User talk:JoeM

COLLEGE REPUBLICANS MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.crnc.org/

GOD BLESS OUR FREEDOM FIGHTING TROOPS DEFEATING ARAB TERRORISM IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

File:Us flag medium.png

DEFEAT totalitarian Islamofascism

Our commander in chief liberated Iraq and Afganistan. But there's much left to TAKE OUT. These are the regimes that we need to effect a regime change sooner or later:

Most urgent:

Iran, Syria, Communist China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Liberia, Laos, Lebanon, Vietnam, Libya, Zimbabwe, Burma, Malaysia, Belarus, Venezuela, Moldova (elected an actual Communist Party member) Palestinian Authority

Less urgent, but necessary one day:

Brazil (elected a Communist), Ecuador (elected a Communist), Argentina (elected a Communist sympathizer), Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan (the military dictator they have is ok to keep a lid on the Islamists, but he'll fall one day so we might as well occupy them), Qatar (Al Jazeria is based there spewing its anti-American propaganda), Tunisia, and every other country that is not a democracy or is a democracy that elects anti-democratic leftists like Hugo Chavez

Countries we should destabilize, but not necessarily prusue regime change through military means:

France, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, Russia, Sweden, and more...

Countries WHERE FREEDOM RINGS

AMERICA (NUMBER ONE ON THIS ACCOUNT), UK, Australia, Israel, Italy , Spain, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, and more...

---

Evil exists. And militant Islamism (the militant Islamism of bin Laden, the Saudis, Saddam Hussein, the Baathists, and the Palestinian suicide bombers) or Islamofascism is the enemy of freedom and the distilled essence of evil. Totalitarian ideologies and fanaticisms have come in gone and have been defeated by America. All these ideologies are one in the same. They hate modernity, hate America, hate freedom, hate capitalism, hate liberal democracy, and love terrorism, oppression, genoicide, and fanatic hatred. In Germany the tyranical enemies of freedom and capitalism rallied behind Nazism, in Italy they rallied behind fascism, in Russia they rallied behind totalitarian socialism and communism, and now in the Middle East, where a lot of dictators and tyrants are threatened by freedom and American values, they rally behind militant Islamics. It is fact that there isnt a single Arab democracy. Muslim leaders (Saddam was just the worst of the lot. There will be more dictators/terrorists to fight like the Syrians) are all tyrants and terrorists who stifle the free press, kill their own people, crush their citizens hopes and dreams, and want to kill Americans like they did on 9/11. Their desire to kill Americans and supprot terror rests on one deep, abiding hatred: their irrational fear of America, which sticks up for freedom and opposes their tyranny with great scarafices, like America is doing right now defeating evil in the Arab countries of Iraq and Afghnaistan.

The ideology of militant Islamist terrorism is the totalitarian enemy that America confronts today. And patriotic Americans say it will be defeated like America defeated totalitarianisms in the past through heroic struggle: Communism, fascism, Nazism.

A lot of conservative commentators who speak with moral clarity call America's struggle against the evil of Islamofascist totalitarianism right now World War IV. That this is freedom's fourth struggle against a totalitarian evil. In WWI it was the despotic rule of the Kaiser, in WWII it was the Nazis, in freedom's third struggle it was the communists in the Cold War (although it wasnt a "hot war" it was another global stuggle like a world war). Now America's forth stuggle is a worldwide campaign against states like Iraq that hate the free world, kill their own people, desire weapons of mass destruction, and support terrorism.

The antiwar liberal left appeases totalitarian evil, which they love to do. They rallied to defend the Communists in Vietnam. Now the amoral liberal left is opposing America's commander in chief George W Bush in his struggle in Iraq. Hundreds of millions were slaughtered (Communism murdered 100 million people while the liberals opposed the Cold War at every step) and Communism threatened the freedom of America and her allies. Conservatives say that America must stop this new totalitarian enemy before its murderous hate claims as many victims as Communism.

GREAT External links

• http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/

THIS IS BEING CENSORED BY LIBERAL POV

---

Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. "Distilled essence of evil" does not fit the bill, let alone the rest of it. If you continue this behavior you will be banned from this system. - Hephaestos 10:57, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of liberal leftist pseudointellectuals dominate this site, ensuring that the articles appease evil rhetorically. Everything in my article is FACT.

Hi. Ironically, you display the same kind of parochial fanaticalness as your Islamofascist opponents. Why don't you grow up and help us write a high-quality encyclopedia, instead of a propaganda piece. No matter how worthy your views are, this isn't the place for them. -- AdamRaizen 11:44, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

---

Excuse me? Are you saying that there is a moral equivalency between Americans, like our troops in Iraq and the firefighters who died on 9/11, and the Islamofascists who dug all those mass graves in Iraq and flew those planes into the twin towers? That is a very twisted POV. It does not belong in encyclopedia articles. Facts, like the ones presented in my article, do. JoeM

No, I was commenting on your style, not on the substance of your views. -- AdamRaizen

---

If you cannot follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then please leave. Understand that just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean that everybody believes that - we have to attribute opinions to those who hold them, and "Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant" is an opinion. --Camembert

Hello, Joe. I'm currently editing Islamofascism, trying to fairly represent your opinions within in the NPOV framework. Please let me know how I'm doing. -- The Anome 15:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

From http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005787.html

This sounds like an only 10% milder counterpart to the Palestinian activist from last week. Well, if he keeps it up, I approve that we should put him on auto-revert unless and until he gets the message.

(by Jimbo Wales)

---

Your additions contain loaded language. That's what's wrong. Can you prove that the CPC intentionally committed genocide? Or did people die of unintentional miscalculations? --Jiang 17:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

You know that with your stated opinion on the countries as above (from invading Syria and Brasil to destabilzing France) it is highly inprobable that you will be able to make NPOV edits on relevante country entries? -- till we *) 18:29, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Re the answer on my talk page: yes, I'm a pacifist, mostly, and for invading countries (off-list or on-list), at least there should exist an UN mandate (as it was the case with Afghanistan, and as it wasn't the case with Iraq). To think the USA should do unilateraly in world politics what it think it's right is an big mistake, in my opinion. World peace and global human development won't come to existance with unilateral self-nominated world police officers like Bush, only with multilateral international and transnational organizations. Oh, and re Neville Chamberlain -- yes, Wikipedia told me a lot about him, and especially about his politics re Nazi germany. Maybe you should read the Chamberlain entry, too, because maybe, just maybe, it won't fit in your opinions. (Nice from me to give you lot's of hints what you should try to edit, too, isn't it?). -- till we *) 18:42, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Just one more point -- isn't it contradicting to say that one wants every country invaded that democratically elects someone more left than a Republican (e.g. Brazil), on the one hand, and to express anger and sadness about the loss of democratic rights in countries like China, on the other hand? I'm a bit confused about your political point -- is it freedom and democracy for everybody, with the help of a strong US military, or is it a mild dictatorship by the US military, unless they democratically elect whom the US likes? -- till we *) 18:59, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Ooooh, logic. Stop it before my brain explodes. -- AdamRaizen

---

Does the M in joeM stand for 'moron'? Mintguy 18:34, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

So you want the US to invade China? Which US city do you want nuked first? -- AdamRaizen

Of course not! He just wants weaken the communist rebels!

There is only one China in the world and the mainland is part of China. The government of the Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. The Communist rebellion must be immediately put to an end and the mainland must be reunited with Taiwan under the national government. The reunification of the motherland is the common aspiration of the Chinese people. The patriotic compatriots do not wish to see reunification delayed indefinitely. The great revolutionary forerunner of the Chinese nation Dr. Sun Yatsen once said: "Reunification is the hope of entire nationals in China. If reunification can be achieved, the people of the whole country will enjoy a happy life; if it cannot be achieved, the people will suffer."

Therefore, for the sake of humanity and fairness, the United States (and most of the world) must immediately withdraw its "diplomatic recognition" of that Communist entity and re-establish full diplomatic relations with China. The US should also supply China with enough arms to crush the rebellion and liberate the mainland. China must also re-establish its nuclear program and develop at least a couple dozen nuclear tipped ICBMs so the world, conspiring with the Communist rebels, cannot blackmail her. The world must stand up to oppose Communist imperialism. The Republic of China must stand for ages to come!

Uhm, so yeah. Communist bad...

--Your comrade, Jiang

---

Hey Joe! I'd just like to ask you: which of the armed forces are you a member of? Or if not, which are you signing up with? -- The Anome 21:43, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

--"Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant" is an opinion--

The 'evil' part is fairly unnecessary since the act of being a tyrant is inherently evil. But the idea that Saddam Hussein being a tyrant is just an opinion with equal weight as the opinion that he is not is a bit of a reach. Too many bodies buried in the sand for that. There are certain objective measures of tyranny and Saddam meets them easily. One would be hard pressed to find evidence that Saddam was not evil using the standards of about any culture on earth, even though that word carries additional baggage and is unnecessary in this instance.

Neutral point of view is the way to go, but to say that there can be no moral judgments is going a bit far isn't it? "Some people view Hitler as an evil dictator whereas some think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread." That is a neutral statement also, but its not better.

Probably the best thing to do is list his crimes and any reader with any sense will see for themselves that he was indeed evil and a tyrant. Use an Amnesty International report or something to satisfy those on the left.

That's exactly right. List his crimes, give cites for proof, and we're with you all the way. You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, cite your sources. -- Karada 23:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)