Your Thoughts: Iraq and war.

[deesolballs]

Just as Vimy can think for himself and say/type what he feels so can 89. Vim feels passionately that President Bush is doing a less than stellar job at leading this nation. He has been spouting that Americans are ignorant, selfish, ethnocentric and greedy among other things. He thinks the President and his cabinet are incapable and has said nothing that I can recall (I may be wrong) in praise of this nation, it's people and/or it's leaders.

I find it odd that so many can sit idley by and read and allow maine (and occasionally Hitman) to be the only voice of patriotic reason. And when someone speaks up with a bit of emotion he is told to get back in line?? Damn that.Vimy may be right in that you guys are ignorant and function off of 5% of the intellect HE has been blessed with.

I say Give em' hell 89!! If you think it say it, that seems to be the recipe in this thread.

[89sxRCR]

Quote »PS I didn't really want to post anything more on this subject, but your unqualified attack on one of our nicest and more thoughtful members leaves me little choice.[/quote] "more thoughtful" as his opinon agrees with yours IT was not a unqualified atack, hes posting his anti bush **** so i post my anti vimy ****. tic for tac. and those other two nico members deserved a scolding, unless making up retarded *** stories about our president is more in line with you, fred. your entitled to your opinion for sure, so am i. Quote »If you guys flame I will lock it again[/quote] then think twice when you post garbage against my president, cuz ill flame you for it.

[PalmerWMD]

89 was by no means the only one who went too far int this thread.

both sides of this arguement are guilty of letting their emotions guide them.

Which IS why I really dont like such a highly charged political thread in here.It will just be divisive and make it haredr for many guys to form the friendships that they otherwise may have formed.

Fred...

PS: I submit this debate is not about patriotism in any way. The question was about wether war agaisnt Iraq is a good idea or not.Those who disagree with incumbents when they are preparing for conflict ,are not neccessarily unpatriotic in any way just for disagreeing.

I think we should liberate ourselves from the notion, that those in favor of war are autmatically patriots and wrapped into the flag, and those not in favor are unpatriotic.

Patriotism is the willinigness to do the harder right thing for your country rather than the easier thing for yourself.Something that I think is completely disconnected from the question wether war is a good idea or not (of course in all countries, all government preparing war have attempted to paint those that arent in favor, as unpatriotic, but we are all to sophisticated to fall for that aren't we?);)

[PalmerWMD]

Actaully I am not anti Bush at all, I think he is a great president I just respectfully ( and very strongly) disagree with him on this issue.

As for Vimy, well I hope I dont let the fact that I agree with much of what Vimy says, guide my response.

Fred...

[yashin]

89sxRCR,first off, calm down, you talk as if were making fun of your mom, second the thing about his **** was obviously a joke

now on to the real stuff,i don't really hate president bush, mostly because i know this war isn't his idea,about 3 years a thinktank called The Council on Foreign Relations released a report saying that iraq had to be dealt with,now this group is a very influential group in Washington because of the fact that many people on it are very high ranking govt. officials, so essentially what they say usually is done

Bush, holds very little real power

[89sxRCR]

Quote »Actaully I am not anti Bush at all, I think he is a great president I just respectfully ( and very strongly) disagree with him on this issue.[/quote] in contrast to vimy who has been doing nothing but attack bush and his supporters from his first posts. Again, if vimy and all the other "anti-war" crowd (but who are really just anti bush-save from fred perhaps) really wanted to avert the war, they would be calling for sadam to disarm. thats the only way this thing is going to go away.

[deesolballs]

Patritism is the willingmness to do the harder thing for your country rather than the easier thing for yourself.Some I think is completely disconected from the question war good idea or not (of course in all countries, all government preparing war have attempted to paint those that arent in favor, as unpatriotic, but we are all to sophisticated to fall for that aren't we?)

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-Function: nounDate: circa 1726: love for or devotion to one's country

What is a country?? 1) the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship2) a political state or nation or its territory3) the people of a state or district

Disagreeing with war does not make one unpatriotic but insulting leaders en masse and degrading the populace does. If you are disloyal to the leaders of a nation and to the people of that nation there isn't much left to love. Your hallmark definiton is, as usual, sugar coated and spinnable.

[AZhitman]

Bravo, Fred.

Vimy can't help it if he's misguided and a little confused - But he doesn't deserve nastiness in ANY form.

I'm actually thinking we'd be better off supplying the Kurds with military equipment and supplies and letting them take care of business. Plus, they've got a long-standing beef with Turkey, who I'm not a big fan of (although they forced my ancestors to flee to America, which is good) and they may be more successful in erasing the ridiculously-drawn Brit-imposed borders.

I wish they'd divert their attention back to KJI and his ilk in North Korea - That's a scary bunch. At least once we start hitting Iraq, they'll start surrendering, and one US soldier can handle 100 Iraqui POW's. Not so with the Koreans - They'll fight tooth and nail to the death - They hate the US more than anything.

I'm thinking the only way to correct that whole situation is to give Japan some WMD's. Yes, I said it. Stabilize the Pacific region by giving Japan nukes. Carefully consider the interplay between China, N Korea, S Korea, and Japan and I think you'll see my point.

[PalmerWMD]

Dees, I edited all the spelling before your post cameup.Disagreeing with leaders is not disloyal.remember we live in a Democracy, well a Republic at least, and disagreeing with leaders is not unpatriotic :rolleyes but part and parcel of said republic.

Fred...

[deesolballs]

Frederick, Disagreeing isn't but disrespecting is. I thought you were a military man. I am not talking solely about Pres Bush but the citizens of this nation. When you disrespect an entire nation you are not a patriot.

[PalmerWMD]

When did I disrespect the american PPL?

Fred,,

[AZhitman]

Don't make me come in there, you two.

Fred / Dees - Some thoughts on my last post, please. I value your input.

Hurry, before Vimy shows up and steals all your thunder.

[deesolballs]

I wasn't referring to you freddy.

There are those in this thread who have labeled the American people (us) ignorant, ill-informed puppets. I was referring to the author of said comments.

[WDRacing]

AZ, I must say your 100% right about the N.Korea situation, Iraq doesn't bother me in the least bit. There is going to be WAR in the Middle East forever. Their are far to many religions and cultures to exist in any mutually congruent way of life.

I'm not sure what exactly would happen if we just stayed out of Iraq. Nor will I ever find out because we aren't going to just stay out. So it doesn't really matter what anyone here thinks.

This thread breads hatred. I already have a list of people who I don't ever want to come across IRL. This thread has focused on so many different points of view it's impossible to keep things straight. Anti-American, Anti-War, Anti-Muslim it doesn't matter where you fall into place. It's in our nature to destroy ourselves. It always will be...

I just figure I might as well be on the side that is going to win.

WD

[deesolballs]

This thread breads hatred. I already have a list of people who I don't ever want to come across IRL. This thread has focused on so many different points of view it's impossible to keep things straight. Anti-American, Anti-War, Anti-Muslim it doesn't matter where you fall into place. It's in our nature to destroy ourselves. It always will be...

I just figure I might as well be on the side that is going to win.

WD

Winn-Dixie I agree with you wholly and move to have this thread locked.

This is my second time motioning to do so.

[TrueSlide]

I don't really see a problem with fellow americans making fun/disagreeing with the US or whatever(as long as they are american citizens), kind like the little brother deal, its okay for you to kick your little brothers *** and make fun of him, but if someone else thinks they can do, they better be prepared for hell cause no one messes with the family. :-/ I don't know.

[TrueSlide]

http://www.time.com/time/europ....html <--- LOL, is that for real?!?!?!

Time for all them vegans and them dirty hippies to start their own protesting war. :rolleyes

[VimyJ]

Duck and cover! Duct tape your computers! The mighty propaganda machine rolls along squashing civil liberties and fooling the people.

Who ever said I was anti war should reread the very first post I made to this obviously very emtional thread. No. I don't trust W & Co. one bit. How many W supporters are reading this thread that have ragged on Clinton at some point. Get used to it. Democracy is full of opposing viewpoints. Some don't seem to like arguments that go contrary to the party line especially when they hit to close to home.

I maintain there will be war between East and West. Democracy Vs Theocracy. However, I would much rather have a leader who tells us what he is actually doing instead of sugar coating a pile of half truths for domestic consumption. Some here wonder why the majority of the world is not eager to go kick Saddam's ***. It's because they don't buy W & Co. reasoning behind it. Think outside the box! The clues are all around you.

There has been no connection made between Saddam and Bin Laden. There is no evidence (so far) of WMD. Human rights abuses have never been used as a reason to go to war. Why isn't W taking this to congress for a declaration of war? Why is he spending money and reducing gov't income that will create a monsterous dept? Why is he against pinning Saddam into his little box and sparing the lives of soldiers and civilians alike? The Bush family has their fortune based around dealing with the middle east and especially the royal family. Why is the country of origin for so many of the 9/11 murderers an ally instead of a prime suspect? Negotiating with a rogue state that said it would turn the US into "a sea of fire" but clamouring for war against a tyrant who is pretty much contained. What's the rush? Duct tape? "Orange Alert"? Notorious conservative think tanks are giving W & Co. their marching orders and that's a good thing? Turkey gets $30 billion and we get a pack of lies.

One wag tried to suggest that I am blinded by W's shortcomings. W's shortcomings are glaring, I'll grant you that. Why, however, are so many people blind to his shortcomings? W is counting on the majority of America that is incapable of critical thought and only the meanest emotions to follow him, wrapped in the flag, to battle. A battle for what? The Bush family fortune?

The crazy talk local talk show biatch was on again tonight saying, "Look (Iraqi people), why don't you just hand over Saddam and we'll (the US) will give you your freedom." Give them their freedom? They hate that $hit. Wouldn't you? An imperial power granting you your freedom at its pleasure? The people of the US don't know what they're getting into and their gov't is being much less than candid about why the populace must sacrafice it's blood and treasure. Presenting artists renderings to justify war. Weak. Bloody weak.

[VimyJ]

Just a point of clarification. If the US wins support of the UN then a war would have some legitimacy. Gotta get some legitiamte evidence for that, though, to change the minds of the permanent members of the Security Council. However, I am totally against unilateral armed invasion based upon the flimsy circumstantial evidence presented by W & Co. to date.

Perhaps nature was giving a hint to the areas of the nation by sending them a huge blizzard to go along with the huge snow job coming from Washington, DC.

[WDRacing]

Winn-Dixie I agree with you wholly and move to have this thread locked.

This is my second time motioning to do so.

Its White Devil, not Winn Dixie. But I'll give you 10 points for being different.

WD

[AZhitman]

Vim - You've finally done it.

Your late-night post has merit... All I'd add is that this is bigger than just a President. Keep it up - You're starting to make sense.

Scary, huh?

p.s. Dees, just leave that last post alone. For humanity's sake.

[MaineExport]

I am still having a hard time understanding why the UN Security Council has its head lodged so firmly up its own posterior. They agreed and mandated that Iraq MUST FULLY DISCLOSE all of its WMD's, WMD manufacturing facilities, provide full and unhindered access to ANY site at ANY time, and actively disarm THEMSELVES. If ANY of these criteria were not met, it was to be considered a direct defiance to the UN order, and reason for the UN to take action against them.

The Glickster himself said that they have NOT been entirely cooperative, they have NOT disclosed ANYTHING (and trace evidence has been found... so excuses were then made after the fact), and full and unhindered access has NOT been allowed to all sites.

What seems to be the problem? They have not complied with the UN Security Council resolution and it is obvious they are stalling for time. Why? Maybe because they know if they get away with it for long enough... Bush will lose the support and confidence of the rest of the world. Well it is working, this a$$hole Sadam has already convinced many of the easily influenced members of our society... that WE are in fact the bad guy. I can't even believe people fall for his rubbish.

[VimyJ]

Perhaps this compromise might gain some key UN SC support.

http://www.globeandmail.com/se...ional

Tony Blair's position as British Prime Minister is not carved in stone. In the British parliamentary system a PM and government can be removed before a scheduled election by means of a "vote of nonconfidence". The British system, shared by other nations such as Canada and Australia, depends upon caucus discipline. Members of a given party must toe the party line in voting in the House. Agendas are hammered out in caucus sessions and then debated/altered and voted on in commitee and finally the full chamber along strict party lines. Should Blair's position in his Labour Party continue to erode due to lack of support, a member from his own party could break ranks and introduce a vote of nonconfidence. If enough of the ruling majority party and opposition parties have the required votes the government is dissolved through precedent and an election is called. This would be precedent setting in itself (British systems live by precedent) but, given the stakes of a hugely unpopular war, could very well happen. 70% of the British population is against the war and with Blair's party being left of center his own constituency's antiwar sentiment is probably much greater than 70%.

[AZhitman]

WOW - Interesting.

What happens in the interim (between the time of the removal of the incumbent leadership, through the election process, up to the installation of the new PM)?

[VimyJ]

WOW - Interesting.

What happens in the interim (between the time of the removal of the incumbent leadership, through the election process, up to the installation of the new PM)?

The government is continued on in a lame duck fashion until elections are held but no new ligislation is introduced. I'm a little bit hazy on the actual details but that is the gist of it. For instance, if the nonconfidence vote is about not going to war without UN sanction then that not only becomes the law but also demonstrates nonconfidence in the majority party at the same time.

The British system contrasts the US one in an important way. It was changed during the later half of the 19th century (through precedent) from the system that is familiar to US citizens. The US system operates exactly like the UK one did at the time of the revolutionary war. Members of both houses can cross party lines at anytime and this is why so much time is spent by the president lining up votes to back his legislation and is also why there is such a vast amount of lobbying by outside private parties who, in effect, buy votes for their causes (campaign donations, etc.).

Strangely enough, this was a major factor in the British loss of the 13 American colonies (there were 6 other colonies in America that didn't go for the revolution and these became Canada). The sugar lobby in late 18th century England was dead set against raising sugar taxes to support a full scale war in N. America. This is one reason why England sent Prussian mercenaries, for example. They were much cheaper to field than English regulars.

The sugar lobby had huge power back in those days. It is little known but Brits (and the Crown) made more money from one sugar island in the Carribean than from all of British N. America. This is why there wasn't a full court press on the American revulutionary war. NA was almost considered expendible. Very strange view in hindsight but that's the way it was back then when America wasn't the center of the universe.

[VimyJ]

I ran across this disturbing tidbit today.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."



Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946

[deesolballs]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm (reliability?)Same quote with a keyword having been altered in this one or Vim's.I venture to say that a peacemaker differs from a pacifist.

[AZhitman]

Vim - I snatched up your last post as you allowed for... That one opens a can that I guarantee you're not qualified (no offense) to debate (at least with me), and I can't do so in a public forum (we'd never get any work done!), so it's a goner. Keep up the good work.

I do agree with you that something Goering said WAS likely difficult to translate.

p.s. Use a capital "G" next time...

[madmax88]

killem all yea

[madmax88]

TrueSlide your cool!