New thread, trying to keep down the infrastructure costs to Jake.

I have read the original thread over and over, I have found good folks making strong points about strong beliefs. I see that one of my favorite presidents has been brought into the fray(of course he would love to be mixing it up). If you get a chance to visit it, go to Roosevelt Island in DC, just off the Parkway. You cross a foot bridge over the Potomac, go through a woods and as you exit the woods you see a statue of TR (big statue) all around this area are quotes from his speeches. I have many favorites, but think this one points up a bit of the concern I have in our present situation:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Teddy Roosevelt

Remember, Teddy spoke of the 'big stick', but he also won the Noble Peace prize for his efforts in ending the Sino-Soviet war. A complex man, who dealt with complex issues.

Peace.

I know that spot Dean, I've been to Roosevelt Island a few times. Teddy was quite a giant in spite of his stature.

Thanks for posting the actual quote, Dean, my organic RAM was malfunctioning.

Seb,,,Yes I know about our jails...our prisoners are treated more civil than most other countries upstanding citizens...Where else can you be put through law school in jail. I agree that freedom for all and good cellular service cannot happen overnight, or even in this lifetime...but ya gotta start somewhere....remember what the first cell phones looked like? They were quite enormous....and now they fit right in the palm of your hand.....

dean, we are roosevelt fans as well...i don't know how many times i have told michael, why can't we have a president like him...sigh...they just don't make'em like they used to...all corrupt and egocentric now in my opinion...as i have made it clear a few times that i was with the other half of america that didn't vote for dubbya...

"World Citizen"... Does that exist? Just some ponderings on that, bear with me...

I'm Dutch, but as I've shown by moving to the other side of the planet, I'm not married to that (small) piece of ground, nor to its heritage. Am I not proud of "my" country? Sure, in some ways. I'm proud of its history, the way it was once, small as it is, a worldpower among the likes of Spain and England. I'm proud of the liberal views it holds. I'm proud of the way we all dress up in orange at big sporting events. But I don't identify with our eternal bickering over everything. I don't think Holland is beautiful in terms of scenery or cities. I think it's overcrowded and over-regulated.

So what about the rest of the world? I love the mountains of Austria, but hate its fascism (which is still there). I'm proud of the way Germany has dealt with the aftermath of WWII, but don't like their efficiency-uber-alles. I love and hate French national pride. I have an Italian sense of style, but living there would get on my nerves. England's castles are beautiful, but the rain... Scandinavia is breathtakingly beautiful, but even the people are icecold. I love American culture, young as it is, and its diversity... but that diversity seems to have welded a sense of "us" that sometimes shoots further than its goal. I'm fascinated by the ancient cultures of Greece, Egypt and the Middle East, but fundamentalism frightens me. India is an example of a multi-religion society, but a little too multi in terms of people.

This planet is my home. I love its diversity that gives it richness. Being an atheist, I'm not coloured by religious views or hatred towards people believing otherwise. But I will resist people trying to impose their views on me or others. Countries are just lines drawn on the map of the world. Iraq has over 150 different ethnical groups, divided over 2000 different tribes. The country itself was invented by the West after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

Does that mean I don't believe in anything? No. I believe in myself. That is my freedom. Other people believe in other things and even though I might disagree with some of what they believe in, it's their freedom to do so. I just ask that they give me and others the same respect, but that is very seldomly found, unfortunately.

Welcome home Marc!

Very nicely put, Marc. What is interesting is how much we agree on (pretending I'm a typical American), and how few our disagreements. Why is it that this is all we see in both of our news broadcasts? I swear sometimes the biggest polarizing factor is the press.

While I'm on this rant, the one that I've been hearing alot about is this Turkey/Kurd wannabe conflict. It's all you hear about on the news but when the actual leaders on either side makes a statement, they always say there is not a problem. Why doesn't the press just accept this?

Cecil, who says that those leaders will tell the truth on-camera? It's well known that Turkey is very anxious about the Kurds in northern Iraq declaring an idependent Kurdistan; they fear it will spark the Kurds in eastern Turkey to do the same. Even in Europe (Holland and Germany mainly), tensions between Turks and Kurds has been at a boiling point for years, where police sometimes had to get between the two to stop riots.

So Syria is next on Bush's war list. Of course, after he has done away with that regime, he will claim that its weapons have been transported to Cuba in rowing boats, and from there to North Korea, then to Indonesia, and so on, and so on... Where does it stop? When every leader of every nation has the american flag tatoed on his forehead?

As Cecil said, the media takes and puts its spin on the news, in general for ratings to get viewers hooked on their every word. I’m certainly not going to get all worked up over this until credible and accurate information is provided.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and found that even amongst these 3 sites, the reporting of news on this particular topic (Syria) had different takes. Out of the 3, I would think that MSNBC seemed to present the information as it appears to be (in my opinion). I also did some searching (unsuccessfully) to find out what the legal ramifications (from a U.N. perspective) are for harboring war criminals (Saddam and regime). If anyone finds this information, can you please post it? I believe that harboring a war criminal is against U.N. Policy, but I’m not sure.

Like I said, I am going to wait until all of the “facts” are presented before I get all excited…better for the health

Hmm, I doubt that Saddam is a war criminal. He can be acused of crimes against humanity, of course, but war crimes?

This quote from MSNBC gives me chills: "In light of this new environment, they (Syria) should review their actions and their behavior" [Powell]. New evironment? Sounds awfully like "a new world order" to me.

And this: '"The Syrian government needs to cooperate with the United States and our coalition partners and not harbor any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account for their tenure," Bush told reporters on Sunday.'
Be held to account for whom? Who is going to judge these people? The US? On what legal basis? Or are they going to ship them to Guantanamo Bay and keep them there indefinitely, until the

[???]

...world has forgotten about them?

That begs the question what should we do with the Iraqi leadership. Let them go, send them to Gitmo, try them at the Hauge, or let the Iraqi's try them when they have a viable court system. I'm for the last choice except the big fish (Saddamm and sons). All of this is very similiar to the end of WW2 and the de-nazification of Germany. Some leaders they tried at Nurmenburg (of which I believe 20 or so were executed), some were re-indoctronated and released and some nothing happened.

As far as Syria habouring Iraqi leaders, why should they do that. Are they legal aliens in Syria, do they have a visa? If not should they not be sent back to their country of origin. Which would solve the whole problem.

marc, to read of the war crimes that Saddam and his regime have committed, you may want to begin here:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm

Thanks Cynde. The Iran-Iraq war could be a case indeed, although one can question the legitimacy of that case after such a long time.

Meanwhile, talks of forming an interim government have started in Nasiriyah. Some groups are boycotting the meeting, protesting the US presence. Can't blame them, as the US wants a pro-Israeli hawk to head that government... another diplomatic blunder, IMO.

This meeting brings back memories to a couple of months ago, when the same thing went on in Afghanistan. And where is that country now? Warlords are again establishing control in their regions. Even the Taliban is gaining strongholds again. The official government is virtually powerless outside of Kabul, as they don't have money to pay the soldiers and police. And the coalition lets it all happen. Don't be surprised if you see the same chaos in Iraq, a year from now. Perfect feeding ground for a new Saddam.

Marc, I would not count on it. Iraq is a very different country, it has a history of nationalism, unlike Afghanistan, where the only allegiance is to your local tribe.

The funny part is if you held a free election in Iraq right now, Saddam would probably be elected. The trick is to set up a government with checks and balances and term limits such that if a strong man is elected he will not last or have his power controlled by a legislature or court.

An example of a potentially good system that went bad is Iran. Free elections and a responsible government that answers to the people. Unfortunately they left veto rights with the supreme leader/mullah, now they are stuck without any control on his and the mullah's power. Bad, bad choice and something to avoid in Iraq.

I'm not sure where you get your information on Afghanistan, but everything I've been seeing is how much better it is there than anytime in the last 30 years. Still a long ways to go but improving every day. Alot of the problems stem from generations of people only knowing war, they do not yet have the capacity to settle differences peacefully. This they will learn.

Iraq has a history of nationalism? You have to educate me here Cecil, because everything I've read so far shows that Iraq is as much of a tribal society as Afghanistan, or the rest of the Middle East for that matter. After the Ottoman empire had sided with Germany and Austria in WW1, and lost, Mesopotamia came under British control. They established a king in 1921, but full independence only came in 1932. After that, Iraq's history has been a chain of coups and turmoil, until the Baath party came to power (again) in 1968.
The last few year, Saddam has been granting more privileges and powers to local tribes again, in an effort to gain their support (for him to stay in power). Also, the Kurds have been enjoying a de facto indepence for some years already with the no-fly zones protecting them. They will not want to give that up easily.

I've seen reports that indicate that *not* a lot has changed in Afghanistan at all. Small scale projects are underway, but they mean very little in the day to day lives of people. The exception may be Kabul, but outside that city, local tribes and warlords (Hekmatyar being one of the worst) are rapidly establishing control. Help organisations are increasingly weary to go outside of Kabul. The government simply doesn't have enough funds to make big changes, and the West can be blamed for that.

I agree with you on Iran though. One minor note: I think you meant the religious leader, the Ayatollah .

Agree with the history but your looking at old history, look at the reaction in this war. They hated Saddam but would die for Iraq. Look at Baghdad today, I see a people that will figure it out pretty quickly, they want it as much as we want them to have it. A free representative, inclusive, open and accountable government where the rights of the individuals are protected by a binding document.

On the future Iraqi government, I see something similiar to the US where the provinces maintain alot of control and a mixed legislature both by population and province. They have the same problem as the US, most of the population is in the cities which could have to much power if it was a pure democracy.

The people willing to die for Iraq, IMO, doesn't have so much to do with nationalism but more with a shared fear/mistrust/hatred of the US. Most common people don't care too much about politics (which is why they have learned to cheer for whoever is in power at any particular moment), but to most muslims the US is the heathen imperialist coming to destroy islam. So far, the administration has not done much to prove them wrong; especially given the latest US-Israeli duet towards Syria.

marc, you said:

"but to most muslims the US is the heathen imperialist coming to destroy islam."

Was that a direct quote from a Muslim living in Iraq?

In a way yes. I've heard many muslims, both inside and outside Iraq, use these words in one form or another.

I just hadn't heard those exact words, and was curious...here is another interesting link...as I believe you can't always believe what you read, or hear, regardless of the source

http://welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/index.html

Funny, Cynde .

This is a more serious site, by American and British human rights activists:

Stop Jay Garner

Marc, once again I just do not get it. I read most of what was on that site and there was not one coherent argument on why Mr. Garner is the wrong guy for the job. Not for lack of trying, but why is a weapons manufacturer (a very successful one, I might add) disqualified for a job. Did he not just finish working with the Kurds in the North to rebuild that section of the country. Sounds like a perfect person for the job.

I know what the problem is, he's a friend of Donald Rumsfield, he's got to be a low life scum. You do realize how silly this is.

He is the wrong man for the job because, yes, he is a friend of Donald Rumsfeld. In political terms that means that he is far-right and very much pro-Israel; exactly the kind of man that invokes allergic reactions among Muslims. Also, the mere fact that some Iraqi groups have refused to join yesterday's meeting because of Garner is reason enough to find someone else.

I get the impression that many Americans don't realize how deep the Palestinian issue cuts in that region. Country borders don't mean that much there, but islam and tribes all the more. Most Arabs and Muslims feel themselves connected to the Palestinian cause, and have done so for the past 50 years. Until that issue is resolved and the Palestines finally have their own state (again), America will never be trusted, let alone be a friend in that region. Installing a pro-Israel hawk as the head of the interim government is about the worst signal you can give then.

A showing of this mistrust came yesterday already. A report I read from Mosul showed lots of anti-American sentiments. According to the (Dutch) reporter, many Iraqi flags were flying. When he asked a group of about 20 Iraqi's whether they were happy with the Americans, the answer was a resounding "No!". The ones who answered in detail said that they didn't trust the US and that they thought it was only after the oil.

Quote from MSNBC: "Garner, for his part, said he was concerned about the slow start. “My fear right now is, every day we delay we’re probably losing some momentum, and there’s perhaps some vacuums in there getting filled that we won’t want filled,”"
If this fear of his is genuine, than he should step down, because his presence is one of the reasons for losing momentum. I suspect that he won't, which begs the question whether the Bush administration doesn't understand the sentiments involved... or simply doesn't care?

How about some info from the other side, here's an article from Fortune Magazine,
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,433417,00.html

Slightly different opinion.

And another one from the Independent.
http://www.mggpillai.com/sections.php3?op=viewarticle&artid=2274

Not as flattering, but an interesting story about the Kurds.

He seem like a no-nonsense man that can work with Moslems and get the job done.

Doesn't really matter, the decision's been made and we'll see how it works out.

I take exception to the idea that a person's friends are, by definition "far-right" and "pro-israeli" apparently because the person in question is assumed to be such. Are all your friends argumentative passifists, Marc?

Who says I'm a pacifist?

Jay Garner is well known to be all the things I called him; what I meant to say was that it's precisely those qualifications which are probably the basis of his friendship with Rumsfeld. To go even a step further, I have a strong suspicion about Rumsfeld that he has a strong dislike for people who do *not* meet those qualifications, but that's just my feeling.

Marc,
It is the stated policy of the US to support the state of Israel as an Ally. This is not the policy of the Bush administration but ratified by the Congress and has been such since 1947.

Donald Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense and therefore the civilian boss of Tommy Franks who is the boss of Garner. I am pleased that Garner has all the qualifications you state and I would be apalled if he was opposed to US policy or less than friendly with the Secretary of Defense, who, by the way is a personal hero. I think the man is magnificent and has served his country to perfection.

That you are not a pacifist and opposed to Israel begins to reveal you for what you really are. Next you are going to justify suicide bombings I expect. Since the Oslo "peace accords" the Palestinian people have been impoverished by the selfish behavior of criminals who are simply ripping off a population while claiming to help them. What is the difference between "Palestine" and South African "home lands"? Personally I favor a unified secular country with civil rights for all. This palestinian home land suits the needs of the worst elements of Israelis, Palestinians and neighboring countries.

I might add that Jordan is precisely a Palestinian nation. Have you considered that? Do you know that Israelis and Palestinians fought side by side against regional christians and British during the war of independence?

Iraqi flags are flying all over Iraq and with the blessings of the US military. I'll bet your dutch reporter left that out. I'll also bet that the flags flying are the pre-1991 version which goes back before Saddam Hussein. Do you know the difference?

Have you been to Israel? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I have spent as much time there as I have in Bonaire. I can tell you that I know first hand about how the Palestinian issue cuts (and does not cut) in the region. I have worked side by side with Israelis and Palestinians in the same enterprise. The Palestinians I worked with have had their homes on the west bank shot up by palestinian terrorists for the "Crime" of working with Israelis.

You have offended my country, my patriotisim and my heritage and yeah, I'm taking it very personally. (Sorry Jake but this has gone too far.) I am angry and offended by Marc's words and I think he will stop at nothing. It has become indecent.

LOL!

Marc,
While you are laughing at death, war, destruction, heritage, patriotisim and my religion (DISGUSTING) I have something further to add.

You seem to have this idea that Americans do not understand the consequences of our Middle east policy, what you scoffingly call "the muslim allergy" or that our support is idle or is remote.

It isn't.

We have paid for our beliefs with terrorist attacks on our citizens, hijackings, murders, gasoline shortages, bombings of our forces in beirut, rolling tourists off ocean liners, destruction of the world trade center and so on. It is absurd to think that Americans do not understand the consequences of our democratically ratified beliefs. What you do not understand is that we have beliefs and we are willing to pay a price for them.

Have a nice Laugh. You have deeply offended me.

marc
I've been reading your posts for a while now and at first I was offended. Now I just feel pity for you and people like you. An athiest with no country to be proud of or show allegience to. Seems to me , you are the defintion of a Marxist.

(remember, CIVIL conversation;))

in my opinion, marc is receiving more "abuse" than is due him...

and i suppose to those that are really offended by marc - "hit dog hollers"

;)

Agree big time, Bob.

I respect Marc's (and Geoffrey's) opinion, I may not agree with all but more importantly I enjoy hearing all sides.

Geoffrey, as you well know, I was laughing at you, not at the things you mention. They are not laughing matters, although many seem to regard them as good TV entertainment.
What *you* don't seem to understand, or are blindly unwilling to question is *why* America has suffered "terrorist attacks on our citizens, hijackings, murders, gasoline shortages, bombings of our forces in beirut, rolling tourists off ocean liners, destruction of the world trade center and so on". Might it not have something to do with America's double standards when it comes to "justice and freedom for all"? Could it not be that those doing the bombings feel wronged by the US for decades now? Jake had a good comparison to being a parent. If you had a kid and you kept beating, abusing and ignoring it all the time, what do you think that kid will do when it grows up?

YOU are offended?? Now *that's* a laugh! Let's not forget that it was Susan who started the original thread. Under the title, if I might add, "In anticipation of the America-bashing from abroad...". If you can't take the heat, then don't build a kitchen.

Claude, you are double wrong. Not only do I not need any pity, but further more... I'm a Marcist, not a Marxist (I'm not gonna explain that one ).
I'll try to explain it again (although I don't have much to add to my "World citizen" description): Not having to "pledge allegience" to anything or anyone but myself (and those I hold dear)... not to flags, symbols, religion, countries, dogmas, leaders... to me is the greatest freedom there is. It allows me to view the world from all sides (politically, socially, religiously) and form my opinions as I go. In the case of (current) American foreign policy, I have strong criticism (and fears). There are still many other things I like about the US though. An open mind allows that.

Can't believe I'm siding with a guy who wears his shades perched on top of his cranium ... but as an Englishman who's ashamed to say that he didn't find the time to take to the streets with a banner proclaiming "NOT IN MY NAME", Marc does seem to be talking a fair bit of sense to me.
Slightly concerned about him being "a Marcist" though. My old lady's called Marcia & if I thought for one moment that she figured in his Marcist plans ... well, let's just say that those shades of his would require an invasion of his back passage by the coalition forces before they saw the light of day again. :-)

Keely, nice to see you again

Ah, yes...just like old home week again! Carole

Marc, you are a bigoted anti-semite (THAT was the thing Geoffrey was offended by, and I, an American of Italian and Irish descent, was as well) who likes to spout inaccuracies and lies for apparently no reason other than that it offends people.

You ought to congratulate yourself -- if Holland is full of people like you, THIS American will NEVER spend her money there. I'm at the point where I will not even want to return to Bonaire, as it has the misfortune of harbouring you.

And if spelling flames were lame from Geoffrey, why are they now reasonable?

I was hoping that I would not have to post on this thread again (wasn't good for my blood pressure OR stress level). For those reasons I finally came to the conclusion that I would have "agree to disagree" with those that don't share a similar opinion as mine, and move on. (I will make sure not to bring the subject up if/when I meet them in person.)

However, as Jake and Linda have asked me to "keep an eye" on the pages of BT while they are on their much needed vacation, I am posting some of Jake's previous comments (verbatim) that he has made so eloquently regarding posts to BT and to this thread, as I cannot say it any better.

Please "think before you post to see if you post might perhaps include a personal attack or be interpreted to be too all encompassing and fostering criticism of a stereotype.

The purpose of this board is to encourage discourse and get an understanding of alternate views - not castigate those who disagree with you.

So, as members of the BT community, I would like to ask all who are posting here to respect the fact that others may not share your views, and that, at least on BonaireTalk, everyone has a right to their own opinions and ideologies."


So, please take time when you are composing your posts. I know that I have re-written several of mine before I hit the "Post" button (especially in the "heat" of the moment).

I know that some of you were very interested in a "civil" conversation about the topic. So please, let's keep it civil.

Thanks,

Cynde
Assistant Moderator

Hi Andy, nice to see you.. I have not been around for a bit myself, but I am learning to take more breaks!!!

Happy Easter folks..

ps: where did Jake & Linda go???

Well done, Cynde Lee. Carole

LOL Andy, and thanks

Susan, there are only 2 bigoted people here, and they share the same last name. At no point during this thread have I made any disqualifying remarks about the jewish religion, or religion in general (open mind, remember?). The fact that I don't agree with America's or Israel's foreign policy doesn't sum up to me being an anti-semite. The fact that you see it that way only shows what a petty mind you have. Also, by calling me anti-semite you have, as far as I'm concerned, invoked Goodwin's law. I'm done with you. Goodbye.

Sarah, they are on vacation in Florida with the kids

Mimi, are you out there???? cb

red sox take cubs in six...

(baghdad bob)

Susan
I've been following this discussion from the beginning and did not want to get involved, but your reaction forces me. I'm proud to be a Dutchmen and so do many other people here. If you don't want to spend your $'s here I am glad because we only welcome people from other countries with an open source that are paying respect to our opinion and "freedom" as well as we do to your opinion. It's not one way around!

This was my first and (hopefully) last contribution.

Joost

What happened to the "Agree to Disagree" theory?
One shouldn't allow someone's views or opinions to turn their world upside down. Respect each others views and opinions and be glad you have the freedom to do so.