|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
? (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
Ginzo
I see that a full 3 years after comprehensively losing this argument (not that you ever actually managed to come up with one) you're still lurking around and haven't lost the habit of posting immense tracts of other people's statements as a substitute for having to make any mental effort of your own. Disappointing. I thought your cognitive functions might have developed a little, but I suppose evolution doesn't always move forward as it should. Haven't you noticed I'm not around much these days anyway?
Give it up lad, the party's over.
|
Jun 11 '08
8:13 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: AND LETS NOT FORGET (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Middle East Imperative
by: James Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (Retire)
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.
Understand; the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grand kids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates, that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support.
That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win.
We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift.
Now, let’s look more closely.
Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us?
Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat.
Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price.
I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.
Yes, it is about oil.
The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the 'good-old-days'
The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.
I urge you to read the book 'END GAME' by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Valley and Tom McInrny. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the Internet through Stand-up America at http://www.ospreyradio.us/www.ospreyradio.us/> , www.rightalk.cwww.rightalk.com/> .
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produce those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere.
The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences.
'Enough - said!'
Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.
I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right.
I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.
This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.
I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton’s and now the Democrats hate Bush.
So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.
JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan , and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.
Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Martha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.
The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY I cannot abide that.
Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria, which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.
This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall.
All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.
However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.
If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American--- of course not.
They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.
Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.
By the way, it is not a war now.
The war was won four years ago.
It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.
So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses.
A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior’s 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time
I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.
HOWEVER, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922
‘I’ll tell you what war is all about;
You’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.'
----------------------Gen. Curtis LeMay
|
Apr 15 '08
8:43 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: AND LETS NOT FORGET (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
U.S. Marines: Travel agents to Allah.
First Iraq, then France.
We're Marines, we took Iwo Jima, Baghdad ain't chit." (Gen. Kelly)
It's God's job to forgive Bin Laden, it's our job to arrange the meeting.
Sergeants think their only flaw is their excessive modesty.
Except for ending slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, war has never solved anything."
|
Aug 05 '05
8:43 am PDT
|
|
Re: AND LETS NOT FORGET (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
25,000 civilians killed since Iraq invasion, says report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1531742,00.html
Tuesday July 19, 2005
The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team.
The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.
Civilian deaths attributed to US and coalition military forces peaked in the invasion period from March to May 2003 - which accounts for 30% of all civilian deaths in the two-year period - but the longer-term trend has been for increasing numbers to die at the hands of insurgents.
Figures obtained last week from the Iraqi interior ministry put the average civilian and police officer death toll in insurgent attacks from August 2004 to March 2005 at 800 a month.
John Sloboda of the Iraq Body Count project, which co-authored the report with Oxford Research Group, said the Iraqi civilian death toll was the "forgotten cost" of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"On average, 34 Iraqis every day have met violent deaths since the invasion of March 2003," he said at the launch of the report in London.
"Our data shows that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope this research will help to inform decision makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country."
The Iraq Body Count project is the most complete attempt of its kind to record the civilian dead in Iraq. The researchers work from media reports, information from mortuary officials and on-the-ground research projects. Its figures, which the group regards as conservative estimates, do not include irregular fighters or others who died while attacking coalition or Iraqi government forces.
Neither the US nor the UK, the former occupying powers, provide figures for the numbers of Iraqi civilian dead.
The figures up to March 2005 do not include the period since the elected Shia-led government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister, took office and the insurgency has worked at an increasing rate to kill Iraqi civilians and police officers.
In the past week, suicide bombers have wreaked havoc in Baghdad and towns in the so-called triangle of death, to the south of the capital. Bombers also struck with devastating effect in the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.
In the deadliest bombing, one of at least 10 on Saturday, more than 98 people were killed and 130 injured in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, after a suicide bomber blew up a fuel tanker near a crowded marketplace and in front of a Shia mosque.
Insurgents today killed 13 people in an ambush on a bus carrying Iraqi workers to a US airbase north-east of Baghdad near the city of Baqouba. One of the 15 Sunni Arabs appointed to a committee to draft Iraq's constitution, Mijbil Issa, was later assassinated in a drive-by shooting with two companions in the Karradah area of Baghdad.
According to the Iraq Body Count report, 53% of those who died in the two years since the invasion were killed by explosive devices. Half of the total number died in Baghdad, and a fifth were women and children.
The deteriorating security situation has alarmed Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric, who urged the Iraqi government to protect the people in "this genocidal war", according to the vice-president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, who held a meeting with him at the weekend.
Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shia radical cleric, who last summer led a rebellion against US forces in the Shia holy city of Najaf, blamed the violence in Iraq on the presence of US and other foreign forces.
"The occupation in itself is a problem," he told BBC Newsnight last night. "Iraq not being independent is the problem. And the other problems stem from that - from sectarianism to civil war, the entire American presence causes this."
A report published last year in the medical journal the Lancet suggested the chances of a violent death in Iraq were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.
The study was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors, but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of "limited precision".
|
Aug 05 '05
2:25 am PDT
|
|
AND LETS NOT FORGET (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
New Poll Shows Americans Believe We Should Remain In Iraq; War Has Contributed To Long-Term Security:
"Washington Post-ABC News Poll Finds ... That Only One In Eight Americans Currently Favors An Immediate Pullout Of U.S. Forces, While A Solid Majority Continues To Agree With Bush That The United States Must Remain In Iraq Until Civil Order Is Restored ..." (Richard Morin and Dan Balz, "Survey Finds Most Support Staying In Iraq," The Washington Post, 6/28/05)
"52 Percent -- Believes That The War Has Contributed To The Long-Term Security Of The United States, A Five-Point Increase From Earlier This Month." (Richard Morin and Dan Balz, "Survey Finds Most Support Staying In Iraq," The Washington Post, 6/28/05)
"[A] Majority Of Americans - 53 Percent - Now Say They Are Optimistic About The Situation In Iraq, Up Seven Points From December." (Richard Morin and Dan Balz, "Survey Finds Most Support Staying In Iraq," The Washington Post, 6/28/05)
But Democrats And Liberal Third Parties Have Repeatedly Called For Withdrawal From Iraq:
MoveOn.Org To Launch Ad Campaign Calling For US Withdrawal From Iraq. "The liberal group MoveOn PAC said it would begin an advertising campaign on Tuesday calling for withdrawal from Iraq. 'We got in the wrong way,' the announcer says at the end of the commercial. 'Let's get out the right way.'" (Richard W. Stevenson, "Bush To Tell Why He Sees A 'Clear Path To Victory'," The New York Times, 6/28/05)
*
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged "Moderation And Restraint" And Use Of "International Judicial Institutions." (MoveOn.Org Website, "MoveOn Peace," peace.moveon.org, Accessed 6/23/05)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "At Least 12,000 American Troops And Probably More Should Leave At Once, To Send A Stronger Signal About Our Intentions And To Ease The Pervasive Sense Of Occupation." (Sen. Kennedy, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy Discusses America's Future In Iraq At The Johns' Hopkins School Of International Studies," Washington, D.C., 1/27/05)
*
Kennedy: "America's Goal Should Be To Complete Our Military Withdrawal As Early As Possible In 2006." (Sen. Kennedy, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy Discusses America's Future In Iraq At The Johns' Hopkins School Of International Studies," Washington, D.C., 1/27/05)
"A Timetable For Withdrawal, [Sen. Barbara Boxer D-CA] Told CNN's 'Late Edition,' Would Signal To The World That The United States Did Not Intend To Be A Bullying Occupation Force. 'It Doesn't Mean You Have To Stick To It; You Don't Have A Specific Timetable. It Just Sends An Important Signal That We Are Not There Forever,' She Said." (Jennifer Harper, "Inside Politics," The Washington Times, 2/21/05)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]: "Offered An Amendment That Would Have Required The President To Submit A Report To Congress Containing A 'Strategy For Success' In Iraq And Identifying The Criteria To Determine When It Is Appropriate To Begin Bringing U.S. Troops Home." (Sen. Nancy Pelosi, "Bringing Our Troops Home - Not A Republican Priority," Press Release, 6/23/05)
Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA): "Outlined An Ambitious Plan Last Week At The Left-Of-Centre Brookings Institution, Calling For The Reduction Of U.S. Troop Strength To A Mobile Force Of No More Than 30,000 Within 18 Months. 'The First Step In Achieving Stability In Iraq Is Recognizing That The U.S. Presence Has Become Inherently Destabilizing,' Said Meehan" (Tim Harper, "Successful Elections? Bush Sets Bar Low," The Toronto Star, 1/30/05)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) "[I]ntroduced A House Resolution Calling For The President To Withdraw U.S. Troops Immediately. 'We've Gone As Far As We Can With This And We're Sacrificing Our Troops Every Day,' Woolsey Said." (Tim Harper, "Successful Elections? Bush Sets Bar Low," The Toronto Star, 1/30/05)
And Democrats Believe The War In Iraq Has Not Made Us Safer:
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "Unfortunately, Now Because Of The President's Actions, I Would Argue That We're In Greater Danger Now Because Of What's Going On In Iraq Than We Were Before." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/22/05)
*
Dean: "The President Has Created An Enormous Security Problem For The United States Where None Existed Before." (Conrad Defiebre, "Howard Dean Warns Of Danger In Iraq Pullout," [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, 4/21/05)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Wrote That The Bush Administration Is "Courting Disaster With Its Current Course." "The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war -- a breeding ground for jihadists." (Sen. John F. Kerry Op-Ed, "The Speech The President Should Give," The New York Times, 6/28/05)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "[T]he War Has Made Us Less Secure, Not More Secure." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy Floor Statement On The Rice Nomination," Press Release, 1/25/05)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "Instead, They Get A Repetitious Bugle That Sounds, 'Things Are Going Well, Things Are Going Well, Stay The Course, Stay The Course.' ... Staying The Course Is Not Only Hollow-Sounding Rhetoric, It Is An Unacceptable Policy. We Need To Change The Current Dynamic In Iraq. The Status Quo Is Neither Static Nor Acceptable." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/23/05)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA): "Unfortunately, Misleading Assessments Of The War Like These Do Not Magically Secure Iraq From The True Threats That It Faces. And The True Threats Are An Increasingly Strengthened Iraq Insurgency, Bolstered By The Continued United States Military Occupation Of Iraq." (Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Congressional Record, 6/24/05, p. H5168)
Democrats Ignore Progress In Iraq:
President Bush: "The World Saw Long Lines Of Iraqi Men And Women Voting In A Free And Fair Election For The First Time In Their Lives." (Nedra Pickler, "Bush Congratulates Iraqi Candidates In Final Election Results," The Associated Press, 2/14/05)
75% Of Iraqis Support The Government, Up 10% From Last Year. (Adriana Lins De Albuquerque, Michael O'Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz , Op-Ed, "The State Of Iraq: An Update" The New York Times, 6/3/05)
"At The End Of 2004 ... 3,100 Schools Have Been Renovated, 364 Schools Are Currently Under Rehabilitation, 263 New Schools Are Under Construction And 38 New Schools Have Been Built." (Department Of Defense Website, "Iraq Year In Review 2004 Fact Sheet," www.defendamerica.mil, Accessed 6/2/05)
Over 100,000 More Iraqis Are Using The Internet Than Last Year. (Adriana Lins De Albuquerque, Michael O'Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz , Op-Ed, "The State Of Iraq: An Update" The New York Times, 6/3/05)
There Are More TV Stations Than Last Year And 20 More Independent Newspapers And Magazines. (Adriana Lins De Albuquerque, Michael O'Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz, Op-Ed, "The State Of Iraq: An Update" The New York Times, 6/3/05)
Jul 27 '05
12:14 pm PDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh he heh won't even put the glasses on !! (Delete your comment)
by ginzo
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY FOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND THE SECURITY IN PLACE THAT THE TERRORIST HAD FEW OPTIONS FOR THEIR ATTACTS AND WE CONTINUE TO BE SAFE !!
Where Bush Got His marching Orders.
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 200
Jul 14 '05
10:06 am PDT
|
Aug 04 '05
10:18 am PDT
|
|
You know....... (Reply to this comment)
by Ahab1973
It's been my opinion all along that something just doesn't smell right with all of this and people just don't want to hear it. Which, more power to them, you know. If they don't want to believe that this state Bush has flung the world into is madness, I guess that's their right.
But what I really have to wonder is what primed this country to be so utterly defenseless in the face of such an obvious deception? I mean, really. I can understand the man who stands on a street corner somewhere, pacing and ranting and raving about the end of the world being easily duped but people who I thought were of much higher intelligence and had more sanity in their heads are falling for these lies, deceptions and so forth.
I don't know. Good article, though. It's amazing to me that more people weren't raising these questions years ago.
|
Jul 02 '05
1:59 am PDT
|
|
Re: Bravo! (Response Segment #1) (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
Hmph, why can’t you just agree with me and save me from having to put serious thought into this? I thought I was on safe ground with all these Bush bashers around. Bugger.
Okay, well, firstly, the figure of 100, 000 lives comes from a report a couple of months ago in the British Medical Journal. I appreciate it’s possible it could be inflated, but by ten times? I find that hard to believe. Whichever way you want to look at it, an awful lot of people have died: Innocent Iraqi civilians, American and British troops, contractors etc.
As I may or may not have noted in my review, I'm against "nation-building" and meddling in foreign affairs, but I don't believe we can stand by with our thumbs up our asses while genocidal dictators butcher, rape and torture whole two-digit percentages of their own countrys' populations. Sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event like 9/11 to wake us up; so be it. It amazes me how soon after we put our horribly-murdered friends and relatives into the ground that we're able to sink back into our dogmatic slumber and the reality-barrier provided by our engaging in our daily routines. How many of those innocent people who widowed their spouses or orphaned their kids after being melted alive in a pool of flaming jet fuel, if given a second chance at life, do you suppose would feel comfortable going back to THEIR daily routines
These are admirable sentiments, and ones that perhaps the American and British governments do believe in, deep down in their cynical and opportunistic souls. The problem I have with your argument here is that you are directly equating the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man with the fact that fanatical terrorists murdered nearly three thousand people. None of the hijackers of those planes came from Iraq. Saddam Hussein never stated he thought it would be fun to fly planes into buildings. I don’t know too much about the guy’s mindset, but I would guess that given the American response following his invasion of Kuwait, he might have been aware it would not be in his best interests to kill thousands of American citizens. It’s fairly well established that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and there is a body of opinion which believes ( please forgive me for generalising a little here – I don’t want to have to provide a bibliography in a comments section ) that it is Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, which is the biggest breeding ground for terrorism in the world.
So given these notions of “spreading freedom and democracy” and “good fighting evil”, as Bush constantly preaches to us, why is it that Saudi Arabia was not first on Bush’s hit list? Why does he never make any noise any human rights abuses in China, or the Russian government’s actions in reducing Chechnya to a pile of smoking rubble? There are terrible things happening in these countries, have been for many years. The enslavement of human beings has never just been confined to Iraq’s borders, so why such a colossal effort to “democratize” the place? Are we to believe this is a practice run for all the countries Bush intends to bring the American Way to, given his firm commitment to eliminating terrorism and oppression? Or could it be that the Bush administration always planned to invade Iraq once they were back in power, and needed to convince everyone it was the “right” thing to do? Call me paranoid, perhaps, but I think it’s just possible that a government which suddenly finds its population seething with anger and sorrow after a horrific terrorist attack might take advantage of that fact by telling everyone that the nasty man in Iraq has stockpiles of deadly weapons which he can and will use, so we better stop him before something like this happens again. So the war goes ahead, with American support, until people realise that Hussein didn’t just not have these weapons, he really didn’t have them. Not so much as a stink bomb. And good ol’ George shrugs his shoulders, furrows his brow, and says, “Am I sorry? Hell no! Look, Iraq is free! They’re having elections and…stuff.”
Essentially what I’m saying is that I do not believe Bush and Blair when they say they did this in the name of freedom and democracy, and I believe they knew full well they were exaggerating the case for war in Iraq to sway public opinion. It is enough for many people to say, well Saddam is gone and that’s a good thing, so bugger it, who cares how they did it. I’m afraid I find it unacceptable that a modern government will resort to these kind of tactics to get their own way. Yes, Saddam was evil, and raised many a finger in our general direction. Yes, the UN was about as effective at dealing with him as a chocolate fireguard. And the day you find me defending France or Russia will be the day Satan goes to work in a snowplough. Nor do I deny that there were probably many legitimate reasons to remove Saddam. But what I do not believe is that the man was a major threat. He was an evil dictator, but he did not possess these stockpiles of deadly weapons which we were told, categorically and emphatically, that he did. And it’s that I take issue with – Exactly how far will a government go to initiate a war they are determined should happen? Should we let them off with the fact that Saddam had no links to Al-Queda and had no weapons of mass destruction, despite what they confidently told us, just because we succeeded in getting rid of him? It’s my own personal belief that no, we should not, because something smells bad here, and I just don’t like it.
Incidentally, it depends on your point of view as to how you assess the success of the war. Fair enough, the Iraqis don’t have Saddam and his sons to deal with anymore. What they do have is an avalanche of violence, suicide bombings, videotaped beheadings, and people dying by the dozen every day, a good long while after Bush declared the “end of major combat operations”. Bush made a lot of noises about this being a swift, decisive war, but as time passes the security situation there seems to be becoming gradually worse and in the words of one political commentator recently, “the election is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic”. Shouldn’t they have sorted all this by now, or could it be they’ve seriously underestimated the scale of the task they face? And it goes without saying I am not suggesting we pull out and leave Iraq to it. What I do say is that the war was a mistake, based on exaggeration and downright lies, and that these noble sentiments that are frequently espoused by our governments of “freedom”, “democracy” and “peace” have little to do with their reasons for going to war.
You make an intimidating to case to answer, as I’m coming to realise, and it’s a pleasure debating with you.
In anticipation of further segments
Steve
|
Feb 16 '05
2:59 am PST
|
|
Bravo! (Response Segment #1) (Reply to this comment)
by 29th_Candidate
You broach so many worthy issues and points that I'm going to have to respond in several "segments," if I'm to respond in any kind of a meaningful manner; one that is worthy of your initial effort. So, in chronological order:
["I think Bush has made some disastrous decisions of policy and judgment, not least the war in Iraq, undertaken on the flimsiest of pretexts, now estimated to have cost an approximate total of 100,000 lives, and during which he has made fundamental misjudgments about the number of troops that would be needed.]
(Incidentally, That "100,000 lives" figure is inflated by about 10 times what it actually should be. I'd be curious to know who or what your info source is.]
With regard to the U.S.'s participation in/"completion" of the Iraq War:
As I may or may not have noted in my review, I'm against "nation-building" and meddling in foreign affairs, but I don't believe we can stand by with our thumbs up our asses while genocidal dictators butcher, rape and torture whole two-digit percentages of their own countrys' populations. Sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event like 9/11 to wake us up; so be it. It amazes me how soon after we put our horribly-murdered friends and relatives into the ground that we're able to sink back into our dogmatic slumber and the reality-barrier provided by our engaging in our daily routines. How many of those innocent people who widowed their spouses or orphaned their kids after being melted alive in a pool of flaming jet fuel, if given a second chance at life, do you suppose would feel comfortable going back to THEIR daily routines; the very routines in which they had been engaged when our previous lapse in vigilance enabled terrorists to perpetrate genocide, unchecked, right here in our own (i.e., U.S. citizens) backyard? How many of those anti-war protesters do you suppose would attempt to actively continue thwarting the liberation effort if they were forced to spend even a day as an Iraqi citizen under Hussein's bloodthirsty rule? I can't imagine there'd be many...
From the "Success has many fathers; (alleged-)failure is an orphan" Dept: I, along with many others, not the least of whom included such "luminaries" as fork-tongued John Kerry and his equally disingenuous ex-running mate, Edwards, initially loudly and visibly supported invading Iraq and eliminating Hussein, with or without the U.N.'s support. Contrary to your assertion that the Iraq invasion has been a failure, it has actually been a noteworthy success. Bush made it clear to all who had ears to listen, that the elimination of Hussein and his minions would likely be a long drawn-out affair because it wasn't a matter of just going in and surgically-removing the cancer; we would have to fit the metaphoric body's amputated limbs with "government" prosthetics, then train the body how to sustain itself again. Bush could have done a popularity-poll pandering, kill Hussein & run hatchet-job, but he realized Iraq would have to be able to govern itself or another Hussein-type would pick up where Hussein left off, creating the same political instability and failure of government that crippled Iraq at the time of the 1990 Gulf War. I believe it would be disastrous to pull out of Iraq without ensuring that the Iraqi people can govern themselves once again. Would you have the Iraqis fend for themselves against either a genocidal Hussein dictatorship or lawless anarchy?
Call me foolishly idealistic, Steve, but when I search my conscience to determine which is the greater of the two evils; the lives of a few thousand soldiers who prepared for, and had the opportunity to die in battle, fighting for a worthy cause, seems like a drop in the blood-bucket compared to the imagination-challenging numbers of death and torture casualties that Hussein and his principles have wrought on Iraqi innocents, whose only "crime" was to be born within Iraq's country borders. As long as I'm on a hokey-ideals roll, I genuinely believe one of the responsibilities (and believe it or not, one of the "REWARDS") of "being free" is to help liberate others who aren't lucky enough to be born on the "free citizen" side of a country border. Nothing worth having comes without a sacrifice. If and when it does, it goes unappreciated.
It's one thing to talk about oppression in the abstract, when we can simply "change the subject" when it becomes unpleasant to ponder, but I wonder who of us; who of those supposedly "peace-loving" anti-war protesters, put in a position where he or she had to stand by and watch innocents being tortured, mutilated, maimed, imprisoned and raped around the clock, every single day, would not willingly do everything in his or her power to stop it; particularly if you had the resources and manpower to actually accomplish your goal? Would YOU stand by? My mother used to tell me, "the full pig never notices the hungry pig walking by." I had hoped that ugly aspect of human nature might not be universally true, but the global anti-war demonstrations seem to me to suggest otherwise.
The anti-war protesters don't want peace; all they really want is a cessation of any loud, ugly, visible reminders that people just like them, in other parts of the world, have to live in mortal fear and dictator-oppressed bondage, while they take their unthreatened freedom benefits for granted. They seem to presume that they have their freedom because THEY deserve it, but that people who aren't free deserve their inherited oppression. They're perfectly content to go on about their mindless daily business if they aren't forced to confront the ugly, daily, behind-closed-doors/closed-borders bloodshed and brutality that occur on a daily basis to innocent people just like them, but whose circumstances they aren't forced to confront, thus aren't "real." What human being EVER knows peace if s/he lives in a country regulated by a government that has declared war on them? "Stop the war." Exactly. ...Or else just get fuck out of the way of the people who genuinely want to help the oppressed attain TRUE peace. Those, perhaps well-meaning, but nevertheless misguided, protesters don't march for peace; they march for, what amounts to, "the silence of the lambs."
So yes, Steve, I'm for the war in Iraq and any other war that targets a human-butcher's nationwide enslavement of human beings. I was for Hussein's removal when we initially invaded Iraq and I'm for ensuring that Iraq has a stable government now that he is gone. I believe this current Iraq conflict is the inevitable, unavoidable completion of the left-unresolved 1990 Gulf War; a conflict that Iraq began/provoked when it invaded Kuwait. Rather than complete what we and our U.N.-member neighbors started, by routing out Hussein, his henchman and his brutal regime, we (in our naive desire to prove to the world we interceded to "help," not to "usurp,") foolishly allowed the U.N. to negotiate and sponsor U.N. Resolution 687 (1991). Our 2nd huge mistake was to trust the U.N. to uphold and honor its worthless resolution when Hussein, very soon afterwards, began to abusively, repeatedly, regularly and openly breach most of its material terms. Per U.N. Resolution 687 (1991)'s own, mutually-agreed upon terms, the U.N., the U.S. and Hussein all acknowledged that Hussein and his regime were a death statistic waiting to be actualized, the moment Hussein breached any one of Resolution 687's unequivocal terms, in any degree. There was no 687 "statute of limitation;" those terms were in effect forever or until Hussein was annihilated because he opted to use the UN/U.S. armed forces to commit "suicide by breach of Resolution 687 term."
Our recession back into "head-in-the-global-sand" isolationism during the Clinton's eight "presidential office and resource-abusive" years (I say this because no previous U.S. President since Millard J. Fillmore did more to squander and abuse the benefits of a "prior-administration achieved" booming economy, nor did more to guarantee an economic bubble-burst and resultant recession for his successor admin to inherit and work through, than Bill "Goodtime-Charlie" Clinton) encouraged Hussein to test UN/U.S.'s Resolution 687 term-preservation resolve.
After discovering he could breach any one of the terms with complete impunity, Hussein began to deliberately make a circus sideshow of thumbing his nose at the U.N and the U.S. by brazenly and openly breaching the terms as a way to boost his status and profile in the eyes of the Moslem-nation community. With the covert assistance of France and Russia, who made an invasion of Iraq all but inevitable by underminding, or rather, making a complete joke out of, any attempts to enforce a U.N. trade embargo, by secretly entering into very lucrative, wery "illegal" (but illegal in the "oh, its only the meaningless U.N. resolution international law" sort of way) oil for embargo'd-resources and money deals, brokered by none other than the U.N.'s own Kofi Annan's own son (still think the U.N. isn't a mockery of the rule of law?), Iraq's Hussein humanity-butchering regime thrived, flourished, and grew progressively bolder until Hussein believed himself invincible.
Why wouldn't he? Hussein/Iraq knew that any attempts by the U.S. to achieve U.N.-sanctioned enforcement of Resolution 687 would be dragged out, then inevitably shot down, because the lucrative, secret, Kofi Annan's son-brokered oil deals had been secured on double-dealing scumbag, Jacques Chirac's and Russia's guaranteed Hussein-supportive U.N. member votes. This meant that the U.S. neither could, nor would, EVER be able to achieve the necessary vote consensus it required to get the U.N. to back its U.N. Resolution 687 (1991)-guaranteed Iraq invasion support! Unbeknownst to the U.N.'s LAW-ABIDING member-nations (one of which is the U.S., who's invasion of Iraq was fully-sanctioned by U.N. Resolution 687), but WELL KNOWN to the impossibly-corrupt KOFI ANNAN (!!!), France's treacherously two-faced, back-stabbing Jacques Chirac, Russia, and SADDAM HUSSEIN (!!!), the U.S.'s time/money/effort-consuming attempts to petition the U.N. to follow through with its Gulf War-halting resolution commitments were doomed right from the very start!
--29th
[On to "Segment #2"...]
|
Feb 14 '05
11:57 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Frankly, I Suspect That Almost Everything Bush Suspected... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
Funny you should mention McCarthyism, because, as I was reading your review, your description of the way things stand today reminded me of how I heard McCarthyism was.
I don't think it has gotten to that place yet, and I hope that it won't. You would think that we would be too smart for that (letting history repeat itself).
Yet, the climate is ripe for it--and it can't all be blamed on Bush and his crew, because it has been going on for awhile.
I think it began with Watergate.
The trumped-up and politically-motivated charges against President Nixon started a trend of people in politics, entertainment, and other prominent careers having their dirty laundry aired to people who were just ready to gobble it up.
This had to do with people making the choice (not necessarily consciously) to become disillusioned with what has often been referred to as The American Dream and less trusting of people in general.
Now, we have so-called "reality" TV.
Some of this is good stuff--a character-building learning experience. But a lot of it is just another version of the Roman arena or a cock-fight with a viewing audience greedy for the next case of people being emotionally hurt by other people and/or being made uncomfortable by experiencing horrible things such as eating live worms or having spiders crawling all over them.
And the tragic part is that we begin being unable to distinguish "reality" from reality.
If I were to sum up in a simple phrase our biggest problem today, it would be to say that the value of life has gotten cheap because we have become disillusioned.
If McCarthyism could take place back in the fifties when everything was all nice, pink, and Cleaverish, a worse strain of this epidemic could develop and grow faster than A.I.D.S. in today's societal environment.
We need to be aware of this!
Although we might not see eye-to-eye when it comes to our President, it's still good that you're making us aware that we might be about to head down a slippery slope if we don't do more critical thinking!
Write On!
AJ :o)
|
Feb 10 '05
6:21 am PST
|
|
Re: Frankly, I Suspect That Almost Everything Bush Suspected... (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
For example, I don't believe that, just because WMDs weren't found anywhere, they never existed. Instead, I think that there are/were people over there who were just ultra-excellent at hiding them. Perhaps, they weren't even assembled and had their parts scattered here and there
They must have been pretty damn excellent at hiding them then, because to date we have not found so much as a sniff of a WMD. Saddam may have wanted them, he may have had them at some point in the past ( the ones he was supplied with by America and Britain in the eighties, for example ), but he did not have them ready to deploy and kill us all, as Blair and Bush repeatedly told us. "45 minutes from deployment", I seem to remember was the phrase. So either the intelligence was badly, badly flawed, or we were lied to. Either way, it's not encouraging.
About those caves - The point I am making is that Rumsfeld categorically told us exactly what kind of hideouts Bin Laden possessed. He had detailed diagrams which he was happy to discuss live on the news. He was unshakeable in his belief that Blofeld ( sorry, Bin Laden ) was sitting up there stroking his cat and his beard. But they never existed. Nothing even vaguely resembling them existed, or ever exisited. So where did that intelligence come from? Did it come from anywhere at all, or was it actually ( cue furtive whispering ) made up? It's something that, unfortunately, I can't shrug my shoulders at and say, "Ah well, it doesn't matter, we kicked the Taliban into next week and they deserved it so who cares if the government were talking bollocks?" I do.
Of course Saddam was a bad man, we can all agree on that. You won't find a single rational person who would ever try to convince you otherwise. But Iraq had no links whatsoever to Al Queda, and that's what the US and British governments tried to use to justify the war. The fact that Saddam was removed doesn't bother me. It's the fact that we were all blatantly lied to, and tens of thousands of people have died because of it. The biggest breeding ground for terrorists is Saudi Arabia, as everyone with an ounce of sense knows, but we don't hear a lot of noise being made about that, do we?
I'm afraid I just can't be swayed from my belief that Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair have consistently lied about the nature of these threats, and it dismays me to see people falling for it. I don't have much time for Michael Moore, but there's a scene in one of his films, I think it was Bowling for Columbine, where various American citizens are telling him, "terrorists could be anywhere, you're just not safe anymore", while making sure they're locked and loaded. This is what people like Rumsfeld want: A nation collectively crapping itself and ready to follow their leaders on a crusade to destroy evil. There was a thing once called McCarthyism, and there are parallels in my opinion.
Thanks for the comment - I'll read and rate your pieces shortly.
Steve
|
Feb 10 '05
2:56 am PST
|
|
Frankly, I Suspect That Almost Everything Bush Suspected... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
...must be at least partially-true.
For example, I don't believe that, just because WMDs weren't found anywhere, they never existed. Instead, I think that there are/were people over there who were just ultra-excellent at hiding them. Perhaps, they weren't even assembled and had their parts scattered here and there (e.g. A few bags of fertilizer doesn't make a bomb--yet, it was an important ingredient in the mix that resulted in the Oklahoma City Bombing. Same goes to how an OTC drug--or even several packets of the same does not a meth lab make. Yet, that drug is crucial.).
Did you know that, when I was in fifth grade, I thought that The Underground Railroad was something like a NYC subway set-up that ran across several states with the stations being underneath people's barns? Since I'd gone to NYC and thought that riding the subway was really neat, I was glad to hear the news that part of The Underground Railroad ran through Indiana.
Sounded like so much fun. You would get to come up at one of those barn subway stations and would get served a delicious meal at the corresponding farmhouse.
I was all ready to take a vacation on The Underground Railroad!
How disappointing to find out that it not only no longer existed but that the term was just a figure of speech for transporting black people out of states below The Mason Dixon Line.
Not disappointed completely, because I thought it was wonderful to think of all of those slaves being snuck into freedom while being served delicious meals along the way.
Anyway, those mountain passageways might not have been any more literate than that interstate subway of my wildest dreams. Bin Laden might have been in some caves at one time or another, but he might have, just as likely, been getting snuck from one home to another when the heat was on.
But reality is that not only were the twin towers made history in a matter of a short time-span but, also, the WTC had been previously attacked back in 1993.
And there had been other buildings, planes, and boats full of people destroyed by terrorists over the years.
And, considering how he could wield those SCUD missiles, we certainly wouldn't want Sadaam getting within 100 miles of WMDs, because he would definitely use them.
The man and two of his sons were even terrorizing their own citizens!
I don't like war--but, at the same time, I believe that George W. Bush made a good decision.
Whether it was the BEST decision he could make, given with what he had to work, remains to be seen.
My own philosophy is that anytime a problem can be solved peacefully, that's the way to go. However, there are cases when this proves to be so next-to-impossible that it might as well be impossible, and I'm afraid that this is one of them!
Now that we've empowered the citizens of one country over there, I don't know that we need to keep on repeating the experience.
We can turn war into some kind of getting-high experience to where we need to keep on seeking out our next fix--or we can view it for what it should be viewed as: some drastic measures to clean a filthy house and bring it up to code!
What we should be doing is trying to set up more peaceful solutions for the future, such as summer camps where children of different cultures are brought together for a couple of weeks to a month to learn the important lesson that, beneath all of those differences, they are all human beings sharing similar dreams when it comes to the basic parts of life.
I'm going to provide a couple of links to things I've written in the past that are supposed to be movie reviews but go a ways beyond being your basic movie reviews.
Read them, if you have time and want to, and let me know what you think...
http://www.epinions.com/content_40881524356
http://www.epinions.com/content_168183041668
Peace!
AJ :o)
|
Feb 09 '05
8:30 am PST
|
|
I still can't believe ... (Reply to this comment)
by sasa_sur
... that Bush won again.
and adding to your conspiracy theories. Wasn't that Bin Laden threat not to choose Bush or else, conveniently published just days before the election. It seems it would favor Kerry but nobody likes being told by terrorist whom to choose.
|
Nov 12 '04
6:21 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: I have never seen this country... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I read somewhere that the percentage of Americans who don't own a passport is something like 90%.
I have a passport, and am about to use it.
Looking for jobs in Jamaica, Belize, etc now. Seriously. The term 'expat' sounds marevelous to me about now.....
OuttaHereDoc
|
Nov 11 '04
9:24 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Excellent essay. (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket
Is it me or are the voices of logic and reason in this world becoming ever more drowned out?
No, it isn't you. It's been a long time since we heard those voices over here. A loooong time. If they're still out there, they're whispering. Sigh.
Sue
(I actually had to delete and re-write this comment after typo-ing my own name. So much for "intelligent discussion"....;)
|
Nov 10 '04
10:09 pm PST
|
|
Excellent essay. (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket
it’s an archaic, primitive and foolish thing to bring into politics, no matter what your personal beliefs, and the photograph in a paper this morning of someone holding a placard reading “Finally A Christian Fighting Evil” grates like fingernails on a blackboard.
Oh, for crying out loud. "Grating" is not a strong enough word. This kind of stuff angers me to no end, and partially explains a lot of the gay-bashing that went along with this election (not that all Christians are gay-bashers, but the religious element is definitely there in regards to that issue). Bringing religion into the mix, as I see it, is the coward's way of showing that he has no legitimate cards to play. Peh.
Again, very well done.
Sue
|
Nov 09 '04
11:12 am PST
|
|
Re: Stevie baby.. (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
Sorry Doc, I don't mean to be a killjoy. I don't mind anyone posting humourous and witty comments at all, but I really can't be arsed with a load of sniping, particularly from one or two members around here who excel at it. I think we know who I'm talking about :)
Hero, eh? My ego doth swell..
Steve
|
Nov 07 '04
12:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: I have never seen this country... (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
Thanks for the comment. I read somewhere that the percentage of Americans who don't own a passport is something like 90%. I don't mean any offence to anyone by mentioning that, but is that not quite a strange thing? But hey, if I lived in the land of milk and honey that Bush has created then I suppose I wouldn't leave either..
Steve
|
Nov 07 '04
12:08 pm PST
|
|
Re: Replies.. (Reply to this comment)
by oldcomixfan
I'm very relieved no offense and some humor was found in that original comment. But has there not been at least two members who seem to be in very damned political comment section preaching their sermons if you've noticed, too, like I have? I've heard of hair-triggers so sensitive they go off if you breath on them, but, sheesh; best to play it safe, I figured. I probably did the right thing while everyone wonders what the hell I'm talking about, now that hindsight is coming into focus.
Besides, it wasn't quite accurate what I said: there is no more coal to be dug around here. And the those others are also {gasp!} Lutherans. My bad.
Cheers!
|
Nov 06 '04
1:54 pm PST
|
|
Stevie baby.. (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
You are my hero.... but but..
but please keep it civil and reasonably mature
You take all my fun away!
*wail*
ImmatureBushHaterDoc
|
Nov 05 '04
12:51 pm PST
|
|
Excellent review, nsign. (Reply to this comment)
by thewasp
I would hope you would jump into my proposed write-off and take the "Don't" position.
|
Nov 05 '04
11:40 am PST
|
|
I have never seen this country... (Reply to this comment)
by whalewatcher
...as divided as it is these days. Nor has there been a president who has provoked such strong emotions in those for him and against him. That will not change! Unfortunately, thinking 'globally' doesn't come easy to the average American. They haven't been educated to think that way and, for a great many, what happens beyond their borders just doesn't seem to matter much. They don't understand the terror of WAR since they haven't had to experience it on their soil for a very long time. It's more like something out of the movies. Little do they know that, in reality, 9/11 pales in comparison and that the casualties from that day will seem insignificant after tallying up the innocent lives lost when the war in Iraq finally comes to an end. The fact that civilian casualties in Iraq already reach way up into the 10s of thousands just doesn't seem to matter. As one devout church goer said to me just recently: "Who cares about those people"? He is one of those who voted for Bush on 'moral' values. Enough said.......
Claudia
|
Nov 05 '04
10:11 am PST
|
|
Re: Don't lose track of this important statistic (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
True, which is an encouraging thing, and I get the impression that America is more deeply divided than ever before, despite Kerry and Bush's pleas for unity. That statistic is encouraging though.
Steve
|
Nov 05 '04
6:00 am PST
|
|
Don't lose track of this important statistic (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech
48 per cent of American voters voted against Bush
|
Nov 05 '04
12:47 am PST
|
|
No problem (Reply to this comment)
by oldcomixfan
I saw your update and deleted my original comment in accordance. I'll just stick to the point more seriously this time lest the mud start flying as the tension continues.
Religion and politics are supposed to be separate over here in theory. "One nation under God." Some of us disagree and prefer to vote and live from a more secular viewpoint like you guys. But what seemed like a rise in the religious right was a case of more of them voting this time around because, well, it does goes back a long ways. The fundamentaists have always been here for quite some time. A rise in their influence? Many felt compelled their influence was crucial on the issues this time.
I'm afraid we'll have to collectively continue being an irritating focal point for the rest of the world for the time being and see how it all plays out. The majority have spoken using our system and there's nothing anyone can do about it any more than we can do anything about how people vote in the U.K. or elsewhere. It is what it is.
But if you can send some of that separation of church and state in practice over here somehow...
|
Nov 04 '04
11:57 pm PST
|
|
Hi (Reply to this comment)
by proxam
Don't be too hard on the US voters. After all we Brits have twice voted in Blair (not me personally, I hasten to add!) and are likely to do so again.
Frightening!
Drew
|
Nov 04 '04
11:08 am PST
|
|
I admire your capacity to hope (Reply to this comment)
by wrestler
I have just finished reading your text, which is excellent and draws some very sensible conclusions. I fear, however, that you and I, who respectively come from England and Canada, don't seem to live on the same planet as Americans do.
There is very little reason to hope that Bush will give himself the luxury of being less of a radical and more sensitive to the struggles of other countries than his own. If you want my pessimistic opinion, we are looking a second Bush term that will share many similarities with the first one.
Congratulations on your essay. For someone who doesn't claim to be one of the more erudite people to write on this site (and I can sense your strong modesty in saying this as well), you make more sense than many people I have had the opportunity to read.
|
Nov 04 '04
10:13 am PST
|
|
|
|
