<p>mini is a big boy (despite his name): if he wants to answer, he will; if not, he won’t (which is his way). :)</p>
<p>By the same token, I have no obligation to answer your (in my view) hateful accusations. Thanks anyway.</p>
<p>You attacked me by saying my post wasn’t credible.</p>
<p>When asked for one FACT to refute the FACTS on which I based my contention, you couldn’t find even one. So now you say you aren’t obligated to–you are free to speak as hatefully and untruthfully about me (and Obama, so I guess I’m in good company) as you wish, with no real facts at all. </p>
<p>While you may technically be free to do so, it’s hardly ethical or credible behavior.</p>
<p>RE: 371. It IS going to be very hard to get Americans to accept Muslim refugees in our midst even if they are secularists (as the vast majority are), for reasons you well describe. So? It was hard to get them (us) to accept Irish ones, and Jewish ones, and Vietnamese ones, and Palestinian ones, and Sudanese ones. Haven’t done too well by the Haitians.</p>
<p>But this is America. And it is part of our noblest heritage and tradition. Do you hate America so much that you don’t want bonafide political refugees (never mind that they were created by U.S. occupying forces) to enjoy the benefits of freedom?</p>
<p>Oh, and to answer why I didn’t “do this”, I’m sorry, but I was doing my taxes. Gotta support those troops! ;)</p>
<p>conyat, it isn’t worth wasting your breath. You’re fighting a same old/ same old battle there.</p>
<p>Mini, I hope you’re right. I’m not against admitting refugees from Iraq. But I think that those who ARE against it have tremendous power in our society, and I don’t know if they are going to be swayed by any ethical or moral obligation. That was the point of post #371. </p>
<p>What HH was asking you to attack me for was for my claim that there is and will be opposition from the right wing. She understood perfectly well that I don’t oppose it and was criticizing those who do.</p>
<p>She can’t seem to find anyone on the right who supports accepting them, and she hasn’t even said if she supports accepting them. Her point was that I should be attacked for daring to say anything that reflects badly on her party, even truthful things.</p>
<p>I hope you’re right that the experience will model that of accepting the Vietnamese refugees. I grew up in a community that had a major influx of Vietnamese refugees when I was a child, and I don’t think anyone could picture New Orleans or South Louisiana without them now. But New Orleans is a very cosmopolitian city anyway and the refugees, many of whom were Franco-phone Catholics who spent a lot of time on or near the water, had something New Orleanians could easily identify with.</p>
<p>“When asked for one FACT”</p>
<p>You want facts? I haven’t even been able to get hh to tell us one criterion for victory in Iraq that hadn’t already been achieved before we invaded. I’m not even asking for facts; just goals.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y</a></p>
<p>:) Hanna</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which once again brings us back to cui bono? Who benefits from ongoing civil war in Iraq and what can we do to change their minds?</p>
<p>The primary reason we haven’t accepted refugees from Iraq is that the Administration thought doing so would admit that we were expecting defeat in Iraq. But the Administration blamed the UN for being slow to refer Iraqis (this being the “pass the buck for anything” presidency, rather opposite Truman’s). And this is why it won’t happen for a long time because according to a miniscule number of people who happen to have all the real power, the war is going great and has accomplished great things. You know, writing a constitution and holding elections, removing Saddam and executing him, etc. All stuff that seems rather irrelevant now that Iraq is engulfed in civil war.</p>
<p>You already told us: the end-timers. See, I’m a good pupil.</p>
<p>Apparently, my desire to know the purpose of a war means that I’m living in the Twilight Zone. </p>
<p>I’m beginning to fear that maybe I do.</p>
<p>Conyat: who benefits from Iraqi civil war? The Shiites who will eventually win most of the power through sheer numbers and thereby control the oil. The Kurds who have gotten significantly closer to achieving the independent state that they’ve always wanted. The Iranians who will probably control if not be very cozy with their Iraqi Shi’ite brethren. </p>
<p>Who loses? We do. Because it will not make Saudi Arabia or Israel more secure (two countries for which we fought this war – Saudi Arabia (oil) and Israel (for the security of this ally in its besieged situation).
Turkey, 'cause it now has a Kurdish enemy across the border significantly strengthened. The Sunnis of Iraq 'cause time is not on their side in a land where they are relatively small minority.</p>
<p>This country was never set to “welcome us as liberators.”</p>
<p>Hanna: Ask Robert Gates! I told you: I’m just an everyday housewife! Sorry I am not coming over to your side. I trust my government just enough to not want to cut and run at THIS juncture. I want to give the surge a chance. I don’t want to abandon our troops with this phony “support the troops but badmouth Bush every chance you get” rhetoric! I also do not want to leave another killing fields over there–we owe those people that much. As for the “Christian nation, right-wing” rhetoric conyat so predictably entered into the conversation, please refer to post #387!</p>
<p><a href=“404 Not Found”>404 Not Found; </p>
<p><a href=“404 Not Found”>404 Not Found;
<p>These articles and comments give a lot of insight into how the right wing feels about Muslim immigrants. I’d quote but they are way too odious.</p>
<p>Okay, it’s nasty stuff. But not different in feeling or content really than what was said about the Vietnamese at the time (or Jews 60 years earlier, or the Irish 80 years before that.)</p>
<p>HH, are you seriously denying that there are people on the right wing calling for the United States to be a “Christian nation”? You’ve seriously never heard of Pat Robertson or D.James Kennedy?</p>
<p>What must it be like to live where it’s Opposite Day all the time, I wonder.</p>
<h1>393 “I also do not want to leave another killing fields over there–we owe those people that much.”</h1>
<p>Just what do you think we’ve created over there? If Iraq isn’t the purest definition of “killing fields,” then I don’t know what that would be. … Could someone, please, explain to me how America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has improved the situation there? Anybody? Is the increasing daily slaughter of Iraqi civilians making things better? Or the mounting death toll and maiming injuries among our young troops? Or is it the suicide bombings, the kidnappings, the exploding buses, the televised beheadings, the executions? Oh, yes. It’s a noble thing we’ve created in Iraq. … This humble, middle-aged, mother-housewife-writer does not trust her government, which, in fact, scares and/or appalls the bejeebers out of her every single day of her life.</p>
<p>Well, don’t move to Philly; you’ll probably get more upset.
I wonder why Jane is not here protesting the killings.
<a href=“http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/[/url]”>http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/</a>
<a href=“http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/homicides2006.html[/url]”>http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/homicides2006.html</a>
308 homicides in 2005, btw.</p>
<p>300 deaths a year in Philadelphia are supposed to be the moral equivalent of the carnage in Iraq? How many Iraqis does it take to be worth one Philadelphian?</p>
<p>Actually, I probably would get upset. … Crime in this country is another topic altogether!</p>