<strong>But if you agree with his main messages (hopefully you have reviewed the whole show via streaming by now)....that SH and Iraq are "a direct threat to the American public", and that this unsupportable allegation justifies "we're going in, with or without a UN resolution or any allies besides Blair/Straw"..... then you're going to have to keep arguing to support that position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've watched it by now, yes.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat. We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders. The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.
I guess Clinton knew that an invasion into Iraq with 250,000 soldiers and 100's of tons of ordinance would take more time, support and money than he had for anyway?
Bush's plan is simple. A terrorist is a terrorist. Muslim, Palestinian or Columbian...whatever. The United States is fighting against the terrorists of the world. We're going to take them down one terrorist at a time. Until I guess we are the only terrorists left on the planet.
Cool huh?
I'm not sure where I stand. Time will tell. Fate too.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat.
<hr></blockquote>
That sounds like you are not exactly prepared to say that Iraq is "a direct threat to the American public".
Which begs an interesting question.... what kind of "reasonable doubt" standard should be applied before committing to the money, resources, universal international ill will, international financial instability, and American blood, that this little police action is going to cost us?
[my interest in reasonable doubt was stimulated when reported for jury duty pool two days ago... not picked, was out of there in 2 hours, but it was a very nice little refresher in Civics]
[quote]
We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders.
<hr></blockquote>
:eek: WHAT ?
WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?
[quote]The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.
<strong>I guess Clinton knew that an invasion into Iraq with 250,000 soldiers and 100's of tons of ordinance would take more time, support and money than he had for anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that and he really had no concrete example of how dangerous terrorists can be. Give Clinton 9/11 and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he would be calling for immediate and full disarmament and most likely regime change.
When people say 9/11 is important it's not because Iraq is linked with al-Qaida. That is such a superficial way of looking at it.
We are vulnerable, and of course it's a remote possibility that Iraq passes a bad weapon off. All terrorism consists of remote possibilities. These aren't standing armies we can watch, these are secret. There can be nothing obvious and predictable about a war on terror by its very nature.
9/11 was a huge failure of the intelligence departments and a huge glaring mistake in the executive branch for not taking Osama out earlier. I don't judge Clinton harshly for this like many do, he had no way of knowing, none of us did (he made a well-meaning mistake and he's human). But now there is no excuse. If Bush does not do everything that is reasonable within his power to protect our citizens he is not doing his job and should be held accountable because a horrible atrocity took place for him to learn from.
I wish people could put down their political jousting for one freaking millisecond and look at this objectively. But they can't.
[quote]<strong>Bush's plan is simple. A terrorist is a terrorist. Muslim, Palestinian or Columbian...whatever. The United States is fighting against the terrorists of the world. We're going to take them down one terrorist at a time. Until I guess we are the only terrorists left on the planet. Cool huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We don't have any other choice but to go after terrorists. That's our only option. We don't have France's luxury; they aren't responsible for anything in the world community.
If people want to believe that Bush wants to kill babies for oil money then fine, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with zealots about stuff like that.
If people want to believe that Bush wants war no matter what then fine, there's no reasoning with people who believe that guy is pure evil because he's got an (R) next to his name and he's not eloquent.
One of the main problems I have with President Bush and his obsessive need to deal with Iraq is that he doesn't seem to understand the complexities within the Middle East. He claims there are ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. There are some big flaws in this, the most notable being that Bin Laden and his followers are religious fanatics whereas Saddam is a secular leader. Bin Laden, in the past, as referred to Iraq and Saddam as infidels as well. (This information comes from a variety of sources, including my Iraqi professor and the Vice-President of the Islamic Center). Even the intense hatred of the United States isn't enough to bring the two together. Bush has a tendancy to gloss over this and I've heard too many American people say that Iraq needs to be paid back for what they did to us on September 11. And what's this talk of putting in U.S. military leaders as a "temporary" government after the war??? Boy, I'll bet that'll make us a whole lot of friends over there. And frankly, I would feel slightly better if our president could form complete sentances without stuttering and pausing whenever he doesn't have a telepromter.
<strong>That sounds like you are not exactly prepared to say that Iraq is "a direct threat to the American public".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if he is or not. I'm not charged with that task so I can't know. I think it's reasonable enough to deal with. The fact that there's doubt gives the claim enough credibility in my mind. There's no reason to trust him.
[quote]<strong>Which begs an interesting question.... what kind of "reasonable doubt" standard should be applied before committing to the money, resources, universal international ill will, international financial instability, and American blood, that this little police action is going to cost us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Money and resources will be fine, I'm sure we'll reimburse ourselves with Iraqi oil and if we don't I'll be angry.
I don't give a crap about international ill will. I think anxiety about whether or not there will be war is worse for the international economy than actually having war. As far as American blood, our soldiers only ask for the proper equipment and support. These guys joined up for a reason.
[quote]<strong>[my interest in reasonable doubt was stimulated when reported for jury duty pool two days ago... not picked, was out of there in 2 hours, but it was a very nice little refresher in Civics]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In American law the defendent is innocent until proven guilty. Saddam has been proven guilty countless times.
[quote]<strong>WHAT ? WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dictatorship? Eh? You're confusing yourself.
Most of our allies live under our umbrella of security, if you don't believe that then I can't help you. It's plainly evident.
We put Bush in charge of world security when we elected him president. If you want to have your head in the sand about what role the American military plays in international affairs then that's your business.
[quote]<strong>We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds like you are not exactly prepared to say that Iraq is "a direct threat to the American public".
I don't know if he is or not. I'm not charged with that task so I can't know. I think it's reasonable enough to deal with. The fact that there's doubt gives the claim enough credibility in my mind. There's no reason to trust him.
I'm not saying that I trust him either (as generalized as that may be), just that I find Bush's claim that he is "a direct threat to the American public" to be a little thin, and that now seems his main justification for bucking the consensus of the entire international community in undertaking this war.
I don't give a crap about international ill will.
Sounds mighty Texan of ya...
So we should be the world's policeman, but not give a crap about how our constituents perceive us? I believe that attitude has gotten a few police forces in trouble over the years...
do you REALLY believe in Cowboy Dipolomacy ?
Money and resources will be fine, I'm sure we'll reimburse ourselves with Iraqi oil and if we don't I'll be angry.
hmm, I guess SO ! :eek:
Glad to hear that you also believe that we have loads of budget money to spend on this, also, since the economy is such a stellar performer and the surplus projections from a few years ago just keep going up...
In American law the defendent is innocent until proven guilty. Saddam has been proven guilty countless times.
Guilty of what, exactly? If it's not "guilty of being a direct threat to the American Public", then it's meaningless in the context of Bush's performance.
Once again, your rhetoric is lacking in specifics.
Furthermore, if he has indeed been proven guilty, then who collected the evidence, who presented the evidence, what was it, who was the jury, who was the judge, and who pronounced the sentence? These are separate entities in a court of law but are one in the same in this case.
WHAT ? WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?
Dictatorship? Eh? You're confusing yourself.
Most of our allies live under our umbrella of security, if you don't believe that then I can't help you. It's plainly evident.
We put Bush in charge of world security when we elected him president. If you want to have your head in the sand about what role the American military plays in international affairs then that's your business.
Well, YOU were the one that said it's on Bush's shoulders and not ours. That implies that we have no input and our president does not represent our wishes, which is counter to the very principles of democracy. Then again, you could say democracy is being mocked by the Flaccid Members of Congress who are too afraid of blowing their next re-election campaign by getting labeled as "unpatriotic", to speak out against what the administration is up to.
We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.
What political stance would that be?
Ummm, the one that he HAS?
I'll get back to you on that one in a few, if it is really that un-obvious to you.
<strong>I'm not saying that I trust him either (as generalized as that may be), just that I find Bush's claim that he is "a direct threat to the American public" to be a little thin, and that now seems his main justification for bucking the consensus of the entire international community in undertaking this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should we bother with the consensus of the entire international community when it is our safety under consideration?
[quote]<strong>Sounds mighty Texan of ya...
So we should be the world's policeman, but not give a crap about how our constituents perceive us? I believe that attitude has gotten a few police forces in trouble over the years...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we start doing something I think is wrong I'll worry. A body who endorses the sanctions that kill 500,000+ Iraqi civilians without a speck of punishment for Hussein himself for 12 years of non-compliance holds absoultely no moral authority with me. And you're relying on the moral argument, the "why don't you want to involve the international community?" argument.
Us being the world police wasn't our decision entirely. Funny how Europe asks for our help in cleaning up their genocides and then whines about our largesse.
[quote]<strong>do you REALLY believe in Cowboy Dipolomacy ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As much as you believe in tired, bigoted rhetoric.
[quote]<strong>hmm, I guess SO ! :eek:
Glad to hear that you also believe that we have loads of budget money to spend on this, also, since the economy is such a stellar performer and the surplus projections from a few years ago just keep going up...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A freaking red herring. What is real about any of these international billions? This country has been deficit spending for decades.
[quote]<strong>Guilty of what, exactly? If it's not "guilty of being a direct threat to the American Public", then it's meaningless in the context of Bush's performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guilty of continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons. Guilty of being a territorial aggressor. Guilty of supporting terrorists. Guilty of hiding the aforementioned chemical and biological weapons from inspectors. Guilty of violating every attempt of the international community to enforce proper controls. And yes, being guilty of posing a reasonable threat to the United States.
All bundled together I think it's a bulletproof case.
[quote]<strong>Furthermore, if he has indeed been proven guilty, then who collected the evidence, who presented the evidence, what was it, who was the jury, who was the judge, and who pronounced the sentence? These are separate entities in a court of law but are one in the same in this case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's how international politics work, welcome to planet Earth, nice to have you aboard.
[quote]<strong>Well, YOU were the one that said it's on Bush's shoulders and not ours. That implies that we have no input and our president does not represent our wishes, which is counter to the very principles of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So him not changing his views because of protest is a violation of the principles of democracy? Again, you confuse yourself.
You are whining because you are not getting your way and you have stopped making sense. They exercised their right to protest and Bush said he "respectfully" disagrees. What more do you want?
[quote]<strong>Then again, you could say democracy is being mocked by the Flaccid Members of Congress who are too afraid of blowing their next re-election campaign by getting labeled as "unpatriotic", to speak out against what the administration is up to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would the Democrats speak up against something they did 5 years ago?
But I guess there's something wrong with people disagreeing with you and then voting their conscience.
[quote]<strong>Ummm, the one that he HAS?
I'll get back to you on that one in a few, if it is really that un-obvious to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Why should we bother with the consensus of the entire international community when it is our safety under consideration? <hr></blockquote>
I thought Saddam was a threat to the whole world?
[quote] Funny how Europe asks for our help in cleaning up their genocides and then whines about our largesse. <hr></blockquote>
A trip to Europe would really do you good.
[quote] This country has been deficit spending for decades. <hr></blockquote>
Does that make it a good thing?
I dunno, you actually make a better case for invading Iraq than Bush does, but at this point I think we're going to have to go in just to save face. Bush has pretty much cornered himself, there's really nowhere to go. I dunno, he still hasn't sold me. You may say that Hussein poses a possible threat against Americans, well that may be true, but I know for sure if we go in there Americans will die. I'm not positive that will happen if we don't.
<strong>I thought Saddam was a threat to the whole world?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be, but he's a threat to us and that's all we are concerned with if the UN doesn't care enough about it.
[quote]<strong>A trip to Europe would really do you good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it would. But until then I'll support my president (Bush, Clinton or uhh... the new Bush), support my nation's brave fighting men and encourage my elected officials to be as diplomatic as possible without castrating our security efforts.
But if a trip to Europe would relieve me of my wacky sense of self-preservation I'll hold off on it.
[quote]<strong>Does that make it a good thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll say "no" because I'm supposed to but I'm ambivalent about it. I've been hearing how it's going to sink us ever since I was little. Money as a concept seems like fantasy to me anyway; paper is worth something, and now that it's all electronic... well what the hell do I know?
[quote]<strong>I dunno, you actually make a better case for invading Iraq than Bush does,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I do, I'm not contrained by politics!
[quote]<strong>but at this point I think we're going to have to go in just to save face. Bush has pretty much cornered himself, there's really nowhere to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Although it's ignored, he's never taken the impetus off of Saddam. Even tonight he says it's still up to him. Disarm fully or leave and there's no war. It's pretty simple. I guess Saddam thought he could screw around with Bush like he did Bush's dad and Clinton. Well it's a gamble he'll wish he didn't take because Shrubs means business.
I don't think Bush has sold himself out to war, the anti-war movement would theoretically embrace anything that avoids war (although they really wouldn't because it's an anti-Bush movement for the most part) and pro-war folks like myself would be satisfied (theoretically) with whatever massive event happened whereby all concerns about Iraq weaponry were answered and/or Saddam fell victim to spontaneous combustion or a severe allergic reaction to a bullet in the head. (<- Longest sentence EVER!)
[quote]<strong>I dunno, he still hasn't sold me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well don't rely on him to sell you. He didn't sell me on jack, I don't listen to the administration. I listen to the what the UN has had to say and that's enough for me. Ignore the foreign ministers and politicking talking heads. Read the resolutions. Read the inspectors reports. The case is as clear as crystal. The painfully slow process of destroying the missiles Iraq still denies are proscribed is part of the very clear pattern. They will drag this one issue out until the US buckles under international pressure to remove military threat and then once military threat is removed he says "fuck off" to the inspectors. Then military threat comes back and 'round and 'round we go as we have for the last 12 years. Hopefully Bush has the balls to call the evil prick and regulate.
Just because Bush is a sub-par diplomat don't assume there is no case. Anyone who hinges their opinions on the words of politicians are fools.
[quote]<strong>You may say that Hussein poses a possible threat against Americans, well that may be true, but I know for sure if we go in there Americans will die. I'm not positive that will happen if we don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the Americans that might die want to go in. They only ask for our support. My brother is over there and is only waiting for marching orders. Don't protect people who don't need protecting.
I would rather our soldiers die fighting the enemy than our citizens be attacked by that enemy because we decided to take a chance on an evil madman.
[quote] That may be, but he's a threat to us and that's all we are concerned with if the UN doesn't care enough about it. <hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but you'd think the rest of the world would be a little more willing to go along with us. I also think politically and monetarily it would be in our best interests to win the UN's support.
[quote] But if a trip to Europe would relieve me of my wacky sense of self-preservation I'll hold off on it. <hr></blockquote>
As it's not a good idea to listen too much to what politicians have to say, it's not too good of an idea to listen to what the media has to say. Some first hand experience of the old world might widen your perspective and leave you a little less anti euro.
[quote] I'll say "no" because I'm supposed to but I'm ambivalent about it. <hr></blockquote>
This is something I'm really not ambivalent about. I think deficit spending is inflationary and takes power away from the Federal Reserve and the Fed doesn't really have a lot of juice right now as it is.
Let's hope Saddam goes into exile and we can avoid all of this. Oh, and believe me your brother and my nephew have my full support.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat. We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders. The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember that little argument the current administration brought up stating that Iraq is a threat to the US because they can sell weapons the weapons they make to terrorist organizations? Well, think back a few months. What country was shipping arms illegally to Palestine? Was it Iraq? Nope. It was North Korea. Yet, in the words of Bush, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea can deal with NK because they need to do their part too.
<strong>Why should we bother with the consensus of the entire international community when it is our safety under consideration? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, if there were a lick of evidence that Iraq was actually a threat to the United States there might be more of a consensus.
I'm not even talking about as great or immediate of a threat as North Korea. I just mean a pretty good threat, with 'links' to prove it.
But, our man Bush can't get it up for to save his soul.
I would rather our soldiers die fighting the enemy than our citizens be attacked by that enemy because we decided to take a chance on an evil madman.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what our military is about to do is fight a non-enemy. Just because Bush doesn't like Saddam, doesn't mean Iraq is an enemy.
As far as the economic angle of war, I think of it this way: pay me now or pay me later. We're either going to take care of Hussein within the next few weeks, or we'll just push it off a few years and pay for inspections, or worse, pay for the clean up when those weapons are used against whomever, most likely us, mostly likely not by Hussein himself.
I don't buy the economic argument against war. It's expensive in more important ways, and it costs us a ton in any number of scenarios down the line.
<strong>The rhetoric between the Bush and Clinton administration with regard to force in Iraq is so parallel it's hilarious to watch you partisan boobs act like something has changed.
Clinton actually said Iraq was part of an "unholy axis" and spoke of "weeks, not months" with regard to force in Iraq.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
Clinton didn't even bother asking the UN (or Congress for that matter) before dropping bombs in Yugoslavia or before ordering Desert Fox. Bush went to the UN very soon after deciding that Iraq had to be dealt with.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
It's all perception with you people and it's disgusting. There's no desire for substance, just political posturing. I'd rather jab my eyes out than vote for any Democrat or Republican. It's pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>What are you going on about? I'm not sure where the Democrat-Republican rant came from, but you have absolutely zero credibility to criticize others on politics and voting; only either a true moron or an unprincipled dimwit would, as a conservative, vote for Nader.
If you can't understand why Bush has screwed this up, when he tries to build a coalition but instead France, Germany, Russia, and China have all formed a coalition against us; when we talk about how important Turkey is and then they reject us; and when now even our closest ally, Britain, is pursuing a different policy, you tell me who isn't being objective about the situation - the person saying things were screwed up or the one defending him.
[quote]<strong>Yeah, but you'd think the rest of the world would be a little more willing to go along with us. I also think politically and monetarily it would be in our best interests to win the UN's support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the "rest of the world" isn't completely against us. France and Russia have vested financial interests they're defending. It's not like the US is the only nation that comes to the table with baggage.
Why would it be in our best interests to make it a UN deal? I'm not saying it wouldn't I'd just like to see a case made for it.
[quote]<strong>This is something I'm really not ambivalent about. I think deficit spending is inflationary and takes power away from the Federal Reserve and the Fed doesn't really have a lot of juice right now as it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I follow you but again, I know very little about economics so it's something I won't get into. I don't like the idea of deficit spending, but I don't know enough about it to get worked up. All I know is that it would be happening anyway.
[quote]<strong>Let's hope Saddam goes into exile and we can avoid all of this. Oh, and believe me your brother and my nephew have my full support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah that would be the best. But he won't. He was democratically elected after all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
BR:
[quote]<strong>Remember that little argument the current administration brought up stating that Iraq is a threat to the US because they can sell weapons the weapons they make to terrorist organizations? Well, think back a few months. What country was shipping arms illegally to Palestine? Was it Iraq? Nope. It was North Korea. Yet, in the words of Bush, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea can deal with NK because they need to do their part too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Talking about all situations as if they are the same is ignorant. Saying But mommy, Billy broke a lamp so don't get mad at me for breaking a window" is ignorant.
Unless you can say the president (Bush and Clinton both have said it) was wrong for saying that Iraq could do it you have no point. That is the question, not who else is bad.
Once again this silly "focus" argument comes, like the people who just a few weeks ago were opining the lack of focus on the war on terror and then, bam, Khalid and Osama's sons are caught. Now we're not focusing enough of NK, well I'll quote Hans Blix when I say, "I hope we can drive a car and chew gum at the same time." NK is a different situation being handled in a different way. Powell was talking about it yesterday.
Do you have any substance?
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>What are you going on about? I'm not sure where the Democrat-Republican rant came from, but you have absolutely zero credibility to criticize others on politics and voting; only either a true moron or an unprincipled dimwit would, as a conservative, vote for Nader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a conservative? Because I'm pro-war? You're a thinker! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You see I do this crazy thing, it's called "think for yourself on each individual issue".
Fear groverat: the pro-gay marriage/adoption, pro-legalization, pro-choice, anti-"under God"-in-the-pledge conservative!
Unprincipled is a word used to describe someone who shows loyalty to a political party. And this is something most of you guys do, you draw your party line and while you won't say it out loud you always fall along them and debate things politically with no substance. Not everyone, but most of you.
[quote]<strong>If you can't understand why Bush has screwed this up, when he tries to build a coalition but instead France, Germany, Russia, and China have all formed a coalition against us; when we talk about how important Turkey is and then they reject us; and when now even our closest ally, Britain, is pursuing a different policy, you tell me who isn't being objective about the situation - the person saying things were screwed up or the one defending him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I say Bush has handled this well? Did I? Or to be pro-war do I have to be a huge Bush fan? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You should rid yourself of your two-party view of world affairs.
[quote] So here and there up to 3% of students made their voice known for Support of the regime of Saddam and his control of WOMD <hr></blockquote>
tsk tsk....i'm surprised by that comment from you FSCiB (and surprised that g'rat let you get away with it...if i said the gw supports israeli killing of children or something like that, he would, rightly, jump all over me)...
these students don't support saddam nor his control of WOMD (in fact i would guess that 99% of them would like nobody to have WOMD, including the US)...so why are students most likely to protest war??
a)they tend to still see things in black and white / wrong and right...as you get old the world beats you down and you see everything in shades of grey, but young people still have that view they were taught by their parents (no, yes, that is hot, that outlet will shock you, don't do that, don't do this, etc etc)...war and killing is a bad thing in a black and white world...especially if it seems like we are dropping bombs first....
b)students are at the age when they or their friends will be the ones fighting...i, at 41, won't, GW won't...they will...so they tend to protest it more...and grandparents too...as they get old and closer to death the world view moves back to a more black and white view...they don't want to die, they don't want others to die and they don't want their grandkids going off to war...
so support the war, or protest the war...but don't make a laughable statement like these protestor like saddam or like WOMD...these protestors dislike saddam and HATE WOMD...they hate killing cilivians and war more...
g'rat
[quote] Well the Americans that might die want to go in. They only ask for our support. My brother is over there and is only waiting for marching orders. Don't protect people who don't need protecting. <hr></blockquote>
your first sentence...some may want to go in, some don't...but, if Bush or the UN orders it, they will because it is their duty/job...i repect them for it and do support our troops...but i can protest the impending war and still support them...running with scissors' brother is flying AWAC planes, but running said his brother doen't really want to be there (of course who wouldn't rather be at home with their family and loved ones)...but it is his duty/job, so he is there (will look for the link...RWS can correct me if wrong)...my brother-in-law was in desert shield and desert storm and he was less than 8 hours from invading baghdad when the word came down that a settlement was reached (he was ground troops and they had notice and were just awaiting final "go" orders...many of them wanted to go into baghdad and were dissapointed at the time...but some where happy also)...my brother-in-law didn't think we belonged there at all (his views on kuwaitt and iraq is much more complex than mine and i would do him injustice to try and put his point across...perhaps i will ask him to write it down and then post it here) but at that time he was ready to do his duty...
as for your second sentence...i hope your brother is well and i hope he comes home well, whether we go to war or not....g
Comments
<strong>But if you agree with his main messages (hopefully you have reviewed the whole show via streaming by now)....that SH and Iraq are "a direct threat to the American public", and that this unsupportable allegation justifies "we're going in, with or without a UN resolution or any allies besides Blair/Straw"..... then you're going to have to keep arguing to support that position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've watched it by now, yes.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat. We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders. The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.
Bush's plan is simple. A terrorist is a terrorist. Muslim, Palestinian or Columbian...whatever. The United States is fighting against the terrorists of the world. We're going to take them down one terrorist at a time. Until I guess we are the only terrorists left on the planet.
Cool huh?
I'm not sure where I stand. Time will tell. Fate too.
I've watched it by now, yes.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat.
<hr></blockquote>
That sounds like you are not exactly prepared to say that Iraq is "a direct threat to the American public".
Which begs an interesting question.... what kind of "reasonable doubt" standard should be applied before committing to the money, resources, universal international ill will, international financial instability, and American blood, that this little police action is going to cost us?
[my interest in reasonable doubt was stimulated when reported for jury duty pool two days ago... not picked, was out of there in 2 hours, but it was a very nice little refresher in Civics]
[quote]
We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders.
<hr></blockquote>
:eek: WHAT ?
WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?
[quote]The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.
<strong>I guess Clinton knew that an invasion into Iraq with 250,000 soldiers and 100's of tons of ordinance would take more time, support and money than he had for anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that and he really had no concrete example of how dangerous terrorists can be. Give Clinton 9/11 and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he would be calling for immediate and full disarmament and most likely regime change.
When people say 9/11 is important it's not because Iraq is linked with al-Qaida. That is such a superficial way of looking at it.
We are vulnerable, and of course it's a remote possibility that Iraq passes a bad weapon off. All terrorism consists of remote possibilities. These aren't standing armies we can watch, these are secret. There can be nothing obvious and predictable about a war on terror by its very nature.
9/11 was a huge failure of the intelligence departments and a huge glaring mistake in the executive branch for not taking Osama out earlier. I don't judge Clinton harshly for this like many do, he had no way of knowing, none of us did (he made a well-meaning mistake and he's human). But now there is no excuse. If Bush does not do everything that is reasonable within his power to protect our citizens he is not doing his job and should be held accountable because a horrible atrocity took place for him to learn from.
I wish people could put down their political jousting for one freaking millisecond and look at this objectively. But they can't.
[quote]<strong>Bush's plan is simple. A terrorist is a terrorist. Muslim, Palestinian or Columbian...whatever. The United States is fighting against the terrorists of the world. We're going to take them down one terrorist at a time. Until I guess we are the only terrorists left on the planet. Cool huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We don't have any other choice but to go after terrorists. That's our only option. We don't have France's luxury; they aren't responsible for anything in the world community.
If people want to believe that Bush wants to kill babies for oil money then fine, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with zealots about stuff like that.
If people want to believe that Bush wants war no matter what then fine, there's no reasoning with people who believe that guy is pure evil because he's got an (R) next to his name and he's not eloquent.
<strong>That sounds like you are not exactly prepared to say that Iraq is "a direct threat to the American public".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if he is or not. I'm not charged with that task so I can't know. I think it's reasonable enough to deal with. The fact that there's doubt gives the claim enough credibility in my mind. There's no reason to trust him.
[quote]<strong>Which begs an interesting question.... what kind of "reasonable doubt" standard should be applied before committing to the money, resources, universal international ill will, international financial instability, and American blood, that this little police action is going to cost us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Money and resources will be fine, I'm sure we'll reimburse ourselves with Iraqi oil and if we don't I'll be angry.
I don't give a crap about international ill will. I think anxiety about whether or not there will be war is worse for the international economy than actually having war. As far as American blood, our soldiers only ask for the proper equipment and support. These guys joined up for a reason.
[quote]<strong>[my interest in reasonable doubt was stimulated when reported for jury duty pool two days ago... not picked, was out of there in 2 hours, but it was a very nice little refresher in Civics]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In American law the defendent is innocent until proven guilty. Saddam has been proven guilty countless times.
[quote]<strong>WHAT ? WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dictatorship? Eh? You're confusing yourself.
Most of our allies live under our umbrella of security, if you don't believe that then I can't help you. It's plainly evident.
We put Bush in charge of world security when we elected him president. If you want to have your head in the sand about what role the American military plays in international affairs then that's your business.
[quote]<strong>We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What political stance would that be?
I don't know if he is or not. I'm not charged with that task so I can't know. I think it's reasonable enough to deal with. The fact that there's doubt gives the claim enough credibility in my mind. There's no reason to trust him.
I'm not saying that I trust him either (as generalized as that may be), just that I find Bush's claim that he is "a direct threat to the American public" to be a little thin, and that now seems his main justification for bucking the consensus of the entire international community in undertaking this war.
I don't give a crap about international ill will.
Sounds mighty Texan of ya...
So we should be the world's policeman, but not give a crap about how our constituents perceive us? I believe that attitude has gotten a few police forces in trouble over the years...
do you REALLY believe in Cowboy Dipolomacy ?
Money and resources will be fine, I'm sure we'll reimburse ourselves with Iraqi oil and if we don't I'll be angry.
hmm, I guess SO ! :eek:
Glad to hear that you also believe that we have loads of budget money to spend on this, also, since the economy is such a stellar performer and the surplus projections from a few years ago just keep going up...
In American law the defendent is innocent until proven guilty. Saddam has been proven guilty countless times.
Guilty of what, exactly? If it's not "guilty of being a direct threat to the American Public", then it's meaningless in the context of Bush's performance.
Once again, your rhetoric is lacking in specifics.
Furthermore, if he has indeed been proven guilty, then who collected the evidence, who presented the evidence, what was it, who was the jury, who was the judge, and who pronounced the sentence? These are separate entities in a court of law but are one in the same in this case.
WHAT ? WHEN did this become a dictatorship instead of a participatory democracy, and WHO put Bush in charge of World Security?
Dictatorship? Eh? You're confusing yourself.
Most of our allies live under our umbrella of security, if you don't believe that then I can't help you. It's plainly evident.
We put Bush in charge of world security when we elected him president. If you want to have your head in the sand about what role the American military plays in international affairs then that's your business.
Well, YOU were the one that said it's on Bush's shoulders and not ours. That implies that we have no input and our president does not represent our wishes, which is counter to the very principles of democracy. Then again, you could say democracy is being mocked by the Flaccid Members of Congress who are too afraid of blowing their next re-election campaign by getting labeled as "unpatriotic", to speak out against what the administration is up to.
We couldn't agree MORE on this.... although I would like to point out that I believe Bush's political stances are pushing his actions more than his objective view on what's best for the country.
What political stance would that be?
Ummm, the one that he HAS?
I'll get back to you on that one in a few, if it is really that un-obvious to you.
<strong>I'm not saying that I trust him either (as generalized as that may be), just that I find Bush's claim that he is "a direct threat to the American public" to be a little thin, and that now seems his main justification for bucking the consensus of the entire international community in undertaking this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should we bother with the consensus of the entire international community when it is our safety under consideration?
[quote]<strong>Sounds mighty Texan of ya...
So we should be the world's policeman, but not give a crap about how our constituents perceive us? I believe that attitude has gotten a few police forces in trouble over the years...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we start doing something I think is wrong I'll worry. A body who endorses the sanctions that kill 500,000+ Iraqi civilians without a speck of punishment for Hussein himself for 12 years of non-compliance holds absoultely no moral authority with me. And you're relying on the moral argument, the "why don't you want to involve the international community?" argument.
Us being the world police wasn't our decision entirely. Funny how Europe asks for our help in cleaning up their genocides and then whines about our largesse.
[quote]<strong>do you REALLY believe in Cowboy Dipolomacy ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As much as you believe in tired, bigoted rhetoric.
[quote]<strong>hmm, I guess SO ! :eek:
Glad to hear that you also believe that we have loads of budget money to spend on this, also, since the economy is such a stellar performer and the surplus projections from a few years ago just keep going up...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A freaking red herring. What is real about any of these international billions? This country has been deficit spending for decades.
[quote]<strong>Guilty of what, exactly? If it's not "guilty of being a direct threat to the American Public", then it's meaningless in the context of Bush's performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guilty of continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons. Guilty of being a territorial aggressor. Guilty of supporting terrorists. Guilty of hiding the aforementioned chemical and biological weapons from inspectors. Guilty of violating every attempt of the international community to enforce proper controls. And yes, being guilty of posing a reasonable threat to the United States.
All bundled together I think it's a bulletproof case.
[quote]<strong>Furthermore, if he has indeed been proven guilty, then who collected the evidence, who presented the evidence, what was it, who was the jury, who was the judge, and who pronounced the sentence? These are separate entities in a court of law but are one in the same in this case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's how international politics work, welcome to planet Earth, nice to have you aboard.
[quote]<strong>Well, YOU were the one that said it's on Bush's shoulders and not ours. That implies that we have no input and our president does not represent our wishes, which is counter to the very principles of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So him not changing his views because of protest is a violation of the principles of democracy? Again, you confuse yourself.
You are whining because you are not getting your way and you have stopped making sense. They exercised their right to protest and Bush said he "respectfully" disagrees. What more do you want?
[quote]<strong>Then again, you could say democracy is being mocked by the Flaccid Members of Congress who are too afraid of blowing their next re-election campaign by getting labeled as "unpatriotic", to speak out against what the administration is up to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would the Democrats speak up against something they did 5 years ago?
But I guess there's something wrong with people disagreeing with you and then voting their conscience.
[quote]<strong>Ummm, the one that he HAS?
I'll get back to you on that one in a few, if it is really that un-obvious to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wait with bated breath.
coast to coast about 97% give or take a few % of students did not protest the war/or promote give peace a chance.
So here and there up to 3% of students made their voice known for Support of the regime of Saddam and his control of WOMD.
3% Amazing how the media can make it look like 99%
Fellowship
I thought Saddam was a threat to the whole world?
[quote] Funny how Europe asks for our help in cleaning up their genocides and then whines about our largesse. <hr></blockquote>
A trip to Europe would really do you good.
[quote] This country has been deficit spending for decades. <hr></blockquote>
Does that make it a good thing?
I dunno, you actually make a better case for invading Iraq than Bush does, but at this point I think we're going to have to go in just to save face. Bush has pretty much cornered himself, there's really nowhere to go. I dunno, he still hasn't sold me. You may say that Hussein poses a possible threat against Americans, well that may be true, but I know for sure if we go in there Americans will die. I'm not positive that will happen if we don't.
<strong>I thought Saddam was a threat to the whole world?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be, but he's a threat to us and that's all we are concerned with if the UN doesn't care enough about it.
[quote]<strong>A trip to Europe would really do you good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it would. But until then I'll support my president (Bush, Clinton or uhh... the new Bush), support my nation's brave fighting men and encourage my elected officials to be as diplomatic as possible without castrating our security efforts.
But if a trip to Europe would relieve me of my wacky sense of self-preservation I'll hold off on it.
[quote]<strong>Does that make it a good thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll say "no" because I'm supposed to but I'm ambivalent about it. I've been hearing how it's going to sink us ever since I was little. Money as a concept seems like fantasy to me anyway; paper is worth something, and now that it's all electronic... well what the hell do I know?
[quote]<strong>I dunno, you actually make a better case for invading Iraq than Bush does,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I do, I'm not contrained by politics!
[quote]<strong>but at this point I think we're going to have to go in just to save face. Bush has pretty much cornered himself, there's really nowhere to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Although it's ignored, he's never taken the impetus off of Saddam. Even tonight he says it's still up to him. Disarm fully or leave and there's no war. It's pretty simple. I guess Saddam thought he could screw around with Bush like he did Bush's dad and Clinton. Well it's a gamble he'll wish he didn't take because Shrubs means business.
I don't think Bush has sold himself out to war, the anti-war movement would theoretically embrace anything that avoids war (although they really wouldn't because it's an anti-Bush movement for the most part) and pro-war folks like myself would be satisfied (theoretically) with whatever massive event happened whereby all concerns about Iraq weaponry were answered and/or Saddam fell victim to spontaneous combustion or a severe allergic reaction to a bullet in the head. (<- Longest sentence EVER!)
[quote]<strong>I dunno, he still hasn't sold me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well don't rely on him to sell you. He didn't sell me on jack, I don't listen to the administration. I listen to the what the UN has had to say and that's enough for me. Ignore the foreign ministers and politicking talking heads. Read the resolutions. Read the inspectors reports. The case is as clear as crystal. The painfully slow process of destroying the missiles Iraq still denies are proscribed is part of the very clear pattern. They will drag this one issue out until the US buckles under international pressure to remove military threat and then once military threat is removed he says "fuck off" to the inspectors. Then military threat comes back and 'round and 'round we go as we have for the last 12 years. Hopefully Bush has the balls to call the evil prick and regulate.
Just because Bush is a sub-par diplomat don't assume there is no case. Anyone who hinges their opinions on the words of politicians are fools.
[quote]<strong>You may say that Hussein poses a possible threat against Americans, well that may be true, but I know for sure if we go in there Americans will die. I'm not positive that will happen if we don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the Americans that might die want to go in. They only ask for our support. My brother is over there and is only waiting for marching orders. Don't protect people who don't need protecting.
I would rather our soldiers die fighting the enemy than our citizens be attacked by that enemy because we decided to take a chance on an evil madman.
Yeah, but you'd think the rest of the world would be a little more willing to go along with us. I also think politically and monetarily it would be in our best interests to win the UN's support.
[quote] But if a trip to Europe would relieve me of my wacky sense of self-preservation I'll hold off on it. <hr></blockquote>
As it's not a good idea to listen too much to what politicians have to say, it's not too good of an idea to listen to what the media has to say. Some first hand experience of the old world might widen your perspective and leave you a little less anti euro.
[quote] I'll say "no" because I'm supposed to but I'm ambivalent about it. <hr></blockquote>
This is something I'm really not ambivalent about. I think deficit spending is inflationary and takes power away from the Federal Reserve and the Fed doesn't really have a lot of juice right now as it is.
Let's hope Saddam goes into exile and we can avoid all of this. Oh, and believe me your brother and my nephew have my full support.
<strong>
All this anti-anti-war movement movement has boiled down to creating a straw-man argument that can be easily dismissed, which is amazingly childish.
EDIT: spelling.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge you remind me of BR Where the h*ll is BR anyway?
Fellows
<strong>
I've watched it by now, yes.
One cannot say with any certainty that Iraq IS NOT a threat. We are not the ones charged with world security, it's on Bush's shoulders. The same people that tell Bush not to undertake this war say he bungled the 9/11 investigation. But even though he fought through controversy to start the as-of-now-successful War on Terror, capturing a very important terrorist a few days ago, these people STILL act like they know what is best and Bush just makes everything up.
But really I ask for too much. You people have so much invested in your political stances looking at things objectively would be suicide. Just like I'm sure many hawks on here crapped all over Clinton's push for war on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember that little argument the current administration brought up stating that Iraq is a threat to the US because they can sell weapons the weapons they make to terrorist organizations? Well, think back a few months. What country was shipping arms illegally to Palestine? Was it Iraq? Nope. It was North Korea. Yet, in the words of Bush, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea can deal with NK because they need to do their part too.
Let's just recap here.
Country #1 is caught selling illegal arms.
Country #3 says Country #2 might sell illegal arms to people that hate Country #3.
Country #1 has long range nuclear missiles that can reach Country #3.
Country #2 has missiles that won't even cover 1/100th of the distance to Country #3.
Hmmm...without naming names, which country is the most immediate threat?
<strong>Why should we bother with the consensus of the entire international community when it is our safety under consideration? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, if there were a lick of evidence that Iraq was actually a threat to the United States there might be more of a consensus.
I'm not even talking about as great or immediate of a threat as North Korea. I just mean a pretty good threat, with 'links' to prove it.
But, our man Bush can't get it up for to save his soul.
<strong>
I would rather our soldiers die fighting the enemy than our citizens be attacked by that enemy because we decided to take a chance on an evil madman.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what our military is about to do is fight a non-enemy. Just because Bush doesn't like Saddam, doesn't mean Iraq is an enemy.
I don't buy the economic argument against war. It's expensive in more important ways, and it costs us a ton in any number of scenarios down the line.
<strong>The rhetoric between the Bush and Clinton administration with regard to force in Iraq is so parallel it's hilarious to watch you partisan boobs act like something has changed.
Clinton actually said Iraq was part of an "unholy axis" and spoke of "weeks, not months" with regard to force in Iraq.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
Clinton didn't even bother asking the UN (or Congress for that matter) before dropping bombs in Yugoslavia or before ordering Desert Fox. Bush went to the UN very soon after deciding that Iraq had to be dealt with.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
It's all perception with you people and it's disgusting. There's no desire for substance, just political posturing. I'd rather jab my eyes out than vote for any Democrat or Republican. It's pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>What are you going on about? I'm not sure where the Democrat-Republican rant came from, but you have absolutely zero credibility to criticize others on politics and voting; only either a true moron or an unprincipled dimwit would, as a conservative, vote for Nader.
If you can't understand why Bush has screwed this up, when he tries to build a coalition but instead France, Germany, Russia, and China have all formed a coalition against us; when we talk about how important Turkey is and then they reject us; and when now even our closest ally, Britain, is pursuing a different policy, you tell me who isn't being objective about the situation - the person saying things were screwed up or the one defending him.
[quote]<strong>Yeah, but you'd think the rest of the world would be a little more willing to go along with us. I also think politically and monetarily it would be in our best interests to win the UN's support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the "rest of the world" isn't completely against us. France and Russia have vested financial interests they're defending. It's not like the US is the only nation that comes to the table with baggage.
Why would it be in our best interests to make it a UN deal? I'm not saying it wouldn't I'd just like to see a case made for it.
[quote]<strong>This is something I'm really not ambivalent about. I think deficit spending is inflationary and takes power away from the Federal Reserve and the Fed doesn't really have a lot of juice right now as it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I follow you but again, I know very little about economics so it's something I won't get into. I don't like the idea of deficit spending, but I don't know enough about it to get worked up. All I know is that it would be happening anyway.
[quote]<strong>Let's hope Saddam goes into exile and we can avoid all of this. Oh, and believe me your brother and my nephew have my full support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah that would be the best. But he won't. He was democratically elected after all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
BR:
[quote]<strong>Remember that little argument the current administration brought up stating that Iraq is a threat to the US because they can sell weapons the weapons they make to terrorist organizations? Well, think back a few months. What country was shipping arms illegally to Palestine? Was it Iraq? Nope. It was North Korea. Yet, in the words of Bush, Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea can deal with NK because they need to do their part too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Talking about all situations as if they are the same is ignorant. Saying But mommy, Billy broke a lamp so don't get mad at me for breaking a window" is ignorant.
Unless you can say the president (Bush and Clinton both have said it) was wrong for saying that Iraq could do it you have no point. That is the question, not who else is bad.
Once again this silly "focus" argument comes, like the people who just a few weeks ago were opining the lack of focus on the war on terror and then, bam, Khalid and Osama's sons are caught. Now we're not focusing enough of NK, well I'll quote Hans Blix when I say, "I hope we can drive a car and chew gum at the same time." NK is a different situation being handled in a different way. Powell was talking about it yesterday.
Do you have any substance?
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>What are you going on about? I'm not sure where the Democrat-Republican rant came from, but you have absolutely zero credibility to criticize others on politics and voting; only either a true moron or an unprincipled dimwit would, as a conservative, vote for Nader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a conservative? Because I'm pro-war? You're a thinker! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You see I do this crazy thing, it's called "think for yourself on each individual issue".
Fear groverat: the pro-gay marriage/adoption, pro-legalization, pro-choice, anti-"under God"-in-the-pledge conservative!
Unprincipled is a word used to describe someone who shows loyalty to a political party. And this is something most of you guys do, you draw your party line and while you won't say it out loud you always fall along them and debate things politically with no substance. Not everyone, but most of you.
[quote]<strong>If you can't understand why Bush has screwed this up, when he tries to build a coalition but instead France, Germany, Russia, and China have all formed a coalition against us; when we talk about how important Turkey is and then they reject us; and when now even our closest ally, Britain, is pursuing a different policy, you tell me who isn't being objective about the situation - the person saying things were screwed up or the one defending him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I say Bush has handled this well? Did I? Or to be pro-war do I have to be a huge Bush fan? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You should rid yourself of your two-party view of world affairs.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
[quote] So here and there up to 3% of students made their voice known for Support of the regime of Saddam and his control of WOMD <hr></blockquote>
tsk tsk....i'm surprised by that comment from you FSCiB (and surprised that g'rat let you get away with it...if i said the gw supports israeli killing of children or something like that, he would, rightly, jump all over me)...
these students don't support saddam nor his control of WOMD (in fact i would guess that 99% of them would like nobody to have WOMD, including the US)...so why are students most likely to protest war??
a)they tend to still see things in black and white / wrong and right...as you get old the world beats you down and you see everything in shades of grey, but young people still have that view they were taught by their parents (no, yes, that is hot, that outlet will shock you, don't do that, don't do this, etc etc)...war and killing is a bad thing in a black and white world...especially if it seems like we are dropping bombs first....
b)students are at the age when they or their friends will be the ones fighting...i, at 41, won't, GW won't...they will...so they tend to protest it more...and grandparents too...as they get old and closer to death the world view moves back to a more black and white view...they don't want to die, they don't want others to die and they don't want their grandkids going off to war...
so support the war, or protest the war...but don't make a laughable statement like these protestor like saddam or like WOMD...these protestors dislike saddam and HATE WOMD...they hate killing cilivians and war more...
g'rat
[quote] Well the Americans that might die want to go in. They only ask for our support. My brother is over there and is only waiting for marching orders. Don't protect people who don't need protecting. <hr></blockquote>
your first sentence...some may want to go in, some don't...but, if Bush or the UN orders it, they will because it is their duty/job...i repect them for it and do support our troops...but i can protest the impending war and still support them...running with scissors' brother is flying AWAC planes, but running said his brother doen't really want to be there (of course who wouldn't rather be at home with their family and loved ones)...but it is his duty/job, so he is there (will look for the link...RWS can correct me if wrong)...my brother-in-law was in desert shield and desert storm and he was less than 8 hours from invading baghdad when the word came down that a settlement was reached (he was ground troops and they had notice and were just awaiting final "go" orders...many of them wanted to go into baghdad and were dissapointed at the time...but some where happy also)...my brother-in-law didn't think we belonged there at all (his views on kuwaitt and iraq is much more complex than mine and i would do him injustice to try and put his point across...perhaps i will ask him to write it down and then post it here) but at that time he was ready to do his duty...
as for your second sentence...i hope your brother is well and i hope he comes home well, whether we go to war or not....g
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>