My brother was also in Storm/Shield. He's now crew chief on a KC-135 re-fueler (a freshly-enlisted guy in Storm/Shield), so like RWS's brother he'll be well out of harm's way. But I've got two cousins who'll be in there, they're Marines.
No one wants war. I'm not saying anyone wants war. What I'm saying is that our guys understand their duty, as regrettable as that duty might be, and are willing to do it, they only need our support. That's all I'm saying.
ok, nobody wants war...so if the UN doesn't sanction war and we go, how did that happen?? somebody would need to want war in that situation...
as for support of our troops...i do support our girls and boys in the service...i deal with them and their children every day at work (we are close to kirkland airforce base and also get people from white sands)...they are one and all great people....but, in your eyes g'rat, can i protest a possible war and still support our troops?? i think i can...i just don't want them to have to go and fight unless they have to...just like with North Korea, i don't think we have done everything we can....
the troop build up is actually a great thing...we are getting more and more cooperation everyday from iraq...keep up the pressure till all our fears of them and their weapons are gone...but why we have this "now or never" arguement going is beyond me...GW can claim a success if he keeps troops nearby and gets iraq to comply...so why bombing?
<strong>I'm a conservative? Because I'm pro-war? You're a thinker!</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I've been reading your posts on a variety of issues for three years, and you express overwhelmingly conservative views. You certainly don't agree with the Greens, and yet you say you vote for them. And then you criticize others for voting without thinking. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>Everyone here has opinions that differ from the party for which they vote. To me, the test is whether it forms a coherent picture or not. Anyone can evaluate each individual issue without reference to underlying principles. That suggests ADHD rather than independence.
[quote]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?
You should rid yourself of your two-party view of world affairs.<hr></blockquote>When I criticized Bush's handling of this you flipped out and went on a diatribe about Democrats and Republicans. You clearly disagreed with what I said. If not, then why flip out? Why not say "Man, BRussell, you nailed it. I'm with you" instead of going Fireside Chat about it? Your irrational love of your boy in the white house, you conservative Republican you?
I've said numerous times that I'm pro-war in this situation. But I think Bush has handled it about as bad as it could possibly be handled. I didn't vote for his dad either but I defended him during the Iraq war when I was in college and debating my friends about this. So I don't equate love of Bush with love of his policies. It seem that you do.
Who wants war for the sake of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't change the question.
And besides, there are plenty of people that think war is a good option now. Arguments I've heard as of late?
'Well we can't keep the troops over there forever, it's too expensive.'
or
'It'll only take a week, so we might as well get it over with.'
These are the reasons people are citing for going to war now. Maybe it's not 'I want to kill all brown-skins' (with the exception of ColanderOfDeath ) but there are plenty of people who now want war.
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. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's ISI: "High-profile people arrested in this way are never going to be presented publicly so many people would question if this claim is even true. From the Pakistani public many would say that the US and Pakistan are both in need of claiming success stories and this is what it is. Pakistan needs to prove itself a useful ally and the US administration wanted to claim a success story as it prepares to go in to Iraq."<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.<hr></blockquote>
That's a false analogy. Using false analogies is ignorant. A better analogy would be the mother seeing Billy waving around his daddy's shotgun and Tommy playing with a pair of scissors. Who is the more immediate thread?
[quote]<strong>ok, nobody wants war...so if the UN doesn't sanction war and we go, how did that happen?? somebody would need to want war in that situation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a difference between wanting something and knowing that something must be done. I never want to have surgery but sometimes I have to. Sure it's a semantic issue but it's an important one because so many people are convinced that Bush just wants to kill people, which is ridiculous.
[quote]<strong>but, in your eyes g'rat, can i protest a possible war and still support our troops??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely.
[quote]<strong>the troop build up is actually a great thing...we are getting more and more cooperation everyday from iraq...keep up the pressure till all our fears of them and their weapons are gone...but why we have this "now or never" arguement going is beyond me...GW can claim a success if he keeps troops nearby and gets iraq to comply...so why bombing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have this "now or never" argument because we can't keep the illusion of threat forever. At some point you have to back it up. Read Blix's report (not what people say about his report, but the actual report) from today, even now Iraq is not cooperating fully. Even with the knife pressed up against his throat Saddam has not decided to cooperate fully. In three months the "we'll attack if you don't fully cooperate" threat will grow weaker and weaker and weaker until we're right back where we started. Do not be fooled into thinking that Saddam doesn't know how to play this game, he's played it like a master for the last 12 years.
In your argument you assume that Iraq will fully cooperate in the future. If they still aren't why would they two weeks from now? How much more pressure could we possibly put on them without actually using force? Please give me an answer to that.
--
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>No, I've been reading your posts on a variety of issues for three years, and you express overwhelmingly conservative views. You certainly don't agree with the Greens, and yet you say you vote for them. And then you criticize others for voting without thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with the Greens on a great number of things, mainly on issues that the weak-kneed Democrats won't touch with a ten-foot pole. You conveniently ignore where I do, though, and I'm sure you will again, but I'll lay it out anyway.
- Pro gay-rights (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
- Legalization of marijuana (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
- Removal of religion from our government (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
But it's easier to just say "you're conservative" than deal with the reality of it, I guess. I loathe Democrats, but that doesn't make me a Republican.
[quote]<strong>Everyone here has opinions that differ from the party for which they vote. To me, the test is whether it forms a coherent picture or not. Anyone can evaluate each individual issue without reference to underlying principles. That suggests ADHD rather than independence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The picture of the push for war with Iraq is as coherent as it gets. This had been presidential policy since at least 1998.
[quote]<strong>When I criticized Bush's handling of this you flipped out and went on a diatribe about Democrats and Republicans. You clearly disagreed with what I said. If not, then why flip out? Why not say "Man, BRussell, you nailed it. I'm with you" instead of going Fireside Chat about it? Your irrational love of your boy in the white house, you conservative Republican you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I criticized you because you look at this as a Democrat/Republican issue. Again you completely ignore me criticizing Republicans right along with Democrats because to you this is a partisan political issue. You attack Bush, not the substance. It's irritating.
You're unable to see that Bush has actually gone for more international support than Clinton ever did. How can you criticize the way he's handled it unless you think he should've avoided the UN entirely?
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>These are the reasons people are citing for going to war now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are those really the reasons? I guess if you don't pay attention they are. Don't hurt yourself.
--
giant:
[quote]it appears you missed my post here. You might want to take some time and read this meta-analysis.. The who "bam, Khalid and Osama's sons are caught" bit was the desired effect. Didn't the incredible timing alone raise you suspicions enough to actually look into it? hmmmm....<hr></blockquote>
Sourceless speculation compels me!
When would the timing *not* be "incredible"?
--
BR:
[quote]<strong>That's a false analogy. Using false analogies is ignorant. A better analogy would be the mother seeing Billy waving around his daddy's shotgun and Tommy playing with a pair of scissors. Who is the more immediate thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both being dealt with. They are different situations so they are being handled differently. You can't apply one solution to all problems. Don't be fatuous.
<strong>They are both being dealt with. They are different situations so they are being handled differently. You can't apply one solution to all problems. Don't be fatuous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. Bush made it quite clear that China, Japan, and Russia have to deal with NK while we're busy taking the scissors out of Tommy's hands with a SWOT team.
By the way, you might want to stop petty name calling. I thought the admin wanted to keep this place civil. Since you are a mod, I would think you might set a slightly better example. Falsely putting words in my mouth and then calling me names based on your incorrect interpretation is highly immature.
iraq is not a threat to US soil as far as i can tell...perhaps i am wrong...trying to remember how many iraqi attacks have been waged on US soil since the gulf war...since 9/11...since ever
i have already given the government the best solution to the "anti-war rhetoric"...have Rumsfeld come out and say, "We know Saddam has this and this and this because we gave them "A", germany gave them "B", britian gave them "C" and russia gave them "D". Now I know this, in hindsight, was very stupid of us. But we can't worry about how stupid we were in the past, we have to worry about not being stupid in the present and future..." end rumsfeld speech
the fallout might cost Rumsfeld his job (probably not though), but if he really believes iraq is a threat to US soil and US citizens, then you think he would gladly give up his job to protect those two things....i think that if Rumsfeld came out and said, "We gave saddam these awful things and it is our duty to go and take them back for the safty of the US and the world." very few people could challenge that....
like if i call the police and say, "i gave my wife a gun with 6 bullets in it and she said she is going to the mall to shoot people" that would hold a lot of weight with the police and they would move quickly and decisively
as oppossed to me calling the police and saying, "i think my wife has a gun, well at least she did in the past, and she might have some bullets and she likes to go to the mall. so i think you should make sure she isn't going to shoot people at the mall"
<strong>Indeed. Bush made it quite clear that China, Japan, and Russia have to deal with NK while we're busy taking the scissors out of Tommy's hands with a SWOT team.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both Bush and Powell have said they want to work with the other nations in the region to reach a solution. Since when is going for international accord leaving others to deal with it?
We're working with other nations to go for a multilateral, diplomatic solution. Just because we aren't threatening them with war don't assume we're doing nothing.
[quote]<strong>By the way, you might want to stop petty name calling. I thought the admin wanted to keep this place civil. Since you are a mod, I would think you might set a slightly better example. Falsely putting words in my mouth and then calling me names based on your incorrect interpretation is highly immature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I called you a name?
--
gelding:
[quote]<strong>so we go to war without UN approval?
because iraq is not following UN resolutions??
or because Iraq is a threat to US soil??</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to go over this with you. I love you, g, but I could kick you!
You're starting to remind me of Tom Hanks' bit on SNL, Mr. Short-Term Memory.
The problem of Iraq having weapons exists outside of the resolution. It is a problem that must be dealt with for the purpose of security. Just because everyone else in the UN doesn't feel threatened doesn't mean we are obligated to sit back and wait.
The Resolutions are just the UN's way of dealing with the problem, but it's not just a UN problem. For instance; murder is a crime. But even if we didn't have legal language saying murder is a crime the actual act of murder would still be bad and would still have to be dealt with. Same concept.
The possibility that Iraq could pass off a nasty weapon to a terrorist who would use it against us is remote, sure, but why take that chance?
3. It is obviously not the President's strength....speaking in this format.
4. I think he may have not swayed some of our citizens with his [ . . . ] pledge to defend the nation.
5. The pro-war rhetoric is laughable. It's the same old shit. I have yet to hear any convincing or reasonable argument to go to war.
--------------------
and I would just add that you should not assume that nobody wants war for the 'adventure' of it, for war's sake . . . I actually believe that there is much of that sentiment just under the surface . . . after all we, as a civilization, look to the Classical World of Ancient Greece and Rome as models for the birth of our civilization. and in those cultures warfare was ritualized and seen as teh ONLY manner in which a person could attain immortality
also: the origin of the word 'Virtue' comes from the same origin for 'virility', and in ancient Greece and Rome (which we look to for inspiration) 'Virtue' was won in the Agon of competition and warfare . . . Warfare was the place you showed your manliness . . . (and even now idiots call France 'feminine' because they have reservations)
also, ancient Greece valued the idea of Arete, a value and quality which was revealed by 'heroic' deeds done in action, on the Battlefield: root for aristoi and Aristocrat . . . and seen by these ancient cultures as being the root and rule of civilization itself: Arete and virtue as outgrowth of militaristic competition and heroic deeds on the battlefield . . . and we emulate their "spirit" . . . look at the archetecture of Washington for example
anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . .
even the supposed 'peacenicks' . . . they are afraid of what they secretly want too . . .
How can anything you ever say have any validity when you demonstrate conclusively that your 'views' are based in pure fantasy and not in any sort of even remote factuality?!?!?!? Your 'views' are completely worthless since you have no desire whatsoever to inform them. I hope you, fellowship and sdw have fun in fantasy-land.
I dare say that we are, perhaps more than ever, at a total, impossible, complete and utterly hopeless impasse. Everyone is now charging everyone else is living in a fantasy land, sticking their head in the sand, or is just plain blind. Maybe there's nothing more to say at this point.
[quote] I don't know how many times I'm going to have to go over this with you. I love you, g, but I could kick you! <hr></blockquote>
the feelings are the same on this end ...
i just can't wait for this war shit to be over so you and i can go back to agreeing on something..
like gay mariage and adoption
or
pot smoking legalization
or
whatever...
so, for the short term memory thing,...i have to be reminded alot as our reasons change
it is because iraq is not obeying UN resolution (but that is not good unless the UN sanctions war...so it is)
because Iraq may use weapons to kill people and attack other countries (but that is not good because we would be using weapons to kill people and would be attacking another country....so it is )
because Iraq may attack US soil (ahh, that's a good one as nobody can deny us the right to protect ourselves...except iraq had never attacked US soil before....waiting to see our reason next week....
<strong>I dare say that we are, perhaps more than ever, at a total, impossible, complete and utterly hopeless impasse. Everyone is now charging everyone else is living in a fantasy land, sticking their head in the sand, or is just plain blind. Maybe there's nothing more to say at this point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but calling a document with citations at the end of every sentence "sourceless" is nothing less than insane.
Comments
No one wants war. I'm not saying anyone wants war. What I'm saying is that our guys understand their duty, as regrettable as that duty might be, and are willing to do it, they only need our support. That's all I'm saying.
Again; no one wants war.
<strong>
No one wants war....Again; no one wants war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is unfortunately not true.
<strong>This is unfortunately not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who wants war for the sake of war?
as for support of our troops...i do support our girls and boys in the service...i deal with them and their children every day at work (we are close to kirkland airforce base and also get people from white sands)...they are one and all great people....but, in your eyes g'rat, can i protest a possible war and still support our troops?? i think i can...i just don't want them to have to go and fight unless they have to...just like with North Korea, i don't think we have done everything we can....
the troop build up is actually a great thing...we are getting more and more cooperation everyday from iraq...keep up the pressure till all our fears of them and their weapons are gone...but why we have this "now or never" arguement going is beyond me...GW can claim a success if he keeps troops nearby and gets iraq to comply...so why bombing?
g
2. It was a good speech/conference
3. It is obviously not the President's strength....speaking in this format.
4. I think he may have swayed some of our citizens with his heartfelt pledge to defend the nation.
5. The anti-war rhetoric is laughable. It's the same old shit. I have yet to hear any convincing or reasonable argument not to go to war.
<strong>I'm a conservative? Because I'm pro-war? You're a thinker!</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I've been reading your posts on a variety of issues for three years, and you express overwhelmingly conservative views. You certainly don't agree with the Greens, and yet you say you vote for them. And then you criticize others for voting without thinking. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>Everyone here has opinions that differ from the party for which they vote. To me, the test is whether it forms a coherent picture or not. Anyone can evaluate each individual issue without reference to underlying principles. That suggests ADHD rather than independence.
[quote]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?
You should rid yourself of your two-party view of world affairs.<hr></blockquote>When I criticized Bush's handling of this you flipped out and went on a diatribe about Democrats and Republicans. You clearly disagreed with what I said. If not, then why flip out? Why not say "Man, BRussell, you nailed it. I'm with you" instead of going Fireside Chat about it? Your irrational love of your boy in the white house, you conservative Republican you?
I've said numerous times that I'm pro-war in this situation. But I think Bush has handled it about as bad as it could possibly be handled. I didn't vote for his dad either but I defended him during the Iraq war when I was in college and debating my friends about this. So I don't equate love of Bush with love of his policies. It seem that you do.
<strong>
Who wants war for the sake of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't change the question.
And besides, there are plenty of people that think war is a good option now. Arguments I've heard as of late?
'Well we can't keep the troops over there forever, it's too expensive.'
or
'It'll only take a week, so we might as well get it over with.'
These are the reasons people are citing for going to war now. Maybe it's not 'I want to kill all brown-skins' (with the exception of ColanderOfDeath
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. <hr></blockquote>
it appears you missed my post <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002915"; target="_blank">here.</a> You might want to take some time and read <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/main/essayksmcapture.html"; target="_blank">this meta-analysis.</a>. The who "bam, Khalid and Osama's sons are caught" bit was the desired effect. Didn't the incredible timing alone raise you suspicions enough to actually look into it? hmmmm....
[quote]Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's ISI: "High-profile people arrested in this way are never going to be presented publicly so many people would question if this claim is even true. From the Pakistani public many would say that the US and Pakistan are both in need of claiming success stories and this is what it is. Pakistan needs to prove itself a useful ally and the US administration wanted to claim a success story as it prepares to go in to Iraq."<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.<hr></blockquote>
That's a false analogy. Using false analogies is ignorant. A better analogy would be the mother seeing Billy waving around his daddy's shotgun and Tommy playing with a pair of scissors. Who is the more immediate thread?
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
[quote]<strong>ok, nobody wants war...so if the UN doesn't sanction war and we go, how did that happen?? somebody would need to want war in that situation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a difference between wanting something and knowing that something must be done. I never want to have surgery but sometimes I have to. Sure it's a semantic issue but it's an important one because so many people are convinced that Bush just wants to kill people, which is ridiculous.
[quote]<strong>but, in your eyes g'rat, can i protest a possible war and still support our troops??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely.
[quote]<strong>the troop build up is actually a great thing...we are getting more and more cooperation everyday from iraq...keep up the pressure till all our fears of them and their weapons are gone...but why we have this "now or never" arguement going is beyond me...GW can claim a success if he keeps troops nearby and gets iraq to comply...so why bombing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have this "now or never" argument because we can't keep the illusion of threat forever. At some point you have to back it up. Read Blix's report (not what people say about his report, but the actual report) from today, even now Iraq is not cooperating fully. Even with the knife pressed up against his throat Saddam has not decided to cooperate fully. In three months the "we'll attack if you don't fully cooperate" threat will grow weaker and weaker and weaker until we're right back where we started. Do not be fooled into thinking that Saddam doesn't know how to play this game, he's played it like a master for the last 12 years.
In your argument you assume that Iraq will fully cooperate in the future. If they still aren't why would they two weeks from now? How much more pressure could we possibly put on them without actually using force? Please give me an answer to that.
--
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>No, I've been reading your posts on a variety of issues for three years, and you express overwhelmingly conservative views. You certainly don't agree with the Greens, and yet you say you vote for them. And then you criticize others for voting without thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with the Greens on a great number of things, mainly on issues that the weak-kneed Democrats won't touch with a ten-foot pole. You conveniently ignore where I do, though, and I'm sure you will again, but I'll lay it out anyway.
- Pro gay-rights (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
- Legalization of marijuana (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
- Removal of religion from our government (Democrats and Republicans are the same)
But it's easier to just say "you're conservative" than deal with the reality of it, I guess. I loathe Democrats, but that doesn't make me a Republican.
[quote]<strong>Everyone here has opinions that differ from the party for which they vote. To me, the test is whether it forms a coherent picture or not. Anyone can evaluate each individual issue without reference to underlying principles. That suggests ADHD rather than independence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The picture of the push for war with Iraq is as coherent as it gets. This had been presidential policy since at least 1998.
[quote]<strong>When I criticized Bush's handling of this you flipped out and went on a diatribe about Democrats and Republicans. You clearly disagreed with what I said. If not, then why flip out? Why not say "Man, BRussell, you nailed it. I'm with you" instead of going Fireside Chat about it? Your irrational love of your boy in the white house, you conservative Republican you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I criticized you because you look at this as a Democrat/Republican issue. Again you completely ignore me criticizing Republicans right along with Democrats because to you this is a partisan political issue. You attack Bush, not the substance. It's irritating.
You're unable to see that Bush has actually gone for more international support than Clinton ever did. How can you criticize the way he's handled it unless you think he should've avoided the UN entirely?
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>These are the reasons people are citing for going to war now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are those really the reasons? I guess if you don't pay attention they are. Don't hurt yourself.
--
giant:
[quote]it appears you missed my post here. You might want to take some time and read this meta-analysis.. The who "bam, Khalid and Osama's sons are caught" bit was the desired effect. Didn't the incredible timing alone raise you suspicions enough to actually look into it? hmmmm....<hr></blockquote>
Sourceless speculation compels me!
When would the timing *not* be "incredible"?
--
BR:
[quote]<strong>That's a false analogy. Using false analogies is ignorant. A better analogy would be the mother seeing Billy waving around his daddy's shotgun and Tommy playing with a pair of scissors. Who is the more immediate thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both being dealt with. They are different situations so they are being handled differently. You can't apply one solution to all problems. Don't be fatuous.
<strong>They are both being dealt with. They are different situations so they are being handled differently. You can't apply one solution to all problems. Don't be fatuous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. Bush made it quite clear that China, Japan, and Russia have to deal with NK while we're busy taking the scissors out of Tommy's hands with a SWOT team.
By the way, you might want to stop petty name calling. I thought the admin wanted to keep this place civil. Since you are a mod, I would think you might set a slightly better example. Falsely putting words in my mouth and then calling me names based on your incorrect interpretation is highly immature.
because iraq is not following UN resolutions??
or because Iraq is a threat to US soil??
iraq is not a threat to US soil as far as i can tell...perhaps i am wrong...trying to remember how many iraqi attacks have been waged on US soil since the gulf war...since 9/11...since ever
i have already given the government the best solution to the "anti-war rhetoric"...have Rumsfeld come out and say, "We know Saddam has this and this and this because we gave them "A", germany gave them "B", britian gave them "C" and russia gave them "D". Now I know this, in hindsight, was very stupid of us. But we can't worry about how stupid we were in the past, we have to worry about not being stupid in the present and future..." end rumsfeld speech
the fallout might cost Rumsfeld his job (probably not though), but if he really believes iraq is a threat to US soil and US citizens, then you think he would gladly give up his job to protect those two things....i think that if Rumsfeld came out and said, "We gave saddam these awful things and it is our duty to go and take them back for the safty of the US and the world." very few people could challenge that....
like if i call the police and say, "i gave my wife a gun with 6 bullets in it and she said she is going to the mall to shoot people" that would hold a lot of weight with the police and they would move quickly and decisively
as oppossed to me calling the police and saying, "i think my wife has a gun, well at least she did in the past, and she might have some bullets and she likes to go to the mall. so i think you should make sure she isn't going to shoot people at the mall"
g
<strong>Indeed. Bush made it quite clear that China, Japan, and Russia have to deal with NK while we're busy taking the scissors out of Tommy's hands with a SWOT team.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both Bush and Powell have said they want to work with the other nations in the region to reach a solution. Since when is going for international accord leaving others to deal with it?
We're working with other nations to go for a multilateral, diplomatic solution. Just because we aren't threatening them with war don't assume we're doing nothing.
[quote]<strong>By the way, you might want to stop petty name calling. I thought the admin wanted to keep this place civil. Since you are a mod, I would think you might set a slightly better example. Falsely putting words in my mouth and then calling me names based on your incorrect interpretation is highly immature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I called you a name?
--
gelding:
[quote]<strong>so we go to war without UN approval?
because iraq is not following UN resolutions??
or because Iraq is a threat to US soil??</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to go over this with you. I love you, g, but I could kick you!
You're starting to remind me of Tom Hanks' bit on SNL, Mr. Short-Term Memory.
The problem of Iraq having weapons exists outside of the resolution. It is a problem that must be dealt with for the purpose of security. Just because everyone else in the UN doesn't feel threatened doesn't mean we are obligated to sit back and wait.
The Resolutions are just the UN's way of dealing with the problem, but it's not just a UN problem. For instance; murder is a crime. But even if we didn't have legal language saying murder is a crime the actual act of murder would still be bad and would still have to be dealt with. Same concept.
The possibility that Iraq could pass off a nasty weapon to a terrorist who would use it against us is remote, sure, but why take that chance?
2. It was not a good speech/conference
3. It is obviously not the President's strength....speaking in this format.
4. I think he may have not swayed some of our citizens with his [ . . . ] pledge to defend the nation.
5. The pro-war rhetoric is laughable. It's the same old shit. I have yet to hear any convincing or reasonable argument to go to war.
--------------------
and I would just add that you should not assume that nobody wants war for the 'adventure' of it, for war's sake . . . I actually believe that there is much of that sentiment just under the surface . . . after all we, as a civilization, look to the Classical World of Ancient Greece and Rome as models for the birth of our civilization. and in those cultures warfare was ritualized and seen as teh ONLY manner in which a person could attain immortality
also: the origin of the word 'Virtue' comes from the same origin for 'virility', and in ancient Greece and Rome (which we look to for inspiration) 'Virtue' was won in the Agon of competition and warfare . . . Warfare was the place you showed your manliness . . . (and even now idiots call France 'feminine' because they have reservations)
also, ancient Greece valued the idea of Arete, a value and quality which was revealed by 'heroic' deeds done in action, on the Battlefield: root for aristoi and Aristocrat . . . and seen by these ancient cultures as being the root and rule of civilization itself: Arete and virtue as outgrowth of militaristic competition and heroic deeds on the battlefield . . . and we emulate their "spirit" . . . look at the archetecture of Washington for example
anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . .
even the supposed 'peacenicks' . . . they are afraid of what they secretly want too . . .
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong> Sourceless speculation compels me!
When would the timing *not* be "incredible"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sourceless speculation?!?!?! How do you post to AI when you are completely and utterly blind?!?!?! Take another look:
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/main/essayksmcapture.html"; target="_blank">read me this time</a>
How can anything you ever say have any validity when you demonstrate conclusively that your 'views' are based in pure fantasy and not in any sort of even remote factuality?!?!?!? Your 'views' are completely worthless since you have no desire whatsoever to inform them. I hope you, fellowship and sdw have fun in fantasy-land.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
the feelings are the same on this end
i just can't wait for this war shit to be over so you and i can go back to agreeing on something..
like gay mariage and adoption
or
pot smoking legalization
or
whatever...
so, for the short term memory thing,...i have to be reminded alot as our reasons change
it is because iraq is not obeying UN resolution (but that is not good unless the UN sanctions war...so it is)
because Iraq may use weapons to kill people and attack other countries (but that is not good because we would be using weapons to kill people and would be attacking another country....so it is )
because Iraq may attack US soil (ahh, that's a good one as nobody can deny us the right to protect ourselves...except iraq had never attacked US soil before....waiting to see our reason next week....
g
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>I dare say that we are, perhaps more than ever, at a total, impossible, complete and utterly hopeless impasse. Everyone is now charging everyone else is living in a fantasy land, sticking their head in the sand, or is just plain blind. Maybe there's nothing more to say at this point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but calling a document with citations at the end of every sentence "sourceless" is nothing less than insane.