's Iraq next, no? - of central asian/arab states with proximity to or ownership of major oil reserves is just an unlucky break for US planners?

Answer the following questions yes or no, if you wish to be considered seriously:

Has Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorist acts?

Is Saddam Hussein a continued danger to the stability of the region?

Has Saddam Hussein shown a willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction if it suits his purposes?

Has Saddam Hussein also shown a propensity towards wanting to develop nukes?

There is only one answer to all these and that is "Yes", whether you like it or not. You are merely scratching for excuses to let a foul dictator who wants nukes, has gassed his own people, off the hook. May we know what Saddam Hussein has done for you that you'd stand up for the man?

Ivan