Your Thoughts: Iraq and war.

[FrEaK]

My judgements ARE based on facts... i just dont feel like typeing them all out... im glad you still ove me though

[PalmerWMD]

1)The attack on the Kurdish "village" was misrepresented by Fred. It did not take place prior to Operation Desert Shield. It took place prior to, and was the cause of, a quietly executed operation called Desert Strike, in late 1996.

2)Having taken part in this operation, I can tell you with great certainty, that this attack did take place, was not the work of Iran, and was in fact a test. SH carried out this "test" to determine the Lethality of a combination of gasses, including Sarin, Vx, and other more insidious Bio agents.

3)The peaceful nation of Iran did not have anything to do with this.

Folks/ryno, please read what the numbers responds to first:

1) Massacre of Halabja March: 1988, desert Shield/Storm: 1990 and 1991 respectivly.

ryno,I am sure you are a well meaning person and all, but facts are an important thing when you have a discussion of this kind.....Especially when any google search will supply u with the right dates and you are accusing someone of "misrepresentaion".

2) The massacre of Halabja cannot have been the cause of this operation as halabja it took place 8 years earlier.As for the rest of your point #2 shooting off cruise missles and the like, does not provide one with the insights you claim to be privy to, such as about what the alleged "test" was designed to do, or that tehre was a test in the first place or when or why it happened.

Ryno I am sure you posted this in good faith but, this is the kind of stuff one posts when u listen to a guy, who's listened to a guy, who's listened to a guy who claims to have "special insight" based on rumor and conjecture.

3) Uhm, the "peaceful nation of Iran"?????. excuse my language but WTF?As I discussed in my earlier post (and I hate repeating myself so plz re-read it) it's been estavlished that cynaide agents were used in teh massacre of Halabja.Typical for Iranian forces, unheard of in the Iraqi arsenal, also iran was conducting anti-kurd operations in the area at that time as well.

There are a few more inaccuracies in your post, that I could point out, but I dont think there is a need.

Ryno, I am sure you meant well and I hope I didn't come off as too combative in this post, but youth often speaks/posts before thinking or checking facts.

Remembering the above, will help you out, later in life.

Fred...

[MaineExport]

Just to lighten the mood:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife andtwo > small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knifecomes > around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities.In > your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mereseconds > before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? > Liberal Answer: > Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does theman > look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that isinspiring > him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What aboutthe > kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knifeout > of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is itpossible > he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to killme or > would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees andhold > on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so

> confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days totry > to come to a conclusion. > Conservative Answer: > BANG! > Texan's Answer: > BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of > clip being ejected and fresh clip installed) > Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids > think?" > Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..." > BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! > Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"

[AZhitman]

Classic - Well done, Maine.

[VimyJ]

The Kurds have been fighting a losing cause since the Iranian revolution. Turkey (our NATO allies), Iran and Iraq have all been having a go at this "nation" right up to the present time. When the Ottoman Empire fell during WW1, they should have been given their own state ala Kuwait, etc. They are Muslim but fiercely independent. It is this traditional independence (they are primarily mountain people) which has brought them their woes.

The only noble and just cause for the United States of America to go to war in that area of the world would be to carve off a state for the Kurds.

Of course, that's not why W and company are rushing pell mell into armed conflict. This is a collosal land/power grab by the US. Axis of evil? How about oil. Weapons of mass destruction? How about protecting oil. War on terrorism? How about settling a personal score (W did say on camera, "The reason I want to get Saddam is because he tried to kill my dad." (I couldn't possibly make that up, too weird)). Human rights violations? How about protecting the Bush family concerns in the region. (The Bush family has been in bed with the Saudi Royal family for years.)

The US could take on N. Korea but has to be concerned about China. Nasty African states don't offer enough. Canada is too polite. But strangely enough, Mexico seems to be winning back all of it's former territory and then some.

I am convinced two things will happen if W and co. go to war. One: A theocracy will be created in the aftermath of the kaos in Iraq and this will further anti American/Western hostility; Two: The US will be bankrupt by the cost of running a dirty war and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. This reveals that the ultimate goal of Dubya, et al, is to leave a firm GOP stamp on the USA of the future.

W is working on his legacy which, in my humble opinion, is to set the US back 100 years. A ruling aristocracy (aka "Robber Barons") and proletariot (exploited workers) reminiscent of the pre socialist days of the early 20th century. I think this is wrong headed, reactionary and, frankly, scary.

Too bad he's losing it at the polls now. This wrapping himself in the flag stuff is cheapening the flag and people are beginning to wise up to it.

BTW, If we do get the conservative utopia like Mush Dimbulb and Same Inanity want, then the "knife guy" charging the family in that light hearted story will be a little different. He'll be armed with an automatic weapon and it'll be too late for the Glock equipped family bacause it would be all over before they knew what hit them. Hey, don't shoot the messenger, it was happening in the DC area just a few weeks ago. Gotta get those guns out there. Brave new world, eh?

I'm a "liberal" but I can't be stereotyped by propaganda artists like Dimbulb. For instance, I favour a strong military and think that many so called "liberal causes" are right over the top. Actually, I am the kind of person that Dimbulb hates and fears the most: a right leaning, Democratic moderate. A distinction I wear with pride.

(This post is way to long. Apologies to all.)

[RYNO_s13]

Originally posted by palmerwmd "]Folks/ryno, please read what the numbers responds to first:

1) Massacre of Halabja March: 1988, desert Shield/Storm: 1990 and 1991 respectivly. My mistake, I was referring to a seperate action entirely. However, the characterization of SH as a man who murders his own people is based on the later incident.

As for the rest of your point #2 shooting off cruise missles and the like, does not provide one with the insights you claim to be privy to, such as about what the alleged "test" was designed to do, or that tehre was a test in the first place or when or why it happened. And I mentioned Cruise Missiles where?

Ryno I am sure you posted this in good faith but, this is the kind of stuff one posts when u listen to a guy, who's listened to a guy, who's listened to a guy who claims to have "special insight" based on rumor and conjecture. nope, would have been a good point, but you made the mistake that you've pointed out to others, making assumptions without all the facts.

3) Uhm, the "peaceful nation of Iran"?????. excuse my language but WTF?As I discussed in my earlier post (and I hate repeating myself so plz re-read it) it's been estavlished that cynaide agents were used in teh massacre of Halabja.Typical for Iranian forces, unheard of in the Iraqi arsenal, also iran was conducting anti-kurd operations in the area at that time as well. Let's back WAY up. I'm not sure where you obtained the information that the Iraqi military did not have access to Cyanide. YOU could get your hands on Cyanide, but we've established that Halabja and the attack on the Kurdish settlement in '96 were obviously two seperate incidents. I still have a hard time accepting that the Halabja incident was the work of the Iranian military for a number of reasons.

There are a few more inaccuracies in your post, that I could point out, but I dont think there is a need.

Ryno, I am sure you meant well and I hope I didn't come off as too combative in this post, but youth often speaks/posts before thinking or checking facts.

Remembering the above, will help you out, later in life.

Fred... Ah, youth, that old disease. Unfortunately, misinformation is not only the providence of the young, and age unfortunately does not equal wisdom. Bewsides, the concept of a few years lending credibility to a viewpoint is flawed. I didn't feel you were too combative, as I've said before, this issue is a very tense, charged one. I would remind you, that those Spin doctors you mentioned before don't always just put out information and bias it toward one viewpoint or another. More often, Information is withheld, and termed need to know.

[PalmerWMD]

2) you were referring to desert strike, were you not?said operation was a strike with various assets such as CM, aircraft etc.

3) Yes everyone has access to cyanide, BUT the Iraqi military is not known for having used it or havign weaponized it in any quantity.Unlike the Iranian military which has both filled munitions and used it on the battlefield quite often.

Next time I make it to FLW, I will search the Chemical Corps archives, for the 1990 War college study that just about exonerated the Iraq regime on Halabja.

But then We decided to go to war with them a year later, and it was not <exactly> a heavily quoted document.....

I think you will find that pro-Iraqi spin is absent among those who make public opnion.

Fred...

[RYNO_s13]

2) you were referring to desert strike, were you not?said operation was a strike with various assets such as CM, aircraft etc. Yes, but I had little to do with the cruise missles. Big bastards though. I'd hate to have one headed my way.

3) Yes everyone has access to cyanide, BUT the Iraqi military is not known for having used it or havign weaponized it in any quantity.Unlike the Iranian military which has both filled munitions and used it on the battlefield quite often. Exactly, they have it, and have weaponized and deployed it. It just hasn't been done on a large scale.

Next time I make it to FLW, I will search the Chemical Corps archives, for the 1990 War college study that just about exonerated the Iraq regime on Halabja.

But then We decided to go to war with them a year later, and it was not <exactly> a heavily quoted document.....I'd be interested in seeling that. Like I said, I have my own reasons for distancing Iran from that incident, but I do have an open mind, no country goes long without screwing up somehow.

I think you will find that pro-Iraqi spin is absent among those who make public opnion.

Fred...

It's not Pro-Iraqi spin that concerns me. What concerns me is the systematic withholding of information. For decades, the US has made IMMENSE mistakes in foreign policy, then later attepted to rectify those mistakes with military force. You know what, let's not call them mistakes, mistakes you learn from. These have been screw ups. If you look at the similarities between US involvement in Vietnam, Iran, and Iraq, it's frightening. My well thought out (I think anyway) opinion, is that we SHOULD remove Saddam from power, as well as keeping his son out of the line of succession. Then hand the reigns over to the UN and get the Hell out of there. US involvement in the Middle East is frighteningly reminiscent of a blind man running circles in a minefield with grenades in his hands.

[christopher]

We only antagonize our alies with this war on Iraq. Same with N. Korea. Same with our war on terrorism.

Our military might is not backed by anything but money in my opinion, and that doesn't seem to be enough.

As I write this, Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is making his presentation on Iraqs disarmament. I guarantee you that tommorow night in the state of the union address, this will ne cited as an excuse for war.

On another note, I have heard that all wars somehow revolve around sexual tension, if that is so, doesn't that make Saddam the most desirable man on the planet.

LOL

[AZhitman]

THIS is exactly why I fought to have this thread re-opened. Thanks Fred, Ryno and Vimy for sharing your points of view.

All of this has been argued by more knowledgeable and probably better-equipped persons. However, lacking the participation of those persons, this is a great opportunity to elicit additional information and to speculate on how much we DON'T know. Thanks again to all of you!

p.s. Maine, I think Vimy just sniped us both - Notice he's staying JUST out of kicking range... (good one, Vimy!)

[MaineExport]

Yes, Hitman, Vimy is quite tactful.....

BTW, did anybody see the Chief Weapons Inspector's speech to the U.N. (his name eludes me right now)? The guy seemed to be a little wavering. He said Iraq had been accommodating in almost every way. He then went on to say they HADN'T been forthright and accommodating on a handful of other issues regarding inspections and the nature of questions they had asked. Furthermore, he hinted that the weapons facilities had continued to research and improve the stability, purity, and weaponization of Vx and other chemical and bio produts. The entire speech left me feling uneasy, and it is increasingly obvious that Iraq IS indeed hiding weapons and has ABSOLUTELY NOT lived up to the U.N. resolution.

[AZhitman]

...In which case the US now has few choices, none of which are appealing.

I agree wholeheartedly with whoever said this is not about our feelings towards a country or its people but rather, it is about our responsibility to rid the area of an unstable and dangerous maniac who has terrorized the middle east for far too long.

Unfortunate it has to come to this but as I have said before, with great power comes great responsibility. I only pray the objective can be accomplished with a minimum of casualties (on both sides).

If done properly, the "bankrupt US" scenario Vimy alludes to can be avoided. However, that will require some unsavory decisions to be made - Either way, someone's not going to like the outcome.

[VimyJ]

[quote=" AZhitman [BIf done properly, the "bankrupt US" scenario Vimy alludes to can be avoided. However, that will require some unsavory decisions to be made - Either way, someone's not going to like the outcome. [/quote]

This war talk is killing the markets. What unsavoury decisions? Selling both Yellowstone and Yosemite could bring in a few hundred million. And not to worry, if the Fed doesn't have money then the states will easily be able to pick up the slack. We really don't need public museums so nobody will miss them. Food inspection should go to the highest bidder. Selling the national forests would also bring in a few hundred million. Federal student aid? Don't need it.

We just have to make sure that the folks who own 100,000 shares of IBM outside of an IRA don't have to pay taxes on the dividends becuase that would stop them from buying a new fridge. Still, multi billions going out and multi billions less coming in spells bankruptcy to me.

I don't trust W & Co. as far as I could throw them.

[AZhitman]

Still, multi billions going out and multi billions less coming in spells bankruptcy to me.

Since when does war mean less $$$ coming in? War is actually good for the economy, not that I advocate it for that reason alone. It's much more complex than balancing your checkbook.

Also, I meant "unsavory decisions" referring to the decision to use force and how to go about accomplishing the objective. No need to auction Yellowstone - Besides, those trees make oxygen - and where would all the spotted owls go to live?

[VimyJ]

Since when does war mean less $$$ coming in? War is actually good for the economy, not that I advocate it for that reason alone. It's much more complex than balancing your checkbook.

Also, I meant "unsavory decisions" referring to the decision to use force and how to go about accomplishing the objective. No need to auction Yellowstone - Besides, those trees make oxygen - and where would all the spotted owls go to live?

Have you checked the stock market lately? War is bad for most economic activity. Defence related industries might stand to make some money but overall there is going to be much less in the way of capital spending which is what the economy has been suffering from already. Oil prices will go up which, while good for the oil patch, is very hard on the economy. Less economic activity means less revenue for the gov't which is ramping up expenditures to field a massive army. Then, add in substantial tax cuts for the rich which further depletes revenues. This, of course, leads to deficits and goverment borrowing. Massive borrowing means an increase in interest rates. High interest rates are very bad for the economy. High interest rates mean everybody pays more for everything, less capital spending and an additional loss of tax revenue. Less tax revenues to the fed can lead to tax increases from local and state gov't so that they can balance their books. Got to heat those schools with the now more expensive fuel and gov't borrowing costs more now because higher interest rates.

This is a slippery slope that W has us on but he doesn't care. As long as his country club buddies have enough money for their yearly dues, then that's all that matters. Who needs NASA? Let's sell CDC in Atlanta, etc., etc., etc.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by VimyJ "] Then, add in substantial tax cuts for the rich which further depletes revenues.

I let most of the argument go on the basis that it is purely opinion. I refuse to argue the point with someone who has a record of not listening to rationality. But, I can't let this nugget go. That is the most typical, spoon-fed, liberal garbage I have ever heard. Economic theory can be tossed around till the damn cows come home and we will never convince eachother of anything beyond what we already believe. The idea that the 'rich' get all these huge tax breaks is preposterous. Proportionally, they pay far more taxes than any other contributors. Corporations and share holders are the only people that get shafted coming and going by the Fed. Double taxation is a *****. It is so easy to blame them because they have money, and it's a weak argument. This is where most of the liberals get their support, by making the wealthy out to be the bad guy.... lame.

**In a nut shell.... lighten the tax burden on those that actually invest.... and they have more mone to invest with. Pretty simple theory, and a proven one. When investors have more money to invst, they do so. Stimulation.

This is a slippery slope .

Well at least you admit you logic is a tall tale. Spin us another yarn.

[hannibal]

I think some of you are missing the point of an economic stimulus package. Its intended goal is to leave more money in the hands of taxpayers, while the government essentially absorbs the loss (budget deficit).Now that we all agree on what we're trying to do, we have to decide the best method. In my opinion, that's leaving more money in the hands of those who need to spend it.It's true that all those millionaires and high income households pay large amounts in dividend taxes. But buy eliminating the "double tax", it allows them to retain their income. But what are they going to spend it on??? Buying more stock (NO, the market sucks!) or saving under the mattress for when the economy turns around.My point is that the wealthy (and those that have a lot of dividend income) aren't in a position where they need extra money. (If they did, they wouldn't have spent money buying stocks in the first place.)On the other hand, there are people in this country that can barely afford the necessities. If these people had extra money left in their pocket after paying taxes, they would still be trying to purchase their necessities. They would have to spend the money.

My point is that the stimulus plan needs to put money in the hands of people that will spend it. By giving tax breaks to lower income households, that almost guarentees the money will find its way back into the economy.I'm not against removing the dividend tax (maybe in the future), but in the current state of the economy, I believe there are better ways to push money back into the economy.

Just my thoughts...

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by IWannaS15 "] In my opinion, that's leaving more money in the hands of those who need to spend it.It's true that all those millionaires and high income households pay large amounts in dividend taxes. But buy eliminating the "double tax", it allows them to retain their income. But what are they going to spend it on??? Buying more stock (NO, the market sucks!) or saving under the mattress for when the economy turns around.

WRONG!!!! Often, the best time to buy stock is in a slow market. Certain industries have exceptional growth after a slumping economy. Also, a sure way to stimulate investing is to increase the money supply and put cash in the hands of those that spend it on investments.

My point is that the wealthy (and those that have a lot of dividend income) aren't in a position where they need extra money. (If they did, they wouldn't have spent money buying stocks in the first place.)

This is just not logical. Most of these people are wealthy BECAUSE of their investment behavior.... and would be sure to turn around and re-invest. As they say, the richest people in the world don't work for their money... their money works for them.

On the other hand, there are people in this country that can barely afford the necessities. If these people had extra money left in their pocket after paying taxes, they would still be trying to purchase their necessities. They would have to spend the money.

Those that can barely afford the necessities in life don't usually pay taxes.... if they even work at all. Also, when given a tax break they often spend it on the latest game console.... or whatever the Jones bought last year. I'm all for a tax incentive that puts them to work.... but handouts get abused.

My point is that the stimulus plan needs to put money in the hands of people that will spend it.

Agreed, but we disagree with who will spend it in a way that will help te economy.

[AZhitman]

Have you checked the stock market lately? War is bad for most economic activity. Defence related industries might stand to make some money but overall there is going to be much less in the way of capital spending which is what the economy has been suffering from already.

This is the ONLY nugget I'm going to address. I have checked the market lately (I'm $15K in the hole compared to 2 years ago.)

However, we are not at war - This downturn is related to several issues: A HUGE dent in tourism, the airline industry, the impact to big companies of creating an entirely new work force of "security-related" personnel overnight, the destruction of countless small businesses (directly or indirectly).

Ask your Econ 101 teacher about the economic impact of WWII.

We're reaping the fruits of a prior administration - Change takes time.

Of course, cutting off the flood of foreign aid to countries like NK and Iran will go a long way towards reviving the economy, as will economic incentives for the so-called "disabled" to actually work (novel, eh?) and tax breaks for those of us in the middle-to lower-middle class. Revoke some of the tax breaks for special-interest groups and fringe wackos hiding from the IRS under the umbrella of "non-profit religious organization", encourage more foreign companies to set up shop in the US by reducing tariffs for exports, and increase tariffs on imported goods (electronics, anyone?) and vehicles (Nissan/Honda/Toyota are built in the US, why aren't GM and Ford?). We could go on all day.

[VimyJ]

Maine... Maine.... Maine.... Your economic outlook is eerily similar to a rich radio entertainer who has a daily show ala Dr. Laura.

However, we should try and keep this thread on topic or we'll get benched again.

My point was that there will be huge outlays of money and less coming in. Financing wars is costly. Somebody's got to pay for this war and it should be the people the stand to benefit the most at the very least. The Stock market is still historically overvalued and what? we have to cut taxes on fat cats for so they can maximize their return on 100,000 deflated shares of AOL-TimeWarner? Too effing bad. Pay the damn taxes that enable the US to exist and thrive as a nation (Interstates are not only nice they're necessary). They should take their hit from the stock market like as effing men and not as greedy crybabies they seem to be.

To hone my point, let me say that W is embarking on a very dangerous course of which the only sure survivors will be the rich. Let the "capitalists" (I'm sure this term sounds threatening to a Dittitiot but let me say say I think "capitalism" is the best idea for spreading wealth I've heard of) pay for the war.

A tax cut for stupid investments? Right? W R O N G.

I woave a semi coherent chain of events in my prior post and except for the taxes thing you failed to criticize it. Am I t take it that you agree that that could be a possible outcome of the current state of affairs?

W is not to be trusted. However, you've got to hand it to him. He is certainly stirring up the pot right now. He was the first to really pounce on the opportunities Bin Liden created on 9/11/01. Big power grab. GOP congress, executive and conservative court. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. These are dangerous times, my friends.

[VimyJ]

The French are giving W problems? They've got problems of their own. http://www.globeandmail.com/se...gnews

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by VimyJ "]Maine... Maine.... Maine.... Your economic outlook is eerily similar to a rich radio entertainer who has a daily show ala Dr. Laura.

Hmmm.... interesting correation. And I suppose your ideas are entirely your own. We all form our own opinions in life, Vimy, based on what we read, hear, and see in our own lives or vicariously through others'. By the way, I don't listen to talk radio.

But no, I presented no "economic outlook", just a realistic view of tax cuts for the evil rich people... the gluttonous bastards that keep this economy moving. God forbid the people that ARE the stock market have an incentive to put their money into it.:rolleyes

The fact remains that they pay more in taxes than the rest of us. Putting a little extra money in the hands of the middle class is a great idea... the more the merrier. But giving investors a break is a great idea that will have a greater overall positive impact on the economy.

A tax cut for stupid investments? Right? W R O N G.

No... a tax cut to stimulate more investment activity. This helps EVERYBODY in EVERY WAY! Businesses have more investment capital... guess what... the people sucking our socialist programs dry no loger have an excuse to drain our economy... because they now have jobs and can CONTRIBUTE to our economy.

I woave a semi coherent chain of events in my prior post

The jury has already spoken on that one... the "slippery slope" argument is SEMI-coherent at absolute best.

and except for the taxes thing you failed to criticize it. Am I t take it that you agree that that could be a possible outcome of the current state of affairs?

Ummm, no. As I already mentioned in a previous post... I just hate to argue when it serves no point but to irritate and toss mud.

[VimyJ]

You must admit that the links to the Globe and Mail are pretty well rounded and objective even on a conceivably very contentious incident like the friendly fire issue. I would encourage people to broaden their information base by consulting other points of view. There is inteligent life beyond the world of popular radio talk show entertainers. Pop Poli-Sci. Catchy, eh?

[MaineExport]

I make an effort to avoid traditional media (beyond the local TV news). As for 'curent affairs' news, it's just too hard to trust the source. Even 'facts' are relative.

I like to consult history books... and I spend a lot of time with my college text books. It's amazing how much more enlightening they are when taken out of the context of a scholastic environment. It is easier to avoid the biases and motives of the author when the source is NOT media related. It is also easier to spot and dissect said motives.

[VimyJ]

I make an effort to avoid traditional media (beyond the local TV news). As for 'curent affairs' news, it's just too hard to trust the source. Even 'facts' are relative.

I like to consult history books... and I spend a lot of time with my college text books. It's amazing how much more enlightening they are when taken out of the context of a scholastic environment. It is easier to avoid the biases and motives of the author when the source is NOT media related. It is also easier to spot and dissect said motives.

Critical thinking was the greatest intellectual benefit I received at university. Many people have difficulty with the idea or, more specifically, the connotation of criticism which almost all think of as being bad or negative.

I was once very much a right winger during my college days and so decided to take a political science course. I figured that I would bash the lefties into submission with reason or fists. The Prof asked us to submit a piece of paper with selections from a list of two columns. One was plainly leftist tripe and the other was right wing topics. (I was a very impressed by Ayn Rand in those days). The assignments came back to us and to my horror I had to write a paper and presentation on any topic from the left wing column! The leftists had to do topics from the right wing one! Man, I learned a lot about the great causes of humanity and a lot about human beings. What a great way to learn critical thought. We ended up being able to separate the objective from the subjective which was great because the science courses I also took were built around the scientific theory which is all about removing subjectiveness.

I am as critical of now flailing entitlement programs that have run their course and have helped everyone they're going to help as I am about W saying that one of the reasons he wants to fight Saddam is because Saddam tried to kill his dad. Objectively speaking, however, I wouldn't trust W with the advancement of the nation and its people. No sir, no sirree, Bob.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by VimyJ "]I was once very much a right winger during my college days and so decided to take a political science course. I figured that I would bash the lefties into submission with reason or fists.

Unfortunaely they got to you before we had a chance to brainwash you for life!!!!

The Prof asked us to submit a piece of paper with selections from a list of two columns. One was plainly leftist tripe and the other was right wing topics. (I was a very impressed by Ayn Rand in those days). The assignments came back to us and to my horror I had to write a paper and presentation on any topic from the left wing column! The leftists had to do topics from the right wing one!

This is a typical exercise. I was subjected to the same one in a sociology class freshman year.... and I fell for it too. I also argued the hell out of the topic I had 'chosen'. Yes, you learn a lot that way. The best lesson for me, was to learn and understand the ideas and thought processes of the oposing view, not necessarily adopt them as my own. It's hard to argue a point if you DON'T understand both (or many) sides of the issue.

[AZhitman]

Interersting how the further this goes, the more we realize we're on the same page in many ways. When you strip away the rhetoric and the partisan posturing, the underlying objectives are eerily similar...

Vimy - Thanks for the Globe link. Interesting reading...

Originally posted by Maine: "The best lesson for me was to learn and understand the ideas and thought processes of the opposing view, not necessarily adopt them as my own."

This is how great attorneys come to be... We did a similar exercise in my pre-law courses at the U of A - Learning the oppositions' motivations, being one step ahead of their logical thought process and anticipating their next idea before it has even formulated... Serves me well in my current career.

[red240ne]

Well, I believe the State of the Union address is tonight. So we'll see how things are gonna play out. He might just repeat old news, but it'll be nice to see his side on things in front of the whole nation. Who won't be watching this one? I've been earning extra credit to watch the address since I was in 5th grade, so that means 5th grade-adults will be watching this. Careful what you say Bush.

[AZhitman]

Thanks for reminding me, Red - I don't think he's quite the brilliant orator that Reagan was, but hopefully he'll present well.

[VimyJ]

Primer for "Bush Speak" tonight.

http://www.globeandmail.com/se...1/20/

I love it when W dumbs it down for me. "You can fool some of the people all of the time."