On PTSD, or more properly, on Coming Home

[Michael Tee]

Of course, "evidence" in this case being defined as pointing to some completely prejudiced Bush-lied" web site, perseverating blatant distortions, and Tee-leaf (il)logic, when not out and out lying about lying.  THAT is what consititutes "good evidence" for "Some"

LOL.  I guess when you're heavily invested in the idea that Bush, Cheney and Rummie are honourable men, that Amerikkka's cause is just and that oil was not the main or even the only reason for the Iraq invasion, then sirs' ludicrous rationalizations are as good a way as any of dealing with all of the undeniable evidence to the contrary that just won't go away.

[sirs]

Also helps when said sentiment is based on reality, vs Tee's alternate version of "undeniable evidence to the contrary"

[Cynthia]

I frankly see no reason why we shouldn't want the oil. It's better than wanting blood, which is what the Saddams in history want.

You continue to rant about the American's need for ........
oil
killing babies
bastards
rednecks

Where's you rant about
loss of dignity because one is a woman
loss of digits because said woman wears nail polish
loss of life because said life is simply different.

OIL?
balance, Michael. Your attitude towards Americans doesn't hold sense, nor water.

[Michael Tee]

You're saying that the struggle for women's rights in the Muslim world trumps the struggle against fascism, militarism and imperialism in America?  That you'll ignore fascism, militarism and imperialism in America as long as America fights against the oppression of women in the Middle East?

Never heard that before, but how do you reconcile that attitude (if that's what you're saying) with these facts:
1.  Iraqi women were much LESS OPPRESSED than women in traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; and
2.  there are many more people (babies, toddlers, teenagers, women, the elderly) killed as a result of American action in the Middle East than there are women killed by patriarchal oppression in the region?

Also, considering the torture, rape and murder of women in Iranian prisons, particularly Bahai women, how come Bush, Cheney and Rummy, the saviours of Middle Eastern womanhood, invaded Iraq, which was liberal and accepting in its attitude towards women, and not Iran?

[Cynthia]

"You're saying that the struggle for women's rights in the Muslim world trumps the struggle against fascism, militarism and imperialism in America? "


I am saying that there has been a struggle in the Muslim world. I am not agreeing that there is fascism, miliarism and imperialsm in America.

ONe is truth. One is your slant on the basis of broad stroked bigotry.


Saudi women aren't free to live as the westen woman, either, but we aren't invading Saudi Arabia. I am saying that Saddam not only killed women and treated them with the lowest level of respect, he was massively involved in mass murders. Genocide to be exact.
The fact that Iran is anti-west and against the freedoms of women due to fundamental Moslem Islamic believes...or not fundies..just typcial..historical....
isn't the question at hand.

Oil still doesn't mix with the letting of blood.

A dictatorship    vs     Oil hungry imperialism...(IF That's what we are to you.)..

They still do not deserve to be in the same mixer.

Bake a cake without death and be sure to add plenty of oil.

Ciao down....it's Turkey's Day

[Michael Tee]

<<I am saying that there has been a struggle in the Muslim world. I am not agreeing that there is fascism, miliarism and imperialsm in America.>>

Well, I certainly agree with you on your first point and on the second we will just have to agree to disagree.

<<ONe is truth. One is your slant on the basis of broad stroked bigotry. >>

Well, that's your opinion.  Mine is that both are the truth.

<<Saudi women aren't free to live as the westen woman, either, but we aren't invading Saudi Arabia. I am saying that Saddam not only killed women and treated them with the lowest level of respect, he was massively involved in mass murders. Genocide to be exact.>>

I don't get it.  You're saying that Saddam oppressed women more than Saudi Arabia did because he also committed mass murders and genocide?  And THAT'S why the U.S. invaded Iraq and not Iran or Saudi Arabia?   But Bush never tried to get public support for the invasion by claiming that Saddam was a mass murderer and was guilty of genocide.  His main argument to the American people was "weapons of mass destruction" and then when that lie was exposed as a fraud, he found another reason, not related to either genocide or mass murder.  It was to "bring democracy" to Iraq.
The fact that Iran is anti-west and against the freedoms of women due to fundamental Moslem Islamic believes...or not fundies..just typcial..historical....
isn't the question at hand.

<<Oil still doesn't mix with the letting of blood.

<<A dictatorship    vs     Oil hungry imperialism...(IF That's what we are to you.)..

<<They still do not deserve to be in the same mixer.>>

This means that it's worse to be a murdering dictatorship than an oil-hungry imperialist?  I would tend to agree with you (IF that's what you are saying) except for the fact that the oil-hungry imperialists are ALSO mass murderers and on an even bigger scale than Saddam.

<<Bake a cake without death and be sure to add plenty of oil.>>

Uhh . . . OK.

<<Ciao down....it's Turkey's Day>>

We already had Canadian Thanksgiving about a month ago.  But Happy Thanksgiving to you (and the rest of the 3DHS gang) anyway.

[Cynthia]

Hope your Canadian Turkey was fully stuffed!




Cindy