Talking of Desecration ... 3174

I would not fault his courage or his convictions in that case, but I would reject his methods of trying to insbreastute change in a place that will not respond positively to direct challenge by one or two outsiders on their own streets.

If you believe that, you can, but it is simply not true. The human rights movements are far bigger than George Bush, even if he gets the publicity because he is the president of the USA. ...

I don't know if you are doing it deliberately or through failure to comprehend, but I did make it clear in other postings that there is a world of difference between

(a) fighting for civil rights in a country like the USA with a large group you can call on for support available at your fingertips and

(b) taking a futile stand in a foreign country where you will be perceived to be attacking the beliefs of every citizen of that country.

Of course the civil disobedience movements of India and those modelled on them by black Americans and their sympathisers in the US can succeed. I have never disputed that. But you cannot talk about (a) and (b) as if they are the same.

No. I am talking about winning by a strategy that will work, not by one that is likely to fail. If a man has a gun and you have a club, you are not likely to run at him and try to hit him as your preferred method of attack. You would use a strategy that had a better chance of success, (like using your brains instead of brute force) and that's not appeasement!

At times, yes, when he was on his way to gaining control of Germany. I said it 'can' have the opposite effect, not that that was inevitable.

I appreciate that you are not religious. But as far as I am aware, Saudi law does not stop anyone practising their faith personally, or having a bible. What they will get you for it trying to proselytise. Not that I agree they should criminalise that, but if you are a Christian and are determined to do it, then you have to accept the consquences of that action. Breaking the law as an individual in this circumstance is unlikely to achieve the goal of converting people in that country to Christianity. On the contrary, you will convince them that you are part of an imperialist conspiracy. So you need to use other tactics - ones that involve using your brains.

Fair enough. But by your previous arguments you seemed to be morally bound to travel to the Middle East and wave bibles at unsuspecting Muslims in order to help Christians attain their human rights in that country. I seem to remember that you used the word 'hypocrisy' when I said that I agreed they were violating human rights but I wasn't prepared to do the bible-waving bit. It's both of us or neither, George.... You can't have it both ways.

I hope your health improves or is manageable, by the way. Chronic ill health is not fun.

But George - don't you remember? Sme time ago, you asked ME to provide you with a list of all the people who oppose the American intervention in Iraq, and were quite put out when I didn't give them to you. Memory slipping? It's OK, age does that to the best of us. I forgive you....

YES! Absolutely! (Except that it's not premature, it's far too late.) The rest rate in Iraq would go down dramatically! Are you willing to take responsibility for the innocent rests your army is causing daily? Oh, that's right. Collateral damage.... That makes it OK.

Uhuh... we have our equivalents here in Oz.

Neither does anyone else who has a brain. But the fanatics are only the dozer blade of dissent, and they won't stop running amok until your troops and ours get the hell out of there. We can't win that sort of war. There's no way it could ever be won. As a result of that intervention, hundreds of thousands of foreign fanatics have poured into Iraq, and there are limitless supplies of them. The Iraqi people won't forgive you for creating the situation that brings them there by hundreds every week, to wage a war that is being taken out of Iraqis' hands. Only when we get out will the Iraqis be able to take back control for themselves. Sure, there will be problems after that, but nothing like the ones WE have created for them.

There's some validity in parts of what you said above. But let's say what the bottom line is. The war was entered into and agreed to by Americans because of their profound ignorance of what they were getting themselves and us and Iraq and extremists from everywhere else into.

That's the problem. The American occupation is becoming increasingly farcical, and their butturances are identical to the ones that we heard daily as control of Vietnam was slipping away from them.

Get out before even more damage is done. There would be far more honour in that than being drawn deeper into the mire.

Rifty

-- Academic and Computing Help