None of us want or like war, but the current situation with the standoff does not appear to be helping anyone. I don't understand U.S. politics but the news that I get seems to be saying that your economy is not going to pick up until this dillema is solved either way. My question to you is "Why didn't George senior finish this job properly 12 years ago"?. My own belief is that George W. has no other option than to get in and seriously kick ass because terrorism is much higher now than it was last time, taking into account that the natives in North Korea are getting restless. Just my $¼ worth.!! Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:Why didn't George senior finish this job properly 12 years ago
I'll bump this up with my brief uneducated reply. I don't claim to understand politics AT ALL. And I do know to tread lightly with that topic around here, but in answer to your question quoted above, I think that pushing Iraq out of Kuwait (sp.) was the stated objective (besides whatever other hidden agenda's were un spoken)
I have very little good to say about either president Bush, but as much as killing Saddam seems like it might have been (or still is)a good idea to a relatively clueless, politically ignorant, marginally apathetic individual like myself, I don't think that was the goal really. I just don't know why not.
Part of me thinks it should be the goal now, & part of me does not, so maybe I am a typical example of why the world community has difficulty time aligning into one objective & the appropriate corse of action necessary to achieve it.
I wonder what others will have to say, & if we can get through this discussion like adults.
Posted by VICTORGEORGIOU (Member # 474) on :
David, I think the answer to the first part of your question is - everbody here thought the job was done. "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time". We were all happy the war was over, whether we were for the war or against the war going in.
As far as the economy goes, in times of uncertainty I think we all tend to put off long term decisions until things settle down. That's just the way it is.
With the respect to the situation with Iraq right now, those who believe in the power of prayer should be seeking for all our world leaders the wisdom to make the right decisions in the next few weeks. All the rest of us are just watchers and waiters at this point. Vic G
[ February 13, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: VICTORGEORGIOU ]
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
It seems to a lot of us that he (George I) was not allowed to finish what he started. As I'm sure you well know EVERYTHING in the states is a double standard. We say one thing and do another. Untill recently we could not commit assinations as a military force. We also must have a commitment in our government (House and Senate) to put down ground troops. These two things we didn't have during desert storm. Now since Sept 11 it seems that the gloves are off. We simply do not EVER want to have another Vietnam. At the same time we decided (pretty much as a nation) after WW2 that we MUST defend the planet. We don't want much you know... Just world peace. I know that sounds wierd that we must go to war to have peace but, think of it like this... The biggest kid on the block says he will kick your butt if he sees you fighting with the little kid down the street... You think twice about messing with the liitle brat. Pretty soon you either forget about the little kid or you guys work things out. Presto! instant world peace. The trick is to spank the first bugger who tries to harm your little friend.
Posted by Santo (Member # 411) on :
Yep, as soon as the serious ass-kicking would of started, some voices were wanting to stop. Now we have the same rat looking us right in the eye with a few new ones hiding in the shadows. Europe and Japan would benefit more from the oil from than the U.S., but take a look at the announcement of the U.S. oil reserves being at a 30 year low. All the while oil is at $35+/bbl. Moral is you can make your enemy a rich man at your expense.
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
I'm not sure if the economy has anyhting to do with it. I mean it does because like Doug said we are in a holding pattern, However, our economy has been a lot worse than it is now. Sure, nobody is buying cars or boats but people have been walking in my door to do business all day long. As far as oil and gas prices, it could be the lowest it's ever been and we would still bitch...Thats the American way! I suppose that we are so dependant on OPEC it drives us nuts. Hey wait a minute! You Canadians have plenty of untapped oil resources...Would you guys like to be Americans? Today Iraq...Tomorrow Quebec See how quick an act of good will can be twisted into tyrancy. Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I am lucky I was too young to go to 'Nam, but I was old enough to have an opinion, & that was & still is to believe in the possibility of world peace. Or at least to quote John, to "imagine"...
I hope for a good economy, but before any conclusions to the contrary may be construed, I would deal with an economic slump in exchange for peace. War can be good for the economy, & I'm sure that is a fair price to many (lot's of politicians included), but I'd like to think I speak for the average American when I say war is much too high a price to pay just to boost the economy.
As far as supply & demand goes, I am a typical American consumer & if the wally worlds are going to supply goods that deplete more then our share of the worlds raw materials, then it is tough to make the decision at the checkout line not to be part of the problem, but if we as a nation sacrificed our demand for so much schtuff, in exchange for a reduced need to bully other nations, I'd happliy do without the schtuff too.
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
Doug you have some good points friend. You know, I don't think that I have ever met a SANE intelligent person that is "pro-war" However, I don't see how we can change the world by simply driving our suv's less. The war we fight is the war in our heads. The "enemy" is no different than our own Charlie Manson or David Korresh. They have no logic. We can not use logic to stop them. So... what do you do? My only idea is this: education You know if there were computers in Iraq like we have here in the States there would most likly be no problem. There is something magical about the way we communicate over the internet. For that matter there is something magical about TacoBell at 2:00am. These are things unheard of in their part of the world. These are the essence of America....Freespeech and Freewill. I make jokes about the situation but it's only to make the subject seem understandable. I'm confused by it all. No one wants war...But, everyone wants freedom. It's a ying yang thing I think...One creates the other, the other destroys the thing that created it. (deep thought for the day) P.S. I didn't know they had Wally World in Hawaii! When will those capitalist pigs ever stop?
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
You aint' seen a bad economy unless u lived thru 23% interest rates, gas lines and the inflation of the Carter years. Now the Clinton economy is upon us and falling apart...
The stock market is falling. It was running at an inflated price anyway. It is due to come back to normal..
WHY? large companies lied by selling electricity, oil or whatever at a loss only to buy it back to inflate thier stock values. Thus generating HUGE stock option and cash bonuses for a few select CEO's. The regulators that attempted to stop this were all overruled by Clinton people..
my humble opinion... .
Posted by Steve Shortreed (Member # 436) on :
Oh oh. Here we go with a post about politics. I'm going to leave it for now. I'm hoping you guys can have a discussion without personally attacking each other. I try to be optimistic, but history indicates these topics never end good. Here's hoping I won't have to emerge from my plastic-duct tape cocoon to delete this. Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
I don't know folks, but Oil seems to be the motivator in this one, let the inspectors keep working, what better way to keep a rat contained and Monitored.
[ February 14, 2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Neil D. Butler ]
Posted by Bob Rochon (Member # 30) on :
Neil,
It may seem that way, we also have other ( what I call ) rumors about personal vendettas, and all sort of things. But these are the things that kept Saddam in power from the gulf war. This guy is pure evil and thrives on bestowing fear in people. From the point of freedom being jeopardised by any one terrorist, I am all for removing these people. Not just for the USA but for all civilized mankind.
I have always fealt compassion for our european brothers and sisters that live with terror in their everyday lives.
Never having to even think about it before, nevermind live the fear like we do now, I say we will not tolerate this way of life. And eve n though, I am not a polition nor do I pretend to be knowledgable about it, I do applaud our current president for having the balls to stand in the face of terror and spit in its perverbial eye!
No one wants a war, no one wants to kill innocent woman and children, not to mention dads, brothers, husbands, but no one also wants to live in fear from tirants and terrorists either.
It is a very scary and uncertain time, and I pray to God that our president would have a deeper concern and motive, than to just wage war for oil control's sake.
Have a great day!
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
George I was talked into the idea of keeping SH in power in Iraq as a means of maintaining the balance of power in that region with Iran. Bad advice, bad decision. It would have been a bit like letting Hitler stay in power to "balance" the Soviet Union. Fortunately for the world, Roosevelt and Churchill were much more farsighted than Bush I. Not that these are good comparisons, but you get my drift.
Now we have a far more flammable situation. SH has not attacked or invaded anyone, so the "threat" is much more of a matter of what he might do. The Muslim world looks at the US as a bully; we see them as a violent, alien, backward culture. We have pundits and talking heads that know as much about Islam as about Pluto, yet they are taken for serious "analysts", along with the powerful pro-Israeli lobby who have turned every debate about that poisoned corner of the world into a good vs evil diatribe.
On the other hand, we have an entire generation of Europeans who've been raised and taught that Americans are nothing but loud, greedy a-holes and our government and military as puppets to a corporate agenda. I've been to Europe in the past year, and you would not believe some of the nonsense (and worse) that Europeans have been taught, and believe without question, about our country. There is no surprise that France and Germany are so opposed to any military action; they are democracies and are listening to the will of their people - so until we get a clue as to what their people think of us and why, we aren't going to be able to count on them for any kind of support.
And if anyone thinks Chinese leaders aren't chortling with glee over the fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq... do we really think the current North Korean nuclear threat is a co-incidence? Please....
Posted by Steve Burke (Member # 2674) on :
I saw a documentary last week about this very dilemma. It was fairly enlightening...
part of it was an excerpt of an interview with Schwarzkopf (sp?)- apparently at the time of Desert Storm, the UN only gave a mandate to the invading forces to TAKE BACK KUWAIT. There was no provision for attacking into Iraq. He said that as well as a couple of Frontline officers in other interviews. When the Iraqis retreated past their own border the coalition troops could only stand and watch as the Iraqis massacred their own people 2 miles away that were trying to rebel. So it is not the US's "fault" that Saddam is still around- as usual the UN dropped the ball. Bush Sr. put his foot in his mouth by telling the Northern Kurds he'd help them, but that gaffe aside the US was actually staying within the UN mandate. Now look where it got them. If anyone believes Saddam hasn't helped the terrorists they need to give their head a shake. He had his own FAMILY killed... I said it before and I'll say it again- people can claim this is about oil or Grecian Formula or whatever, but if they had killed 3000 people by bombing the Kremlin or Tel Aviv they would be talcum powder right now and no-one would stand up and say boo. France may want more weapons inspectors, but only a TOTAL moron would keep any nuclear material where these saps could find it...and Saddam is anything but. Of all people France should know what it is like to appease a dictator, or to under-estimate him...maybe they have forgotten what the map of Europe looked like in 1941??? We are just lucky Saddam's army can't get out of it's own way, or we wouldn't have a choice on how to deal with him.
[ February 14, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
iam a viet nam era vet, i refused to go to nam when i was in the air force....i dispised johnson, nixon for their love of the war machinery.also was not a geo sr. supporter. i dont know the exact figures ill say 100,000 lives were lost in viet nam. and i want one person to tell me what good came outa that war. popular song in the 60's words are "WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? .....ABSOLULTLY NOTHING" still hold true at this time. vietnam, the korean conflict were both nothing more then organized population control. the only people who made anything in either one of these wars was the "war machinery" producers. and its been 30 yrs since nam. all the weapons that were made after nam to replenish the u.s. with "weapons of mass destruction" are all old and need to be destroyed....so hence we need to have some kinda military "inaction" to rid ourselves of this potetially dangerously old weapons, planes, etc so they can be replaced with new one(and get congress/senate to approve more money for their production) and all the companies who supported bushes selection will get their profits up. as for a war with with the muslims, we are headed into a war that wont end with the taking of iraq, it will put us on a path of a 100 years war. after we invade iraq, the muslin countries will form a tighter bond against the .U.S. there will be more terrorist type attacks all over the world. we say we wont fight a holy war but "GOD BLESS AMERICA" aint exactly non religious. now it up to god to help us KILL THE MUSLIMS, and their god is gona help them KILL THE INFIDELS. not real smart to play into their game. as for bush 1 not taking out SH when he was there..well no one seems to remember what else was going on in this country when the "gulf war" was a distraction for the fact that geo sr. other son neil was in charge of the SAVINGS AND LOANS and run them into the ground similar to ENRON. in the mean time geo w and jeb were buying S&L defunk properties for 10 cents on the dollar value. remember this; wars are never about ideaology, the are always about MONEY!!!!! also i agree with russia, germany, france and our canadian friends....ALL DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS MUST BE TOTALLY EXHAUSTED OR THE U.S. IS ATTACKED, before i will agree we need this stupid war!!!
[ February 14, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
I'm not sure how by going to war today will effect our economy. Will out of work people be employed to help build tanks? I don't think so. As a matter of fact we get most of our equipment produced over seas. Will going to war lower prices at the gas pump? No, as a matter of fact when we do start the good fight people will be in line to purchase gas at an inflated price. People are not going to buy houses because we are at war. People will stop going to the movies and stay at home. People will stop eating out and stay at home glued to the T.V. In my opinion this little crusade is not motivated by greed. It is to stop a cancer. We HAVE been attacked. We have suffered a worst cheap shot than 10 Pearl Harbors. Pearl Harbor was about soldiers. The Japanese wanted to kill as many gun toteing G.I.'s as they could but these people want to destroy ALL of us, Men, Women, and children. Two things they are taboo to discuss are religion and politics. This little thread is both. Please don't think that I am a war monger. I'm sure most conservative people are not either. However, This country I love and I'll put down my brush and pick up a gun if it is the only way to keep it the way it is. I don't want a mosque on every street corner or to pray five times a day. I have enough trouble just making it to church every Sunday.
Posted by Alan Ackerson (Member # 3224) on :
Haven't we already been attacked? Been to NYC lately? It's an F'ing mess!!! We can't allow this to happen again. Whether it's here, DC, Bali or where ever. What kind of tune would France and Germany be singing if that beautiful tower and parts of their cities were destroyed? Probaly God Bless America while sticking the bill up all of our arses.
I pray for peace everyday and hate to see what this place will be like for our kids if we don't come up with a peaceful resolution.
This isn't meant to be an attack on anyone but a reflection on how I feel about the whole stinkin' thing.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
What! Only guys here, and on Valentine's day? Make love not war.
it's that simple
You keep this up - and I'll write more later
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I think the question of a peaceful solution vs. a violent solution is way oversimplified. It's not like we have 2 solutions on the table that are guaranteed to work & both with a different set of pros & cons.
War is not a clear finite "solution" that we can evaluate all it's costs in advance, & it sure ain't guaranteed to solve anything. Peaceful solutions are also an enigma far easier to pray for then to succeed with, & would require costs or sacrifice's as well.
I think the ideology behind an anti-war opinion, (for me) is based in part on an assumption that the information I recieve from news reports available to me may not all be true.
If Korea is about to launch weapons onto American soil - level them first, or same with Saddam, if Anthrax is really heading our way, we should put an end to it, BUT... just because the news says all this evil is at our doorstep, I just don't always know if this information is completely correct. That is why I am torn about what needs to happen.
Alan,
quote:This isn't meant to be an attack on anyone
you are clearly responding to O.P.'s remark & I think you know he is aware of 9-11, but who attacked? & where are they?
If we are going to keep this discussion (that we all need to be able to try to make sense of while it keeps coming down around us) from getting personal (& getting deleted) let's not direct our at each other.
Posted by Alan Ackerson (Member # 3224) on :
I get your points Doug and Myra. Appolgies to OP. The angry faces weren't meant to be towards anyone that is posting here. Honest. It's ALL about how I felt watching NYC burn from across the river and all the loss of life. It still makes me sick to my stomach thinking of it. And to think of all the others that will lose their lives, Americans, innocent(oppressed) Iraqis and anyone in between is just as sick a thought.
As far as the solution? Not sure. I don't think sitting on our hands will solve the problem. This is something we will have to deal with as long as we live, regardless of what happens in the next year or so. I feel much better about an alliance disarming these people who are so full of hate and their WMD now than playing nuclear vollyball in 2-3 years.
Posted by Bruce Williams (Member # 691) on :
The US is having a hard time finding allies against Iraq, partly, because foreigners seem to believe there's not much more to it than oil for America.
Browse the Federal Highway Admistration (FHWA), and see that Americans are burning more petroleum to drive, and paying more for it, than they were thru the "oil crises" of 1973 and '79. I don't suppose the rest of the world would mind having an urban assault wagon to drive to the video store, and when they do, look out!
Who'll drop a bomb on Saddam, Saddam, Saddam? Who'll drag a bag over Baga-Baga-Bagdad? Who'll flack-attack on Iraq-Iraq-Iraq? Who'll jab a stab at the scab of Babylonia? — The Capitol Steps
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
ok from most of these posts i read, the MEDIA & THIS ADMINITRATIONS war council has done its job very well. what am i talkin bout? the 2 mentioned above have taken 9-1-1 and turned it into the cry for us to go on the offensive with any country that doesnt agree with this govt. plain and simple, as g.w. says "your either with us or against us", sounds like a grade school kid in a fight on the parking lot turf. ive seen jokes passed round that RUSSIA, CANADA, FRANCE & GERMANY are NOW are ENIMIES!!!! i dont think its funny, it sad that americans can even think this way. as for the media and admin, they have also clouded the issue of who the enemy is. after 9-1-1 it was the terrorists, then they said it was osama and al quida. ok we went to afganastan to get em(remember these are the enemy). wa ARE STILL THERE, OSAMA IS ALIVE AND WELL. job not finished or since we cant get him, let go after someone else. your civil liberties have taken a big hit thru all this, ashcroft has been workin well, not only is it for the terrorists but any one in this nation that has any disageement with this govt, like the "suvivalists", they are also the target. now the man in charge goes on to the meida with AXIS OF EVIL , and names countries on his "hit parade". north korea was quite untill they were insulted. now the eastern mind likes to "save face". so what do they do but respond to verbal attack. so here we sit, with more tumoil then any one country needs or can handle, iam not even going into the U.S./ISRALE problems. thats also part of this whole mess. as i said before....now the issue is clouded, who did what dont matter....its like the u.s. is a dog that was abused, now it dosent matter who it bites....as long as it bites someone!!!!! now is the time for people with diplomacy and the abilty to see the future and what the ramifactions will be for our children and their children. isnt this what the U.S. has lived by for many years? not just an lets go kick some a**, for the moment...yea it will feel good for "instant gratifaction", but in the long run as in any war, it will CREATE MORE ENEMIES, MORE HATE, MORE DISTRUST IN THIS once wonderful and powerful nations. ive also seen people like me refered to UNAMERICAN, because i disagree with with WAR, in the way this country is going about it. iam ok with that.......i know better.
[ February 14, 2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Mike Languein (Member # 319) on :
That's right, Myra - no girls allowed! in the He Man Woman Haters Club, Spanky & Alfalfa Presidents. This is for the testosteroners to thump our chests. We're overloaded on all that pink frilly chick stuff that's been going on all day. Yecch. I'm ready for a Schwarzenegger movie about now... Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Mikey, I guess this was an invite, right? And Joe, you said it better, but I want to add a few points, and Mr. Mayor, thanks for letting this thread go on. I won't take issue with anyone, just line up a few facts as they look through my eyes and ears.
There are nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and the United States. There are categorically no such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet we are pre-occupied with Iraq. What Saddam Hussein has is weapons for biological warfare. He would not be foolish enough to unleash them on us. Because he knows that in a New York minute, we, in possession of the Mother Lode of the nuclear arsenal on earth, would wipe him off the map. He therefore is not a clear and present danger to us today. And when it comes to the future, he is containable. He is mortal. Inspections would have a phenomenal chance of working.
The fastest way to find the weapons he does have is by attacking him and suffering the consequences. The highest probability of danger in that situation is one of chemical attack on our troops, and I therefore propose we support our troops by bringing them home.
The second highest endangerment is to our population, none of which will be averted or helped by tarps and duct tape. If we go and shoot first in Iraq, renewed terrorism on our soil is what we need to fear. But it will be coming from the people who have proven that they are our attackers, who are led by Osama whose name President Bush II has not yet mentioned this year. They would be attacks resulting from outrage at our invasion of Iraq. Not because Al Quaida and Saddam collaborated about the horror of the 9/11 attack, of which no proof whatsoever has been presented to us. But because it would be a retalliation on our soil for destabilization and invasion of Arabs and the Middle East. Part of what brought on the hatred and the horror of 9/11 is our acting like we are the boss and that the stars and stripes rule the world. We are not in charge, nor are we entitled to any police type actions.
What we are proposing, by invading a country made up of more than 50 percent children, in order to take out a rogue and a dictator and a horrible human being – is the same as shooting a passenger plane out of the sky because the pilot committed a crime. We are talking about WAR. We may be killing a hundred thousand people. Where do we think we have the right to shoot first. We used to be the good guys. We cannot use bombs to bring Democracy to Iraq. Peace is achieved through the Brain, not the Brawn.
When the war is over, the talk is not of putting a new leader in as we did in Afghanistan . We are planning to be the ones who will lead Iraq for a number of years with a number of billions of dollars. Of course we also will be in charge of the oil. Which will pay for the leadership. Go figure.
When it comes to Bush the first, the situation is not nearly as simple as it seems. It’s not just that he did not finish. He had a lot to answer for, when it came to the US position towards Saddam Hussein. I am not willing to research the details in minutae, but I do know that in 1983 President Reagan ( with VP Bush) sent Donald Rumsfeld to take an offer of MILITARY and business aid, and an offer of respect to Saddam Hussein, who at the same time was gassing Kurds and Iranians on the battle fields, and was developing other weapons. This was confirmed at that time by the United Nations. I also know that a woman envoy, April somebody, was sent to tell Saddam Hussein in June of the year before he invaded Kuweit that we would in essence not step in should he decide to do that. So we reneged. And there was Bush I, he had liberated Kuweit as the world had authorized him to do, along with a solid coalition of world support. He was not authorized to kill Saddam. He hoped and encouraged the Iraqi citizens to assassinate, and I remember that he dropped leaflets giving them the hint. It just did not work.
What we are risking in going in alone is so monstrous, that I cannot even fathom it. The world can’t all be wrong. Tony Blair only has about 5 percent of the support of the people in Britain. He used to be popular, now he is toast. The countries that do not support us do not on the other hand support Saddam – that is not the issue. With world opinion against him, as it is, there is no need to go and obliterate thousands of innocents, while the culprit is in a deep down bunker. Remind you of someone in a cave last year??? If we are a nation of warmongers, and a nation that models to others that solving conflict by war is OK, who will be our enemy next year, and what will become of this earth and it’s people. Kennedy said: Man must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. Like I said Peace takes Brain – not Brawn. This is 2003. There must be a better way.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Well said Myra. Very intelligent perceptions IMHO
Posted by Jon Butterworth (Member # 227) on :
So far I don't see much conflict in this "political" thread ...everybody seems apposed to war. Let it run for a while Steve
Just wanna add my two pennies worth .... very selfish reasons for not wanting a War.
1. My son is 19 and in the Australian Army Airborne. Ozzie has heaps of our best troops backing the USA right now in the Gulf. SAS, Airforce and Navy. If all hell breaks out my son goes too.
2. I plan on being in USA for the first two weeks in March. If war is on I'm sure terrorist activity will increase everywhere and even if it don't, security is going to be extra tight. Who needs that on a holiday?
BUT, we are coming to USA. Yer can't put off crossing the road because you think a truck might be coming hahahahahha
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
Thinking of our Aussie brothers here, I just watched Gallipoli tonight on the History Channel. A very good reminder of the horrors of war and the hubris of those that go in thinking it will be such a cakewalk.
I think buying duct tape is a good idea, but maybe for sealing the mouths of the many who don't have a clue as to what they are talking about in urging this war on.
When exactly did America become an empire anyways?
Posted by Steve Shortreed (Member # 436) on :
I know many of you are experiencing more stress than usual right now. It has to be especially hard for those with young families. We'd like to see Letterville used to express your fears and hopefully get some sort of understanding and support from your Letterville Family.
So how are you all coping with this added stress? How are your kids coping?
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
What amazes me is the lack of military/political intelligence. Supposedly, we can read the date on a coin with sattelite photography. We can also tune in on electronic data, and decode it at nearly any level. We have equiptment that sees in the dark, and that can hear anything from remarkable distance. Also bombs that we can place down a chimney. Why can't our leaders, take care of the problems at hand, without the envolvment of the general population? Insiders or special tactical forces, could get these jobs done it would appear to me. Nip it in the bud.. Maybe I have watched too many movies......
I for one believe that the effort is genuinely in our behalf, be it right or wrong. I just never understand the killing of innocent brothers and sisters, be they right or wrong.
As for the improvement of world economies, it is going to require lifting the cloud of funk that covers our attitudes. I'm pretty sure that some closure on the Middle East matter is needed for this to occur, but a long drawn out evolvement is not the answer. Use some intelligence.
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
The world would be a much differnt place with out war. However, how do you achieve it? The Romans had "Pax Romanvs" (1000 years of peace) I wonder how they did it? Will the end justify the means? This war is meant to bring peace and stability to that part of the world. Israel lives with DAILY attacks like 911. Women are treaded like garbage. "Criminals" are usally killed on site or publicly beheaded with no trial etc... We are not fighting the people of Iraq, we are fighting the government. We want only to bring peace to the people. Things like education, art, or even Taco Bells. This war is needed. Not all wars are justified. But this one ,In my opinon, is.
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
Apparently none of our opinions matter to our government. More people are against war than for it in this matter, including me. Its a war of politics, not for the security of the world. Our main worry should be the members of the Al Quaida and their forces. Those are the people we have to worry about. They are the ones that will attack us on our own soil. IF this war happens, our wonderful free country, will forever change, for the worst. IT will be a country of shut ins, afraid to go anywhere, to do anything. Always wondering what will happen next. The danger is not in IRaq, its right here at home. And it will increase dramatically if we allow our leaders to carry out their threats.
Posted by cheryl nordby (Member # 1100) on :
Myra, I wish I had your capability to type the words I feel about war. you GO girl. I like reading what you have to say.
I see my friends sons leaving for the armed forces. I see my sons friends signing up. It is a very scary time.
People cancelling their vacation plans.....people stocking up on duct tape???? At stop lights you just mind your own business and look straight ahead. Yes it is getting to be an uptight world.
Posted by Steve Barba (Member # 431) on :
Me being a 20 year military, and a Klin-ton hater kinda guy, I just have one question about all of this:
Mike Languein- where did you get that hat!??
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
As much as I like the passive attitudes, I myself don't believe that things (terrorist attacks) are going to subside at all by using them. The world has inherited their leaders in many different ways to take care of these problems for our various societies. If it weren't for these types of issues, we wouldn't need armies and navies, etc. These issues could/should be taken care of by those people directed to do those jobs without envolving the public. I don't need to know that Saddam was defeated, in a cure for world peace. I don't even want to hear the Poof! I want civilized people to enjoy their lives, without the up to the minute news. I am all for fair shakes, but also for Pooooofff, when it is best for mankind. That meaning a direct hit on the problems, with maybe film at 11:00. I think this could go a long way in diverting terrorist attemts and successes. Just my opinion. In order for passivness to work at all, requires that all are passive. No such luck.... bronzeo
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
the question of the day yesterday on MSNBC web site was STOP THE TALK AND GET ON WITH THE WAR? you can answer yes or no and then it will let you see the NATIONAL polled answers. i checked it last nite a 2 am and it was 52% to 48% in favor of continuing talk. there was another poll in time magizine web site: OF THESE COUNTRIES, IRAQ, N.KOREA, U.S.A., WHICH IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE? U.S.A. came out at 70+%, being the greatest threat. just thought id add these if any missed them.
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
This is a war of the mind folks. Terror will not go away if we just sit on our hands. Iraq is Not Al-Quida. However, They both hate us for the same reasons. We will not stop at Iraq. We will next step in at Isreal, then India, then Korea, then Indochina, then who knows. As soon as we make our move the world will turn upside down. The only way to stop it is to give the people of these countries the right to choose. I don't mean force them to accept our western ways. We like free thinking. We accept governments other than Democracy with open arms. We love you Canadians the way you guys are, Socalism and all. The point is that these people have been fed garbage for hundreds of years. Islam is a beautiful religion. Islam teaches peace and tolerance for others. The religion these people follow is NOT Islam. Their "government" has twisted and changed Islam into a tool of fear to warp the mind of other wise peaceful people. This is what must stop. We have to change the minds of these people. But, first we must remove the demons that run the show. I'm happy to see that we can discuss all this as community. Artist have a generalized passive, don't hurt anyone, point of view to most people. But, I know we all think differntly. It is a wonderful thing that we can sit in the comfort of our office chair and debate the pros and cons of life it self. I just wish everone had that power. I think that this is just about all I have to say abut this. I hope I didn't make any enemies among you guys.
Posted by Bill Biggs (Member # 18) on :
I think the American Government has our intrests at heart. I do not believe this showdown with Hussein has anything to do with oil. We have a saying in Texas, Remember the Alamo, even after 150 years it brings response to terrorism. I believe 911 is our call to make a firm stand for freedom everywhere. If Bush can't do anything but Threaten, Hussein will never be eliminated. His people can't protest. I believe we let the Iraqui people down once, when Geo. Sr was president, they were rebelling all over Iraq, and we let the soldiers go home. This cannot happen again. Bush needs to be firm and real about the whole situation. And I think he will. Just an opinion of a guy who supports his God, His Country, and His President. I hope those of us who stand behind the President will send him an e-mail and let him know he is not standing alone. MailTo:president@whitehouse.gov Bill
[ February 15, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bill Biggs ]
Posted by J.G. Kurtzman (Member # 1736) on :
David; The meaning of war was once defined to me as..."Mass sacrifice for the philosopy of the state" by a Camel driver who has turned sheep herder. The Butch family are oil people, they have surounded themselves in management with oil people. The guy they are persuing sits on the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve. Butch's daddy says we want that oil son, go get it.Butch Jr. says how dad? Butch Sr. says start a war son, we have plenty of 3rd world immigrants to fill the military ranks thanks to "Elleo" who got you into office, right son? Oh yeah thats right dad, I'll call Jed right now. God I love this "Plutocracy". Yessah son, keepem ignorant and makem live in fear...let our thoughts energize their desires. Life is just a costume party, many century's of traditional philosophy dressed in current clothing...
J.G. Kurtzman
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Is this a war for oil? I don't think so. We'd have it already if it were. Do I believe France and Russia want peace for oil? Yep. We know that they are already owed billions by Saddam and have been given certain oil rights. Taking out Saddam means the possibility of France and Russia losing billions that they can't afford.
Dubya said early on in his campaign about the need for Saddam to obey the 16 UN resolutions. He didn't. While I don't believe for a second that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, I do believe it has become a catalist. 9-11 has reminded us of what is possible if we let our guard down and let evil fester like a boil on the butt of the Earth.
Watching the protests in New York and England today tells me that Dubya is probably right in what he is doing. Look at who the protesters are - socialists and Communists. Now, before someone rolls his eyes at the word "Communists", I suggest checking out the group ANSWER that is organizing these protest marches. It is a branch of the World Workers Party. These are the people that hold men like Stalin in high regard. While they talk a convincing game, I suggest looking at who they support. Frankly, anything they support (such as No War in Iraq) makes me highly suspicious.
Some would argue that we could just contain Saddam. We've been doing that for 12 years. It hasn't worked very well. And, how long do you propose that we continue to contain him? Until he dies? And what do we do when Uday takes over? Do we continue the containment? How long? 5 more years? 20? 50? How much money are we willing to spend then? And, if we continue containment and inspections, doesn't that serve to help keep Saddam in power?
In Blix own words, inspectors are not there to try and catch Saddam in the act. They are there to verify his compliance with the terms of the cease-fire. They know what he has based on his own record keeping. There are tons of stuff unaccounted for. He says it has been destroyed. Its his job to prove it. He hasn't.
No one wants war. I certainly don't. I also don't like the idea of letting someone like Saddam winning. I don't like the idea of him being in a position of being able to blackmail the world by being a source of weapons for Al Qaeda either.
[ February 16, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
socialilist and communists....that line is from 1952....McCARTHYISUM!!!! this is 2003!!!! 2 words that struck fear and hatred into this country and ruined many lives by just "implicating" an association with anyone connected to its belife and the stigma and meaning still have power today. also its another word for the "division" of "your either with us or against us." so it helps this govt do as the terrorist are trying to do, keep this country IN FEAR AND DIVIDE THE POPULATION. if you buy into it then THEY HAVE WON... this an excert from WORKERS WORLD...... We put our ideas into practice. We are in the student movement, the labor movement, the women's movement, the lesbian/gay/bi/trans movement, the anti-war and anti-racist movements. We fight hard for a better life right now, but we know that nothing is secure--not our jobs, our homes, our health care, our pensions, our civil rights and liberties--as long as capitalism exists. So our goal is a society run by the workers, not just as pawns in a capitalist political game but as collective owners of the social wealth. sorta tells you that they are for equality...so are most of us, but it DOESNT SAY THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT IS ANTI -WAR! as for ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ANTI WAR... THEY DO NOT BELONG TO OR ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS GROUP, AND THIS GROUP WAS NOT THE ORGANIZER FOR ALL THE WORLD PROTEST MARCHES TODAY. this is how things taken outa context. this group of people dont make up 1% of the anti war demonstrators.......i know iam not a supporter of this group nor iam a communist. words have power, i know, just play a little word association with yourself, BLONDE=DUMB, POLOCK=DUMB, JAP,JEW, WOP,RAGHEAD, all bring up an image that has been formed in your mind....depending on how you where 1st introduced to these words. DICTATOR,PRESIDENT,KING,PRINCE,QUEEN, or whatever name of a ruler or head of country you choose all have some "predisposed image" in our minds. if you call bush president, it has one meaning to most, call him king, it changes who he is. its just an example dont take it any onther way. so this is a tactic used all over the world to garner support for each groups agendas. am no scholar by any stretch of the word, but i try to "say what i mean & mean what i say"...........
[ February 16, 2003, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Alan Ackerson (Member # 3224) on :
I have read through all the responses, criticisms and beatings. Yes, I bit off more than I can chew on this one but willing to listen.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
------------------------------------- Millions -------------------------------------- 100 000 in Sydney 750 000 in London 1 Million in Rome 500 000 in New York 650 000 in Madrid 500 000 in Barcelona 70 000 in Amsterdam 500 000 in Berlin 100 000 in Paris 100 000 in Los Angeles that is how many are estimated to have protested in only 10 out of the 600 large cities where marches were held yesterday. It is impossible to give a count of the thousands of small cities and municipalities that also had marches or gatherings.
The Pope Desmond Tutu - Peace Prize winners - Nelson Mandela – Senators (who are not up for re-election) – Chris Loudmouth Matthews of MSNBC – every actor I know (except two) – my neighbors ( mostly) – my friends (mostly) – my family and ex in laws – my customers (mostly) – the people in the greasy spoons (mostly) My 5 brothers around the world, my sister, and many people who read and visit here.
All these people are against waging war against an entire nation to get one man. (Again) =================================================Despite successfully dismantling the Taliban regime, the United States and its supporters failed to eliminate the threat from al-Qaeda. Thousands of fighters are scattered worldwide. Destroying this network is the primary strategic challenge we face. Attacking Iraq will detract from our primary mission against al-Qaeda, supercharging anti-American sentiment in the Arab street, boosting al-Qaeda's recruiting, and causing difficulty for moderate Arab regimes. General Wesley Clark (retired) former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe =================================================
As I see it , these masses of people around the globe collectively have a humanitarian concern, and one of self preservation to be against this intended war which could destabilize and rock our world. I do not want to incite, but I do respectfully suggest the marches are not a communist (socialist) inspired cause. Should a world wide majority of people really be ignored by a small handful of American politicians? ================================================= "It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," he added, to loud applause =================================================
I am after a solution that uses the brain. We can find it. We have the greatest minds at our disposal. Not just the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
I know in my heart that we have evolved beyond duking it out with bombs and guns. Whom would Jesus bomb?
================================================ I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel. [If] we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort.
General Anthony Zinni (retired) ============================================
Yesterday, in my paper in Winston-Salem North Carolina, a headline on a good size article said that MY ALDERMAN proposed at a town meeting that the neighborhood arm itself and add a gun to the duct tape the water and the plastic. One more quote: ".....he said that residents who stocked up on food and water would need guns to fend off people who had no supplies." The destabilization has already begun. God help us, if we don't step up to the plate and help ourselves.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
It has nothing to do with McCarthyism. I'm looking at the pictures of the marchers waving flags of the "hammer'n'sickle", Che Guevara, and the WWP.
That isn't very many protesters. You also forgot the ones who protested the protestors.
289 Million Americans Avoid Peace Rallies
(2003-02-15) -- Police across the nation estimate the crowd that avoided today's anti-war demonstrations at about 289 million. Americans from coast-to-coast voted in absentia against criticizing the Bush administration for Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. resolutions.
Anti-anti-war demonstrators gathered in grocery stores, shopping malls and private homes to proclaim their disagreement with protestors marching in the streets of Washington D.C. and San Francisco.
"Going about my regular Saturday routine is my way of saying I disagree with the radical left-wing agenda of the anti-Bush crowd," said college student Melanie Sampson, who spent the day preparing a term paper for a literature course.
Police reported no unusual problems with the droves that stayed away from the protests.
Metro Section front page Winston-Salem Journal Today's headline, along with a picture of a student, and our Sheriff, and that Alderman I mentioned in my previous post ===================================== Students back Bush Policy 100 students rally in support of war at Wake Forest University." ================================================ You are right, Glenn
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
I'm surprised there were that many.
----
BTW, all of these protests have given the EU an idea......
War Protests Spark Change in EU Voting Laws
(2003-02-15) -- As a result of war protestors gathering in the streets of major European cities today, the European Union (EU) has decided to alter the way decisions are made in its member states.
From now on, instead of votes by elected representatives, crowd-size estimates will decide major issues.
The EU will designate different days for advocates and opponents of the various issues to gather in the streets. The side with the largest crowd wins.
The actual crowd-size estimate will be determined by a complex formula, taking the rally organizer's own estimate and dividing by 20, then subtracting that number from the official police estimate.
"This is much more democratic than the old way," said an unnamed EU spokesman. "This way, the people will directly influence the course of the nation. Seeing those protestors out there made us all realize how primitive our representative forms of government are."
Extra points will also be awarded for the chanting of clever slogans, excellence in banner design, and for profoundly affective poetry.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Not only : Make love not War, but also : You gotta have Art
Glenn, that's funny and you saved the day! Have a good one Myra
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glen as i said in the last post....."yes they are in the anti war demos".....BUT ONLY ARE 1% OF ALL THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE WAR! and it is McCarthisum, that same tactic is being used, ASSOCIATION of like. also your saying that ALL who participated in the ANTI WAR DEMOS are UNAMERICAN, and only the TRUE AMERICAN avoided the rallies. see how it can get taken outa context? a lot of the radio talk show do this, for the benifit of who they support. bottom line....without the subtrufuse..THE WORLD IS AGAINST THIS WAR......and i eleude back to the 60's song WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR.....ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. what needs to be brought to the forefront, is the mental war that AL-QUIDA has started in this country....they are winning, we live in fear, the postman is the secret police,the lose of civil liberties, the divion of the people in this country, the worsening economy, the gas prices shooting up, the US vs. THEM running rampant, all the while al-quida & bin ladin, are no where near IRAQ....or AFGANASTAN. they set out to DESTROY THE AMERICAN ECONOMY....and a war will definatly spend money we could use here at home!
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Click here to download for free the signs and flyers used in the protests that you see in the news photos.
[ February 16, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Bill Biggs (Member # 18) on :
So what are you saying Joe, Are you against Capitalism? Are you for Communistic Ideas like the workers party? I am a capitalist myself! and I think all of the free world exists because of Capitalism! Even Blix says Saddam is not complying, I think he just wants to play inspector a few more years. The UN is a totally ineffective organization! In my opinion the US ought to just kick them out of the country and forget them.
Bill
Posted by timi NC (Member # 576) on :
I have a son in the military who said "Dad,...alot of folks are out there protesting to keep peace,I am going to assure you it will be done." I am not for war by any means however SH has enough biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to kill this planets populace 3 times over. How do we know? WE sold them to him during the war with Iran. How do we know? He used them on the Iranians and his own rebellious people. We were not allowed to pursue him past the Kuwaiti border due to restrictions imposed by the Saudi govt. It was not our choice.I pray for peace however I have no choice but to support our troops.They are not there by thier choice but on orders from the White House and our military leaders. I have no reason to dispute thier beliefs as to SH's possesion of weapons of mass destruction,as they have the most sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities on the planet. In order to keep the security of their sources they must not play all their hand in order to prove this. All this said and done I pray for our troops and the innocent iraqi people that will come in harms way if this conflict follows it's present path. "If", is a big variable.Given the facts I see no way to avoid this conflict as it is obvious that SH is not abiding by the UN resolutions from the first gulf war. This man is tyrant and a murderer intent on no good and his prodigy is even worse,where does it stop? The pacifists can voice their opinions here because our forefathers fought for their right to do so,...what "if" they had been pacifists refusing to fight for what they believe in?
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
Joe couldn't be communist... he owns his own business. Grounds for automatic expulsion from the peoples party of North America right? and well said Tim.
[ February 16, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Lee McKee ]
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
It would seem to me, that the REAL issue here is the complete lack of accountability for the millions spent to track down and aprehend Osama Bin Laden. With all that has been spent and done toward that objective, the president and military can't even say for a certainty that they have accomplished what they originally set out to do.
That means they have to find a NEW TARGET...one that'll deflect attention away from their failed attempt. That's a tough and difficult word to swallow and admit to, FAILED! But if one truely and objectively assesses the response to 911, then it's difficult to find too great a measure of success. Why isn't Bush being called to account for THAT?
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Ken,
How would one measure accountability in the war against terrorism?
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
Glenn, There WAS a stated objective, was there not? Was that objective met? To what extent? How much did the exercise cost to-date?
That might do for starters.
Posted by Lee McKee (Member # 3533) on :
I think the REAL question we should be asking is which media group dishes out the most BS about The United States? It's obvious to me they a lot of people posting on this thread have widely differnt views. The fact that just about everyone can quote one news group or another to prove their point is almost laughable. There is no way all this info can be true. A lot of it contradicts itself anyhow. How can we form intelligent freewilled opinions about anything when we are fed what "they" want us to hear? Other countries look at us and all they see is MTV and Jerry Springer! This stereotype is so far from the truth it is not even funny! But a lot of groups see only greed, inmorality, or bullheadness in Americans thanks to our media groups. You have to believe that this war is about higher ideas. If other countries choose to listen to that garbage so be it, But, I think people here in the States have learned to tune it out. Look around at what is going on all around the world! It is going to Hell in a hand basket and unless somebody does something soon it will be in our backyards too. No man is an island! (but if I were an island I think that I would like to be Jamacia )
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
quote: Glenn, There WAS a stated objective, was there not? Was that objective met? To what extent? How much did the exercise cost to-date?
That might do for starters.
Fair enough.
1) To do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism.
2) To deter states from supporting, harbouring or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups.
3) To contribute to the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community.
4) To maintain a positive political agenda of engagement with Arab countries and the Muslim world.
These are the four objectives as stated by FCO Minister, Baroness Symons. Source
I'll let you answer your own questions.
IMHO, have they been met? No. Are they being met? I have to say "yes".
[ February 16, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
If this war happens, and you think it will all be good and done after SH is out of power, think again. The battlefield wont be in another country the way it has been. It will be right here. Terrorism will reach a high that wont possibly be contained by any amount of force. Terrorists are like rats that strike without worry of dying themselves. They will use every option available to them to kill as many americans as they can. Our government is turning its backs on Nato, the UN, and our allies and MILLIONS of americans who dont want this. I dont think it has anything to do with oil, but I do think its a personal vendetta by Bush. It shoulda been handled years ago by his father, when we were already there in defense of Kuwait. We're after SH for having something we possibly sold him in the first place to fight IRan. Jesus, how ironic is that? One thing is for sure, republican and democrat and whatever affiliation you hold, this war will forever change your lives. We can only wait and see and pray to God for help.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by old paint: socialilist and communists....that line is from 1952....McCARTHYISUM!!!! this is 2003!!!! 2 words that struck fear and hatred into this country and ruined many lives by just "implicating" an association with anyone connected to its belife and the stigma and meaning still have power today.
This is a classic from the lefty rhetorical playbook, bring up McCarthy to attempt to discredit any mention of Socialists or Communists. Not surprising. Most lefties have a secret (or not so secret) longing for the "ideals" of communism, while desperately trying to forget, deny or diminish the hideous real-world consequenses of these poisonous philosophies. In the same way, the left tries to hide the collectivist nature of the current anti-war/corporate/globalization movement, hoping against hope that if you make enough noise and shout enough slogans, no one will notice the intellectual emptiness behind it.
And that's a damn shame. Because the world needs an anti-war, anti-corporate-fascism movement that's based on a philosophy of respect for individual achievement, with a sound basis of intellectual reasoning. The Bush people and their corporate partners have every reason to be smug and arrogant, given the lame, noisy, emptyheaded "opposition" they get from lefties, most of who are willing to allow marching and shouting to substitute for the much harder work of actually thinking. Being chronically indignant at the state of the world is just not enough, not anymore.
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
It always takes two sides for a war to begin. What I find ironic, is that whwnever the possibility of war becomes imminent, that people begin to pray, and beseech God to look favorably on their "side" of the issue, whatever it may be. Don't you think that those of the Muslim persuasion ALSO pray to Allah, for pretty much the same things? Does it come down to who's God or who's Allah is the most benevolent toward the "cause" that's being prayed for?
Or, could it be that war itself is an inheirantly evil pursuit, and that neither God, or Allah will take a side when humans chose to kill and maim each other, in their name? Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
quote: It always takes two sides for a war to begin.
True. Look what happened to Kuwait in 1991. They should never have provoked Saddam. God knows what Poland did to Hitler to provoke him. Poland certainly got what it deserved.
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Fist of all, thank you all for your replies and opinions. I am flabergasted at the response. This started out last Thursday evening while having dinner with 4 of our friends. The conversation got around to the impending war and the question came up about George Snr. Me being the smarty pants said "Well I'm part of a group on the WWW so I'm sure I will get a few answers and will print them out for all to read." When I knocked off on Friday afternoon (Aus Time) there were 8 replies so I just thought I would check again Monday. You can imagine my surprise when I checked and along with several emails it blew the socks right off me. I must admit that I am now more confused than ever. Things have happened over the weekend with huge peace rallies and my own Prime Minister is copping flak from the labor opposition for taking sides with George, which I am finding amusing because when questioned about Tony Blair (British Labor) they go into quiet mode. The points I see is this: 1. SH must love seeing the peace rallies (makes him look good) 2. While things are at a stalemate the stock exchange dithers and this doesn't do investment any good. 3. A quick "get in- get out" (but finalise it) will settle things back down. 4. There are some ratbags in the UN.investigating ratbags. 5. If you support "No war" (not to be confused with peace) you support SH which in return supports terrorism. P.S. I've already got the fireproof suit on, especially for #5. The peace rally in Brisbane yesterday which is my state Capital city was well attended but looking at the big picture it is still a small percentage of the overall population. One must also be careful of what the media tries to shove down our necks.
Posted by Henry Barker (Member # 174) on :
David,
Interesting post! I was not at the peace march here in Stockholm, but am very much anti-war, and there must be many more like me around the world.
No need for a fireproof suit! In answer to Nr5 I am not a supporter of SH, but feel that you can be that and anti-war....I am sure if you talked to the masses that did demonstrate that, no body supports his regime. In the same way as I am NOT anti-american, because I disagree with George Bush.
I have read most of the posts on this thread and find most of the comments interesting, and informative. I think we all share the same concerns but are unsure about how to achieve a satisfactory outcome. One thing about living in a neutral socialist country is that we are not as biased one way or the other in our news reporting, and thanks to modern day digital satelite broadcasting, I recieve English terrrestial TV here as well as many US stations, and have watched some great news/discussion programs from both sides of the atlantic.
I would have thought that Al Quaeda was a much bigger worldwide threat than SH, and a harder nut to crack. The current alarms in the UK around the airports are related to Osama and not SH....although it seems people are trying hard to connect the two of them, with their given backgrounds and beliefs or lack of them they don't make good bedfellows.
I tend to go along the same sentiments as John Deaton, and feel the only real outcome of a war will be much more terrorism directed at the US and UK.
Great to see that this post has not got personal, and that people have been able to share their feelings and concerns without being labelled or put down.
We all live and learn...
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
David, I wondered when you would check back in. I find it interesting to learn of the viewpoints of people from othe rnations, just as you were curious about the views from Americans.
I would have to agree that posting your point #5 is an inflamatory remark with potential for reactionary replies.
That statement is such a huge generalization why would you even put it in writing?
"Peaceful solutions" can mean a lot of things. Far more then my un-educated (about finer points of war & foriegn policy)mind could comprehend. I do know that it can mean more idle, passive "turning the other cheek" while dictators & terrorists have their way with the world.
If so many millions of people do not support a war in Iraq, do you honestly think you can generalize that this equals support for Saddam? Do you really have this little faith in any hope for a peaceful solution, that those who do are now part of the problem?
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glen to you those are a SMALL PERCENT COMPARED TO WORLD DISTAIN FOR WAR. cam, i didnt bring it up glen did, my lame attempt WAS explaining why the word are used buy the right. as for bill, you see cam and glen how what i said got taken outa context? even thou i made the statement iam not a communist...i still got accused of being ANTI-CAPITALIST.....
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
This just came in over the news wire.....
Iraqi Parliament Votes 'No Confidence' in Saddam
(2003-02-16) -- A dejected Saddam Hussein quietly packed his bags and left the main Presidential palace today after he lost a 'no confidence' vote in the Iraqi Parliament.
Peace protestors around the world have called for such a vote saying, "we think Saddam should go, but that is for the Iraqi people to decide and not the United States."
Indeed the representatives of the Iraqi people have spoken, dismissing the only leader many Iraqis can remember. Despite years of Saddam's propaganda, they voted their consciences. Heedless of the brutal dictator's track record of torturing and executing political opponents, they cast their votes against him. Regardless of Saddam's history of using chemical and biological weapons against Iraqi citizens, they stood their ground and said collectively, "You must go." Surrounded by his loyal and vicious security force and Republican guards, they decided to do what's right for the Iraqi people.
Asked what he would do next, Mr. Hussein said wistfully, "I'm going to Euro-Disney with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Then I'm going to talk with my old friend Yassir Arafat about that prime minister position he's advertising."
Posted by Lotti Prokott (Member # 2684) on :
As an European living in Canada, I have always been wondering why the US sees themselves resposible to end all dictatorships and possible conflicts by intervening, whether asked to do so or not. Does a strong country like the States really have to fear one guy across the ocean? What if they would simply mind their own business and would put all this effort(and money)into guarding their borders and airspaces, into national safety and, yes, diplomatic efforts to improve relationships with other nations? I dare to say that it would save lives, make people feel safer and get the US more international respect. I for one would not want my son to die in a foreign country and for a cause that doesn't make sense.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
I agree Lotti. I think the US should withdraw all foreign aid and troops.
The US should ignor anyone asking for help from here on out. Its none of our business.
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Doug, as I said at the start I am becoming more confused than ever. Lotti, I think you make it all sound too easy. Glenn, A picture says more than a thousand words. My own opinion is that of my own Prime Minister.
Posted by Si Allen (Member # 420) on :
Obviously all this anti-war and hate Bush rhetoric,is because none of these people have not studied history! I am old enough to remember the prelude to WWII. The League of Nations (UN's predecessor, which failed) thought they had Hitler and Germany contained! Also did worry about Japan getting the ability to be a World Power!
When Hitler marched into Austria, the appeasers said "Oh well, they are really Germans, no problem!" They thought Poland and the Nordic countries didn't amount to much.
What a surprise when Hitler gobbled up France and the rest of Europe and North Africa, including his ally Italy!
The same with Japan invading Korea and Manchuria. Nothing much until they bombed Pearl Harbor!
Let's keep the "Inspectors" in Iraq looking for the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that he has unquestionably already smuggled out to other countries, or hidden. Then while we argue, debate , and protest....he will unleash them on the unwary Western World (nonMoslem Infadels)!!!! And while we try to recover (remember 9/11? ) he can gobble up the Middle East!
Having gained most of the world's oil, he will be sitting pretty, while we and Europe will be scrabbling to have enough oil to run our industries! Fuel for cars and trucks will be too expnesive to be practical, it will be used for plastics and chemicals.
Ecofreaks will be tearing their hair out when we have to cut down our forests for heating our homes and drilling for oil in Santa Barbara and the Northern Slopes in Alaska!
The Amish and Mennonites will be the new Celebrities....teaching us how to do without e;lectricity! Movie and rock stars will be penniless, due to the lack of electricity! Sign business will revert to brushes, unless they develop coal fired vinyl plotters! Bicycle manufacurers will become wealty! PITA members will be eating endangered species due to world hunger!
YES! the world will change! No matter if we go to war against Saddam, or if we don't!!!!!!!!
Not only that, I'll have to learn how to spel....and not have to edit my posts, because of spelling
[ February 17, 2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Si Allen ]
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
While it is true I'm not a big fan of war, I am not against this particular war. I'm not for it either.
All I know about the situation is what I hear in the media. In my opinion that doesn't qualify me to give an opinion one way or other. In my own personal experience the media isn't overly concerned with telling the truth or getting the story right... reporters are for the most part human and as such concerned with their own interests and opinions much like the rest of us. They just get to report their point of view as FACT and most readers believe.
I certainly don't know the facts and I'm sure there is lots to know that the powers that be aren't saying. It certainly wouldn't be in the United States interest to spill all the beans of what they know. Not a smart way to run a conflict if it were to escalate into more than it is currently.
I don't believe Saddam is telling all either by a long shot.
Marching for peace doesn't change the facts either, but only serves as a means to express an opinion of those inclined to do so (be it correctly informed or not).
So I'll keep my head down and do what I can to make my circle of influence positive in what I do know and what I can control. I find that I can keep a much more positive outlook on life if I only listen to the news once in a while and take that with a grain of salt. (for flavor)
-dan
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
I personally get tired of the assumption that because I find the motives of "peace" activists suspicious, that I'm automatically a right-wing war hawk. Wrong again.
Here's my position: Any regime that gathers weapons, gasses and/or starves its own people to maintain power - like he SH regime in Iraq, or that evil little rat basturd in North Korea - should be cut off from the outside world. Completely. I don't mean those wimpy UN sanctions or embargoes, I mean quarantine - NOTHING and NOBODY goes in or out, at all, for any reason. How long is SH going to last on his OWN resouces, without backdoor oil money from Western countries? Close the door and lock it. If they attack anyone, hammer them - otherwise, let them rot. See how long it takes the Iraqi army to string up SH and his whole scumbag family, when he can't buy their loyalty with Western money.
One of the reasons America gets no respect in the world is our government consists of inconsistent hypocrits. We play off one mass-murdering dictator against another, out of convenience. We take the moral high ground against a racist regime in a place like South Africa, then write a blank check for a racist regime in Israel. One of our biggest trading partners is the butchers and slave-labor camp regime in the People's Republic of China, while to the rest of the world we blather about human rights.
Meanwhile, at home we gather the world's best and brightest into our universities, then turn them over to leftover 60's burnouts, who teach them that reality is an illusion and that Western Civilization, capitalism, and private property is the cause of all evil, then send them home (or into the corporate world) where they put these ideas into practice - and when everything turns to sh*t, it's somebody else's fault. We let ourselves be led around by the nose by advertisers and media whores and whoever is the trendy cause-du-jour, til we don't see any contradiction in driving a 10mpg SUV with a Greenpeace bumper sticker. We present ourselves to the world as a combination of arrogant bully, pedantic scold, and world-class hypocrites, then wonder why we don't get no respect.
Speaking of money, France, Germany and Russia are owed BILLIONS by Iraq - you think this is about money? The UN political games sure as hell are. As for settling world problems without violence, now we should take lessons from the French and Germans? Oh yeah, there's two countries with one hell of a track record for peaceful solutions. Riiiight.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
News Flash!
France Agrees to Iraq Attack After U.S. Apology
(2003-02-17) -- France has agreed to help attack and disarm Iraq, thanks to a personal apology from U.S. President George Bush which was sparked by results of a new poll.
According to Reuters a recent French opinion poll showed that "Offered a choice of three reasons to best explain why they opposed going to war, 76 percent of the anti-war camp said they "dislike they way the United States is behaving in the crisis".
Just nine percent said the were mainly against military action because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not a threat to international security and 13 percent chose to explain their view by saying the crisis did not affect France's interests.
As soon as President Bush became aware of the results of the poll, he called French President Jacques Chirac and said, "We're really sorry for how we have behaved. I hope you can forgive us."
President Chirac graciously accepted the Bush apology and ordered Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to introduce a new resolution in the U.N. Security Council authorizing force to disarm Iraq.
Mr. de Villepin announced, "France is now prepared to help the U.S. lead a 'coalition of the wheedling' to overthrow Saddam."
----
Anyone notice how French Cam looks with that hat?
[ February 17, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Bob Stephens (Member # 858) on :
I vote for Cam Bortz for president of the united states. I've resisted stating how I feel about this whole topic but Cam pretty well summed up and rather eloquently I might add exactly how I feel about everything in a friggn nut shell!
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
lol Bob, I recall attempting to nominate Cam for President some time back on another OT thread. Initially I thought his views somewhat contrary to mine, but this latest post gets my vote too.
To further clarify my position...just because I may oppose war in Iraq, doesn't make me a passivist dreamer & among my hopes for what could be construed as a peaceful solution, Cam said it better then I would have trid to...
quote:the SH regime in Iraq...should be cut off from the outside world. Completely....NOTHING and NOBODY goes in or out, at all, for any reason....Close the door and lock it. If they attack anyone, hammer them - otherwise, let them rot.
(slightly edited for emphasis)
That IMO is a peaceful solution, but a proactive one.
Posted by Adrian Niño Anaya (Member # 3537) on :
I, like most people, dislike all dictators. But to me Bush started to look like one of them. I much prefer intelligence and diplomacy to take on issues rather than to act bullish and arrogant. IF the main idea is about OIL, I prefer to pay gasoline what is worth than to get it cheaper at the expense of innocent lives...
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Well, for the French, it is about oil. They're the ones who purchased the oil rights from Saddam. Nothing like defending a mass murderer for a few francs and make it all A-OK. Bush should have been more sensitive to the French. Bad Bush. Bad!
Posted by Steve Burke (Member # 2674) on :
One thing I find annoying and disturbing is how many people say something like "we don't want to bomb Iraq's women and children". May I state that is probably not the US's (or the UN, hypothetically) intention. The US may not have gotten EVERY bomb up the poop chute of an Iraqi tank during Desert Storm, but they (or should I say the coalition forces) were only after military targets,and would be again. It is SADDAM who goes after HIS OWN women and children with poison gas!! We don't want to and never intended to go carpet-bombing the whole country until there was nothing left but cockroaches. The Iraqi army and other armed forces are the only people who need fear allied guns...not the people suffering at Saddam's whim.
Posted by Mark Jordan (Member # 291) on :
My worst fears are coming true:
Bush got 'elected'. He doesn't know how to fix the economy. He still blames Clinton (yaaawn). The surplus has been squandered. The wealthy get the big tax breaks. World opinion is turning against us. We're heading to war against the wrong guy. Bin Laden got away.
[ February 17, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Mark Jordan ]
Posted by Jim Upchurch (Member # 209) on :
People seem to have formed their views on political ideology. I can't say that I'm immune to it either but let's not overlook the fact that there would be no talk of war if the world had been on the same page to start with. Iraq could have been choked off and brought to it's knees 10 years ago. Instead a dangerous game of let's play nice and feed the children (it's hard not to) so Saddam builds his army and palaces and God knows what.
Now here we are all these years later and the world is still playing games. We get Hans "Mr. Magoo" Blix saying that Iraq had a million tons of anthrax, we don't know what he did with it but we can't assume he still has any. And people rally behind this kind of insight ? Amazing.
The US is not alone and all those who are trying to spin it that way probably think Blix is a genius of sorts. War is not the solution IF and only IF the world gets its act together and quits the finger pointing and gets down to business instead of using this unfortunant situation to promote their ideology.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
That's a hat on Cam's head? ? All this time I thought is was a Yarmulka . J I read your post with great interest, Cam. It has a lot I can agree with. One question though. Isolation with a quarantine would be OK for the thugs, but what about the population? They are over 50% children. ============================== And Glenn: where do you get this stuff??? Actually the tongue in cheek scenario in your news flash is one of coalition building, which is a step in the right direction.
Reality check: If we start bombing then many people alive right now may be blown up tomorrow. Yesterday was the memorial of a day in the last Golf War, where over 400 civilians accidentally got blown up by our army.
I think, to take up one of Cam’s points, that the French and the Germans, with excruciating war and violence in their recent past, actually have a unique vantage point hard gained from their history. Evolution does happen.
So I bristle a bit when I see you make casual fun, in a nationalist way, of our European friends. They do not have to agree with our proposed methods. It would only be very convenient if they did. They even agree with the problem in principle, just not with an unnecessarily speedy timetable for war. And they, along with an unquestionable majority in our own country, want to examine all other options more thoroughly first. There could be an uprising in the works, which gets rid of Saddam internally. He could fall over dead. Yes, I know there is the issue of his brood. That is an issue either way. So what is the hurry, really.
If by chance world domination is one of our objectives, then if we align with Europe the World actually COULD be our oyster. If we permanently alienate our European Allies, we are going to be has-beens, and soon. We can swaggeringly pay lip service to rushing through this crisis alone. If we act on it without an alliance and without the UN we not only will have endangered our own population, but the world population. That would give standing alone a whole new meaning.
PS Hi Mark Jordan, welcome back
[ February 17, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Myra Grozinger ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Myra,
Here's a pic of what some of our "European Friends" in peaceful Vienna were doing this past weekend.
They weren't Anti-America at all.
I know its wrong of me to be angry at this. Its not the politically correct thing to be if I want Europeans to like us Americans. But hey, that's just me and I'm too set in my ways.
But, lets review a few things.
1) Saddam attacked Kuwait without provocation a defenseless country.
2) His people raped, murdered, captured and executed men, women and children. Why? Oil, money and greed for more power.
3) A President took it upon himself and this nation to defend the weak.
4) Besides the objections of some Muslim/Islamic countries, three European countries - France, Russia and Belgium - opposed any military action. Sound familiar?
5) Those same three European friends of ours waited until that last possible moment before agreeing to either vote for or abstain (France) for a UN resolution permiting a coalition force to repel the Iraqi invaders.
6) The UN resolution, however, did not permit these coalition forces to go in and capture Saddam and Iraq. It was feared that the coalition would collapse if it did.
7) When defeat was immenent, Saddam sued for peace via a cease-fire. That should not be confused with a unconditional surrender.
8) The UN resolutions required as part of the cease-fire agreement that Saddam declare all weapons and weapons programs.
9) It was the job of the inspectors to verify compliance with the UN resolutions.
10) From 1991 to 1998, Saddam did everything he could to foil inspections.
11) In 1996, Bill Clinton fired 27 cruise missles in retaliation for Iraq's assault on a Kurdish-controlled city in northern Iraq. The Iraqi attack was in direct violation of the UN resolutions. At a cost of $1,000,000 apiece, these cruise missles killed 5 Iraqi and wounded 19.
12) In October 1997, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) monitoring the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction concluded that Iraq was still trying to conceal the full scale and scope of its biological weapons program.
13) In November 1997, Iraq barred U.S. experts from participating in UNSCOM weapons inspection teams. While the on-site inspections were on hold, the Iraqis moved equipment and tampered with U.N. surveillance cameras at ostensibly civilian facilities, such as vaccine plants, that could also produce biological warfare agents.
14) In 1998, Bill Clinton launched Operation: Desert Fox. Several hundred cruise missiles and other bombs were launched on Iraq, and the raids flatten an agricultural school, damage at least a dozen other schools and hospitals, and knock out water supplies for 300,000 people in Baghdad, according to UNICEF and the UN World Food Program.
15) On May 19th, 1999, Russia, China, and France called for a suspension of the sanctions against Iraq.
16) The inspectors never returned.
17) During this absence, 1999 through mid-2002, two German companies covertly begin supplying Saddam with weapons manufacturing equipment. France begins to buy oil rights from Saddam.
18) The "Oil for Food" program (Resolution 986) is declared a failure. It was found that the Saddam was funneling money away from the Iraqi civilians and was using it for the construction of numerous "palaces". Iraq has built 48 palaces and VIP residences since the end of the Gulf war, increasing the total number of such facilities at the disposal of Saddam and his inner circle to at least 78. The Iraqi leader has spent $1.5 billion to $2 billion building new palaces or renovating existing ones.
19) Since the establishment of the No Fly Zones, designed to protect Allied aircraft and the Kurds living in Northern Iraq, Saddam has fired over 2000 SAMs at the Allied forces patroling overhead. This is in direct violation of the Cease-Fire that Saddam agreed to. Some would call it an act of war and a resumption of hostilities.
20) We've tried sanctions. It didn't hurt him. It hurt the people he claims he loves. The sanctions failed.
21) We've tried to keep him boxed in. Our European friends from Germany and France lifted the lid.
22) Only after the very real threat of war has the UN begun to insist on Saddam's compliance with the 16 UN resolutions.
23) Only after the very real threat of war has Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors to return.
24) And yet, even now, Saddam continues to play games; taking great delight in the anti-war protest this past weekend.
So I ask, "do we say what we mean and mean what we say, or do we let Saddam have the final laugh at the expense of those who died repelling him from Kuwait?"
When will our words begin to mean anything?
I'll step off my soapbox now.
[ February 17, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Oh, I'm proud. 80 or so posts on a hot topic and we have not blown it.
Glenn your stats are way over my head. I have this nose in my face and I can only see what's in front of that.
Your pictures are selective. They are part of an ugly world situation, that has been allowed to happen because we have proceeded with guns drawn and a message of attack which has boxed us into a corner. I understand your rage at what you show. You are a patriot.
But so am I.
I chose to concentrate on the pictures of relatively peaceful gatherings, and candles and songs, and speeches and the holding of banners that say "Bush" on them, because that is the source of their rage. And they were the majority, there always is a sub set in any group.
To come out of the corner where we are boxed in, and to not attack, would be tantamount to a bigger gesture even in spite of all that opposition, than we are capable of making. It would take a big man. Like some previous presidents. Not this one. We have our troops by the hundreds of thousands chomping at the bit at the border in Kuwait. Backing down is not in our vocabulary. Even though we would only lose face to our own mirrors. It's an attitude thing.
That's why this war will go down. Not because there are no other options.
Seems like points 22 and up from your lineup have some points that lead towards other solutions.
That's all those millions were talking about. And they were the tip of the iceberg. None of your pictures can dissuade me from knowing that something monumental and momentous happened world wide that is unprecedented. All these people can't be just simply wrong. In Britain, where the government supports us, it was the largest peace time demonstration in their recorded history.
I can't go there with you in the lineup of stats. Because to me they don't really matter. What matters has to do with humanity and backing away, sometimes even when you are "right". Being right is nice, but it is subjective. And even though rigidity has it's place, the stakes are too great to proceed with something this dangerous to world peace just because a thug might deserve being unseated.
[ February 17, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Myra Grozinger ]
Posted by Kimberly Zanetti (Member # 2546) on :
quote:Oh, I'm proud. 80 or so posts on a hot topic and we have not blown it.
Yes Myra, I'd like to add to that by saying a personal thank you to all who have posted on this topic. I'm impressed that everyone has been able to express their opinions without saying anything mean or insulting to another.
Steve must be very proud.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Nah. Steve's probably standing close by with a fire extinguisher.
---
BTW, don't let Myra fool ya. She's got a mean left hook and she knows how to use it!
[ February 17, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Arvil Shep' Shepherd (Member # 2030) on :
A friend of mine who will soon be 80 years old says he has the solution to all wars...... He says..let NO ONE UNDER 65 YEARS OLD FIGHT IN A WAR...........AND THEN YOU HAVE TO EAT WHAT YOU KILL..!!!!!!!!
Sounds like a Solution to me!!!!!!
Shep'
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL!!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i was just watchin the tube.....flipped to MSNBC, heres phil donahue.....chatin with pat buchanan....WELL THIS MAN I SHOULDA VOTED FOR IN 2000.....him and phil in total agreement as to the folly that geo w is about to make. and he was saying almost everything that 5 M I L L I O N ANTI WAR PROTESTORS were saying.....gee suppose he might be a communist????????? hehehehehehehehe i also want to commend all who have choosen to make a statement here....pro or con is not the issue but we have managed to have a civil debate of ideology without personel attacks. well for the most part....hehehehehehehe
[ February 17, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
ITs amazing, these very same words were spoken severel times in our history. I have been fortunate to attend University of New Orleans home of some of our countries most famous historians. I attended classes taught by these very same men. In these classes I was able to see first hand selected data of history that most never know exist. Some of which is the anti war movements from hundreds of years ago.
During the civil war there were hundreds of people killed and injured during anti war riots in North New England states. They (anti war marchers) were misinformed.
There were thousands marching in the streets of Europe and USA during WWI to keep us from entering the war in Europe. (again they were wrong)
There were thousand marching in the streets of France against England's "interfering" anti Hitler stand. (Really very Wrong) Then France found out how wrong they were. On top of that France troops fired on US troops to stop the invasion. HMMMM
There were even more marching in the streets of the US to keep us out of WWII. Another group found to be wrong..
The anti war isolationist movement is blamed for some of the lack of readyness in Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had a 14 point list "flags" that when all raised would signal a successfull attack on the US. The anti war public opinion was one of the primary points.
The Axis believed that public opinion would detain the US from entering the war in Europe long enuf ensure a final win over Great Britian. (very close to comming true)
Now, you could read the anti war words written 130 years ago, then 90 years ago, then 60 years ago and today and they all are the same. Just like a script out of a play.
How many times will history repeat itself????
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
I still feel that my original question of why something wasn't done 12 years ago by George snr has not been adequately answered. On our '60 Minutes' programme the girl reporting from a children's hospital in Baghdad had to pause several times because the scenes of children dying (the strongest painkiller available is panadol) because the hospital is unable to supply them will the medication they need, bought tears to her eyes. Obviously SH prefers to spend the country's money on his palaces & weapons rather than on the health of his own citizens. As Si spoke about the WW2 and Sept 11 it reminded me of an old saying - 'those who forget the past are condemned to relive it'. I think this thread has now gone long enough and thanks for all viewpoints.
Posted by timi NC (Member # 576) on :
David the story here is that the US was ready to chase SH down and exterminate him all the way to Bagdad but the Saudi's did not want to disrupt the balance of power in the middle east so they asked the coalition to stop at the Kuwaiti border. Without any bases for the coalition to deploy from further advances were stopped.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
as for history repeating itself...not only are the protestors sometimes wrong....the idea of war is wrong! wars create wars, violence creates violence. this has been going on for more years then anyone can count....have we learned anything... apperently not, if these poeple who create wars knew anything of history why would they have wars? you think there were not anti war people in in rome? greece? china? tibet? well maybe not ...because back then if you disagreed with your KING, OR RULERS you got killed, iam sure ascroft has all the names of the protestors....heheheheheheheh
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Thanks Timi, you have answered my question. Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
There is obviously a lot more that people feel a need to discuss then your question David, but the question was: "Why didn't George senior finish this job properly 12 years ago"
The real answer is that George Did finish that job, because at that time, as I said in the first reply to this post, "...pushing Iraq out of Kuwait was the stated objective"
Tim has shed some interesting light on factors that contributed to that stated objective being limited to what it was.
The real question NOW is what is the global consensus on what this job is that needs doing?
I think it is disarmimg SH of his WMD's by any means necessary. But hopefully not rushing into unecessary or unjust means. And the end doesn't necessarily justify the means.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Has anyone been watching Frontline this week? Its been about the '91 Gulf War.
One of the things I found striking was that the same arguement against war was made then. Same organizations. Same signs. Same arguement.
Just out of curiosity, where were the anti-war protestors demanding that Saddam stop his agression back then?
Why aren't the anti-war protestors of today demanding that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions?
Where aren't the anti-war protestors demanding that Saddam stop using Iraqi funds to build more chemical weapons?
Why are they ignoring the fact that 13% of all Iraqi children die from malnutrition because Saddam redirected the money from humanitarian organizations and the "Oil for Food" program to rebuild his palaces and build more missles?
-----
Oh...this just came in.....
EU Threatens to Have Iraq Inspect Itself
(2003-02-17) -- The European Union (EU) today put some real "teeth" behind a tersely-worded statement calling on Iraq to "disarm and cooperate immediately and fully."
The statement read, in part, "The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance."
An unnamed EU spokesman said if Iraq refuses to disarm, "UN inspectors will leave the country, and the Iraqi government will have to continue searching for weapons of mass destruction with no help from other nations."
A spokesman for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said, "We have stood up to the United States, and defied the United Nations, but who can resist the awesome power of a united Europe? We cannot afford to hire hundreds of inspectors, so we must finally comply with all applicable Security Council resolutions."
Negotiations over the precise wording of the EU statement took hours, but the consensus was, as a French diplomat put it, "No more Monsieur Nice Guy."
[ February 18, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
I apologize to be back here again, but I can't help myself.
I started to think a bit about two points. One: When you, David thanked us for our attempts to answer your question you sort of casually implied that it is SHussein who with his palaces and opulence is harming the children in his country.
Actually in the 80's there had been a massive reduction in child deaths in Iraq, and it reversed and many died in the 90's after the Gulf war through to now as a direct result of the sanctions. =====================
"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq
The Independent, 15 October 1998 ===================== These sanctions have been unwaveringly in place and the US State Department itself called them the "toughest and most comprehensive sanctions in history".
So, Dave, we have at least a big co-responsibility for the horrible state of the children of Iraq. Much damage can be done by the righteous who think they are on the side of the angels.
Furthermore, there is a new UN Document that predicts that 30 % of Iraqis children under 5, or 1.26 million, are at risk to die of malnutrition in the event of a new war. That even happens if the war is over in a couple of weeks.
Do we really want to burden our consciences like that? Karma never sleeps.
The second point I was pondering is our Mayor's question of how we are coping with the stress, and nobody answered it.
Mr. Mayor, I believe thanks to allowing and creating this forum you are looking at a little of it. We are under great stress in this situation, and you lifting the restriction to not have political posts, in this case, was helpful
Some write, some just read. All of us think about it a little bit, instead of keeping our head in the sand and pretending it is not happening, which is bad for our health.
I do not believe we are coping by buying into the fear mongering and the buying of duct tape. (In my house there is a standard rule anyway. One roll of duct tape per room nothing new there.)
I for one (obviously) have been glad for the opportunity to let off a little steam.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Speaking of Duct Tape......
Duct Tape Maker Sponsors Tom Ridge News Conferences
(2003-02-14) -- A spokesman for the company that makes America's best-selling duct tape announced today that it will sponsor all future news conferences by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.
Since Mr. Ridge's department elevated the national security threat level to "orange", duct tape sales have skyrocketed.
"The sponsorship was a natural fit for us," said the Duck Brand Duct Tape spokesman. "What with the government being a little tight on funds, and all, they could use the money."
Neither the company, nor the department would elaborate on the details of the sponsorship contract rumored to be "in the seven figures range". However, Mr. Ridge will endeavor to "work in a mention of Duck Brand Duct Tape at least once during each news conference."
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
we need to worry about all the 3rd world countires and how their people & children are treated? i posted earlier about health care in the U.S. 41 MILLION WITHOUT ANY, not counting the children, homeless and indigent. is that more then 13%? schools are one of the agencies suffering from lack of money. the childern of this country are not eating properly, school luNch programs provide junk for food. more people without work, less jobs, less wages, corperate CEO bilking their companies. while the homeless are not even thought of. oh yea we really need to spend 300 BILLION DOLLARS(that we dont have) ON A WAR so those poor iraqy people can get out from under their DICTATOR. get real folks.....it aint all about the U.S. feeling sorry for the iraqy people!!!!!!
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
We can all blow off steam here, and that's fine. As long as we don't think for a minute that anything a group of sign people say TO EACH OTHER will have any effect whatsoever.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Cam: Actually, I was affected by some of the things you said. You gave me a different vantage point to consider. That you are a person in the same industry does not matter.
I have a suspicion that a lot of what gets written gets dismissed or not even read. When a semi closed mind encounters a post from someone who is not a member of his own choir, I think, he/she often just skips that post.
I am guilty of that, as well, to some degree. But I did read what you said, and I consider it like all other input. It's a lot like seeds thrown under the snow. Some will sprout, and take hold. Unless you are in Pittsburgh of course. Or Harrisburg. Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote: We are under great stress in this situation, ...lifting the restriction to not have political posts, in this case, was helpful
Some write, some just read. All of us think about it a little bit, instead of keeping our head in the sand and pretending it is not happening, which is bad for our health.
think I'll quote Myra again, because in addition to her points I'd like to add that the less people with there head in the sand, may translate to more people voting & not to say anything about how Gore would have handled a presidency, it is fair to say from recent experience, that a few votes could(could not will) make a difference.
Even millions of statements made in protests are not guaranteed to make a difference, but then who knows, maybe the cumulative resistance to a hasty war may be the reason there has not yet been one, & may also have contributed to whatever does happen being more universally accepted by the global community, resulting in less negative consequences for the U.S.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
BUSH SAID THAT the size of protests against a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq was irrelevant to his policy decisions. “The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security — in this case, security of the people.” Millions demonstrated against an Iraq war over the weekend in cities around the globe. “Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion,” Bush said. “Some in the world don’t view (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace,” he added. “I respectfully disagree.” this is a leader of a country that proclaims it roots as "for the people by the people?" 5 million demonstrators IRRELEVANT????? and how many more that dont want a war that were not counted? I see someone else as the risk to any peaceful settlement....and it aint sadam. cam is right.....we are nothing....no matter how many disagree with our _________ (you fill the proper word, cause president is not the word i choose),and this "I",bush uses....as speaker for this counrty, shouldnt it be WE??? "I" is most used by a single RULER....just an observation.... the peoples have spoken but to no avail seems like the __________ will do as HE SEES FIT!!!!!! SECURITY.... for whom? oh how i miss those bad old clinton days!!!! add this to the mix......
Only the 15 Security Council members can vote on resolutions, while the five permanent members of the Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — have the power to veto a resolution. France, Russia and China are also opposed to war now and pushing to allow inspectors to continue their work. Among the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council, only Spain fully backed Washington and London in debate that followed the inspectors’ reports Friday.
so everything other then what _______ SAYS...IS IRRELEVANT!!!!! does this sound like a man who is concerned with anything other then HIS OWN AGENDA? i could be wrong....but iam just a crazy old sign painter.....
•
[ February 18, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
The mark of a good leader is one who decides what needs to be done and does it regardless of personal consequenses.
A good leader does not stick his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows.
Besides, if the polls are to believed, the vast majority of the US population seems to agree with Bush and not the protestors.
Just because one can shout louder than the rest does not guarantee that he will be heard. There is such a thing as a "quiet majority."
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i guess so..the "quite minority" APPOINTED him to his position.
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
What we have to understand is that once a "politician" gets in office, we no longer mean anything to them. That includes conservatives and liberals alike. Bush proved that today when he "respectfully disagreed" with the protestors. When I was younger, I didnt understand protestors,who I thought were people that seemed to be just troublemakers and pacifists. Now I do. This isnt about being a pacifist or anything of the like. Although Ill give you that some are just along for the ride on these protests, most have thought out well what this war will mean to our ways of living. I know I have. If its a have to case, then so be it, but the current leaders seem just a little too quick to chomp at the bit on this one. Right now, Ill have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell and say back up for a second and listen to what we have to say. Basically, the peace of the whole world is riding on this situation. In my honest opinion that is, and a few million others.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
quote: What we have to understand is that once a "politician" gets in office, we no longer mean anything to them. That includes conservatives and liberals alike. Bush proved that today when he "respectfully disagreed" with the protestors.
Part of me wants to agree. Another part of me doesn't.
It is easy to lump all politicians in the same vat. Very simply, a lot of politicians made it easy for us to be that cynical. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Independents - they've all done it.
But I think its important to look at it from both sides pragmatically.
Be honest with yourself. If you were the President, had a 60+ approval rating, just defeated an opposing party rather soundly, and you were convinced in your heart that you were doing the right thing, would you care what a few protestors who didn't vote for you said?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't give a rat's behind what they thought.
The simple fact of the matter is that assuming a politician is everything bad that you think he is, he isn't going to care one wit what they think because they aren't going to vote for him anyway.
Posted by George Perkins (Member # 156) on :
Weren't the folks that stood behind Nixon referred to as "the silent majority"?
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
[ February 18, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
[ February 18, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: John Deaton III ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
John,
No one said that he wasn't everyone's President. Would you prefer someone who leads by consensus?
Lets look at Blair. I don't agree with his socialist views. But, I've got to respect the guy for standing up for what he believes to be the right course of action inspite of the fact that his chances for re-election become dimmer with each passing day.
Isn't that the kind of politician we keep telling ourselves we'd like to see?
[ February 18, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Mark Fair Signs (Member # 289) on :
Ok, here's some signs from the San Francisco march...
I don't know about the rest of ya, but someone needs to instruct them on the use of negative space and not to run everything to the edge.
Posted by Mark Fair Signs (Member # 289) on :
hahahahahhaahhaa
now glenn, that is funny!
can you identify that those fonts?
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
I take one little nap because vinyl inks gave me a headache, and I find you boys veering off the straight and narrow!! We are not going to ruin this thread, right!
If we keep it to our own perception and opinion, without personal swipes, we could have this thing end "good". Like for instance now.
There were some important things said here in the last day and a half, some of them by me. I don't want them gone forever because of the school boy swiping I see escalating.
Thank you.
Posted by Mark Fair Signs (Member # 289) on :
no school boy swipes here myra.
i find this entertaining but at the same time i find it unecessary to view political opinions in a non-political forum.
i thought we talked about signs here.
i guess i was mistaken.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn you keep eluding most of your posts to "doing the right thing" or "the right thing to do".....how is it that the right thing to do...is not kill, but you seem to not see that......seems to my dumb old brain not a real hard choice. to make peace, your sayin that....people gota die in a war that shouldnt be? and then we will have peace?....and most who support this war are PRO-LIFE, kinda twisted logic in my book. i and my kind are real dumb here.....and dont paint good lookin signs(i have to agree)but the concept of KILLING TO MAKE PEACE.....eludes me......
[ February 19, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Si Allen (Member # 420) on :
Hahahahaaaa.... OP...go back and read those signs above!
quote: Ecept for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism WAR has never solved anything!
Oxymoron??
[ February 19, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Si Allen ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i didnt say wars with a true purpose ....didnt solve the problems of those times....BUT WE NEVER ATTACKED FIRST. as for slavery, wasnt the purpose of the civil war, facisium, who couldnt defeat italy? they basically defeated themselves, and the world was on board for ww2.(not just u.s. & britan) communisium...in what war...."the cold war maybe", not a shot was fired. its still alive and well 90 miles from our border..CUBA. in china and dont forget north korea....which again is more threatning then IRAQ.
[ February 19, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by ady (Member # 491) on :
Adrian Howard
Posted by Jon Butterworth (Member # 227) on :
Geeeeeeez Dave ... yer opened a can of worms here. Must be a record 115 posts and 3 pages
Ozzies don't just get "brown arms" from stirring sunlight hahahahhahaha
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
I want you all to know how hard I have struggled to maintain civility here... trust me, if the delete key could talk....
But I am going to continue to be respectful, even of the OPinions I don't find agreeable.
My point earlier is that in many ways, when it comes to world opinion, we DO reap what we sow, though not always for the reasons we think.
I don't believe the US should be the world's policeman, but if we are going to take that role we have to establish ourselves as fair, honest, and consistent. How would you like to have your local police act as our government has - scolding and harping about democracy and the rule of law, yet selectively choosing who has to obey those laws, out of convenience and expediency? How would you like a cop that busts into your house to seach for drugs, yet entirely ignores - even protects - the crack house and meth lab across the street?
The problem starts at home, folks. We have political parties (both of them, I am NOT taking sides) who appeal to pet constituencies with empty rhetoric and wind-bag "principles", but who in practice are virtually indistinguishable from one another; yet we continue to support anyone who tells us what we want to hear at election time. The only things that has been consistent about our political class is that (A) it continuously seeks to aggrandize its power at the expense of its citizenry, and (B) it will do and say anything, to anyone, to achieve that goal. And why not? Look how well that works!
I get people here who, jokingly or otherwise, write things like "Cam for President." And that's sad, in a way, because what it tells me that a lot of people are so starved to hear ANYONE - even an grumpy middle-aged signpainter - actually voice a consistent, reasoned opinion, or tries to look behind the curtain of posturing and bluster to understand WHY things happen as they do.
Contrary to what a few of you might imagine, I have only one agenda here - whether I write about politics or sign pricing or whatever - is to try to encourage you to think, independently and without preconceived bias or attitude; to consider as many of the facts that are available, and come to a reasoned, consistent, coherent opinion. It's a totally selfish motive: I prefer to be around thoughtful people, and thoughful, rational people make better citizens. Citizens who look at every side of an issue, who don't let themselves be conned or condescended or bullied, who don't let their personal grievences and inherited prejudices cloud their judgement, who demand and expect integrity and principled behavior in themselves and in those around them, and who hold their leaders to the same standards.
It's much more difficult than being a follower, but oh, so much more deeply satisfying. Posted by Stephen Broughton (Member # 2237) on :
Yeah Bushie typical aussie, light blue touch paper and stand well back Ady you bugger you beat me to it Cam you're the only yank I ever met who made any sense!
Top of the fourth page yeah!
[ February 19, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Broughton ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
B I N G O ! ! ! CAM........
Posted by Jeremy Vecoli (Member # 2278) on :
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which dictates nothing is worth war is far worse. He who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which which he cares about more than his own life, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stuart Mill
Posted by Kissymatina (Member # 2028) on :
Something Timi said earlier in this thread has really got me thinking and I wanted to say this before this whole thread goes downhill and gets ugly (I'm very impressed that it hasn't yet.)
Whether you are for or against the current military actions (or future ones for that matter), we need to support our troops. They joined the services to defend our nation and whether they agree with the orders they are being given right now or not, they are required to follow them.
Can we all please take a minute to think about them and their families? to privately (or publicly) admit how thankful we are that they are there?
Please don't let your anger or disapproval of these actions pour over towards our service men & women. They can't choose which battles to fight, they're just there to fight them.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Good point Chris. I am very thankful for our service men & women, and for their hard work & fearless commitment to their command.
Contrary to the quote above your post, not killing thousands of Iraqi's doesn't mean not having the honor to fight for freedom.
Our armed forces stand at the ready following orders. So far the order is to stand at the ready. A powerful military could & should serve as a deterrant. Use of force may become justified. If it doesn't, that does not mean our military or our country are too weak to stand up for our rights. It means that we are smart enough to choose our battles, rather then throw the death of numerous American soldiers at every potential threat in the world.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
You are absolutely right, Chris.
Posted by David O'Hanlon (Member # 2754) on :
Did you know that the "silent majority" comes from a Roman poem and it refers to the dead.
Posted by Steve Shortreed (Member # 436) on :
No need for this post to go downhill. Everyone has done a wonderful job in stating their opinions and respecting those that have other ideas.
This post is only here for one reason. Talk of war and the anxiety of people around the World is everywhere. Day after day we are bombarded with "news" and images. There is no escape.
Barb and I agree with those of you who believe this forum should avoid any discussions that concern politics and/or religion. Past experience has taught us that these types of topics always result in emotional meltdowns and hard feelings that tend to linger. That has a direct effect on our dream of bringing signmakers together and turning them into Letterheads. This topic is a onetime exception to the rule. Here's why.
We can't have any impact on the war or the politics involved, but there may be a benefit in allowing Letterville users to voice their fears and concerns with their Letterville family. How are you expalining all this to your kids? Have you discovered a way to reduce the stress? Do you have loved ones serving overseas? How is all this affecting you on a personal level?
The pro vs anti-war debates are interesting, but I can watch professionals do that 24/7 on CNN. I urge you to save the political and religious debates for another time and place.
Posted by Wayne Webb (Member # 1124) on :
Greed......hunger for wealth, power and dominance.....aggression is as old as the dawn of civilization. Only technology has changed.
We have two boys, 9 and 14 years of age. Though they are presently too young to be drafted if it comes to it, I think about that. What if my boys had to go overseas and risk fighting and dying in a strange place? I can't even imagine the impact it would have on my wife and I. There would be many sleepless nights and countless tears.
Posted by David O'Hanlon (Member # 2754) on :
Do you think that President Bush may have a case of Iraq-naphobia? Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
you're just too funny Dave. I laughed my ass off. Back to seriousness I see on the early news this morning that Chirac has invited Mugabe over with the red carpet treatment and all?? Doesn't say much for his friends.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i only saw my dad cry once..and that wa the day i got on the bus to go to basic air force training aug 1965......he served in ww 2 got a broken back for it.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
French President Changes Name to Chiraq
(2003-02-18) -- In an apparent show of solidarity with the Republic of Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac has officially changed his last name to Chiraq.
A presidential spokesman said it was a humanitarian move designed to show empathy with France's ally.
However, political opponents charged that the name change is actually part of a multi-billion dollar sponsorship deal between the two nations.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
just an observation.... the above joke is funny(to some) but if another country calls our pres. "stupid", or relates him to hitler, no one here see it as funny......see how things get skewed. all in perception....hummm also another observation: turkey is "blackmailing" the U.S.(its what i see) so we can use their soil for troops, and no one seems to mind. on the other hand N.KOREA is accused of trying to "blackmail" the U.S. with there nuke program and pulling outa the peace accord....and we PAY NO ATTENTION TO THEIR DEMANDS! but will give turkey BILLIONS...hummmmmmmmmmmm sorta double standards here....
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
We're heading off track on some of those things. I'll be happy to go into great detail about them with you and anyone else on another BB .
BTW, as for Chirac, you might want to refer to a 1986 New York Times article which quotes, "Chirac has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein." For more detailed information about the personal relationship between Chirac and Saddam, I recommend checking out www.stratfor.com . It is a subscription site. Anyone who would like a copy of the article should e-mail me and I will send it to you rather than posting it here.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn...it was just an observation.....and how "statements" are preceived. and its not off track. you see it as humor....a frenchman would see it the same way you see bad remarks about bush. its also that McCarthy thing...."if you associate with_______ you are one."
[ February 20, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Except that we have "Americans" here refering to Bush as Hitler, not just in France. Personally, I don't care about what the French think. I'm more interested in what fellow Americans think and why.
The humor in refering to Chirac as Chiraq has a basis in truth. The two are friends. You can not deny the fact that Chirac is protecting Saddam and the French oil rights in Iraq. Refering to Bush as Hitler or an International Terrorist does not. If you have a DSL or Cable connection, I invite you to check out Brain Terminal: an interview with the protestors.
Now, if it really bothers you, you should write a letter to the creators of "The Simpsons" expressing your disdain for them refering to the French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
[ February 20, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
PERCEPTION glenn.....potato potatoooo.....and i care what the canadians, french, russian, saudis, pakistanis, indian, chinese, think about our leaders. those other countries and people are not all "IRRELEVANT" in this world.
Posted by Rick Chavez (Member # 2146) on :
Growing up as a baby boomer and doing nuclear bomb excersises in school, I remeber having a fear that something could happen, otherwise why would we be practicing? At the time we lived fear of an attack, I remember playing in our shelter in the backyard not really knowing what i was for. Look how far this past year has taken us. My kids were very upset on 9/11, and they still are. They are not only afraid of war, but terrorism now. I'm not going to express my political views as to if we should go to war, but I do think about the Iraqi kids and how they must be scared, and the parents who do not believe in the government they live under. I hope that a peacefull end can happen, for the sake of all peace loving people of the world. My concerns are also for parents who are sending thier children to war, how hard it must be, and the loss can can happen in events like this, just to most likely see the US as trading partners with Iraq 15 years down the road. As a native American I have strong views as to the quick changing tide of public sentiment, and the short memories people here tend to have. We should remember what we have already lost, and know that there will be more, if this end up in war. Interesting reading, and I want to thank Steve for allowing it. Rick
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
So, how do you feel about Chirac's recent comment to some eastern European countries who agree with Bush?
"They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." ""Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."
Yo - we've been at this so long, that David Drane's picture wore out and he had to get a new one.
Rick Chavez - I'm grateful to find your reasoned and personal and compassionate words in this thread.
Glenn, you say somewhere that you don't care what the French think, you only care what your fellow Americans think. I'm not French, I'm German, but have been a fellow American since my naturalization in 1967. I suspect since the German citizens are even more adamant about not supporting the war than the French, your disdain for their opinion might be about the same.
The following little report may be not as good as a computer link, but it is one that is up close and personal.
Just got off the phone with a friend who lives in Germany and who during the day is a teacher in the German school system and at night hangs out in the neighborhood beer joints. He says there is no support for this war to be found, anywhere he goes. The sheer mention of our President's name brings volleys of negativity, and that their anger is not only at the fact that they feel his hurry to war endangers them, but they are furious he is endangering the American population so severely. Because they like Americans, they have grown up liking Americans. We Americans are, to them, the good guys. But they think we are in the grip of evil.
They think our government is making the American people afraid on purpose with what they call ridiculously inadequate safety propaganda. They say that as Germans they know propaganda when they see it, and they say President Bush is looking for the support of his population en masse since he is failing to get support from the rest of the world.
They also fault our President personally for not making his case to the people in a clear, precise and convincing way. They say he has 10 pat sentences he learned by heart, and that they cannot believe that we actually put up with so little substance.
So -the story here is - the Germans still like us as always, and they do not include Americans in general in their disapproval of our President and his small handful of advising fossils in particular. He says that the marches were taken very seriously all over Europe. That in England it was the single largest demonstration in history, and that Blair's support is less than 10 percent, and an ouster may be in the works.
So maybe, we need to keep our nationalist feelings in check. We don't want to become isolated from the rest of the world. We are still strong and powerful, especially militarily. But we lack education, healthcare, jobs, and a strong currency. The overall climate of our own people and the well being as a nation is worsening steadily. We need to understand our interdependence on this planet, and not undermine our need for each other as populations and economies.
My opinion as an American is that we are in the grip of a whole passel of inadequate leaders of nations at this critical time in history. Our particular one only heads the pack.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
and the important POINT WAS THE BLACKMAIL OF THE U.S. BY TURKEY....seems to me they arent our "freinds", only an arab country lookin for the U.S. to give them money, as a bribe to get ground to use in the war. dont sound like th u.s. is on frendly ground there....it can turn bad at the drop of a hat. where as N.KOREA is asking the u.s. to drop sanctions....and give them a food and money, but no....we would rather leave them to be an enemy....for the next war i guess.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
There are all sorts of double standards, OP.
North Korea says, we have all these weapons, but we'll promise not to use them if we get free food and oil from the US.
Hmmmm.... using that logic, I ought to be able to call the Stonington police and say, hey boys, I just bought some fully automatic weapons and a crate of hand grenades and RPGs. If you send me a coupla truckloads of groceries and a fill my heating oil tank, I promise I won't use them. Yeah. And that won't get my door kicked in by the time I get off the phone.
And then there's the French, bless'em. Any minute now we are going to hear that Chirac is willing to let Bush have his war, in return for re-negotiating the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon made that deal so he could afford to invade Russia. Think about it. That's like sayaing, gee, I have this huge vacation property that I never get to use, so I'll let you have it for, say, three dollars. Nonetheless they seem to think the $15 million they got was a rip-off, which is silly, hey, we already gave them Jerry Lewis and their very own Disneyland. Sheesh.
The Turks, they're just doing business. You need to cross my land to get from Point A to Point B? How much are you paying me? That's not blackmail, that's negotiations. If we wanted a better deal, we'd insist that the Turks use the same Frenchman that sold us Louisiana for $15 million do the talking for them.
All of the above is just a little lame humor to ease the tension.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Myra,
I don't care what the French, Germans, Russians or Chinese think. Here's why.....
1) The French should have learned by now that appeasement never solved anything. If anything, it only emboldens the aggressor. I remind you of Mr. Chamberlain and Poland. The fact that the French haven't learned this lesson yet, the fact that the French of a financial interest in keeping a murderous dictator in power, the fact that Chirac would threaten EU applicants if they didn't think or behave the way he says they should, the fact that Chirac has a personal relationship with Saddam, the fact that Chirac helped Saddam build a nuclear facility -- tells me that the French have nothing worth listening to.
Love at first sight?
I would also be careful of defending the French position considering Chirac's connection with Mugabe. (what is it about Chirac's love affair with murderous dictators?) -- http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003094
2) Germany is in economic shambles right now. Their socialist agenda got them in this mess. Considering the fact that German industries have been found guilty of supplying weapons manufacturing equipment to Saddam in direct violation of the UN resolutions tells me that they've got nothing worth listening to.
3) Looking at Russia, from an article that OP sent me via e-mail last night, they don't want a war because of OIL. They are afraid of losing market share if the US removes Saddam.
quote: Russia, the most important power that could speak out against the invasion, has been granted tremendous deals by the Iraqi government. LUKoil, the largest Russian oil company, has signed a multi-billion dollar oil production deal with Mr. Hussein, giving it a majority stake in West Qurna, a gigantic Iraqi field holding over 11 billion barrels of oil. ..... In April 2002, the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration noted: "Crude oil exports are a key source of income for Russia, as revenues from exports provide approximately 25 percent of the Russian government's income.
-- Power and Interest News Report (PINR) (thank you Joe)
4) And then there is China. China is against anything that the US is for. They are doing anything they can do to be a foil to the US. They also have interests in continuing to supply Saddam with weapons in exchange for OIL. China would want nothing more than to see the US fail at anything.
Saddam is a rogue leader of a rogue nation. If left unchecked, he will be a key supplier for Al Qaeda. Given his past history, anyone here willing to take a chance that he won't?
As for the protestors, I have a couple questions....
1) Some in the Anti-War crowd say the are against any war and not anti-American. If that is true, why are they not protesting against Bush and Saddam BOTH?
2) Where were these protestors during Clinton's "Operation: Desert Fox" when he fired off 450 cruise missles (at $1,000,000 a piece) without getting a UN resolution and subsequently destroying schools, hospitals and killing "innocent Iraqi children"?
3) Where were these protestors when Saddam invaded Kuwait?
4) When will these protestors go to Iraq to protest against Saddam's starving of the Iraqi childern. Currently, 13% of the children born in Iraq die from malnutrition and lack of basic medical care while their leader lives in the lap of exuberant luxury. Where are the protestors?
5) Why do the other protest organizations align themselves with ANSWER, a pro-Stalinist organization?
[ February 21, 2003, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
Glenn, the sanctions against Iraq have done far more harm to their children etc. then Saddam has. By Madelaine Albright's own admission, a half million dead Iraqi children was worth the sanctions imposed.
As far as mercenary interests concerning oil, it is no different than the U.S. interest in a war for oil. Remember Rush's comment in the Gulf war, that this about maintaining the flow of oil at market prices. Don't begrudge the French for their economic reasons for not wanting a war.
Cutting and pasting ad nauseum and long diatribes don't win arguments either.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
David,
I agree. The sanctions have to go.
BTW, anyone willing to answer my 5 questions?
[ February 21, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I'll give my answer. I'm not going to do any research & don't attempt to speak from an educated standpoint, as I am first to admit how little I really understand about all this. But, although not "a protestor", I am in "the anti-war crowd" so here goes...
1: SH clearly has WMD. I'm pretty sure the US does also. As for the saber rattling, Bush is drawing the whole world into very clear & immediate threats of war, & the world is having it's say about it. SH may have a VERY bad history, & very bad intent, but he is not (to my limited knowledge) outlining specific threats of war to the world, to require a specific global response to a threat. If he were, I would expect that the US position would not be so unpopular.
2: I'm sure I speak for many in the anti-war crowd if I say "Operation: Desert Fox" is no source of American pride, but was it hyped up, & bantered about the world long enough to facilitate such a level of protest? I don't claim to recall specifics, but I think I would recall if it had been threatened as long as the current situation. Contrary to many assumptions that protestors may just enjoy protesting, I think there is less response after an attrocity, then before one when there may still be a hope of affecting the outcome.
3: I don't see this as an apples & apples comparison again. We could be on the brink of World War 3: (possibly the final sequel)& that has gotten the attention of the world. SH invading Kuwait, (although a step leading to where we are today)did directly not threaten the stability of the planet nearly as much as the current situation IMHO
4: Why don't we just ask about the loss of funding for underpriviledged Americans to assist in the funding of our military? Either way, Iraq's children or Americans children shouldn't die to finance war, but awful as that is, it is not of nearly the level of global concern as that of a full scale war.
5: I can't ANSWER that one since I am not aligned, but if I found myself called upon in a civilian setting, to attempt to overpower a terrorist attack of some kind, & someone said "let's roll" I would join forces to overpower the immediate threat before stopping to check out all the political opinions of those who share my immediate objectives.
[ February 21, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Doug,
quote: 4: Why don't we just ask about the loss of funding for underpriviledged Americans to assist in the funding of our military?
What loss of funding?
Posted by Karen Stein (Member # 241) on :
Ya might check out the Bush plan for substantial cuts in the government's Impact Aid program, which provides badly needed funds to school districts that have a significant number of students from military families.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Karen,
Can you give specifics? I'm curious after the fact that Bush increased funding with help from Ted Kennedy for $11billion.
When did this "cut" happen or is it just a proposal?
Are you sure those funds weren't redirected to another program (hopefully a more efficient one). Was it an actual "cut" or a reduction in the annual increase.
We all know how government spenders love to spin and spend. I just can't imagine politicians cutting anything.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
ill play 5 questions..... 1. your question is reduntant. why? because most protestors are AGAINST THE IMEDIATE AGGRESSOR. from where i sit, that is GEO W & CO. geo w. cant finish the job right(why his co. went belly up)in afganastan, so he jumps on an easy target...to DISTRACT FROM HIS FAILING(Of getting bin ladin). as for protesting sadam, their are people who object to his treatment of his people, but its not seen as it doesnt involve THE IMEDIATE WAR THAT BUSH WANTS. 2.what were the bushes doing when in 91 we rescued kuwait from sadam while the S & L in this country went belly up under the watchful eye of NEIL BUSH? it was clintons fault, right? 3. it was a different situation...duh!!! their was an INVASION by one country into another...sorta like WHAT GEO W. WANTS TO DO! 4.we protest every day and complain how OUR GOVT treats its people. as i said numerous times and it goes unanswered..41 MILLION people in the U.S. without health care, not counting the HOMELESS,INDIGENT,VIETMAN VETS,living on the streets(and geo w. want to create more of these)OUR CHILDREN not having proper meals and education.(think thats more then 13%, dont you)let charity begin AT HOME...LETS TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE then worry about humanaterian problems of other countries. all the while our leaders live in luxury etc etc...and get full coverage health care for $90 a month!!!!!!! no dispairity here!!! 5.STALIN IS DEAD..give it up!!! communisum is alive and well in cuba, n.viet nam(news flash**** castro is in hanoi as i type, if this administration would like to help iradicate communisum...lets start by helping change cuba). you seem to beleager this one facet, are you in fear of communism? is your DEMOCRACY that close to being taken away? i dont think so....i have more fear from the powers within this(taking away civil liberties) administration then i do of us being over run by communists. ALL PROTESTORS ARE NOT COMMUNIST!!! that is not a concept you seem to understand. DOGMA...is something that lingers long after the actual event. and if we (AMERICANS)dont wake up to the fact that this WAR WILL only will make us WEAKER and more vulnerable to a COMMUNIST attack(N.KOREA, CHINA, N.VIETNAM)then you should be happy these groups are trying to help this DEMOCRACY!!!!! as for your NOT CARING for what other countries think of us.....thats very short sighted. we live in a WORLD OF DIVERSITY,CULTURES AND RELIGIONS. the worst problem is the people who dont care how their decisions affect other nations...hitler, stalin, musilinni, hiroheto, their all dead...and only their mistake of not caring.... out lives them. P.S. AND NO CUT AND PASTEheheheheh
[ February 21, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:Doug,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4: Why don't we just ask about the loss of funding for underpriviledged Americans to assist in the funding of our military? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What loss of funding?
Glenn, since I see your posts as more of presenting information, then spelling out exactly what actions you support, I won't say that my opinions or goals are necessarily in opposition to yours. I will say that I have learned a lot from the information & links you have provided in this thread.
To only have 1 out of 5 points challenged is a far better ratio then I would expect from one of the kings of debate (IMO )around here. I have no facts for you. If we spend 25 to 30 billion just for parking priviledges in Turky, I can't see how some of that money doesn't come out of the mouths of our children, but I will concede that without facts, GWB is innocent of my #4 claim until proven otherwise. Never the less, I will remain in the Anti-War camp.
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Whoopeee!!! Australia has just won a major prize. Suddam has said that we were all such good little marchers for peace that he will commence buying our wheat again. That is the prize we lost back in November when John Howard aligned himself with Bush. Wonder what will happen next week??? Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
STEVE YOUR A HOOT......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA i got more hair then carvelle!!!!!!
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Dave,
I'm one of those evil Conservatives - I'm both socially and fiscally conservative. I love political debate.
My reason for asking those five questions was not to find out what a person believes, but why. IMHO, the arguement against a war with Iraq is based on emotion and a lack of knowledge based on quantifiable facts.
Speaking for myself, I'm against war unless necessary. War is not evil in and of itself. It is the intent behind the war that makes that decision for me. In this case, based on the facts, I believe that this one will be necessary for two reasons.....
1) It was Saddam who started the war orginally. After it was clear that he was defeated and about to be removed, he sued for peace and signed a cease-fire agreement. He did not surrender. This is a very important distinction. By signing a cease-fire, Saddam was able to survive without admitting defeat. It also means that we are technically still in a state of war with him. In signing the cease-fire, he agreed to certain requirements as defined by the various UN resolutions. He must be required to abide by those requirements or face the consequences which is the resumption of war. We know for a fact that Saddam has done everything he can to thwart the resolutions. Even now, he is dragging his feet. He knows that if he can play it long enough, people will tire and he can win the battle in the court of public opinion. He will have lost the battle, but won the war. This can not be permitted or the 132 servicemen and women who died in Desert Storm will have lost their lives for nothing. It would have been better if we had ignored his invasion, plunder,rape and murder of Kuwait.
2) I believe in saying what you mean and mean what you say. If we do not go to war, then the UN will have made itself irrelevent, useless and unnecessary just as the League of Nations did. Seventeen resolutions have been over the past 12 years requiring Saddam's compliance to the cease-fire agreement. Over the last 12 years, how many times have we told Saddam that he "has one more chance."
"Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998
"Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998
"Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998
"The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998
"Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003
Dave, if I remember correctly, you are a father. If you caught your child lying and stealing, at the very least, you'd threaten to punish him (or her). You'd expect him to believe you and not lie and steal again. But, suppose he does it again. And, again, you threaten to punish but don't. And suppose this happens 17 times. Before long, your child isn't going to take you seriously, will he? He's not going to respect you as he ought, nor is he going to believe anything else you say. And chances are that he's going to continue lying and stealing comfortable in the knowledge that you aren't going to do anything about it. That is what is going on now between the US/UN and Saddam.
Saddam has had 12 years to comply. Enough is enough. Either we (US/UN) follow through with what we said or we lift all sanctions and let Saddam have his laugh.
Joe, Karen and Myra want more money for the poor. Fine. Its time we pull out and stop wasting our money on the UN and waste our money on something closer to home.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL!!!
Tucker Carlson??!!
Yuck!
At least make me look like someone with some intelligence - Robert Novak.
----
On edit: Scratch that. Give me Charles Krauthammer.
[ February 21, 2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Fred Weiss (Member # 3662) on :
Debate is wonderful and reading this thread has been both educational and moving. What I don't hear is any talk of solutions.
History has pretty much demonstrated that wars happen when peaceful solutions fail.
Recent history has also taught us that that fighting wars with limited objectives do not provide solutions ..... they either end in defeat or maintenance of the status quo and continuation of unresolved problems.
The advent of nuclear weapons meant that all out war ending in unconditional surrender of one combatent nation or alliance could no longer be an option (exceptions like Panama and Greneda not withstanding).
Saying "Lets kick some butt" or "Hell no I won't go" may have a political impact but it won't change the underlying issues. That requires statesmanship, political and moral leadership, and great minds in all the camps of the world recognizing that solutions to difficult problems must be found even if some of those solutions might not be their preference.
Looking past the current situation over Iraq and consider the Islamic nations as a whole. Most of the industrialized countries are involved in the middle eastern mess because of oil. But the real issue is Israel. Find a way for the Arabs and the Israelis to make a true and lasting peace and oil is just another commodity to be brought to market for the benefit of seller and buyer alike.
That solution won't come from war because the world can no longer fight a war requiring total victory of one group over another. Neither will anything other than encouraging the Saddams and Osamas of this world come out of a single minded peace movement.
The answers IMHO will come from forcing the Islamic nations and Israel to make peace by doing the following:
1. Fostering an alliance among all peace loving nations to act in unison to demand that the Islamic nations and Israel come to terms. Such an alliance would agree to place whatever political and economic pressure might be called for on any country not cooperating with those goals. This alliance would not favor any of the nations involved directly in the conflict thus taking the moral high ground and hopefully receiving the political support of the majority of the peoples of the world.
2. Encourage the Islamic nations to organize politically to deal with their own regional issues and to present to the Israelis a unified organization to negotiate with.
3. Withdraw military and economic support for all countries in this region until a peace accord has been reached and impose sanctions on any country outside of the region that continues to provide anything beyond humanitarian aid or permitted trade with any nation in the region.
4. Provide a significant military response to any nation in the region that commences any military action to disrupt the peace process.
Would it work? Maybe. Would there be economic repercussions? You bet! Does anyone have any other solution that might work?
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
I'm one of those evil Conservatives - I'm both socially and fiscally conservative. open mouth insert foot....when clinton left office we had the deficet on it way to being no more. with this administration i would not use that line in any connection to thier behavior. 300 BILLION DEFICET isnt FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE....and we still dont have any health care....all i gota say to bush is what jay leno said to HUGH GRANT when he got caught with a hooker..."WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?" and its typical of the conservative....they can not admit the wrongness of their idols ways....even some today still think NIXON didnt do anything wrong. or that GEO SR. didnt do anything wrong........
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
This discussion is about the looming war with Iraq.
If you'd like to discuss the deficit or other such matters, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you at great length here. Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Fred,
Since you asked....
Many of those things have already been tried.
Unfortunately, negotiated peace does not have a very good track record. That isn't to say that it isn't worth trying. It is preferable to war. But, I think there is a point where there are no other options.
The current problem does not involve hostilities between the various Arab countries and Israel. Saddam attacked another Arab state and then bombed Israel as a way to involve them and break up the 1991 coalition.
Solutions? First you have to define what the problem is. In this case, it is Saddam and his refusal to comply with the terms of the cease-fire. We have said repeatedly that there are consequences for failure to comply.
We have tried sanctions. They failed. Even former Sec. of State Albright has admitted that over 500,000 Iraqi children have died because of the sanctions. German companies have been suppying weapons manufacturing equipment. Other countries have been making deals with Iraq. And now it is being reported that North Korea may be suppying weapons material to Saddam.
We've tried inspections. But for inspections to work, there has to be complete and absolute compliance. For 12 years, Saddam has refused to do so, even now. In 1998, the inspectors were booted out, some say removed. This resulted in Clinton's Operation: Desert Fox which dropped more cruise missles and bombs than all of Desert Storm.
To avoid war, the onus is on Saddam. He is the one who started this mess.
Peace at any cost to avoid war is not peace. It is appeasement.
If you look back at history, the only time the world has had "peace" for any length of time was after war in which the loser surrendered "completely".
In the end, as I see it, we have 3 choices....
1) Saddam complies completely and absolutely. 2) Saddam goes into exile and the Iraqi provisional government complies completely. 3) We keep our word.
I don't hold much hope for the first two.
----
To your question about Middle East peace, I liken the solution to Dave Grundy's quitting smoking. For it to succeed, it has to be something that they want. Until that happens, there is little anyone can do that will be effective and long-lasting.
[ February 22, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
Fred, I feel that I gave a fair solution to the immediate problem in my second post near the end of page 1. I'm sure some would dissagree, but that's my solution. The method in which it is acheived, we pay big bucks for. I do like your idea of uniting the islamic countries to avert future problems, but keeping them seperate and quarraling with one another is probably the best for all.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn....there is no disscussing "pertinent" issues. you tend to be a "sound bite" of the geo w. bush camp. and you tend to to the same as geo w when you are approched about some details other then how bad sadamn is to his people, how many children died over there and how this administration is NOT ADDRESSING THE SAME PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY. you say you dont care how thew french, german, russians feel.....well we(the one who detest this personel war of geo w.)would rather see 300 BILLION SPENT ON THE 41 million without health care(you wont even address this, as many times as ive said it) or the HOMELESS(in your conservative world they dont exist) or the JOBLESS AND IDIGENT(again they dont live in your perfect world). as for the problems of the IRAQY people, untill they decide to get a regiem change, sadam is not a problem we need to address, and spend that money her in this country.........but you will defend this administration...because you voted for it....as letterman put it last nite, "geo w. dont need the U.N. support to go to war, he also didnt need the THE AMERICAN PEOPLES support to get the office of president"
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Joe,
I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic, but you keep thowing up a bunch of straw dogs. I've invited you to discuss this on another BB which would be a more proper venue considering the depth necessary to properly respond to the issues you've raised. Whether you want to take me up on that offer is up to you. I'll not air them here knowing the past history of discussing such things on this BB.
If that is not an acceptable answer, I'm sorry. It's the only one you'll get from me unless you get permission from Steve.
Posted by Wilson Ardmore (Member # 3230) on :
PLANT CORN and HAVE A BARBEQUE. There, it's settled.
CrazyJack
Posted by Robert Peach (Member # 2620) on :
Wow,Great bunch of posts. Really makes me think.I`m surprised at how polite everyone is.Just my two bits,I have to agree with most of what Myra has to say. Just for the record I am a Vietnam vet and consider myself a patriot.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn...you did a "political shuffle" AGAIN. you are a polititian...you wont respond to a question that you know if you answer....will not be the right one(in keeping with your skewed view). you keep saying how bad sadamn is and how he mistreats his people and children and since you are so "fiscally conservative" all you need to answer is....it better to spend 300 BILLION on a war, to remove a dictator, who is of no imenet threat to this country....or spend that money HERE FOR ITS PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING MISTREATED by their own govt by not givin AN AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM for its 41 MILLION people????? is that so hard to answer and its not off the topic....which is WAR which = 300 BILLION spent on KILLING, DESTROYING and adding more veterans to the DISABLED, MAMED, CRIPPLED AND DEAD. but to you and yours this is EXCEPTABLE? and these things happen in war and colaterial damage is ok? i think if they would take that 300 BILLION their gona spend killing and destroying...and apply it to HOMELAND SECURITY AND HEALTH CARE FOR OUR OWN....it would be money well spent. as for me going to a bb that is where you and yours pump each other with "sound bites" of this administration....i didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday, and i wont be like a bull taken to slaughter.....heheheheheheheheh and i love james carvelle....and airanna hufington.....
[ February 23, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
I never have subscribed to the viewpoint of the government, or taxpayers in general owing me or anyone anything, except for those who cannot provide for themselves. The elderly and indigent part of our society are taken care of by Medicare and Medicade. Not perfect, but none the less much better than I or you get.(US p.o.v.) The government making healthcare financially affordable to the public, is very welcomed (rid the price gouging), but their are too many politics envolved for that to happen anytime soon. I'm tired of listening to the "what is in it for me" entitlement attitude, and for sure am tired of financially supporting those who subscribe to that point of view. Most of our unemployed, are unemployable (slackers), because of their attitudes, and misdirected work habits. Most of the homeless in my area, are there because they choose that lifestyle. Most of them beg for food money, and then spend it on liquor. What more do I/you owe them? I know that this is getting off of the subject, but maybe will maybe serve as a "fiscally conservative" point of view, and not at all skewed.
I am not a republican nor a democrat, but I am a conservative. I achieve for myself, I share with others that need my assistance, as I can, without the NEED for a bureaucratic government to very poorly misdirect my funds...As far as war is concerned, I am for all methods available to avert it, but we do, very much have a problem at hand. Nip it in the bud/buds! For passiveness to prevail, all must be passive,,,, which they are not.
.....bronzeo
[ February 23, 2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: bronzeo ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Joe asks....
quote: you keep saying how bad sadamn is and how he mistreats his people and children and since you are so "fiscally conservative" all you need to answer is....it better to spend 300 BILLION on a war, to remove a dictator, who is of no imenet threat to this country....or spend that money HERE FOR ITS PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING MISTREATED by their own govt by not givin AN AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM for its 41 MILLION people?????
Joe, First, your question is a straw dog and built on assumptions.
The US Constitution specifically charges the US government with the duty to defend these shores. It does not require the government to provide a socialist healthcare program.
1) How do you know that the war against Saddam is going to cost $300 Billion?
2) It is "claimed" that 41 million Americans do not have health insurance. Answer me this, how many of them don't have insurance because they choose not to? I was one of them until I reached my 30's.
3) Your arguement is one of moral equivalency. How is it that we spend 42% of revenue on social programs, 19% on non-militaryspending and only 16% on the military and social liberals such as yourself say that we are spending too much on the military and not on socialist programs that have failed or are failing in other countries?
I want to know what you know and your specific source of information that you base that on. I'm not interested in you telling me what you think you know parroting something you've heard someone say.
As for the BB I referenced, its participants consist of Libertarian, Democrats, Greens, Republicans and Independents. If you really want to discuss everything you've brought up, I really encourage you to muster up the courage and give the BB a shot. The only thing I recommend is that your writing be clear, not so convoluted like you've demostrated here. This means - use paragraphs and complete sentences.
----
On edit: Karen, I got your e-mail and responded to it, but it came back as undeliverable.
[ February 23, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
ok....1st off what is a straw dog? 2nd..300 BILLION for a war, is still unanswered. that what they figure it will cost(done by the same who figure the u.s. budget)and that is a "conservative" figure. it will be more with the occupation of iraq. CLAIMED.....you need to get out more, pay attention to whats going on in your own backyard. and who in their right would not want some kinda health care? most people in this country are one hospital stay from being bankrupt or homeless. i dont see how you can say "fiscally conservative" and then be in favor of this war of money. as the indians used to say "you speak with forked tounge." MORAL? your the moral conservative, not me....i hear the word all the time. but its only used as it fits the conservative needs. as for all the other countries with social programs that failed....iam not asking for that, like i said all i want is health care that is the same as congress and senators have....for the same payments. "I'm not interested in you telling me what you think you know parroting something you've heard someone say." you should reread that statement and apply it to you. all i tell you is what i think, its personel and from the heart and that also is how i type...on the fly as the thoughts come up. yes iam not real wordy, i speak from the heart about things i think are "morally " wrong. again since you see my ramblings as nothing more then "convoluted", it would totally be inept on my part to show up at a bb where i would be nothing more then the dummy who cant type. thank you.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP
In response to your questions....
1) Look it up. Its time for you to make an effort.
2) I did respond. I asked you how you know that it will cost $300 Billion. State a source please. Considering that the entire 2003 budget for the millitary is $322 billion, you've got my curiosity.
3) National Healthcare. This discussion belongs on another BB. But, I will share this with you.
A) In 2001, 41 million Americans do not have health insurance according to Census records.
B) Of those 41 million, 7.7% of them earn more than $75,000 per year. Why should I, a person who earns half that, be required to help pay for something that they won't do for themselves? As for the rest, how many of them choose not to have insurance?
C) On August 26th, 2002, I became an expert on government-run insurance programs. Rather than looking at the surface, I strongly suggest you read the fine print before you sign on. Trust me on that.
D) Have you ever asked yourself why insurance companies support a government-run insurance program?
Joe, that is all I'm going to say about healthcare. If you want to discuss it any further, you know where I'll be. Any further comments on anything other than the war with Iraq and the protests will be ignored by me.
Lets stay on topic please.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I had thought of offering up a referee type comment that OP should accept that his views, un-tainted by personalized typing style, are out here for everyone to have access to. Making Glenn agree should not be an objective, as he has his right to his beliefs...
But then, I got to where I feel a more important point I need to make here is this.
Glenn, your cut & pasted comments by Amir Taheri made for interesting reading for a while until I got tired of Amir lumping all the most extreme cases of fanitical & pompous overblown mis-guided "Anti-War" commentary into one long-winded, self-important, heavily exaggerated, & supremely skewed misrepresentation of reality.
I think this thread has, for the most part, avoided the trap of becoming a discussion that serves to divide us. The little slings & jabs between a few, may lean more towards divisiveness then educating, or raising awareness among each other through sharing information & views.
But to me Glenn, Amir's comments added to this thread, where many of your friends & fellow letterheads have intelligently &/or emotionally stated various logical, level-headed, & legitimate anti-war views, SERVES NO GOOD PURPOSE.
Although it is just a link we can click or not & just a "story" we can read or not, & believe or not, and just because you didn't write it Glenn, IMO, it is a slap in the face to anyone here who has spoken out on views contrary to yours.
I won't bother to dredge up war mongering images & commentary of demented kill-crazy extremists, white supremicists, skinhead nazis, or trigger-happy career HAWKS.
Why? because this conversation is among friends whom I respect. Although I am sure there are many hate filled pro-war extremists in the world, whose skewed logic (or lack thereof), & purely ego-driven destructiveness has been documented, ready for my own cut & paste propoganda, they are not here in Letterville, & they are not in this conversation.
This letterville topic is not about US & them it's about US. And I don't mean U.S., I mean all of us on the planet. Sure, Amir's extremists are out there, being part of the problem, & my afore-mentioned extremists are also out there muddying the waters of our global efforts to sift through the conflicts of the world looking for the most humane solution. I just don't think muddying the waters here unnecessarily will serve any purpose. Except maybe to divide us.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I went back to finish reading Amir's words, to make sure I was not out of line in being offended by them.
In fact to clarify my intent above, I am not so much offended by Amir's words as embarrassed by them, as I am sure they are reasonably accurate reporting of some of the less credible qualities of a "movement" when millions of voices are being distilled by a hierarchy of public speakers, & march organizers. The offense taken was in my interpretation that posting Amir's comments was lumping the entire "Anti-war" voice into that of the protest march organizers "thugs" that censored SH's attrocities, to buffer their "anti Blair & Bush" views.
Here is the last line from Amir's story:
quote:Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame.
I may be an optimist, & compared to the degree to which many have done their homework, I may be a blind optimist with my head in the sand, but I reserve the right to "hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be" that it will be done through either a peaceful process, or some lessor form of deadly process then an all-out full scale U.S. led war.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
Hey Joe, if you want the same health care congressmen and senators have, at the same cost, here's a suggestion - run for Congress. You certainly would be no less qualified than some current members, and I'm sure your unquestioning loyalty would mean that you'd get along famously with Democratic party leadership.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Doug,
You have me at a disadvantage. How is the story a slap in the face? I don't understand.
The purpose of link was to illustrate a comment made earlier.
I question the true intent of the protest organizers. Were they truly "anti-war' or were they "anti-bush/blair".
There are a couple reasons why I question it.
1) If they were anti-war, why didn't they also protest Saddam?
2) If they were anti-war, why didn't they protest Clinton's Operation: Desert Fox?
I also have to look at the organizations who have put together these protests. The primary organizer is InternationalANSWER, an extention of the WWP.
I also have to ask why the same people didn't protest against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. There has to be a reason. Upon doing some nosing around, I've found that a large majority of "local" protest organizations are extentions of InternationalAnswer. I.A. is a product of the WWP, a pro-Stalinist organization.
So,then I did a little research on the history of Saddam.
At the age of 10, Saddam was raised by his uncle, Khayrallah Tulfa. Tulfa, and Iraqi officer, was arrested and jailed in 1941 for his part in a Nazi-sponsored insurrection. He was a staunch supporter of Nazi Germany and revered Hitler. He was released five years later.
In 1947, Saddam moved in and was raised by Tulfa. At 19, Saddam joined the socialist/nationalist movement Baath party.
I bring all of these things up because I think it is important that if someone is going to be part of the Anti-War or Pro-War groups, they need to know who it is that they are supporting.
It bothers me that few people take the time to learn about what it is they support or the "facts" behind it.
One of the things constantly mentioned was the "huge" number of protesters marching against the war. In San Francisco, we were being told that over 200,000 people were there protesting. Now we find out that the number was closer to 65,000 - 1/3rd the size originally reported. It makes me wonder what the "real" numbers are around the world. We are told that "millions protested." In light of the actual numbers in San Francisco, I have to question the other protests. And if the numbers were intentionally bloated to make the protests seem larger than what they really were, then someone is being dishonest and I have to question what else have they lied about.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:How is the story a slap in the face? I don't understand.
The purpose of link was to illustrate a comment made earlier.
I question the true intent of the protest organizers. Were they truly "anti-war' or were they "anti-bush/blair".
Questioning the intent of weather they were truly "anti-war" is no slap, but again theyare not here. Are you questioning my intent?, or numerous other fellow letterheads who are here?
quote: 1) If they were anti-war, why didn't they also protest Saddam?
2) If they were anti-war, why didn't they protest Clinton's Operation: Desert Fox?
I attempted to give you my thoughts on that, but I really think you need to go ask THEM.
quote: I also have to look at the organizations who have put together these protests
Search "Maui Peace Action" to learn who brought 1000 people together last sunday in my neighborhood. (One report said 1500, but I didn't count them) I can tell you they are not commies, & their motives are as pure as the folks here wishing to avert bloodshed if possible.
quote: I bring all of these things up because I think it is important that if someone is going to be part of the Anti-War or Pro-War groups, they need to know who it is that they are supporting.
So, if I hope a solution can be found to disarm SH of WMD's without the "collateral damage" of the lives of a few thousand of America's finest young adult service men & women...
who exactly are you saying that I am supporting?
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Doug,
quote: Are you questioning my intent?, or numerous other fellow letterheads who are here?
No, I am not. I specifically said "organizers."
I believe that there are those who have the best of intentions. But, you know what they say about the best of intentions.
----
I know that you believe you are doing the right thing. I know that you believe in what you are supporting just as I believe I know what I'm supporting.
I also know that Saddam has openly thanked everyone in the anti-war protests. Since these protestors did not protest both sides in the looming war, I ask you to consider that, however good your intentions, is it not feesable that these one-sided protests give comfort to Saddam? Is it not possible that this is causing more harm than good?
What I am about to say is not in any way directed at you. It is an attempt to explain my view concerning these protests......
Have you ever heard of the term "useful idiots"? It was a term used by Lenin to describe clueless westerners who aided and abetted his cause. I think that Neville Chamberlain would fit that definition where Hitler is concerned. I believe that groups like InternationalANSWER and Saddam rely on such people.
Since the protestors have been inconsistant in who and what they protest, I have to wonder if the term applies to those individuals who in their hearts are truly against war regardless and blindly follow the organizers.
Again, let me be clear. I am not calling you or anyone else an "idiot". I consider you a friend.
If the protests had been against both sides, I'd have no problem. But, they haven't been.
Please don't misunderstand me. I know that in your heart, you are supporting the US. My fear is that the "action" is having a different effect.
[ February 23, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
point taken.
I am not a total passivist, in fact I would like Saddam dead! But, at what cost? this is where I waver. If he likes anti-war protests, so what. He knows he is hated. Criminals (& lawyers) all over America enjoy & exploit the "innocent until proven guilty" quality of our justice system, & the long, drawn out, & sometimes unpredictable convicting &/or sentencing process. Criminals may enjoy the fact that even murderers cannot be killed on sight even if caught red-handed. The fact that this "gives comfort" to them does not mean we should change our justice to allow killing them on sight.
Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Here is another question for my friends in the US. Just who is and how powerful is the group "Global Exchange". From reports I have read they are a far left coalition based in California which has internet links with activist organisations around the world. They are backed by a far more alarming internet coalition of activists led by answer (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). I find it sad that many innocent people who feel in their heart that by marching they are sending a message to governments when in fact they are propping up far left loony organisations. Has it ever crossed your minds how these marches around the world all coincided on the one weekend. it didn't just happen- it was organised very proffesionally via internet by a nasty gruop working against governments, and they would be very proud of the "Suckers" they drew in.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
David,
They are all interconnected. You can find the connection through Unitedforpeace.org .
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
for what it's worth, the 1000 suckers, I mean people in the photo I posted met on Sunday... NOT Saturday, & Not connected to ANSWER.
On the topic of "organizations" we should be aware of here is a link to a writing by William Cooper. Before being assisinated by our government for his outspoken truth-telling of behind the scenes activities of our government, William wrote some very enlightening books. "Behold a pale horse ", is the one that I read & it contains not only many interesting "stories" but much "evidence" & "credentials" to make the stories he tells believable. Enough so, that he was killed to keep him from telling any more
quote: ...most modern secret societies and especially those that practice degrees of initiation, and that is the key, are really one society with one purpose. You may call them whatever you wish--the Order of the Quest, the JASON Society, the Roshaniya, the Qabbalah, the Knights Templar, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis, the Illuminati, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Executive Members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Group, the Brotherhood of the Dragon, the Rosicrucians, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Open Friendly Secret Society (the Vatican), the Russell Trust, the Skull & Bones, the Scroll & Key, the Order--they are all the same and all work toward the same ultimate goal, a New World Order.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Well, I for one am looking forward to having a binary star system. Posted by david drane (Member # 507) on :
Doug, I think this whole issue is way too broad for the average man in the street to comprehend, myself included. We can only be guided by what we see on TV and read in the papers and then make up our own minds.
[ February 25, 2003, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: david drane ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL!!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn....as for how you choose to answer my questions....just told me how much like the president you are. if you cant debate an issue then you make me IRRELEVANT.....hehehehehe ok with me. "I'm not interested in you telling me what you think you know parroting something you've heard someone say." your still doing this statement. the future will unfold and we all will have to live with the choices we make glenn. and.....thank you cam.....but my past would make CLINTON look more moral then the pope!!!!!!!
[ February 24, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
I need a translator.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
Joe, remember the good old days, before we all agreed not to let these kinds of threads get personal? You've been called FAR worse things than irrelevant!
As for becoming a Congressman, you won't get much scrutiny of past indiscretions at that level. You could always move to Massachusetts and change your name. The fine liberal and progressive intellectual citizens of the Bay State would elect a convicted ax-murdering pedophile if his last name was Kennedy.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
me too jack.....cam thats funny.....also i got comprimizing pictures out there somewhere(if she didnt throw them away).....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
I've been in the winter wonderland of Pennsylvania at the Edge Heads meet. I am finding a few still butting heads here on this thread - and staying civil.
This link is to a screen saver of quotes I have had rolling on my PC for years. Every now and then I change to something else, and then go back to it; it never takes long and I miss it. One can set the language in which the quotes roll by, for Glenn I suggest to set it to French
The idea to show that I too can post a link came to me when I turned from my plotter and on my screen it said:
" Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." John Kenneth Galbraith
We have been busy, haven't we!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
wonder if this will make the 200 POST? and on politics....gee.........
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
200? not unless we got something to say, I don't think.
But since Steve has allowed this thread, & I'm not sure we should expect him to make any kind of new policy opening up any & all political topics posted, I am moving my reply to Cam's post over here:
to Cam's points, my thoughts are:
1. I agree! especially the last sentance: " One way or another ,this has got to be stopped." the implication that there may be more then one way is something I haven't heard from our President lately.
2. I agree again, but to the comment "We...have allowed our government to create a monster...This means we have a moral obligation to correct that mistake." The mistake & the correction lies in how much we allow our government to do, & right now I fear we are on a path to having less influence, not more.
3. To me, this point, made no point. Generalizations will never have much meaning for me. Of the large number of proponants for a peaceful solution, does Cam suggest that there is no satisfactory decision for any of them? or for all of them simultanously? Why so much emphasis on the organizers anyway. Bill Gates helped organize this letterhead meet, are we all politically aligned with him now?
IMO, to imply that any opposition to declaring war on Iraq, constitutes support of a "regime which murders its citizens..." makes an otherwise well thought out & articulate opinion lose all credability.
America's leaders are "protesting" Iraq's proven inability to play nice in the global sandbox.
I feel that... "The motivation of the (Presidential)protest leaders is far deeper than the current situation, the Iraq crisis is an opportunity, not a cause, for these (Presidential)protests. Further, the nature of (America's Presidential administration) and its actions are an established fact. This is a (administration) which... wars with its neighbors, in violation of the moral standards of every enlightened human being."
4.Again I agree. Particularly this comment "The sad fact is, sooner or later there will be a war over Iraq." Even sadder is that there will most likely be further acts of terrorism against America, & there may be possibly preventable attrocities committed by SH, before the world joins to stop "tolerating" Saddam's "increasingly dangerous level of confrontation and instability..."
If a greater majority of the world worked together (with sanctions & witholding trade of chemicals & arms etc.)to disarm or overthrow Saddam, then I believe this could be acomplished with less risk of escalating worldwide terror, as opposed to reducing it. Unfortunantly, it may take more disasters to bring the world together on this. If America acts without the support of much of the world, I fear more harm then good may result.
What do I know? I may be way off on that fear, but right now, thats my fear. If 007 or Jason Bourne, or one of Robert Ludlum's protagonists could rappel under cover of darkness, & wrap a garrote around Saddam's neck, & somehow insert a more ethical government, I'd vote now, but America's ground war in Iraq without global support does not yet have my vote.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
my opinion of this "clean up war", is close to what doug is saying in that WE the united states created this dictator, supplied him with CHEMICAL,BIO, AND hard arms to help us gain some control in that region. this all goes back to the 60's -70's. once he became powerful on his own and decided to be the dictator he is....and then thumbed his nose at the u.s. well thats not why we helped set him up. now he needs to be takin out and someone else(who will respect the u.s and their help)will take his place. its called "puppet govt."
look at PAMAMA same story.....its happening in afganastan, boznia, south vietnam...etc etc. yes the u.s is responsible...and the idea of going over and removing sadam TO HELP HIS PEOPLE...is the last thing on the U.S. SHOPPING LIST. also turkey got what they wanted....they will let u.s. troops on their land for 6 months. boy they got paid well.....on the other hand n.korea, firing missels....and this administraion WONT EVEN TALK TO THEM. some great foreign policy that is....
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
'Win Without War' Releases New Talking Points
(2003-02-25) -- Win Without War, the coalition of organizations planning a "virtual march" on Washington, D.C., this week released a new list of talking points to guide people who call the capitol to protest disarming Iraq through threat-of-force.
The group encourages callers to use their own "heartfelt" words instead of compelling, thought-out reasons. Here is an excerpt from the talking points list:
We can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq. Despite 12 years of failing to do so, I just feel that we can.
A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would be the greatest terrorist recruitment tool that Osama bin Laden could imagine. We feel afraid of terrorists and should never do anything that might make them angry.
We can't control war. Experts warn that an attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize regimes in the region, upsetting monarchs and dictators who also don't like us.
What happens after war? Are we prepared to occupy Iraq for years to come? Think of how long it will take just to de-toxify the WMD landfills, and to give medical treatment to the Iraqi people who have been exposed to chemical and biological agents. Then there's the trials for crimes against humanity. We don't have time for all that.
The administration hasn't convinced our allies or the American public. According to a recent poll: - 59 % of Americans believe the president should give the United Nations more time; - 63% said Washington should not act without the support of its allies; - 87% think 'Joe Millionaire' should have picked the other woman.
Many innocents will be killed or injured, and Saddam doesn't need any help doing that. So let's just allow him to continue killing his own people?
Young Americans will die in battle...War should be the very last resort. First we should pass at least 18 resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, spend almost a year trying to build an international coalition to pressure Saddam to disarm, and continue to take no action even if he doesn't comply with our U.N. resolutions.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
well since were on the dumb things.....check this out it was on NBC NIGHTLY NEWS. ST. LOUIS (AP) — The new head of the Southern Baptist Convention has defended and endorsed comments highly critical of Islam by one of the convention's past presidents. The Rev. Jack Graham, elected the convention's president on Tuesday, said the Rev. Jerry Vines' comments about Islam were "accurate." "Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives — and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you, Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people," Mr. Vines, pastor of First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla., said at a pastors' conference here on Monday. Mr. Graham, of Plano, Texas, said that Mr. Vines' statement "is an accurate statement," and that he would not condemn his colleague. "I will not respond to Dr. Vines' statement, other than to say that anyone who follows any path, who wants to go to heaven, should look carefully at who they're following and what they believe," he said. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the comments were outrageous. "It's really unfortunate that a top leader in a mainstream Christian church would use such hate-filled and bigoted language in describing the faith of one-fifth of the world's population," Mr. Hooper said. "This is the level of bigotry that requires a clear statement from the top leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention." William Merrell, a spokesman for the SBC Executive Committee, said the comments were made outside the actual meeting, and that it was not the SBC's place to comment. Ingrid Mattson, vice president of the Islamic Society of North America and a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, called the comments "medieval." She said statements like this from such high-placed religious leaders can lead to violence against Muslims. Mr. Vines, a former convention president, said on Monday that many of this country's problems can be blamed on the moral relativism championed by proponents of religious pluralism. Pluralists "would have us to believe that Islam is just as good as Christianity, but I'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that Islam is not just as good as Christianity," he said. now this is not ALL RELIGIONS.....your post about the anti war protestors.....doesnt represent them ALL.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
And this has to do with our discussion on the approaching war on Iraq......how...?
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
[ February 26, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Myra Grozinger ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
SOTP...
....in the name of love, before you break my heart..
(I couldn't resist...hehehe)
[ February 26, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Karen Stein (Member # 241) on :
lol...now Glenn, your news item was all hot air..ya know how I know? Everyone knows that the real polls showed that 93% of all Americans thought Joe Millionaire made the RIGHT choice in ZORA
[A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones Letter to the Observer Sunday January 26, 2003 The Observer
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really ****ed off with Mr. Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. ]
I know...simplistic reasoning...but the fact is, charging into a war without world support sets a very (IMHO) dangerous precedent...not to mention I think that it puts America in violation of UN Resolutions (surely there is one in there somewhere that states that member nations may not make war on other countries without the blessing of a majority of member nations)...so then what? will we let UN inspectors in to disarm us if a resolution is passed against our war making? Yup Cam, the nasty worms are really gonna come squirming out of the can now.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Remain in Light 2 'Remain In Light' was generally regarded by music critics as being the best Talking Heads album, Remain in light 2 was released today in an effort to, well... remain in the limelight of contemporary thought, without the inconvenience of generating any new thought.
new 'head Glenn was given sole production credit, and also co-wrote (re-wrote) all the words; Today's re-issue featured the new Talking Heads - a multi-personnel group with added parroting, backing vocalists and paste-up artists, who put the "Reply " button to its most tasteful use since earlier today. The difference was noticeable immediately. Talking Heads work had always been monologues in the past, but now there were ten or twelve different supporting vocalists rehashing perspectives on the same issues.
The message was funkier, with more embellishments than before, and 'Remain in Light 2' represented a completely new rehashing approach, rather than an alteration of the old rehashing approach.
The album's most striking track was 'Win Without War' which - with the help of a dramatically simple and effective paste-up work, became the new band's first work.
The single, 'Win Without War' flopped upon release, but may in time become an audience favorite if a striking video is added.
Even without a single new thought, Remain in Light 2 was posted, indicating that Talking Heads felt they were connecting with an audience ready to follow their evolution, and the work was so inventive and influential, it was no wonder.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Your right. Bush shouldn't go to war without support. We all know for a fact that to go to war, He must have 19 European countries supporting him, not 18.
Bush should know that Russia, France and Belgium make for a majority.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL, Doug.
How did you know that Talking Heads was one of my favorite groups?! Posted by Joey Madden (Member # 1192) on :
How is this going to effect my pinstriping business?
Posted by aaronssigns (Member # 490) on :
sorry no time to type right now.............got a bunch of signs to make!
Posted by jimmy chatham (Member # 525) on :
karen, just kill them all and let god sort them out. Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
WOW! Including my meaningless post at 1:11, 5 posts at 1 minute intervals, and absolutely nothing to say.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn.....you have to ask? ill splian it...you posted DUMB things that anti war protestors say, and all i did was post some dumb thing a real religious person said.....just to show you that i can find dumb stuff that other people say just like you found dumb stuff anti war protestors said. if i belived that ALL PROTESTORS where that dumb....then all what i posted you should believe ALL RELIGIOUS people are that dumb!!!!! see what cut and paste can do?
Posted by Stephen Broughton (Member # 2237) on :
Karen that letter was written by the Terry Jones he of Monty Python fame, I think you missed the point mind you Eddie Izzard did say that "Humour is wasted on the Americans"
[ February 27, 2003, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Broughton ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Karen says right there who wrote it. What's to miss? It's not like theres any deep hidden meaning to Terry's humor. Maybe you missed Karen's point in posting it.
As for English humor, a lot of seemingly worthless drivel is wasted on Americans... Many of us Yanks may just want something a little more thought provoking in our humor. But, I know I'm guilty of a bit of tunnelvision & not at all well traveled out of the states, so you could be right, it might all be way over my head & I'll never know.
Feel free to enlighten us if you really think there is something there besides basic satire.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
Its real simple. One has to do with the topic at hand, the other doesn't. Lets see if you kind find something dumb that an pro-war person said.
Bringing in a comment by a religious person that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread does not bolster your arguement.
----
BTW, Karen. The "article" I posted earlier was a parody of an actual article. (just in case someone missed it)
[ February 27, 2003, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug Allan: to imply that any opposition to declaring war on Iraq, constitutes support of a "regime which murders its citizens..." makes an otherwise well thought out & articulate opinion lose all credability. End Quote.
1. This statement drops the context in which it was made. Let's try again: 3. The current administration fully understands that NO decision it makes will satisfy those who protest against a war with Iraq. The motivation of the protest leaders is far deeper than the current situation, the Iraq crisis is an opportunity, not a cause, for these protests. Further, the nature of the Iraqi regime and its actions are an established fact. This is a regime which murders its citizens and wars with its neighbors, in violation of the moral standards of every enlightened human being. To support such a regime, as an excuse for villifying a political or ideological opponent, is a destestable act of hypocrisy.
I'm actively interested in a non-military solution that will remove the current Iraqi regime. However, observations of the results of sanctions and inspection protocals of the past eleven years tells me that these methods have not been successful, and show no sign of being successful anytime soon. As to what constitutes "support for a regime that murders its citizens...", we have activists and protest leaders that have actively sought to defend the continued existence of the SH regime, to the extent of offering themselves as "human shields". (As an aside, I have a friend, an African-American, leutenant in the Air Force, who has confided that he would find deep personal satisfaction in seeing Jesse Jackson through a bombsight over Iraq. Not my opinion, just something I thought I would share.) I realize that not all protesters have expressed this level of support (what else would you call it?) for the Iraqi regime, and to imply that I would include anyone who opposes military action with those individuals is a stretch.
To quote Doug again:
America's leaders are "protesting" Iraq's proven inability to play nice in the global sandbox.
I feel that... "The motivation of the (Presidential)protest leaders is far deeper than the current situation, the Iraq crisis is an opportunity, not a cause, for these (Presidential)protests. Further, the nature of (America's Presidential administration) and its actions are an established fact. This is a (administration) which... wars with its neighbors, in violation of the moral standards of every enlightened human being." End quote.
This adminstrations "wars with its neighbors, in violation of the moral standards of every enlightened human being."?? Pray, tell, Doug, where exactly has this happened? I must have missed something. When exactly was nerve gas used to kill anyone who opposes Bush? When exactly did the US military, under this administration, invade Canada? You are seriously comparing the moral standards of the Bush adminisrtation to the regime of Saddam Hussien? As I said, I realize that moral relevancy is a common argument of th Left, but you are going to have to do MUCH better if you are going to convince me. Really, Doug, I'm surprised at you. Up to now I had a lot more respect for your position.
quote by Doug: 4.Again I agree. Particularly this comment "The sad fact is, sooner or later there will be a war over Iraq." Even sadder is that there will most likely be further acts of terrorism against America, & there may be possibly preventable attrocities committed by SH, before the world joins to stop "tolerating" Saddam's "increasingly dangerous level of confrontation and instability..."
If a greater majority of the world worked together (with sanctions & witholding trade of chemicals & arms etc.)to disarm or overthrow Saddam, then I believe this could be acomplished with less risk of escalating worldwide terror, as opposed to reducing it. Unfortunantly, it may take more disasters to bring the world together on this. If America acts without the support of much of the world, I fear more harm then good may result. end quote.
My point exactly, Doug. The same countries that are so "morally opposed" to overthrowing the SH regime are buying his oil, then taking back their own money in selling him the means to make weapons. How exactly does anyone not find this reprehensible?
quote Doug: What do I know? I may be way off on that fear, but right now, thats my fear. If 007 or Jason Bourne, or one of Robert Ludlum's protagonists could rappel under cover of darkness, & wrap a garrote around Saddam's neck, & somehow insert a more ethical government, I'd vote now, but America's ground war in Iraq without global support does not yet have my vote.
As I said before, Doug, I appreciate your position. I don't expect to convince anyone; my post was to demonstrate HOW I PERSONALLY have been convinced, and reluctantly so, that a military intervention is necessary. I'm not happy about it, but I haven't yet seen a convincing alternative. Unfortunately, secret agents from Ludlum novels are not presently available options.
I'm 47 years old. I was a year too young for the Vietnam draft, but I clearly remember the protests of the time, which ultimatly brought a withdrawal from that conflict. I particularly remember the passionate opposition to the involvement in Cambodia. At the time that opposition certainly seemed right and reasonable. A few years later we learned how the Khmer Rouge, under Pol Pot (who held a degree in political science from the Sorbonne, in Paris) had murdered over two million people, in the name of socialism.
We have often heard the Left hold the United States accountable for poverty, starvation, and all the ills of the world, demanding apology and restitution. But I have YET to hear anyone on the Left - including those who openly supported the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnman war - offer any form of apology to the people of Cambodia.
I realize that's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you want to know where I'm coming from in determining my beliefs, that's a good place to start.
[ February 27, 2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Cam Bortz ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
thats to easy glenn....DUMB THINGS THAT PRO WAR PEOPLE SAY: 1."LET JUST GO OVER THERE AND KICK THOSE RAG HEADS A**S" 2."BLOW EM UP" 3."THEY NEED A REGIEM CHANGE" 4."THEY ARE SAME AS AL-QUIDA" 5."KILL EM ALL" 6."BUSH KNOW MORE THEN HES TELLIN US" 7."LOOK HOW SADAM KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE" 8."WHEN WE GET DONE THERE, THEN WILL GO KICK N.KOREAS A**" 9."YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US" 10."OSAM BIN LADIN IS DEAD" i can go on....but i think you get the idea. also the whole hawkish approch just amazes me. the american mind is so easily convinced on "who the emeny is". WW 2 it was "THEM KRUATS",THEM SLANT EYED GOOKS". KOREAN WAR, anyone of eastern culture were SLANT EYED BAST***S, SAME WITH VIETNAM. now the world has turned its "NAME CALLING" and hatred to ANY MUSLIM/ARAB looking person/country.. as for anyone who feels that KILLING anyone of any race will change things(unless you belong to the KKK or any NAZI/WHITE SUPEMISIST group)....the're dumber then anything i can post! its like the jewish people, who where themselves the brunt of this kind of thinking. now they are trying to eradicate the palistinians!!!! yep war is the answer....STUPID LEADERS HAVE BEEN WAGING STUPID WARS....as for people who go along with this way of thinking..........to quote a song title "WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?"
[ February 27, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Cam, I enjoyed reading your reply. I think there is much more value to this topic then sharing thoughts on what effects the current events has on our families etc. I appreciate Steve's tolerance of this topic very much. He has commented though, that as for "political debates" over this or that point of view, we could watch professionals do that on TV. Of course this is true, & much more educated information would be there, somewhere, but I don't think it sinks in very far for me that way.
I don't find opportunities to discuss this situation in my busy workaholic day. I find that reading intelligent posts, weather I agree with some, all, or none of what was said forces me to think in broader terms about something that really isn't worth looking at in narrow terms anyway. I don't know if I'm any more educated, or my views are any more valid to others, but as a result of reading, thinking about, & writing posts here, I feel somewhat more integrated into my world, instead of ducking under it, hoping it won't fall on my head.
quote: As I said before, Doug, I appreciate your position. I don't expect to convince anyone; my post was to demonstrate HOW I PERSONALLY have been convinced, and reluctantly so, that a military intervention is necessary.
I have similar intent in communicating my views so they are seen for a small fraction of the basis upon which they were formed. Not to convince others to share my views. In fact stating my views, or attempting to do so, is a large part of how they are formed & that is the greatest asset, for me, in having this forum. (BTW, I have no interest in other forums, this truly is a community, & conversing elsewhere would never be that same)
In truth, 6 months ago, if I lifted my head up from work long enough to comment, I probably felt we should nuke the fukkers & move on with the apathetic, self-centered capitalism I know & love. Eventually I realized the situation was real enough that I would feel like a stranger in a strange land if I didn't pay attention to my surroundings & get some bearings on where my soul really fit in. I guess thats what they mean by soul searching.
I expect that there will be a war, & I hope I will also, however reluctantly, be convinced that it is neccessary before it happens.
quote: This adminstrations "wars with its neighbors, in violation of the moral standards of every enlightened human being."?? Pray, tell, Doug, where exactly has this happened? I must have missed something. When exactly was nerve gas used to kill anyone who opposes Bush? When exactly did the US military, under this administration, invade Canada? You are seriously comparing the moral standards of the Bush adminisrtation to the regime of Saddam Hussien? As I said, I realize that moral relevancy is a common argument of th Left, but you are going to have to do MUCH better if you are going to convince me. Really, Doug, I'm surprised at you. Up to now I had a lot more respect for your position.
With all the sarcasm & humor that gets mixed in these threads by some, I am tempted to interject some degree of deviation from my own, otherwise thoughtful, commentary. In attempting to take issue with not just Cam's, but others focus on "protest leaders", I copped out a little by attempting to quote Cam's item #3 from the "war on Iraq" thread but changing the names to re-direct the accusations.
It's impossible to recconcile "thou shall not kill" with the world we live in today, but although US has not released poisen gas in Canada, there are many who feel that several little military skirmishes that have occured in my 44 year lifetime, were purly acts of agression with political or economic motivation. I can't speak for "every enlightened being", but this violates my moral standard.
No, I don't think GWB's standards are as low as SH's. Last night they had some interview with the "Preppy Murderer" after his release following 15 years served for strangling a young woman in Central Park. I don't think GWB's standards are that low either, but just because the "preppy" does not appear to be quite as bad a monster as JW Gacy, or Manson, that doesn't make him innocent.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
OP,
I'll respond to your list later tonight when I have more time.
Meanwhile, I have to ask, would you have been opposed to American forces getting involved in WW2 and fighting Hitler?
Do you see no parallels between Hitler's actions and Saddam's?
Posted by Karen Stein (Member # 241) on :
Thanks Doug I'm a lover of satire and would love to have Stephen tell me what I missed I have taken part in several of our local protests, and plan on continuing... until someone can explain to me what part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they find faulty.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Well Karen, it first helps to know that the Old Testament in the original Hebrew does not say Thou Shalt not Kill."
It says Thou shalt not do murder.
There is a big difference between the two.
It is also important to note that the same God that gave that Commandment is also the same God that gave the Hebrew instructions on how to conquer Canaan.
[ February 27, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
Doug, thanks for the response. Believe it or not, I thought about what I wrote all day, hoping it would not be taken offensively.
As I said, I'm willing to have someone offer an alternative to a military attack that produces a positive result, that being a major change to the Iraqi regime. I just don't see one. As for the "arguments" offered by most of the antiwar activists, from what I've heard, it consists of the same old slogans and empty rhetoric. I have yet to hear a position from the left I can respect, much less agree with.
At some point, when I have time and I feel it is appropriate, I'll tell the story of the conversation I had in a pub in Prague with an Englishman, an avowed socialist, on the subject of 9/11 and of America in general. It was as enlightening as it was appalling.
Posted by Karen Stein (Member # 241) on :
well, excuuuussseee me Murder, Kill..whatever...the fact is dropping bombs on innocent people and calling it collateral damage still makes them DEAD. Which is not what my understanding and vision of America is all about. I may not have memorized the Bible or even profess to have read it all, but I do know in my heart the difference between right and wrong.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions for the Anti-War folk.
Lets assume that war is averted and that inspections are to continue.
1) Given Saddam's record of ducking, dodging and generally dragging his feet, how much longer should the inspections continue?
2) And, assuming they have as much success as they've had these past 12 years, how much longer will it take before war is considered appropriate?
3) If Blix reports that Saddam is not complying with the resolutions or if Saddam refused to destroy the missles as ordered by Blix, will you support a war to remove Saddam?
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Karen,
Considering the 1.5 million Iraqi killed by Saddam and the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by the sanctions (as reported by Albright), which would be better -- allowing Saddam to remain in power or risk war to remove him knowing that some innocent Iraqi will die but the survivors will be given a chance at freedom?
Given your stance on the matter, would you have supported the anti-war movement of 1939?
[ February 27, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn wasnt round in WW2 cant say how i woulda acted....IT WAS A DIFFERENT WORLD!!!! my dad and uncles were there.....and neither one of them wanted me to go to VIETNAM!!!! comparisons between hitler and sadam ....lets add geo w. and yes i see a lot of simalrities..........
[ February 28, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Really? When did Bush murder 1 million people because of their ethnicity?
---
Like they say Joe, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
[ February 27, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
did i say anything about KILLING...seems that your only point....STUPID was my simalarity....and ego......and that line glenn geo should take it to heart....just like his daddy shoulda.....iam anti war because I REMEMBER VIETNAM....you aperently dont!
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
Glenn are you saying that There has been nobody killed, because of US Foreign Policy? this is my opinion... The US Should act with the support of the UN, I hope that Canada stays out of this mess until the UN is behind America. Untill then Keep the Inspections going. Another thing, Why not send Thousands of Inspectors over to Iraq, instead of Thousands of Kids to get Killed, and WHO CARES How long the Inspections continue, another 10 years, 20 years, Saddam will eventually Drop Dead anyway. This War could go on for Years just Like Israel and the Palistinians.
Just my humble Opinion.
[ February 28, 2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Neil D. Butler ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
quote: Glenn are you saying that There has been nobody killed, because of US Foreign Policy?
Hardly. But to compare Bush to Hitler and Saddam is ridiculous.
I wonder how many consider Neville Chamberlain's Foreign Policy and how many deaths were attributed to waiting until it was too late. 70 million?
---
Yes OP, I remember Vietnam. Both of my uncles went. Both support Bush in the matter with Saddam as well. Simple fact is that if Congress hadn't tried to micro-manage the Vietnam war and let the military do its job, we would have won with a lot fewer casualties. Of that, I'm convinced.
And, no, you didn't say anything about "killing". You didn't have to.
---
I'm still waiting for someone to answer my questions.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
Up to a few posts ago, this was still a reasonably polite debate. I would hate to see that change. Please, everyone, before hitting the submit button, take a moment to walk away from the keyboard, and when you come back, don't neglect the delete key. It helps. Ask me how I know. Posted by Bob Burns (Member # 268) on :
I have nothing to say........(!)
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Cam,
You're right, of course.
And, if anyone thinks I'm getting personal, I apologize. I tend to be a very blunt person and sometimes come across a bit hard (unintentionally).
For me, this is just a fun excersize. Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Joe sez...
1."LET JUST GO OVER THERE AND KICK THOSE RAG HEADS A**S"
Yep. We all felt that way on 9/11.
---
2."BLOW EM UP"
Depends on who "they" are. If you are talking about Al Qaeda, Taliban and Saddam, you're darn right.
---
3."THEY NEED A REGIEM CHANGE"
Who is "they"? If you are refering to Iraq, I agree. They do. They don't need a brutal, sadistic dictator who rapes, tortures and murders anyone who opposes him.
---
4."THEY ARE SAME AS AL-QUIDA"
Who said that?
---
5."KILL EM ALL"
Who's saying that?
---
6."BUSH KNOW MORE THEN HES TELLIN US"
He probably does.
---
7."LOOK HOW SADAM KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE"
And?
--- 8."WHEN WE GET DONE THERE, THEN WILL GO KICK N.KOREAS A**"
Who said that? Not Bush. North Korea is upset that Bush is ignoring them.
---
9."YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US"
In the context of the speech, which are you? For the terrorists or against?
---
10."OSAM BIN LADIN IS DEAD"
Now they are saying he's alive. Personally, I'm glad he is alive and not buried in some rubble somewhere. It means we won't have to endure 50 years of someone claiming that he's channeling Usama's ghost along with Elvis'.
[ February 28, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Taylor ]
Posted by bronzeo (Member # 1408) on :
I'm going to interlude with a funnie here. One that most everyone can laugh at. I'm sure it is not pointed at our French Canadian friends.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"GOING TO WAR WITHOUT FRANCE IS LIKE GOING DEER HUNTING WITHOUT YOUR ACCORDION" - DONALD RUMSFELD
Posted by Steve Burke (Member # 2674) on :
Jack- I saw that news broadcast last week- I almost fell off the couch laughing, but I missed who said it...I'm glad you had the courage to post it!!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glenn....you cant see anything beyond your point of view. not a personel attack, just seems anything i say in defence of my position, you dismiss it as trivial. as for responding to the statements i made....all you need to do is LISTEN....the world is making a loud noise AGAINST THIS WAR.....you and yours choose to ignore it and stand your ground. i said i see simalarities between hitler, sadam , bush, cheney, rumsfeld, geo sr....and ill stand by that. i made the statement STUPID LEADERS CREATE STUPID WARS....i stand by that. if i need to explain that to you then you need to broadin your thinking. its not a one dimensional statement. people who start wars, arent thinking people hence to me they are STUPID. be it hitler, sadam, bin laden, herohito, bush! most of these fore named were EGO DRIVEN. meaning they dont care what others think, only what they think is RIGHT!(and you dont care what france, germany or china thinks) as for the 10 answers you came back with.....if thats how you see it then my viewpoint is IRRELEVANT. all i can say is when all is done....we will see who was wrong or right.....and we have to live with our choices.
[ February 28, 2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Wayne Webb (Member # 1124) on :
I take my accordion deer hunting all the time. Ya see....ya take those reeds out and substitute deer grunt calls.......one for each key. One key is for a fawn bleat....one for a dominant buck grunt.....one for a doe-in heat....and so on. Man you can call up all kinds of deer with one of them things.
Wouldn't hurt my feelings if we just let China, Russia and France have the UN.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
and that is supposed to be one of our intelligent leaders? to make statements like that is no different then when the german statesman called bush stupid, or the chinese statesman....who said near the same thing, or the canadian....who made a derogatory remark about bush. those who support bush found those statements OFFENSIVE, and countries like france, when one of our top leaders makes a remark like that find it OFFENSIVE...... apperently this countries leaders dont care who they insult. but to a war monger....they DONT CARE WHO THEY INSULT!!!! ive said it before..the U.S. is like an abused dog.....its gona bite someone...and it dont care who it is....even if its the one offering to help heal its wounds.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by old paint: glenn....you cant see anything beyond your point of view.
Joe, I've been reading and more than occasionally responding to your posts for what, three or four years now? If ANYONE on this forum is guilty of that statement, it's you. Not a personal attack, Joe, just an observation and a suggestion to take a quick glance in a mirror once in a while.
Glenn can be pedantic, and he certainly has his opinions. He also goes to some length to make coherent arguments, and backs them up with a lot of factual information.
Your style is different, to say the least. You "shoot from the hip" with emotional statements, frequently based on your personal biases (we all have them, don't get excited); the problem with that is two-fold: One, your writing styles are often difficult to understand, and two, you leave yourself wide open by making claims you can't back up. Then when someone like Glenn refutes your position or embarrasses you, you get upset and become offensive, or you make statements (like that one above) that are filled with unintentional self-parody.
All I'm trying to say, Joe, is that if you are going to enter into a debate with someone, it takes more than just offering an unsupported opinion, then claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically closed-minded, or brainwashed, or has some ulterior motive. You have some strong opinions, and some of them have real merit. Glenn does his homework, and he knows what he's talking about. If you are going to convince anyone he's wrong, you are going to have to start doing the same thing.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Glenn, I hesitate to invest in a reply because I feel like many efforts to communicate are recieved as purly an opportunity to seek grammatical, semantical or technical error. I think more then communication, several exchanges have become waiting for the next turn at boring one another. Particularily the cut & paste stuffings.
What you think on this topic is fairly clear, as are my own thoughts I'm sure. IMO, at this point, why you choose your opinion seems more worth saying if you say anything at all on this topic.
You seem to want to keep your opposition "on the ropes" & defensive against your line of questioning. I can see though, that your questions are a reflection of your justification for your views, so I will respect that as your literary style here.
So I will try to come up with some replies for you.
quote: 1) Given Saddam's record of ducking, dodging and generally dragging his feet, how much longer should the inspections continue?
1. I like Neil's idea! Inspections are probably inhibiting further development of WMD's & if more inspectors serve as more of an impedance, then maybe they should go on indefinantly. I don't see SH unleashing his weapons at us under the current circumstances, so although an expensive "stalemate" of our troops poised on the brink of war is not a condition anyone want's to prolong, but it still may be better to continue it then bearing the consequences of an all out charge.
quote:2) And, assuming they have as much success as they've had these past 12 years, how much longer will it take before war is considered appropriate?
2. I would like to think that the approach of sanctions & trade restriction etc. could have a much greater impact if nearly all the civilized world joined in a non-military approach at forcing SH to disarm. Also I disagree that threats of attack without actual attack have no value. I think that our Military as a deterrant is already working, as just today the topic of destroying long range missles seems to be swaying our way. (I'll believe it when I see it, but being an optimist, I think we will see it) The real answer to your question, to me, would be when the world at large considers war appropriate. At least then some of the backlash to US would be eliminated, & hopefully some of the chance at finding a peaceful solution through greater involvement from the rest of the world would have at least had a chance to work.
quote:3) If Blix reports that Saddam is not complying with the resolutions or if Saddam refused to destroy the missles as ordered by Blix, will you support a war to remove Saddam?
[B]3. I see it as a global problem, not an American problem. I am not claiming to be an expert military or political analyst. If the global community can reach a consensus to declare war on Iraq, I would have a lot less reservations.[/B
Posted by Bob Rochon (Member # 30) on :
I just want to know how the heck you guys get any work done. man there is so much wasted time here, and if any of this is gonna change a thing.
[ February 28, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Bob Rochon ]
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
Work?
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
[ February 28, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Myra Grozinger ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
cam, thanks....all iam saying with out more dialog....is WAR IS NOT THE GOING TO END THE PROBLEMS..... and as it has in the past create more problems. those who see it as the end all, cure all....only see imediate. and this one will be no different then the last 3...korea,nam, and afganastan.....world occupation will not stop the HATE!!!!
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Myra, you are sending mixed signals lets hear what you really think!
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
I simply think, Doug, that this post has thoroughly run its course. My messages were not terribly clear, and I realize that. I only used what I had lying around to make an attempt to suggest a stop to it while we are not too far behind. I hoped my point would come across.
There was good value in what a number of people have said and the independent thought they have shared. I have seen real belaboring by some trying to make themselves understood and hopefully heard, and witnessed sharing of the path to get there. I have also seen attention paid to what others think and I have seen mutual respect. I would therefore like for this post to end well. I apologize if my humor was inappropriate.
I have begun to see a lot of repetition of points and some unnecessary posturing, and I think if we put this post to bed we will not only have created a “monster” in length for a political discussion, but we would have laid it to rest ourselves, and could be proud of that.
I think actually, that if we took some of the points made and narrowed down the subject matter, we might make a little progress. I see us being all over the map, oftentimes the information is subjective, and inaccurate, and very selective, and great discrepancies occur in how history is represented. Not all inaccuracies can be addressed on such a grand scale, and misinformation stands uncorrected. That bothers me.
So, though I believe that as friends and a community it has been good as a discussion about what is staring us in the face at the moment, about which I have already stated my feelings, I think the usefulness of this post in its present incarnation has ended.
Posted by Bill Cosharek (Member # 1274) on :
Myra,
That sounds enough like a motion to me & although I haven't participated in this discussion, I'd second it. If we were using "Roberts Rules of Order", now a vote would be taken & then the topic would be ended; if a quorum agreed.
I've tried to read the last couple pages & I also think its time to stop. Maybe everyone who has an opinion can post just one more message to summarize their point of view then that's it - no more replies or rebuttals. End it peacefully & civil. Been interesting but enough's enough.
Posted by Bruce Evans (Member # 44) on :
I just want to know what the difference is between killing and doing murder? is it similar to light blue and cyan?
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Myra, I should have added a few more smilies! I never thought your humor inappropriate at all. The SOTP pic was fairly clear, although I didn't know if you meant stop the bickering, or the entire thread.(I actually didn't notice it was spelled wrong for a few days)
The "KEEP RIGHT" sign with a left arrow & the red & yellow traffic light seemed like "mixed signals" to me. Just joking around.
I have seen many topics expire on their own, & would expect this one to as well. The situation is still changing, so people may still want to discuss that. I have not intended to ignite this topic uneccessarily, & try to keep replies meaningful, but I couldn't agree more that it has much less content then debris.
As stated earlier, this discussion has helped me get introspective where I had been apathetic. That being said, I will be happy to cast my "vote" to have Steve lock it up.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i agree with doug and myra.....
Posted by Mike Languein (Member # 319) on :
BUMP!
I guess the point is we're going for a good bowling score . . .
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
well just goes to show....we CAN have different opinions, and behave ourselfs.....id call that "progress"....we all learnin to live together...... now will this make 250?
Posted by Steve Shortreed (Member # 436) on :
I'm with Myra too. It's time to lay this debate to rest. Must say I am very impressed with the way everyone voiced their opinions while being respectful of others.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Appolgies to OP. The angry faces weren't meant to be towards anyone that is posting here. Honest. It's ALL about how I felt watching NYC burn from across the river and all the loss of life. It still makes me sick to my stomach thinking of it. And to think of all the others that will lose their lives, Americans, innocent(oppressed) Iraqis and anyone in between is just as sick a thought. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
