The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Dean's still toast. There's a fine line between being seen as passionate and auditioning for the WWE, and he didn't just skirt over it, he parasailed over that bad boy.

---

ROTFLMFAO! You noticed that too, eh?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[sam7777]

I would be more keen on Kerry if he supported gay marriage but that is something few democrats have the guts to do. Bush has shown that he is more than willing to engage in the divisive politics of hate to win this election. The republicans like to demonize marginalized groups and prey on people with few defenders. Bush SR used the Willy Horton AD to demonize african americans and prey on people fear of crime and racism. In the ned I will hold my nose and vote democratic but I fear that will gain little for gay rights but time.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

[Gatito Grande]

Hey, laugh at the WWE, but I'd rather have Jesse Ventura in the White House than the *sswipe that's in there now!



GG Maybe it's just negative psychology, but the more I hear Dean being put down---for the wrong reasons---the more I'm liking him. Put me down as "Screeching for Dean!" Out

[Kieli]

And just exactly why are those reasons "wrong", GG? It's good that you're still loyal to the guy....I guess everyone needs supporters at some point. I'm just not, nor will I ever be, one of them. The second he stops ranting like a harried mother-in-law, I might start paying attention to what he has to say. Thus far, he's not impressed me. But hey, that's just me.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[drlloyd11]

www.advocate.com/html/sto..._clark.asp



I'm pretty sure this is first time a major party candidate has been shot for the cover. Much less a general..

[The Partisan]

Kerry wins NH by a sizeable margin; Dean comes in second, but not close enough to lay claim to any sort of momentum. Edwards did fairly well, and could benefit from a potential Dean dropout. Clark did surprisingly poorly considering he skipped Iowa to focus on New Hampshire, as did Lieberman.



I'd go on further, as I am in love with the sound of my own voice (or rather, cyber-text voice), but instead, I'm going to add a few random emoticons because I'm easily distracted by pretty colours.

[willowrulz4ever]

Hi,It is Ronnie formerly known as redleia.I just had to throw in my two cents.I feel Bush did the right thing in Iraq for the wrong reason.He was out to complete his Daddy's unfinished business.However,after discovering mass graves,torture rooms and the like all I can say is we should have gone in during the first gulf war.Two good thins have cme out of this.No more Saddam and his cronies and the people of Iraq can pick their own government.One of the posts said that the Iraq's want to takeover and we won't let them.The reason for that is the Shiites want a national general election.If we let them have it with their majority they will completely dominate the new government.The Sunni and Kurds will have little or no say in the government.The Kurds in that case would more than likely declare an independent Kurdish state which would incite Kurd nationalists in Turkey and more than likely lead to war between the Kurds.that is unacceptable.a regional Caucasus system would give each group a say in the government.I want our boys and girls home as much as anyone but my cousin did not die so one tyranny can be replaced with another.The best chance for Iraq is a Government where all three sides are represented equally.Also the terrorist must now engage us in their own backyard.Even in unconventional warfare it is extremely difficult to strike on two fronts.This does not negate the possibility of another attack on our soil but it does lessen it considerably.



What is wrong with Bush Invoking his God.Last time I looked the president has the same freedom f religious expression everyone else does.



I do hate the patriot act and hope it is not renewed



.as for the economy, Bush's tax cuts were not large enough.The more money that the private citizen has in his pocket,the better.If congress would ave given Bush the full 750 bil we would be in a lot better shape.as far as government services go,Tax cuts increase government revenue.Both the JFK and Reagan tax cuts proved that.The more money people tax to spend or save the more capital is generated for government to tax.



On that note the cooperate bail outs have to stop.The cooperations are using the tax breaks to enrich the executives while still laying off people whose jobs the tax cuts were supposed to save.The law of the free market is businesses fail and succeed on their merits.If one company falls another rises up to take it's share of the market.By giving insolvent companies tax breaks to stay afloat you are preventing other companies from stepping in taking their place and providing the jobs the hurting companies are no longer able to provide.



As far as the rest of the world goes.Our actions were not unilateral.We had many nations backing us up.The UN is a joke when it comes to peacekeeping.Their rules of engagement are a joke.In Rwanda and Somalia peacekeepers can not fire until fired on.In war if you see a threat and do no neutralize it with extreme prejudice before they can attack you end up in a body bag 90% of the time.The UN is good for famine relief and fighting disease but except for the Sinai they have not had one peacekeeping mission that did any good.Bosnia and Kosovo are still in a mess.Corruption is rampant,ethnic violence still rampant though now done less in the open.



I do agree,marriage is a union between two people and God,no gvernment has any business regulating it.Let God decide people's hearts.I mean it is crazy that Brittney Spears can legally pull her prank which to me belittles the meaning of marriage but a dedicated couple like my lesbian friends who have been together 16 years can't.



Sorry been reading posts for awhile tried to cover everything that caught my eye in one post.



Just for the record when it comes to Defense,the economy and law enforcement,I am conservative.Socially I am liberal.







Ronnie

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

What is wrong with Bush Invoking his God.Last time I looked the president has the same freedom f religious expression everyone else does.

---

Not a thing, if he keeps his beliefs in between the walls of his house, only in his case his house is the white house and is is willing to change the constitution to shove his religious beliefs down everyone else´s throat.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I feel Bush did the right thing in Iraq for the wrong reason.

---

I firmly disagree. We've gone down this road before...it was called Vietnam. No leader should blatantly lie to his constituents in order to satisfy his own thirst for revenge and then have the temerity to justify it no matter what the cost.

Quote:

---

No more Saddam and his cronies and the people of Iraq can pick their own government.One of the posts said that the Iraq's want to takeover and we won't let them.The reason for that is the Shiites want a national general election.If we let them have it with their majority they will completely dominate the new government.The Sunni and Kurds will have little or no say in the government.The Kurds in that case would more than likely declare an independent Kurdish state which would incite Kurd nationalists in Turkey and more than likely lead to war between the Kurds.that is unacceptable.a regional Caucasus system would give each group a say in the government.

---

This has yet to be determined. Regardless of how we try to manipulate events in Iraq, the events will play out the way they were fated. While I agree with the concern that Kurds might become separatist but that may happen regardless of the election. I agree with the Shiites wanting a general election. However, the reality is that not all three sides of the government may be able to be represented fairly. It all depends on who is determining what is "fair". The Kurds presently have the military muscle, the terrain and the money to be calling the shots on their own if they choose to. This is what most are afraid of...that and possibility of the Kurds feeling territorial and declaring war.

Quote:

---

Also the terrorist must now engage us in their own backyard. Even in unconventional warfare it is extremely difficult to strike on two fronts.

---

This is not quite true. And btw they have been engaging us in their own backyards and doing a damn sight better than we are at the moment. We've not won a damned thing and our soldiers are getting picked off, blown up and shot at piecemeal. They don't need to wipe everyone out at one time...they can just wage a mental war....and they're doing a good job. Suicide rates among soldiers has gone up, morale has taken a severe hit and defections are increasing.

Quote:

---

I want our boys and girls home as much as anyone but my cousin did not die so one tyranny can be replaced with another.

---

True but American tyranny could be just as bad. It may not look the same to us, but tell that to the Iraqis who want us to get the hell out of their country.

Quote:

---

What is wrong with Bush Invoking his God.Last time I looked the president has the same freedom of religious expression everyone else does.

---

It becomes a problem when he starts promoting one religion as better and more acceptable than any other religion. Why did he not include Allah, Krishna, or Buddha?

Quote:

---

.as for the economy, Bush's tax cuts were not large enough.The more money that the private citizen has in his pocket,the better.If congress would ave given Bush the full 750 bil we would be in a lot better shape.as far as government services go,Tax cuts increase government revenue.Both the JFK and Reagan tax cuts proved that.The more money people tax to spend or save the more capital is generated for government to tax.

---

I didn't see any of that money and I doubt much of the very poor or borderline poor did either. Last time I checked, it was only media spin that the economy was doing better. As recent as this morning, S&P was down sharply, the Dow was down and 6,000 more people lost their jobs. Out of the hundreds of thousands out of work, Bush's so-called economic progress only created something like 1500 new jobs. How can that possibly be called successful?

Quote:

---

the cooperate bail outs have to stop.The cooperations are using the tax breaks to enrich the executives while still laying off people whose jobs the tax cuts were supposed to save.The law of the free market is businesses fail and succeed on their merits.If one company falls another rises up to take it's share of the market.By giving insolvent companies tax breaks to stay afloat you are preventing other companies from stepping in taking their place and providing the jobs the hurting companies are no longer able to provide.

---

I think this is the only thing you and I will agree on. This and the disturbing trend of farming out work that Americans could be doing to countries like India, Asia and Pakistan. Those companies are short-changing American citizens who need those jobs. The cheap bastards are going to get it back in spades for their skinflint ways.

Quote:

---

Our actions were not unilateral.We had many nations backing us up.

---

Again, untrue. There was worldwide protest to what we're doing in Iraq. Tony Blair was the only one who was steadfastly behind the Iraq War and I bet it's costing him dearly. The only reason other nations are falling in line is because of the not-so-veiled threat by Bush that they could be next. That whole "if you're not for us, you're against us" kind of scenario is enough to scare any nation into saving it's own collective tuchus.

Quote:

---

Again,agree or disagree it is his right to try and change the constitution.That is why we have amendments.

---

It is not HIS right to amend the Constitution, it is a privilege. We the people give him that privilege and it is our right to make sure he uses that privilege wisely and not to our detriment.



Clinton may have had his faults but a) did not drag his country into an unjustified war, b) repeatedly lie to his constituents about why he is sending their children to die in another country, c) repeatedly lie to the gays and lesbians who voted for him about the changes he was going to make for them (he reneged on his promises to the Log Cabin Republicans so fast, I bet they got whiplash) d) try his damndest to duck investigations into his and Cheney's decidedly shady business dealings, and a whole host of things that I could mention. Granted, Clinton wasn't a saint but if Monica Lewinsky was the worst he could do (and all that tells me is the man was an idiot with poor taste), then he makes Bush look like a petty tyrant.



ETA: I just had to ROTFLMAO, Garfield. I love you to death. I really do.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 1/29/04 12:29 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Again,agree or disagree it is his right to try and change the constitution.That is why we have amendments.Personally,I view it as a waste of time.We have far more important issues.

What two people do as far as marriage as the least of our worries.How about the ERA,that was an attempt to change the constitution.The fact is just because he introduces an amendment does not mean it will be ratified.First it has to pass congressional muster and then a majority of the states must pass it.



I voted Libertarian and plan to do so again,I just think that this anti-Bush hysteria is funny.He is no Ronald Reagan(a true conservative unlike Bush and a great president)but he is a lot better than Clinton,who buy the way signed the defense of marriage act into law.



Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

let's see just about every eastern European state,Spain,Poland and several others.In fact Poland sent combat troops.

---

Do realise that this happened AFTER Bush made it pretty clear who's side these nations should be on. They were NOT the first to jump in support of our being involved in Iraq. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to offer it.

Quote:

---

Like supporting the shaw of Iran and I do think Bush's motivations were far from pure butwe did the right thing.

---

I'm at a loss at how you can come to this conclusion. We still have no concrete evidence as to whether or not our involvement is the "right thing". This is speculation at best.

Quote:

---

Both Bush's and Reagan's foreign policies was based on Peace through strength. That is why the UN will never keep the peace,they put their faith in the petty tyrants that make up most of it's membership's good intentions.

---

I don't agree that their foreign policies were any better. The UN was ineffectual because they had nations like the US circumventing the rules in order to serve their own ends. Why should other nations respect the authority of the UN when a superpower like the US thumbs its nose at them? That kind of behaviour is counterproductive and one of the reasons why the US faces a lot of resentment overseas. Cowboy politics has no place in the world at large. One cannot simply rule with their emotions; the stakes are too high. Someone has to have a brain and a little self-control. Bush was not willing to wait for the UN's decision. It would not have taken long but he was too impatient, thus we will never know what the outcome truly would have been.

Quote:

---

He never threatened Poland,the Czech Republic,Spain and the rest of our supporters before the war.

---

Hmm...let me rephrase....the implications were there with his following quote:



And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.....



No group or nation should mistake Americans' intentions: Where terrorist group exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out and we will destroy it. (you can find all of Bush's speeches HERE.)



This is very open-ended. It could be taken any number of ways. It could even imply that if you're not a friend or ally to the US, you are putting yourself at risk. But tell me, do you really think that Bush wouldn't hold a grudge if other nations didn't support him? There's blind patriotism and then there's reality. With or without their support, he was going into Iraq anyway. The peacekeeping soldiers of other nations only include Japan, Poland, Spain and the Ukraine. Notice how the other nations that "back us" have decided to hold off sending their own military aid to Iraq. I wonder why that is? Could it be that they really don't support our being in Iraq? Possibly. The reality is, this man waltzed into a country on scant evidence of WMD, disassembled their nation to the very ground and then said "Whoops, so they didn't have any WMD, like the UN kept saying. My bad. But hey, they needed us anyway so it's all good." That simply does not wash.

Quote:

---

Bush never said if you are not with us you are against us.He said if you support terrorists you are just as gulity as they of for their crimes.Seems Reasonable to me.

---

Really? Sounds like double-talk to me. He makes it sound like, if you don't support us, you're supporting the terrorists and that makes you guilty in the eyes of the US. That may be an assumption on my part, but I have yet to see anything that might dissuade me from it. I don't think it sounds reasonable at all, to be honest. Has anyone ever stopped to really understand where all of this "unreasonable hatred" came from? Probably not. It's just easier to wipe them off the earth than to try to understand what went wrong and how to fix it properly.

Quote:

---

As for a US tyranny I don't see the US brutaly oppressing dissent.as long as protests have been peaceful we have allowed them.

---

Really? Then maybe you should talk to the people who have been pulled out of their homes and held against their will for months. Or the reporter who was sacked because he wanted to report honestly on the protests. And I was not speaking about US oppression or tyranny in our own country. I was speaking about us practically forcing democracy on any country that doesn't have it or operate like we do. We should let the Iraqis decide how to rule themselves instead of making them in our image. Our own hubris will be our undoing.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 1/29/04 2:45 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our actions were not unilateral.We had many nations backing us up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Again, untrue.



let's see just about every eastern European state,Spain,Poland and several others.In fact Poland sent combat troops.The liberal US press has done a great job at only mentioning those nations who were against us and making sure that we only get the bad news.



There was worldwide protest to what we're doing in Iraq. Tony Blair was the only one who was steadfastly behind the Iraq War and I bet it's costing him dearly.



That is what is untrue.we had support of over 16 nations before the first shot was fired.I am not niave enough to believe we have never made huge errors in foreign policy.Like supporting the shaw of Iran and I do think Bush's motivations were far from pure butwe did the right thing.



Clinton and Carter's foreign policy was based on peace through good intentions.That is noble but niave.Both Bush's and Reagan's foreign policies was based on Peace through strength.That is why the UN will never keep the peace,they put their faith in the petty tyrants that make up most of it's membership's good intentions.It was not good intentions that got Saddam out f Kuwait.It was force.Saddam went into Kuwait becuase he thought the world woud just debate and codemn,all the while doing nothing.The world is a better place without Saddam.







The only reason other nations are falling in line is because of the not-so-veiled threat by Bush that they could be next.



He never threatened Poland,the Czech Republic,Spain and the rest of our supporters before the war.



That whole "if you're not for us, you're against us" kind of scenario is enough to scare any nation into saving it's own collective tuchus.



Bush never said if you are not with us you are against us.He said if you support terrorists you are just as gulity as they of for their crimes.Seems Reasonable to me.



As for a US tyranny I don't see the US brutaly oppressing dissent.as long as protests have been peaceful we have allowed them.



Tabby

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

Bush never said if you are not with us you are against us.He said if you support terrorists you are just as gulity as they of for their crimes.Seems Reasonable to me.

---

Actually the exact quote was: "You're either with us or with the terrorists." And since I could never under the circumstances be with the US in this, I guess that makes me a terrorist. That is when I am not an Old-European, chocolate-making member of the axis Cuba-Germany-Libya.



Poland et al (former Warsaw Pact states) want to join NATO. America promised or at least hinted very hard in that direction. Poland's president or maybe the foreign minister admitted openly that one of the big reasons was that Poland would finally get its hand on oil. Plus there is talk of moving American troops to bases in Poland.

Turkey would have been bought ($6 billion in grants and up to $20 billion in loan guarantees) if not that pesky democracy had reared its head and the parliament voted it down. I don't believe that was a unique bribe.

I don't think you should be too proud of supporters like Uzbekistan (Karimov is the guy who likes to torture and kill political opponents, his most famous method is boiling alive) or Azerbaijan.

Afghanistan was a supporter. Colombia too, though they heard about their membership in the news first.



Here is a short listing of the human rights records of the coalition. Yes, I'm sure they all joined up because their hearts where bleeding for the poor Iraqis.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

as for the economy, Bush's tax cuts were not large enough.The more money that the private citizen has in his pocket,the better.If congress would ave given Bush the full 750 bil we would be in a lot better shape.as far as government services go,Tax cuts increase government revenue.Both the JFK and Reagan tax cuts proved that.The more money people tax to spend or save the more capital is generated for government to tax.

---

I'll leave JFK out of it (though Vietnam might well have proved the economic undoing of his Presidency), but the tax cuts of Ronald "If they DARE put his face on Mount Rushmore, so help me I'll blow it up!" Reagan? The economic plan described by GHWBush (before being bought off) as done w/ "blue smoke and mirrors?" The so-called "trickle down" which left the U.S. with record deficits? (Well, records until Dubya!) I think not.



Ronnie (not named for your idol, I trust), the theory of "Cut Taxes on the Rich, and they will invest in economic growth that will 'lift all boats'"? I hate to burst your bubble, but it's a lie. It's great for, say, Paris Hilton's net worth, but it does jack squat for the economy. It's the middle-class, who spend their tax cuts and (usually temporarily) bump up the economy.



If you want real economic improvement, you need low interest rates: this is what prompts entrepreneurs to expand their business and hire more workers. But to get low interest rates, you can't run up huge budget deficits. Moreover, call me a Crazy Pinko if you like, but I think the evidence of government investment---to improve infrastructure (which is disastrously obsolete in the U.S.) and support basic scientific research---is pretty good too.



Why in the world can't the U.S. have the income tax policy it had in the 1950s, when the top tax brackets were over 50%? Why must wealth be tied up in huge estates (see again re: Paris Hilton), instead of spreading it around for the greater good? (Enough w/ this "Death Tax" nonsense---estate taxes are Common Sense!)



Onto Iraq: as Kieli and others have pointed out, the only genuine ally the U.S. had was Great Britain---and even they were just the government, not the people. All the others were either bought-and-paid for (like the government of Uzbekistan, which is every bit as dictatorial and torturous as Iraq under Saddam), looking for goodies from the Western teat (ala Poland), or a couple of ideological cronies (like Il Duce Berlesconi). This ain't an alliance, it's a low-life facade.



Finally, I totally disagree w/ the Reaganesque theory of "Peace through Superior Firepower." That's not peace, that's a gun to the head: not just at our enemies (which quickly becomes the entire world), but at our children and grandchildren, who are burdened w/ maintaining this ever-more-failure-prone, ever-more-expensive gun (see Israel, for example). You can't intimidate your way to peace; you have to negotiate your way there . . . even w/ people/governments/ideologies you don't like.



GG The solution to problems w/ the U.N. is to fix 'em, not abandon it for near-sighted unilateralism. Out



Edited, for Correction: It was 1980 Independent Presidential candidate John Anderson who described Reagan's budget plans (tax-cut, and spend, and yet somehow have a balanced budget) as done w/ "blue smoke and mirrors." George H.W. Bush, in the '80 primaries, famously described Reagan as having "voodoo economics". My bad!

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 1/31/04 10:48 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Wait a minute,Bush does not spew religous hatred.Although I do not agree with his interpertation of the Bible regarding gays and transfolk,his position is not hateful.Most fundamentalist believe that homosexuality is a sin.Thusly by supporting prohomosexual legislation the goverment is supporting a sinful life style.Most of my church does not agree with my lifestyle but they agree to disagree and treat me with respect and dignity.I have never heard any fundamentalist outside of kooks like fred Phelps say they hate gays or want them dead.By the way please tell me where the constittion mentions anything about seperating chrch and state.It is a figment of secularist imagination.The state can not regulate what religous activity is allowed period.Bush has made no attempt to ban Islam,Judasmi, Wicca,Buddhism or any other religion.





You want to talk about hate.how about the hate that is directed at Bush and conservatives in general.Hates gays=wrong,hate Bush and conservatives =Right on.I have chosen to stay in a fundamentalist church and help teach them someone can love God and be gay or transgendered.In the mean time too many of my tans,gay and lesbian brothers and sisters want them to respect their choices and believes but will not do the same for them.I think Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents in the history of the office and Iam not talking about Monica.I am talking about whitewater,Travelgate,the last minute pardonspree that seemed to only go to those who helped or could help the Clintons politically.Still I do not call him an *sswipe,or say the best thing for America would be his assasination.I have a challenge for you.Tell me the three key belives of fundamentalists.you will probaly say something like imposing ther beliefs on others,or hating gays.Neither would be right.The three core beliefs are All,including themselves,have sinned agauinst God,the penalty for those sins is seperation from God for an eternity in hell and becuase of the love Christ showed them by paying the price for their sins they must show love to others and tell them how Christ paid the price so they can go to heaven and avois Hell.You can call them misguided,I think they are in many ways but they are not hateful.



And why should Bush keep the deity out of his adresses.Belief in God is one of the cornerstones of who he is.Maybe you can draw a line between your faith ad everything else I won't.If my faith does not influence everything I do then why have it.Then it is just empty religion.



I respect everyone on this list even if I do not agree with you,but I just do notsee eye to eye with you.I am more than willing to agree to disagree as I really like the members of this community despite our differences.





You can't intimidate your way to peace; you have to negotiate your way there . . . even w/ people/governments/ideologies you don't like.



.Negotiations are great when both sides are reasonable and trustworthy.When the other side is not reasonable and/or trustworthy the credible threat of Force is the only way to get them to the bargaining table and to keep their word after the treaties are signed.



Clinton tried the Carrot instead of the stick with North Korea it got him nowhere.The Koreans took our aid and then did just as they wanted despite the deal they made with us.



The estate tax is a penaty.If you pay taxes on your property in life whyshould you have t pay a second tax after death.The death tax does not hurt Paris Hilton it hurts the mom and pop store owner whose kids have to sell their parents store to pay the estate tax.



Restribution of wealth=spreading the misery.



Let's tax the rich throughthe nose.Sounds good.When was the last time you asked a poor person for a job.Clinton should thank god for Reagennomics.He inherited the boom created by Reagan.No one seems to want to talk about the fact that the fact that the economy started to slow while Clinton was in power.It was his tax and spend policies that created the recession.The only reason he did not have a deficit is the biggest tax increase in US history. Bush is guilty of the same thing,tax and spend but if a dem gets in the office,the deficit will grow even more.As far as the reagan deficit.The dems controlled both houses.They pass the sending bills.



Tabby

Edited by: Warduke at: 1/29/04 9:17 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Has anyone ever stopped to really understand where all of this "unreasonable hatred" came from? Probably not. It's just easier to wipe them off the earth than to try to understand what went wrong and how to fix it properly.



Yeah,I have heard that one before.If America pulled out of the middle east and betrayed Israel,I mean how dare they defend their right to exist.The terrorists would find a new reason to hate us.Maybe that pesky treating woman as human beings thing or the fact T-girls like me are not taken out an stoned as soon as they are discovered.The terrorists are murderers who try to hide behind Arab nationalism and Islam.just as Eric Rudolph hid behind the anti abortion movement.





Any country that gives terrorists aid must be held responsible if those terrorists launch a strike against us.Again the US has made huge mistakes in foreign policy.We let anti communist sentiment let us support some real scum bags but nothing excuses the murder of innocent civilians.I can understand if not agree with bombing of the USS Cole.It was a military target.Even the embassies were political targets.The Twin towers were civilian targets.



I am all for reasoning,With reasonable people.The terrorists are not reasonable people.If I were a black man dealing with a Klan lynch mob,I would not trust to reason unless I had a high powered assault rifle in hand or at least a 20 gauge pump automatic.It is a double standard.We have to to be diplomatic or we are wrong.They kill 3000 people and we have to try to understand them.The best thing you can do against enemies such as the terrorists is eliminate them with extreme prejudice.



Tabby

[lauriebear]

Quote:

---

What is wrong with Bush Invoking his God.Last time I looked the president has the same freedom f religious expression everyone else does.

---

Georgie W of course has the same religious freedom of everyone else. However, he is also President of the United States. That's his job, he is a public servant, a government official. Not a priest, reverend, peacher, cleric...et al. When he speaks to the nation, the world, he is acting for our government, not the church.It's one of those things that Bush the person and Bush the president must separate. So when he is in the privacy of his home, or at his church, or talking with his friends, let him spew all the religious hatred that he wants. But when he's addressing the nation/world or making policy he needs to keep his deity out of it

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Yeah,I have heard that one before.If America pulled out of the middle east and betrayed Israel,I mean how dare they defend their right to exist.The terrorists would find a new reason to hate us.

---

I doubt that quite a bit. Israel has gone FAR beyond their right to exist. If you'll examine the headlines a bit you might see that things have gotten quite out of hand in Palestine and Israel. Terrorists don't start out hating others. Normally, terrorism stems from some other deep seated problem. You'll find the fresh-faced young boy who now wants to sacrifice himself for the "greater good" has been taken advantage of by someone else...someone who's ultimate goal is power, prestige or money just like our own government. Their methods, like ours, are cloaked in the guise of wanting justice and freedom for their people. Not all terrorists are born to hate. They just have some very crafty leaders nudging them in the right direction. Make no mistake, the US is terrorizing people themselves....all under the guise of protecting its citizens. It's rather shameful, in my observation.

Quote:

---

I am all for reasoning,With reasonable people.The terrorists are not reasonable people.

---

That would all depend on who's definition of "reasonable" one is using. Bush wasn't reasonable in allowing for enough time for the UN to find a proper solution to the problem. He was chomping at the bit to go in and kick some ass. Three words: pot....kettle....black.

Quote:

---

If I were a black man dealing with a Klan lynch mob,I would not trust to reason unless I had a high powered assault rifle in hand or at least a 20 gauge pump automatic.

---

This is quite an illogical and inappropriate analogy. You can't equate that situation with what is going on right now. They don't fit.

Quote:

---

The best thing you can do against enemies such as the terrorists is eliminate them with extreme prejudice.

---

Funny, Hitler thought the very same thing while sending the Jews, gays, Catholics and any other enemy of the state to the gas chambers and prison camps. Politicians cannot afford to cater to this type of thinking.

Quote:

---

Wait a minute,Bush does not spew religous hatred.

---

I agree this may be a bit harsh. He does, however, allow and indirectly promote intolerance.

Quote:

---

By the way please tell me where the constittion mentions anything about seperating chrch and state.It is a figment of secularist imagination.The state can not regulate what religous activity is allowed period.Bush has made no attempt to ban Islam,Judasmi, Wicca,Buddhism or any other religion.

---

Actually this country was founded because the Pilgrims fled religious intolerance. The Constitution does not, in turn, say that it SHALL use any religion to govern or create the laws of the land. I'm quite sure there was a reason for this. The concept of separation of church and state goes back hundreds of years. Please see the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. . This means that there must be a separation of church and state for this amendment to be upheld. Religious views cannot be allowed to creep into creation of laws for the general populace. There is not one thing in the Constitution that says we should mix church and state affairs. You might want to read

THIS as well.

Quote:

---

You want to talk about hate.how about the hate that is directed at Bush and conservatives in general.

---

Methinks you might have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

Quote:

---

Still I do not call him an *sswipe,or say the best thing for America would be his assasination.

---

And neither do we so casting aspersions might not be the best thing for you to do.

Quote:

---

Tell me the three key belives of fundamentalists.you will probaly say something like imposing ther beliefs on others,or hating gays.

---

Hmm, not those were not the things I was thinking. Facts, my dear, facts! You know what they say about making assumptions



As for the economy and your comparisons, there are a few mistakes here. Clinton was NOT the cause of all our ills, sorry to disappoint you. Our economic problems started long before him, Bush just helped them along at a roadrunner's pace. I'll post a few prevalent facts tomorrow when my eyes aren't crossing from lack of sleep. Unless GG wants to do it. She's got a head for facts that is amazing.



Night folks!

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 1/29/04 9:42 pm

[lauriebear]

Quote:

---

And why should Bush keep the deity out of his adresses.Belief in God is one of the cornerstones of who he is.Maybe you can draw a line between your faith ad everything else I won't.If my faith does not influence everything I do then why have it.Then it is just empty religion

---

Here's a question of you....I am a music teacher in a public school, would it be appropriate for me to put up "socialist forever" posters on my wall "atheism now" over my board, or what if I spoke of my left leanings throughout the classes, and only picked out music that had no religious background whatsoever?



I don't think that would go over well at all. Now before you say it's not the same thing. Let me tell you that being a liberal and being political is a very large part of who I am. I spend hours reading articles and op-eds. mostly everything that happens to me is filtered through my social conscious. So as you have your beliefs, I have mine.



Now, as I have entertained the idea of doing the aformentioned things, I would never do them, for a number of reasons. First off, I am a music teacher, not hired for my liberal beliefs. I leave that stuff at the door and DO MY JOB. no one wants to hear my political yammering in my classroom. As far as music selection goes, having deep issues with the catholic church (obvious) I would love to blot out their "little" contrabution to music, and not teach/sing it but I can't nor would I. Western music primarily developed out of the church, and not to acknowedge this is a detrement to the students. So I teach it, IT'S MY JOB.



GWB was elected to do a job. I don't want to hear about his personal beliefs in god. Not when he is acting as president. It's not appropriate. We are not a christian nation. I want him to get up there, talk about the economy, foreign relations, what he's going to do about it, and get the hell off the podium.



And I should have been more clear, I did not mean to imply that GWB spews out hate speech, I haven't heard him do that. I just meant that on his own time he CAN if he wants. my fault



I see Bush as a master manipulater, well maybe not him exactly, but the real puppet masters behind him. They manipulate the public's fear . Whether it be terrorists, WMDs or gay marriage, Bush and his cohorts will have people nervous and fearful by election time. "Make no mistake" George W. Bush will use the publics' fear of gays and gay marriage in order to get reelected in 2004. Nice guy



As far as Fundementalist go. No, I did not know their three beliefs but I was pretty close, if I had to guess. I've been working at churches since I was 14 (organist) and I really find the whole thing weird with the speaking together and communion and stuff.

[Jimmi Magnus]

Quote:

---

fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)

n.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.



often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Adherence to the theology of this movement.





fundamentalist



adj : (theology) of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism [syn: fundamentalistic] n : a supporter of fundamentalism

---

About terrorism: If you are suspected of participating in, helped plan or the likes, the 9/11 attacks, you should be charged with Murder, Conspiracy to commit murder and the likes (kidnapping and vandalism?).



Not simply shot because you are a suspect.

"What year is it?" Amber Benson

[urnofosiris]

It does not matter if Clinton was satan himself. He is not running for president now, another democrat will be and so will George Bush. It´s clear you are going to support him no matter what he says or does and that is perfectly fine of course, should he get re-elected you at least can be happy, unlike almost everyone else here. I must admit I do have a hard time understanding your unwavering support, but that is my problem.



To me it does not matter that George Bush is not saying he hates gays or that he wants them dead. I don´t know what he thinks, but such a thing would be foolish to say, even for him. I do know that he is ready willing and probably able to change the constitution to deny a specific group of people equal rights and that is bad enough for me. I won´t pat him on the back for being less hateful than other people.

Everyone should have equal rights, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. If a racial majority supports the discrimination of a racial minority that would not make it right. What exactly makes it ok for gay people to be legally discriminated? Equal rights for all and only then can we be truly free to disagree about everything else.

Quote:

---

The terrorists would find a new reason to hate us.Maybe that pesky treating woman as human beings thing or the fact T-girls like me are not taken out an stoned as soon as they are discovered.

---

Terrorists will always find a reason to hate others, I think you are right about that, but do you really believe that conquering Iraq and getting rid of this one dictator will put a stop to it? It only takes a few people to cause a great deal of death and destruction. How many terrorists do you think got killed or captured when the US invaded Iraq? Which country will be next? Libia? Syria? Iran? Northern Ireland maybe? There are terrorists there too. The US could conquer the entire world and that still would not stop terrorism. I do not pretend to have the answers as to what is the solution, but I don´t believe invading Iraq was it, eventhough I am happy Saddam got his come-uppance.



I have a really big problem with the lies that were used to justify this invasion. If it is just about freeing the Iraqi people from an evil dictator then there are a great many other countries that fall into that category. One thing I really do believe and that is that if all Saddam had ever done was execute LGBT people and had he been a sweet guy to the rest of his people, then I do not think that George Bush´s US would have invaded Iraq. Maybe some protests or economical sanctions but certainly no invasion to free the gay and trans Iraqis.

George Bush is not my friend and I am not his. I could never support anyone that would deny me equal rights. The fact that he does not want to kill me is cold comfort.



Lastly, Tabby, could you please use quotation marks when you quote another poster, or rather use the the code for quoting, if you click on quote on the left side of the box where you type your post into you can copy the part you want to quote into the window that appears. It would make your posts easier to read.

Edited by: DrG at: 1/30/04 6:36 am

[willowrulz4ever]

Funny, Hitler thought the very same thing while sending the Jews, gays, Catholics and any other enemy of the state to the gas chambers and prison camps. Politicians cannot afford to cater to this type of thinking.





I am glad you mentioned Hitler.Chamberlain tried negoiations with him.even screwed czechalavakia over to appease him.you see how well that worked.Ceding the sdtenland to Germany robbed the czechs and slavs of their most easily defended territory. You are comparing apple and oranges.hitler eliminated those who dared speek against him.Maybe if instead of appeasing him Chamberlain had sent Forces to the sudtenland to let hitler know that his territorial claims were not welcome things would have turned out different.



I would fight with everything I have to protect other peoples right to dissent.I supported the war protesters.But those who would attack this country and kill it's citizens must not be appeased but eliminated whether this means putting them behind bars or killing them.. As far as the falicy of peace through strength,if you are weak,why should an agressor bother negoiating.They can take what they want.



I do believe that anyone who would intentionaly target innocent civillians whatever the reason is no better than the klan or Eric rudolph.Osama Bin laden and david Dukes are cut from the same cloth.



you are correct,the footsolider in the terrorist originizations probaly have a genuine beef and have been misguided into believing terrorism is the only way of settling things.However,men like Osama are motivated by hate.They need no excuse to hate.





Personaly I would love to get ut of the middle east.Oil has became a drug to this nation.Like drug addicts we are willing to do anything to get it.Methane burns cleaner and is a renewable resource.I read that UPS uses methane burning engines in their vans.Wind and solar power could be used to supplement methane burning power plants.



I am sorry,I just think that negoiating with terrorists is a mistake.whether they be arab,white,foreign,domestic whatever.



I did get way out of line in my last post.I let emotion get in the way of objectivity.You are right I should not assume.I just get it from both sides.I believe in Civil liberties.I hate the patriot act,believe what two consenting adults do in their wn rooms and or homes is their buissness,am tg,am Pro-choice even though I believe abortion is murder and believe in helping the poor so I get it from conservatives.Becuase I believe in the free market,limited goverment, Peace through strength of arms and that capitalism brings the most weal with the least woe, I get it from liberals.I refused to sign a petition at church to urge a amendment to stop gay marriage and abolish abortion.I hate that potential lfes are snuffed out everyday by abortion but I would not give poor women over to the tender mercies of back alley butchers while rich women jet to Europe.I have focused my effort on working at the local crisis pregnancy center and helping women who choose to keep their babies.if all the people who march against abortion would put down their signs and volunteer at places like our Crisis pregneancy center as well as donate their money to them we could do a lt to save the unborn.I believe it is better to give women a choice than claim the life of both mother and baby when a back alley butcher botches the precedure.My friend's mother lost her lfe to one of these butchers back in the early 60's. If woman are going to have abortions,it is better that they have them safely.I was ridiculed for not be christian enough.Although my arguements were what I believe



I guess i was trying too hard to prove my case.

---

QUOTE

____________________________________________________

'It´s clear you are going to support him no matter what he says or does and that is perfectly fine of course, should he get re-elected you at least can be happy",

_________________________________________________



I do not support him.I Did not vote for him in 2000 and will not vote for him in 2004.I like some of what he stands for,hate other things.I have no problem giving credit where credit is due.I thought clinton was the worst president since Taft but he did do good.I supported the kosovo air campaign it stopped genocide.I could care less if he had an affair with Monica or not.He lied under oath.That is why I supported the impeachment.If it is found that the WMD thing was not an intelligence glitch and Bush knowingly lied to congress,also a felony,I will support his removal. He did a lot for people with disabilities.I thank him for that.



When bush does something I agree with,I say so.when he does stuff I dislike I criticize him. I agreed with the tax cuts,hate the fact that he is doing nothing to reduce the size of goverment.



I vote libertarian who believe marriage is a religous institution that the state should stay out of.I hate their stance on mental illness,but that is the only disagreement I have with their platform.



.



QUOTE

________________________________________________-

Everyone should have equal rights, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. If a racial majority supports the discrimination of a racial minority that would not make it right. What exactly makes it ok for gay people to be legally discriminated? Equal rights for all and only then can we be truly free to disagree about everything else.

____________________________________________________-



I agree.Discrimination is wrong.My point which I was admittedly not in the right mind to effectively get across is there are reasons to be against gay marriages that have nothing to do with hate.Some believe that a marriage should only be betwwen the oppisite sex.The definition of marriage as one woman and one man is important to them.They are fighting to perserve that.The thing is deciding who can or cannot get married should be up to the individual faths but the state is in the marriage buissness.I think there is a comprimise that allows them to keep marriage as a union between a man and a women and allow gays the egal rights that come with marriage.Vermont's civil union's are a step in the right direction.



When i first came out as transgendered my boss said fine i only ask that you dress as your biological gender at work.He fired an employee who constantly drew pictures of me in women's clothing raping children.We comprimised I wore gender appropriate stuff at work and he did not put up with harassment.On the TG boards I have been on I was told that.I should have forced him to allow me to gress as a women if I wanted to.Why,He simply asked that at work that I dress in a way that would not offend his cstomers and hs disrictmanager.I thought that was reasonable.I want both sides to meet half way.If we are ever going to live in harmony both sides are going to have to bend.



QOUTE

__________________________________________________



GWB was elected to do a job. I don't want to hear about his personal beliefs in god

________________________________________________-





But some do.They find it comforting that the president shares their beliefs.Bush is a politician,he tries to appeal to his support.Clinton did the same thing,only his support is not among religous fundamentalist.Every politician plays to the crowd.Exactly what Bush was doing.



Tabby

Edited by: maudmac  at: 1/30/04 6:46 pm

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

I am glad you mentioned Hitler.Chamberlain tried negoiations with him.even screwed czechalavakia over to appease him.you see how well that worked.Ceding the sdtenland to Germany robbed the czechs and slavs of their most easily defended territory.

---

First off, it's Czechoslovakia (the Slovaks will thank you for it) and Sudetenland. And Czechs are Slavs as well.

Quote:

---

Maybe if instead of appeasing him Chamberlain had sent Forces to the sudtenland to let hitler know that his territorial claims were not welcome things would have turned out different.

---

Sure, that slap on the wrist would have stopped Hitler. It's not as if he had been working towards war from the very beginning. He just didn't know that other people were maybe not so keen on Germany annexing foreign territory or he would never have done it.

Talking about apples and oranges. You do know that Germany had the most modern and powerful army in the world at that time, right? A real and present danger. While one of the few things Iraq was probably able to do to violate foreign territory was piss over the border. But that must be a very scary ability since America was quaking in its boots, so...

Quote:

---

But those who would attack this country and kill it's citizens must not be appeased but eliminated whether this means putting them behind bars or killing them..

---

So you eliminated 20000 Iraqis permanently why exactly? Oh right, you liberated them from their bodies. But seriously, these dead Iraqis surely didn't attack America. Their country didn't have the means to attack America. But thousands of Iraqis have been murdered nontheless just because they were Iraqi and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Quote:

---

As far as the falicy of peace through strength,if you are weak,why should an agressor bother negoiating.They can take what they want.

---

As Iraq has so recently experienced. And the big reason why North-Korea and Iran are trying desperately to aquire nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

I do believe that anyone who would intentionaly target innocent civillians whatever the reason is no better than the klan or Eric rudolph.

---

What do you call unnecessary war? I'd say that is very high on the targetting of innocent civilians' scale.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Ronnie (or Tabby or redleia---what do you preferred to be called here?),



I'm all for Peace Through Strength . . . I just don't equate Strength w/ Firepower (and Peace w/ a Perpetual War Machine, creating those who hate you for it, foreign and domestic!)



I am a Gandhian, and as Gandhi said "Non-violence is the weapon of the strong." It's the weak-willed bully (w/ his cowering inner child) who goes around pounding on everybody else w/ his fists (then moving on to rocks, knives, guns . . . cluster bombs).



I love whoever it was that characterized Dubya as a "dry drunk" (that's not hateful, BTW, that's just an evaluation by IIRC, another recovering alcoholic). His black/white view of the world ("w/ us or the terrorists" "the Evil Doers" "the Evil Ones"), and attempt to force every complex, nuanced situation into this dualistic paradigm (Osama? Saddam? Hey, they're both middle-aged Arab men w/ facial hair! They've both killed . . . some people, somewhere. What's the diff?) is supposed to be typical of this syndrome.



Tabby, as I've said plenty of times elsewhere on the Kitten, I'm a Christian too. I don't hate George Walker Bush---I don't hate anyone. All people are infinitely loved by God, and I try to do the same (All people, inc. both Dubya and Saddam, Amber Benson and Fred Phelps, you and me). However, I hate what Dubya has done as President of my country. I believe his policies, both foreign and domestic, have been disastrous, for Americans and the rest of the world, for us and our children and grandchildren. (Bill C. wasn't great, but he wasn't 10% as bad as Dubya). That you view things differently strikes me as, well, bizarre. But I'm not you: maybe you're benefitting economically, while I'm unemployed. Maybe you feel safer with most of the world hating the U.S., when I wonder "When/where will the Next 9/11 be, and How Bad? To me? To someone I love?"



I don't believe in American Exceptionalism. That is, I don't believe that "America never did anything bad to anyone, yet THEY want to do bad things to us." I think that people are people (sinners, in Christian terms), and tend to give as good as they get. Americans are no better and no worse than anyone else.



. . . but that's good news. Because people are people, we can come to common understandings. We can correct past mistakes (or at least make up for them in the future). Things can get better, or things can get worse . . .



GG . . . and Dubya's leading us toward the latter. Which is why I believe he should be . . . shot? NO, starting next year, he should receive a nice, cushy former-Presidential pension, down on the ranch in Crawford. And God bless him. Out

[Jimmi Magnus]

Diebrock, I have heard/read that the war in Iraq has so far cost the lives of 12.000 Iraqi military personel and 8.000 Iraqi civilians (that number is supposedly from 7,500 to 9,500). You wouldn't happen to have/know anywhere I can get some information on those numbers?



Personaly I think this war was wrong. And the way I view it is that the current American administration is guilty of the death of at least 7,500 innocent civilians. Just like Osama Bin Laden is guilty of the death of 3,000 innocent civilians.



And I really can't blame any country from wanting to get their hands on nukes. It's the only way to ensure that you won't get invaded by the US.



North Korea isn't that bad when it comes to stopping their nuclear program. ll they want is a non-agression pact between them and the US. Is that really so unreasonable a demand?



"We will stop trying to get nukes, and you can come check us all you want. All we demand in return is that you sign a piece of paper that says we won't attack each other."



Yeah, those damned N-Koreans can't make such unreasonable demands!

"What year is it?" Amber Benson

[willowrulz4ever]

QUOTE

__________________________________________________-

That you view things differently strikes me as, well, bizarre. But I'm not you: maybe you're benefitting economically, while I'm unemployed. Maybe you feel safer with most of the world hating the U.S., when I wonder "When/where will the Next 9/11 be, and How Bad? To me? To someone I love?"

_________________________________________________



No I am not one of the rich.I am a disabled thirty-one year old recovering drug addict.I do not want the world to hate us,but I feel safer trusting in our own military strength than depending on the rest of the world's good will.We are a sovereign nation and do not need anyone's permission to act as we think is necessary to defend ourselves.The world is shades of Grey,this issue is not.The terrorists are evil,we are far from perfect but i believe are intentions are noble.



Conservative financial policies help everyone.That tax cut for the rich is BS.The tax cut was across the board.High taxes discourage economic growth,low taxes encourage economic growth..I want to see a flat tax.Everyone rich,poor and in between pay the same rate.I think it is hilarious when the Hero of Chappaquiddick,

goes on about how evil it was to abolish the death penalty.His family wont be hurt by the government forcibly confiscating his wealth and using it to buy votes.They will still

have plenty.It is the middle class who will be hurt when most of what he has spent a life time building is taken by the government so Senator's on both sides can buy votes with it.







As far as Chmberlain,he thought the path to peace was appeasement.The rest of Europe did not give a damn about the Czechs.If Europe had responded when Hitler Annexed Austria maybe Hitler could have been stopped.Hitler's war machine was designed to fight an offensive war.If they would have attacked when he broke the first part of the armistice millions might not have died.If the UN had the balls to enforce it's own resolutions it would no have come to this.Saddam had forbidden missiles.We found them.Using diplomacy to deal with men like Saddam is like going Elephant hunting with a pellet gun.I am for diplomacy as long as it is from a position of strength and we are dealing with people who are trustworthy.



Nobody ever answered me.Why does Bush have to beg the UN but it was okay for Clinton to go into Kosovo.Where were the peace marches then.Bill never sought UN sanction.He acted and saved countless lives.Yes innocents did get killed but he stopped genocide.What he did in Kosovo is no different than what bush did in Iraq.



Tabby

[Jimmi Magnus]

...when you discount the Iraqi oil that will benefit a large portion of those people who helped fund Bush' campaign.



The answer to your question is that Clinton bombed Serbia to help foreign citizens. Bush invaded Iraq to help himself and further his own agenda.



The illegal missiles found were conventional weapons, and had a range of 180km. The UN accepted range for Iraqi missiles was 150km.



How was Saddams Iraq a threat to the US?



What terrorists did Saddam's Bath party have close connections with?



And lasty: When will the good citizens of the United States of America, led by a large group of their favourite entertainers/celebreties, make a large fundraising to help out the families of the 7,500 innocent Iraqi civilians, that died because the President of the United States of America decided to invade their country?

"What year is it?" Amber Benson

[maudmac]

To build on what Jimmi said...



Furthermore, when will the US government acknowledge that it has supported and sponsored terrorism itself? The School of the Americas is just one example. If you care to explore that site, you'll see how many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by people trained and supported by the US government.



There can be no argument that Saddam Hussein was/is a bad, bad man. Or that the entire world is better with Milosevic behind bars. Or that the Taliban needed to go. It's the "collateral damage" that's the problem. In the case of Iraq, it's the possibility of ulterior motives. And, just in general, it's the hypocrisy of the US pretending to be righteous in everything it does abroad, pretending to be outraged that someone, somewhere, would be so evil as to train terrorists when the US has been doing that very thing for decades.

---

go         donut           go

[darkmagicwillow]

---

I am glad you mentioned Hitler.Chamberlain tried negoiations with him.even screwed czechalavakia over to appease him.you see how well that worked.Ceding the sdtenland to Germany robbed the czechs and slavs of their most easily defended territory. You are comparing apple and oranges.hitler eliminated those who dared speek against him.Maybe if instead of appeasing him Chamberlain had sent Forces to the sudtenland to let hitler know that his territorial claims were not welcome things would have turned out different.

---

Your argument is based on a superficial understanding of history. Czechoslavakia was surrounded by hostile nations, all of whom annexed pieces of Czech territory after Hitler started to absorb the western part of the country. Chamberlain had no way to send troops.



However, there was a nation in eastern Europe which did have the power to defeat Germany, but the interventionists of Britain, France, and the U.S. had invaded that nation less than 20 years earlier, sewing lasting distrust between that nation and the Western powers. Perhaps intervention isn't always a solution to your problems, present and especially future. Nonetheless, this nation would later defeat Germany in a bloody four year war. I'm of course talking about Russia.

---

Using diplomacy to deal with men like Saddam is like going Elephant hunting with a pellet gun.I am for diplomacy as long as it is from a position of strength and we are dealing with people who are trustworthy.

---

As the invasion showed, Saddam was neither a Hitler not an elephant. He was one dictator of many, and one of the main reasons the U.S. attacked Iraq was because it knew Saddam's military was crippled and weak as a result of sanctions and weapons inspections. If you want to pick a good comparison country and ruler from the World War 2 era, try the dictator Miklos Horthy of Hungary. It's a much more accurate comparison, both in terms of the threat represented and any crimes committed.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

We are a sovereign nation and do not need anyone's permission to act as we think is necessary to defend ourselves.

---

You know what this reminds me of? The NYPD officers who shot Amadou Diallo 41 times because, after being demanded he show ID, he dangerously reached for . . . his wallet. Hey, the officers feared for their lives---they had the right to defend themselves! "Vee are de Law!"



. . . and this is why I say "Screw Sovereignty". Are there sovereign atmospheres? Are there nationally bordered oceans? Does AIDS, or SARS, or Bird Flue (and whatever's next) say "Hey, that's a sovereign boundary of a sovereign nation---can't go there!" NO, there is One Planet, with One Biosphere in which we ALL live (or don't). Sovereignty and all forms of nationalism are OBSOLETE!



But that's not what I posted about. I posted, in response to comparisons between Dubya and Bill C.: who is more corrupt, more worthy of impeachment (or why the former should be like his father, a One Termer)

Quote:

---

Robert Scheer

Creators Syndicate

01.27.04



Baghdad is Bush's blue dress

Iraq deceptions must not go unpunished





Now, can we talk of impeachment? The rueful admission by former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction or the means to create them at the time of the U.S. invasion confirms the fact that the Bush administration is complicit in arguably the greatest scandal in U.S. history. It's only because the Republicans control both houses of Congress that we hear no calls for a broad-ranging investigation of the type that led to the discovery of Monica Lewinsky's infamous blue dress.



In no previous instance of presidential malfeasance was so much at stake, both in preserving constitutional safeguards and national security. This egregious deception in leading us to war on phony intelligence overshadows those scandals based on greed, such as Teapot Dome during the Harding administration, or those aimed at political opponents, such as Watergate. And the White House continues to dig itself deeper into a hole by denying reality even as its lieutenants one by one find the courage to speak the truth.



A year after using his 2003 State of the Union address to paint Iraq's allegedly vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction as a grave threat to the U.S. and the world, Bush spent this month's State of the Union defending the war because "had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." Bush said officials were still "seeking all the facts" about Iraq's weapons programs but noted that weapons searchers had already identified "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."



Vice President Dick Cheney, in interviews with USA Today and the Los Angeles Times, echoed this fudging -- last year's "weapons" are now called "programs" -- declaring that "the jury's still out" on whether Iraq had WMDs and, "I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some fundamental flaw in our intelligence."



Yet three days after the State of the Union address, Kay quit and then began telling the world what the administration had denied since taking over the White House: That Hussein's regime was but a weak shadow of the military force it had been at the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, that he believed it had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles in place, and that the United Nations inspections and allied bombing in the '90s had been more effective at eroding the remnants of these programs than critics had thought.



"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990s. Somewhere in the mid-1990s the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. ... The Iraqis say they believed that [the U.N. inspection program] was more effective [than U.S. analysts believed], and they didn't want to get caught."



The maddening aspect of all this is that we haven't needed Kay to set the record straight. The administration's systematic abuse of the facts, including the fraudulent link of Hussein to 9/11, has been obvious for two years. That's why 23 former U.S. intelligence experts -- including several who quit in disgust -- have been willing to speak out in Robert Greenwald's shocking documentary "Uncovered." The story they tell is one of an administration that went to war for reasons that smack of empire-building, then constructed a false reality to sell it to the American people. Is that not an impeachable offense?



After all, the president misled Congress into approving his preemptive war on the grounds that our very survival as a nation was threatened by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We were told that if we hesitated, allowing the U.N. inspectors who were in Iraq to keep working, a mushroom cloud over New York, to use Condoleezza Rice's imagery, might well be our dark reward.



Now that Kay -- who, it should be remembered, once defended the war and dismissed the work of the U.N. inspectors -- has had $900 million and at least 1,200 weapons inspectors to discover what many in the CIA and elsewhere had been telling us all along, are there to be no real repercussions for such devastating official deceit?

---

www.workingforchange.com/...emid=15346



GG Do you think you can blow yourself up, if you DON'T believe your "intentions are noble"? Ergo, self-proclaimed noble intentions are worthless. History (and/or God *g*) will judge in the long run, but in the short run, mass world opinion cannot be discounted. People came out, around the world, to mourn 9/11, and many of those *exact same people* came out to protest the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. If the U.S. welcomed the former, why didn't it listen to the latter? Why is Dubya still not listening? Out



Re: Kosovo: I would never argue that Clinton's bombing campaign "brought peace." However, there was a genocide-in-progress, and I can't really object (very much) to the U.S. taking its usual "method of intervention" (i.e. w/ guns and bombs) to stop it. It's interesting to hear Dubya make a Big To-Do over the gassing of the Kurds back in '88---if his father had intervened to stop that, the world wouldn't have objected any more than they did to the Kosovo campaign.