Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Posted by Necee on 2/19/03 at 02:28 (109776)
I haven't been on the board in a few days, and was quite surprised!
Come on ya'll.........lets all lighten up.
I was very dissappointed to read that our president was called an 'idiot'.
He didn't cause this 'mess' in our government, he inherited it.
So what if he was a 'C' student, he upholds the office of President with honesty and integrity, doesn't that matter??!!. Many before us who never got an adequate education, went on to become great leaders of this wonderful country. So let the record stand for itself, we now have a strong leader, a man of faith, someone who wants whats best for this nation.
I don't mean to open a new can of worms here, or step on any toes, I just don't see any room on this board for name calling.
Re: welcome back, Necee :)Carole C in NOLA on 2/19/03 at 06:45 (109779)
Necee, welcome back to the board. You were missed! I thought maybe we had driven you off and was about to send you an e-mail to find out. I'm glad we didn't. :)
Yes, things have been pretty heated in our discussions here lately and they are just beginning to settle down a little, thank goodness. Like you, my politics and opinions tend towards the conservative point of view but we have a variety of viewpoints and opinions here and I think all have been heard. The discussion got a little blunt and hurtful but I think we are all still friends.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 08:20 (109787)
people have called politicians names since the first person ran for office. the freedom to do so is what makes this country great.
even tho civil liberties have been reduced significantly durinfg the reign of this mentally challenged, non elected supreme court appointee.
citizens can still register their repulsion towards bush in any way they please. ii'm sure this administration will soon put an end to free expression so i better sayi it before the only thing i can legally call him is king george the second.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 08:31 (109788)
furthermore , this discussion is really more about wether certain conservatives on this board will tolerate a different opinion than theirs . bashiing an ex president is fine. but bashing a current one is 'not respecting the office of the presidency.' it is hardly worth answering such hypocrisy. finally, men of faith don't start wars for profit. and, of course, these are just my opinions. some on this board would mob and kick me as they did nancy when she spoke of hers. you will notice i did not attack you , in my post.. let's see if these folks will honor the right to say opinions here or if what america is all about still eludes them.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 08:45 (109790)
as far as calling bush an idiot, far worse things have been said here about clinton. do you hear me castigating that? that is their right. as americans. i supported clinton. i stil respect the job he did and gore as well. say whatever you want about them. can't you folks get this? yes i called bush an idiot. is that name calling? i think not. if the emperor has no clothes and you say the emperor has no clothes......... well in this case the emperor has no brain.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Carole C in NOLA on 2/19/03 at 09:18 (109798)
Pala, please try to calm down.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 09:24 (109800)
i doubt that there has been a liberal who has been calm for the last two and a half years. i am enjoying stating my opinion. maybe the more so since liberal opinions are so attacked by some here.......but thank you for your conern. also, i certainly appreciate folks like you who are conservative (i think you are, hope i'm not insulting you) and yet who remain friends and caring. you are a gem.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 09:25 (109802)
that was thank you for your concern. not conern.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 09:27 (109803)
finally, i would ask some of the conservatives here to calm down.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 09:54 (109806)
Just a thought here. If you look up the number of applied for and granted wiretaps and other electronic investigations, they increased GREATLY under Clinton/Gore. You may make a correlation there, maybe not
As far as mentally challenged 'stealing' an election? I believe it was a large group of Floridians that could not properly use a ballot machine that created much of the nonsense. The liberals fought to get votes counted that were incomplete. Another interesting thing is they also fought to negate the votes of many overseas and navy service/military votes. They wanted to claim it was due to markings and late postmarks. They were trying to negate them since they felt they would vote for Bush...that is trying to steal a vote
Can you please point out a few factually based points on what exact civil liberties the 'idiot' has taken from us?
i would submit that minding your own business at work and having some insane Muslim radicals run a plane into your building and frying you like bacon is a BIG hit to your civil liberties. I am glad he is finally doing something about it. Maybe GWB needs to put on a Janitors outfit. Go on tv with a mop and bucket and list all the international mess he has to clean up left from the Clintonista regime
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Necee on 2/19/03 at 10:10 (109807)
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 10:19 (109808)
you certainly won't get any flak from me for stating your opinions in a strongly held, dramatic and interesting way and good for you for doing so without attacking me. it's a shame the more intelligent liberal here had to bow out because the previous environment was so very poisonous to liberals. all that is left is me. get it? left.
Re: To: CaroleNecee on 2/19/03 at 10:22 (109809)
I sent you an email about a week ago, did you get it? Anyway, I'll try again. I hope there are still friends here, but lately I'm beginning to wonder, words have been rude, and hurtful. I just wish opinions could be made without making attacks. All this tension is making my feet hurt!!!!
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 10:23 (109810)
hey necee, don't you think bgcped should lighten up too? or is it just liberals. i mean reallly, he expresses himself at least as strongly and colorfully and passionately and deeply and heavily as i do. how come the one liberal left here after the mobbing is supposed to lighten up.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Necee on 2/19/03 at 10:28 (109811)
Ok Pala, more attacks!
These are your words......'The more intelligent liberal'.
Come on now!
Lets all lighten up.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Necee on 2/19/03 at 10:31 (109812)
I said, 'Lets all', lighten up.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 10:32 (109813)
how on earth is that an attack? i was saying nancy is a more intelligent liberal than i am. just as i call a spade a spade in assessing the intellectual capacity of bush, so i do so towards myself. nancy,in my opinion, is more intelligent than me. what did you think i meant?
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Necee on 2/19/03 at 10:45 (109815)
Well, I took it the other way......I thought you meant liberals were more intelligent.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 10:48 (109816)
as further proof of her intellctual superioriy, she has the good sense to not get involved in discussions like this. maybe i should give up too. then everyone who thinks exactly like everyone else here can just agree with each other and think they are debating/. i think i've had it. i am accused of attacking when i say nancy is intelligent. i think that's it for me. celebrate folks. the last liberal willing to discuss things with ya has had enough.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**pala on 2/19/03 at 10:53 (109820)
oh, ok necee. these misunderstandings are common when people talk online. i must have posted what i said just as you posted what you did. happy trails.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 11:00 (109822)
Well stated. I did not continue the discussion below as it was unproductive. It does not matter how many facts are presented when you are arguing with someone who bases their views on irrational emotions, insists that name calling is justified just because someone else had done so to a president they supported. I have tried to center the discussion on facts to no avail.
Re: ******Happy trails to you too Pala****** (NM)Necee on 2/19/03 at 11:02 (109823)
Re: To: CaroleCarole C in NOLA on 2/19/03 at 11:25 (109826)
No, I didn't Necee! I must have accidently deleted it when getting rid of my spam. Thanks for trying again.
I know what you mean about the tension. It worries me that not only are we making our feet worse, but people do have strokes and heart attacks and I'd hate for this discord to result in that for anybody. I think a lot of the bad feelings would evaporate if we were all in a room talking face to face. Then we could see the pain that the others are experiencing, or have some idea of what's going on in their lives.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Sharon W on 2/19/03 at 11:28 (109827)
I for one have appreciated all the facts and links and reasonable arguments presented in these discussions by you, and by others. It is a sad thing that attempts at keeping those political discussions centered were so unsuccessful, but I do appreciate those attempts.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**JudyS on 2/19/03 at 11:50 (109830)
Sharon - this discussion was doomed from the start to not remain centered. Too much passion. I think it's a good thing that this group was not all in the same room discussing this topic face to face. Those with demanding passion would have simply out-shouted a more rational discussion.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEABGCPed on 2/19/03 at 11:54 (109831)
Lets shift gears. Can we do a poll here? Which quality do you prefer about Miller Lite. Tastes Great or Less Filling?
For any that dont drink beer pick between Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi
Re: I HAVE AN IDEABGCPed on 2/19/03 at 11:56 (109834)
Lets shift gears. Can we do a poll here? Which quality do you prefer about Miller Lite. Tastes Great or Less Filling?
For any that dont drink beer pick between Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi
Re: I HAVE AN IDEAJudyS on 2/19/03 at 11:58 (109835)
Re: I HAVE AN IDEASharon W on 2/19/03 at 12:02 (109837)
Don't like Miller Lite. (I could go for a Guinness Stout, though! :o)
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**orson on 2/19/03 at 12:10 (109838)
I have been following this board for some time, and athough I rarely join online discussions, I couldn't help but become interested in the political discourse that has been developing over the past few days. My interest isn't in the specifics of the arguments, however, but in the tone in which the argument has been conducted.
I think one of the hallmarks of conservative comment in the US these days is a mean-spiritedness from both professional commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannety (not sure about the spelling) and the average conservative Joe on the street. This meanspiritness isn't new; one of the last times I actually tried to watch or listen to Limbaugh (when he was on TV) was when he was making fun of Chelsea Clinton using a picture of her that was taken as she was sneezing. I think she was about 15 at the time. When I saw this fat, fully grown man doing this to that little girl, I suddenly wasn't interested in anything he said. Bill and Hillary put themselves onstage, so they are fair game (as, by the way, is George Bush), but what he did to Chelsea was despicable, nauseating. Unfortunately, it captures the schoolyard bully tactics that I see on Limbaugh's show, on Fox network, and to a lesser degree, from some of the conservatives on this discussion board.
Personally, I lean neither left nor right. I would probably be considered a libertarian.I am quite conservative fiscally, and if Saddam actually has weapons of mass destruction, I am in favor of going in and getting them. I didn't read these postings with an ideological prejudice, so I don't think my abhorrence is due to my political feelings, but my human ones.
Political arguments rarely sway beliefs. Our stance on issues seems to be hardwired. Conservatives view the world one way, liberals view the world the other. And both sides seem to be rather infexible in their thinking. I also used to listen to Tom Lykas (again, unsure of the spelling), from, I believe, Los Angeles. He was a liberal commentator and his opinions were as predictable as Limbaugh's.
But I think, in the end, the way political arguments are conducted can sway beliefs. I want to be on the side of the people who exhibit the most compassion and integrity in these discussions, who present their positions in good faith instead of simply trying to shore up their philosophical position in order to win. And on this discussion board, the side that has shown the most compassion and integrity has been the liberal one.
I think many liberals are indeed bleeding hearts with no concept of how the world really works. But one thing I really respect about them is that they do have a vision of how they would like the world to work, and in every version of liberal utopias I've heard of, people are treated well. Are their ideas workable? Maybe not (althought Bush's tax cut plan and its resulting deficits in the middle of a 'war' broadens the definition of what's workable and what's not), but they present a viewpoint that I find appealing. On the other hand, whenever I encounter a conservative vision of what this country should be, I am repulsed by the latent nastiness. I see the same nastiness in the faces on the so-called prolifers' picket lines; I saw the same nastiness in the Republican storming of the building in Florida during the 2000 'election.' I see the same nastines here.
The conservatives do seem to be winning. They can puff themselves up the way they did in '91 when we crushed a 4th rate army in the desert and tell themselves that they have won a great victory. But I wonder how great the victory will seem after the ugly little world they are all fighting so underhandedly for comes about. I am afraid it will not be a world founded on the principles of freedom espoused by the Founding Fathers they so frequently invoke, but instead, it will be the narrow-minded, repressive, petty little 'city on a hill' they have all been dreaming about since Reagan. They can have it.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**JudyS on 2/19/03 at 12:32 (109840)
Orson I've just gotta say that I am ashamed that we live in a time where radio talk-shows can sway public opinion so easily. I call their hosts 'mini hitlers' because they simply don't care that their mean-spirited, insulting, crass, etc. styles really can seriously affect their listeners' opinions. I apply this feeling across the board with no leaning toward any political philosophy. I just think it's abhorrent that these people can get away with their nonsense given the influence they can have over folks who may not choose to think for themselves.
Please keep in mind that these people are PAID to create controversy and literally be mean-spirited. They are no more a measurement of the majority of conservatives in our society than I am. They simply have the luxury of a wide-reaching communication device.
I disagee that the 'conservative' folks in the discussion here were the more 'mean', if you will. And I won't say that I think the 'liberals' were. I think that, as always, we get in to horrible territory when we begin to generalize.
I agree with you so much that there is too much chest-thumping based on political idealism instead of on balanced thought. Political idealism is great as far as it goes, but no specific idealism can apply all of the time and that's when balanced reasoning has to be the rule.
And, last, I think the conservatives you describe seem to be more what are perceived as far right-wingers and not necessarily the majority.
To me, the persons I would most listen to are the ones who can say, up front, let's explore all sides of this issue before making a decision.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEABev N on 2/19/03 at 14:06 (109852)
Chardonnay --- Bev
Re: I HAVE AN IDEACarole C in NOLA on 2/19/03 at 14:10 (109854)
Diet Coke would definitely qualify as less filling (particularly if the fizz is gone).
Re: notTammie on 2/19/03 at 14:49 (109859)
None of the above! To the friends that knew how much I drank in diet colas should understand how big this really is. I used to drink diet soda for breakfast and all day till I went to bed! I now drink water and apple juice with that watered down! I am looking for a replacement as my taste has changed so bad do to meds I am sure. My diet in general for food has really changed, leaving me with not much to choose from. So I am verry proud to say I no longer eat meat of any kind and no soda or booze. Lol
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 15:17 (109862)
The Rush Limbaugh show is about stirring controversy, bombast and to an extent, some shock value. Rush acknowledges that the main purpose of the show is entertainment as ooposed to political dialogue. The conservatives on this board, for the most part, have attempted to discuss the facts.
Liberals, on this board and elsewhere allow there presentation to quickly degenerate into name calling ... 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot'.... the president is 'stupid'... 'a moron'..etc. It seems to me that it is the liberals who are mean spirited.
You claim to be neither left nor right but have taken a stand squarely on the left. Stating that conservatives puffed themselves up after we 'crushed a fourth rate army in 1991' is quite mean spirited on your part but also distorts the reality of what occured. The Gulf War was not a 'conservative' war. President Bush had better than a 90% approval rating for his handling of that conflict -- numbers that could only be achieved with the approval of conservatives, moderates and liberals. There was a considerable amount of concensus both nationally and in the international community concerning that action.
You sate that you see nastiness in pro-lifers picket lines but cannot see nastiness in those who kill the fetuses or support that practice?
You are correct in that political arguments rarely sway beliefs but political discussions can. The conservatives here have tried to create a discussion but it has been the liberals, via their insistence on name calling that have turned the discussions into arguments.
Compassion? Are people who support the termination of life of the unborn compassionate? Are people who vehemently oppose and protest the removal of a mass-murdering dictator in Iraq compassionate? Were the liberal Democrats who wanted absentee ballots of our servicemen in the 2000 election thrown out but wanted to endlessly recount ballots in the counties they had the most influence in compassionate or fair? Please define the 'petty little 'city on a hill' you claim conservatives have been dreaming about since Reagan -- I know of no such dream. Most conservatives I know dream of the country of Washington, Jefferson and Adams.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 15:41 (109866)
Re: I HAVE AN IDEARichard, C.Ped on 2/19/03 at 15:54 (109868)
I am kind of a health nut..so its water, decaf iced tea (southern boy), and coffee (gotta have my coffee...drinking a cup right now) for me.
Re: EdJulie on 2/19/03 at 16:02 (109871)
I wonder why you saw 'mean-spiritedness' in Orson's post. I thought it was particularly generous-spirited and, as has already been said, a breath of fresh air.
I have read all your posts attentively since this discussion started. I have learned things from them that I did not know, but I have also observed that your position is entrenched, that you have consistently failed to acknowledge, indeed poured scorn on, every suggestion that there MAY be other means than war to solve this situation, and that your method of argument is to pick holes in the posts of others while ignoring many of the points that are made (for example, you have never responded to mine about our barbarous 'ally' Turkey, or to my query as to whether you regarded 'unity' as more important than the democratic process.
I stopped discussing with you not so much because I disagreed with you, but because you seemed to know all the answers, and I knew that I do not. The discussion began last week when I questioned a statement by another poster which that there were no hidden weapons in Iraq. My post was made in the interests of the truth: of course there are hidden weapons, and it muddies the issue to ignore that. In response to that post, and doubtless because you assumed on the basis of it that my views are in accord with yours, you paid me the compliment of telling me that I am a repository of wisdom and clear thinking on many topics, including politics, with a sound knowledge base. Now you know that our views are not the same, I expect you have changed your opinion.
But you were not entirely wrong. I've lived a long time and have done my best to learn from life and experience. Some call that wisdom, though I wouldn't myself. I can also think clearly (though I still have a long way to go on this particular issue). However, you are welcome to withdraw the compliment, which was made under an misapprehension.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEASuzanne D on 2/19/03 at 16:51 (109875)
Actually, I like milk (southern girl!), water, cranberry juice, and Pepsi. I'm trying to give up the Pepsi and have been successful about 3/4 of the time. I have never been able to cultivate a taste for diet sodas. Oh, I also like hot chocolate in the winter time.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEAwendyn on 2/19/03 at 20:48 (109918)
Like Corona and Sol, Australian Shiraz and Herbal tea
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Sharon W on 2/19/03 at 20:50 (109919)
I doubt if there are many people who would disagree with your perceptive and compassionate comments regarding young Chelsea and Rush Limbaugh's nasty remarks. But he really IS the far right, and if HE is your example for conservative thinking, then I am not surprised you have little taste for it.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEASharon W on 2/19/03 at 20:52 (109921)
MMmm... Never tasted Australian Shiraz, but I'd LIKE to...
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 21:27 (109930)
I did not respond to your statement about Turkey because I am in full agreement with you on that issue. Despite that, Turkey is a member of NATO which provides a contractural responsibility to defend its members.
Not to belabor a point, but there is a big potential difference between friends and allies -- we were allies with Joe Stalin in WW2.
Orson's characterization of the first Gulf War was unfair. Using Rush Limbaughs bombast to characterize the position and attitudes of conservatives is unfair. I used the word 'mean spirited' instead of 'unfair' because I feel that he levied that criticism incorrectly.
I don't want to keep a score card here but if you add up the invectives used by both sides I think that the 'liberals' certainly get the win.
Most importantly, our views do not have to be the same for me to consider you to be wise. I did not change my opinion. I have enormous respect for liberals such as Eugene McCarthy and have disdain for many view of conservatives such as Pat Buchanan. Some of the liberal posters appear to respect only those who support their view and even seek 'purity' and conformity. I was amazed to see Nancy question Tom Brokaw's liberal credentials when he diverged on only one issue after many years of adherence to liberal policies.
One can learn very little engaging in discussions with those with identical views and backgrounds. Again, I have to reiterate the difference between discussions and arguments. I have wonderful discussions with my liberal friends over the issues. Sure, we can question the motives and knowledge of leaders but that is very different from senseless name calling.
I do not know all the answers and neither do you. We bring here opinions based on varied information sources, our personal belief systems and backgrounds. I am always open to discuss issues on their merits, which is what you have been willing to do. Obviously, the tone of my responses will change when responding to absolutist positions, mischaracterizations or what I feel are unfair personal attacks on leaders who I respect or distortions of philosophies I respect.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 21:39 (109932)
Why do the liberals posting here always look for the most 'egregious' examples of oratory misconduct on the conservative side? The conservative posters here have not engaged in such actions despite having to fend off a constant flow of invectives and mischaracterizations from the liberals. Again -- why cannot the merits of the issues be debated without impugning the character of individuals or mischaracterizing the postions of others?
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 22:07 (109936)
ed, please see your repeated references to my one quote by tom brokaw. they are a good example of 'mischaracterizing the positions of others' you complain of here to sharon. you continue to misrepresent what i said, and even manufacture things i didn't say and don't believe. practice what you preach.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 22:16 (109939)
Your statement concerning Brokaw seemed very clear. Did you mean to say something else?
Re: PollNecee on 2/19/03 at 23:04 (109955)
I like coffee in the mornings, and iced tea with meals. I'll drink just about any diet soda, but mostly drink water with a touch of lemon.
Re: diet coke, of courseSuzanneK on 2/19/03 at 23:16 (109959)
Can't stand any Pepsi products.
Re: JAMES CARVILLE?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 23:20 (109960)
Now thats one compassionate Liberal
Re: JAMES CARVILLE?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 23:39 (109961)
Re: EdJulie on 2/20/03 at 04:10 (109968)
Thanks for your response.
I know about our contractual responsibilities to our fellow NATO members. I know too - or perhaps I should say I have strong views concerning - the responsibilities of governments towards their citizens and towards civil liberties. Turkey's human rights record should and could have been used as a lever in this situation just as it should in its bid for membership in the EU ('stop torturing your prisoners and we'll give you something you want'). That it hasn't been is a disgraceful, a sad comment on our priorities. I hope you think so too, but if you do, it wasn't apparent from the comment you made - which was pure realpolitik - in reply to mine about the US Administration's ditching of the democratic Iraqi opposition. You seemed to accept that that abandonment, in favour of a post-war government that will do the US's bidding, is ok, and inevitable given that Turkey is our NATO ally. But it isn't ok. A democratic Iraq is unlikely to come about without support for the democratic opposition. Ergo, my question was - does the US government care about about a democratic Iraq, and about the future of the Iraqi people once Saddam is gone, or only about its own interests?
It is tragic that the board has been polarised into 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. There may have been more emotion on the 'liberal' side (there has certainly been more humanity) but the more insidious remarks have been made by the 'conservatives'. That is what I have observed. This is a humanitarian issue, and Orson got it right, but you didn't see that, you only picked holes in his politics.
The few here who have tried to articulate a view that supposes there is a way other than war to oust Saddam Hussein and get rid of his weapons have been beating their heads against a brick wall. You probably don't even realise you have been doing it (though perhaps you do) but you have consistently poured scorn on their ideas. That has been distressing. It shouldn't have surprised you, or anybody, that strong emotions were aroused, and that things were said that it might have been better not to say. That's what happens, unfortunately, when people's heads start hurting. You could have understood that, but you made capital of it - you even made, yesterday, a reference to 'emotion', the word 'emotion' used pejoratively.
And if you think the 'invective' has mostly been on the 'liberal' side, go back and read BGCPed's posts.
Millions of people all over the world are desperately unhappy about the prospect of war, trying to make sense of it all, and trying, whatever their political views (I believe this situation is quite beyond politics and political loyalties) to make their voices heard against an imminent, horrific war. To make their governments listen. That's why people marched. But all you had to say about the marches were that they were 'orchestrated'.
War is terrible, and wrong. Not always wrong, but usually wrong, and always terrible. And it must, must, must always be the final option. When all other avenues and options have been tried and failed, this war may prove to be necessary. I am quite sure now that that point has not been reached and I hope it will never be reached. I wish that I could persuade you and others that by waiting, and trying, nothing will be lost.
Re: EdBGCPed on 2/20/03 at 07:30 (109977)
Well I dont recall any of my invectives being aimed at any on here. I will say that what was said was aimed at politicians here, or in the middle east. I based my comments on facts. What had me a bit fired up was to see several posts just claiming Bush was an idiot, played computer golf all day and that conservatives are mean and just want to hi-jack oil.
The comments I made about Clinton and Saddam were based on fact. I then added my perspective on the character or lack of on those individuals. I do think Bush has done some things wrong, but I am much more confident with him at the helm than Clinton.
Clinton had many years to deal with Bin Laden, Saddam, Korea and several other issues. He basically bought them off. I can make several comments to each issue but bottom line is this. Clinton was at the helm for 8 years and in every one of those cases the situation festered. All of those nations increased their supply of weapons. They also increased the level of human rights violations either against their own or others.
Bush didnt make these issues all of a sudden, He did inherit them. Thats why it is an issue now because he is DOING something about it. Clinton had 8 years of his brand of foriegn policy and look what it did? So it is easy to say well lets try something else. The fact that I use terms about those folks that may upset some is because I am upset. I am upset that women in other countries get beat for showing ankle, cant get a proper education.
I am upset because people in our country, who I value one Americans live that 20 bus loads of radical Muslims, need to be afrais, buy duct tape or be missing loved ones on holidays. We are dealing with people that are sick minded. It is not al religious for them. There is a great deal of envy against the US. Why do we need to gaurd our borders but you never hear of an American sneaking into the Middle East to escape anything or have a brighter future.
To bolster my above comment consider this. Many of the scum that flew the planes on 9-11, the people that were so strong in their belief to die AND take thousands of innocents with them were very good soldiers of Allah the night before. One got not 1 but 2 hookers in Boston. Several spent the day/night at a strip bar getting drunk and having lap dances. Three os these dirt bags lived in an apartment in Florida which a few girls claimed they wouldnt go in the pool cause these guys would stand by the fence and say nasty things and stare. What does that say to you about what drives these people?
So there are your invectives and I make no apologies for them. But what I am saying is that Americans go out of our way to get outside support and be nice when we make a war, but war is to break things and make them say uncle in a sense.
Lastly remeber when one of our Marines fell out of that chopper in Afganistan and the Taliban beat him and killed him when he was injured from the fall. We have prisoners at a base near Cuba and we are c9oncerned that a few are commiting suicide. We feed them proper food when home they would be eating crap. We give them better medical care than they have ever had. This is just a small example of what makes us different.
Re: Wow! Maybe some of these "heated" discussions will melt the snow**Sharon W on 2/20/03 at 07:43 (109979)
Actually, Dr. Ed, (and I have not declared myself on this until now) I don't consider myself 'conservative,' just 'moderate' -- I am actually in the middle, and torn both ways. I have made NO political declarations on my opinions concerning Iraq, whatsoever.
As far as negative, sweeping generalities about 'liberals' or 'conservatives' -- those kind of comments have been made on BOTH sides of this issue (although I don't remember any ever being made by YOU, which I appreciate). I've tried to argue against those sweeping generalities, and against namecalling and rudeness, because I believe those things to be inflammatory and toxic to civil discussion -- but to no avail. And for this (I think) I have been characterized by certain individuals as an arch-conservative who picks on innocent people mercilessly because they dare to express their political beliefs, wants to 'impose' censorship, and is driven into a rage by the awareness that they have freedom of speech at all!
Re: Edpala on 2/20/03 at 08:17 (109982)
julie, thank you for this well written and perceptive post. you are a repository of wisom and said some of the things i have tried to say, but with calm and patience and much better writing skills besides.
maybe some here will recall that my most fevered posts were in response to what was done and said to the two nancies. admittedly not the best way to respond, but i will fly in the face of any bully to defend those who did nothing to provoke it. and if the bullies turn on me instead and then i am the 'culprit' it's okay with me, because i cannot be silenced or driven fromt this board, as perhapse the more sensitive people can. (not that the nancies asked for or needed help from me, it is just my natural inclination to do this. )
but with voices of reason posting here like you and nancy i can relax and get back to the real me. : funny, cynical, and just having fun here.....i hope.
if there is anything i fervently wish it is that we could go back to the support board we were before , before..... i can't describe what has been done here without speaking my blunt way and starting it again. let's see . before.......help me here oh wise one.
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/20/03 at 08:46 (109984)
All good points. No need to apologize for telling the truth. You are sticking with statements of fact, and the facts clarify where the fault lies.
Re: I HAVE AN IDEARichard, C.Ped on 2/20/03 at 08:57 (109985)
Oh yeah suzanne...milk...love the milk ya'll.
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/20/03 at 09:07 (109989)
BGs tone may sound less conciliatory but he has been factual in his remarks which is not quite the same as some of the wanton name calling from the other side.
Turkey joined NATO decades ago and constitiuted the southern defensive flank against the Soviets. For the benefit of other readers here who were not born at the time of the Cuban missle crisis, one of the issues that did not recieve a lot of press at that time was that the US had intermediate range ballistic missles based in Turkey and aimed at the Soviets. The placement of Soviet missles in Cuba was. presumably, a tit for tat. Kennedy responded with a military blockade of Cuba, challenging the Soviet fleet and bringing us close to the brink of nuclear war. The Soviets backed off, removing the missles from Cuba and Kennedy was granted a 'victory' in public opinion. The item not readily discussed was that Kennedy agreed to remove our missles from Turkey.
I do not think anyone knows how to structure a government in post-war Iraq that is functional yet completely fair. That is an oft discussed dilemna. The more allies we have the more sides we will need to compromise with in that area. Like Turkey or not, we will have to reach some compromise with them or face future hostility against the new Iraqi regime.
Many have pointed out retrospectively, that Bush senior should have 'finished the job' in 1991 and removed Saddam from power. We would not be in the current dilemna if he had done so. That is probably true but some forget that we had allies back then whom we had promised that we would not go further than defending Kuwait. There are advantages and disadvantages to having allies in such a military campaign. As such, the current situation of a lack of international support in the war effort may not be such a negative thing when one considers the restraints we had in 1991. Turkey, recently, refused to cooperate with the US after demanding tens of billions in additional foreign aid to essentially 'buy' their cooperation. Bush went quite far along those lines but not enough for Turkey. If Turkey is out of the picture in the new war, if it occurs, the post-Saddam government may take on a different composition.
Re: PaulaJulie on 2/20/03 at 09:13 (109992)
Righto, Paula. The Wise Old Woman of the Board has come to help, as requested :)
Don't worry about this social board. These fracases (if that's the correct plural) have happened before, and they will happen again. They've always blown over eventually, and so will this one. It's a great shame it happened, because the question at issue was and is too important to get lost - as it mostly has - in the furor of the last couple of days. But the support and fun are there, just waiting to bob up, and they'll bob up soon. So just relax, hang in there, and wait and see.
You certainly defended Nancy and Nancy with all guns blazing, and I admire your stance against bullying, of which I too think there was some. But when discussions heat up, it's probably not too useful to cheer the folks whose posts one agrees with (that can be maddening - understandably - to those to whom such posts were addressed) or to leap to the defense of friends who may have been less-than-politely spoken to. It only fans the flames, and makes it harder to sustain reasoned exchange of views.
That wasn't a criticism: it was really meant to be helpful! (Suzanne would have said it more kindly - but I do mean it kindly.)
So speaks the Wise Old Woman.
All the best,
Re: Paulapala on 2/20/03 at 09:22 (109996)
you may be right in some cases julie. i'm willing to back down a little and see. but in some cases conciliation inflame even more: in fact that is a darn good way to flush out how much of this is politics and how much is pure bullying with politics as an , albiet unconscous, ruse and delivery system for the nastiness.
i say this because of my experience in santa cruz, the most radical city in america. politics were discussed at decibal level all the live long day and i learned a lot about the nasties on the left and the nasties on the right. i came to the conclusion that the exact same motivation was creating the nastiness and since i do lean left, that was an interesting insight.
more about the motivation if it proves to be needed here. or if anyone is interested in my take on it , this situation aside.
Re: EdJulie on 2/20/03 at 10:05 (110007)
Thank you for filling us in on the historical background to the Turkey situation. (Turkey looks like being a great big stumbling block right now, and I can't say I'm sorry about that: the paper this morning says the timetable seems to be unravelling.)
Implicit in your comment on the structuring of the post-war government of Iraq is the assumption that it is up to the US, or to anyone but the Iraqis themselves, to structure it. Of course if there is a war there will be a responsibility afterwards. And of course I'm somewhat aware of the immense difficulties that lie in the way of - let's call it, in a hopeful spirit, post-Saddam rather than post-war - stability, and I don't know what the solution(s) might be. But one thing I feel fairly sure of is that a military government put in place by the US (I know you don't like the term 'puppet') would not be much help to the Iraqi people. It would, of course, be useful to US interests. So I ask again: is the Bush government genuinely concerned for the well-being of the Iraqi people? I have to say that at this point I doubt it. It remains to be seen.
When you say 'the current situation of a lack of international support in the war effort may not be such a negative thing when one considers the restraints we had in 1991' do you mean that it would be better if the US could do, unilaterally, whatever it wants to do in Iraq, and perhaps anywhere else in the world where its interests are threatened? I believe you are mistaken if you think such a stance will ultimately be for the good of the American people, or any other people. The world is a very small place now. If its countries and rulers and leaders and people cannot learn to co-operate and co-exist without the one remaining resource-hungry superpower bullying everyone else, we are all sunk. And please don't tell me that is a simplification of the world situation and point out all the complexities and ramifications I have neglected to mention: I know, but it is the bottom line as I see it. And it terrifies me.
But the Bush administration seems to agree with you. I am slowly coming to the view (reluctantly, because at first I felt it was too cynical even for me) that in the wake of the attacks of September 11 Bush and his close advisors decided that there was now carte blanche to do whatever they chose to do in the pursuit of US supremacy and domination in the world, and could carry their appalled, traumatised citizenry with them. The consequences of such conviction, if acted upon, will - I think - be devastating for us all, not least in the form of the fatal weakening of the UN, and of increased terrorism.
Re: PaulaJulie on 2/20/03 at 10:15 (110009)
There's a difference between a face-to-face political discussion in Santa Cruz or anywhere else, and a discussion on an internet board. It's terribly hard to keep the latter from escalating and degenerating, and the casualty - apart from sore heads and wounded feelings - is always the issue itself. I've seen it happen time and again, and it always follows the same pattern. You don't have to believe me or agree with me, but that's how I see it.
I would like to know about your views on motivation, but it might be better to do this by email. In case you don't have my address, it's juliefried @ clara. co. uk. (Without the spaces. I once made the mistake of putting it in correctly and now receive daily emails about penis enlargement and various other unsavouries.)
Re: Paulapala on 2/20/03 at 10:25 (110015)
i hope you are right, actaully. i'll wait and see. thanks for your e mail. it might be better to discuss this by e mail, as you say, but on the other hand , if this unpleasantness does blow over it would be nice to think that this would be a safe environment for me to actually state an opinion. thank you for the interest in my ideas. one way or the other i'll be interested in telling them to you and getting your feedback.
Re: EdSharon W on 2/20/03 at 10:44 (110018)
A comment on the US pullout in 91 without attacking Baghdad and without(perhaps) 'getting rid of' Saddam:
You are correct that several of the US allies were insisting that our country back down. So were a large number of Democrats in congress, with the apparent backing of the media in the US and in most of the world. I think is in unfair for some of those same groups who demanded that the US leave Iraq without taking Baghdad THEN, to turn around and say NOW, 'This problem is the fault of the US anyway, because they didn't 'get rid of' Saddam back then!!
Even so, I really don't think the opposition of those groups to invading Baghdad in '91 would have carried the day and gotten the US to retreat if it hadn't been for Gorbachov (remember the cold war?) demanding an immediate audience with Bush Sr. (they met the afternoon before the pullout was declared). I have no idea what Gorbachov may have said or treatened to do, but I do think that meeting prompted the pullout from Iraq the following morning.
Re: PollSharon W on 2/20/03 at 10:51 (110020)
Mmm... yeah, beer is once in a blue moon for me, a treat -- but COFFEE, I LOVE! I am a real addict.
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 11:08 (110024)
I clearly remember the Iraq situation in 91. After there defeat there was absolutely no support to go to Bagdad either from the media or Congress. The mission at that time was not to capture Iraq or go to Bagdad but to expell the Iraquis from Kuwait. In hindsight we should have moved on but with the expected casualities their was no stomach for it from the public or Congress. Once again in hindsight public opinion, the congress, and the media had it wrong else we would not be facing Saddam today. We also had most of the Mid East wanting us to stop short of Bagdad.
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/20/03 at 11:12 (110025)
Your concern about the consequences of unilateral action is well taken. That issue is certainly a 'double edged sword.' Unilateral action allows a greater degree of freedom of action since a concensus is not requested.
Israel was summarily condemned by the UN, the US included, when it took unilateral action to bomb and destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak.
We are sighing collective relief now due to Israel's action. My impression is that the 'damage' caused by our unilateral action will not be permanent.
We are in a de facto state of war now. The actual potential attack or invasion is the issue. It seems likely to happen but our current position is one of brinkmanship -- take things to the edge, raising the levels of tension to the maximum in order to achieve a solution. The tension that the brinkmanship strategy creates is considerable and is in large part reflected in the fears of the public and the level of tension present in discussing this issue.
Re: Paulanancy s. on 2/20/03 at 11:19 (110027)
good afternoon, everyone. (well, it's afternoon here.)
i must point out, julie, that the acronym for 'Wise Old Woman' of the board is WOW. you'll hate this, of course, but i think it fits.
Re: Ednancy s. on 2/20/03 at 11:30 (110028)
the consequences of unilateral action on the part of israel may or may not be similar to the consequences of the greater unilateral action the u.s. is now contemplating/planning. certainly the stakes are much higher now, and the global opinions are much stronger.
whether it worked in one instance seems irrelevant to me. as a mode of operating within (or should i say 'without') the world community, unilateral war/invasion is and will remain a dangerous road and further establish precedents that we will all likely suffer from.
Re: Paulapala on 2/20/03 at 11:31 (110029)
Re: WOWSharon W on 2/20/03 at 11:38 (110030)
That does indeed fit Julie. :o)
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 11:42 (110032)
'The U.S. is in pursuit of U.S. Supremecy and domination of the world and carry their appaled traumatised citenry with them' I do not think I have ever heard a U.S. citizen echo such a desire and think that is much overstated to say the least. This country gives more economic aid to other nations than the rest of the world combined and it is not out of a desire to dominate the world, which is a cynical view. Is it hard to believe we do it for humanitarian reasons?. Since about 70% of our citizenery support the President on the handling of Iraq then most of our citizens are hardly appaled.How can you make a statement like that about America and not even mention the butcher that has killed a million of his own people, authorizes the rape of women as punshiment, and removes the tounges of his citizens that speak against him. Increased terrriorism can be expected regardless of what we do the only differece being the next 9/11 just might be a suitcase atomic weapon. 9/11 happened here not in Europe and we are indeed at war with all terriorist where ever they are. Did we try to dominate the world when we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan or dominate Japan after their defeat? Hardly! They are now economically strong democracies. Are we dominating Kosovo? Did we dominate Panama after removing the dictataor Noriega? We returned the Panama Canal to them which is hardly what a country intent on dominating the world would do. We just pledged billions to fight AIDs in Africa. What has that to do with dominating the world? We helped stopped the fighting in Norther Ireland. Our perservance brought down the Iron curtain and freed eastern Europe now Eastern Europe who has a clear memory of tyrants stands with us. I am really sick of people kicking America in particular the ungrateful French and Germans. The U.N. has been totally ineffective in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq which have been in place since the end of the Gulf War. Saddam even kicked the inspectors out. Only the U.S. and England have been resolute in attempting to enforce these resolutions and they will indeed become nothing more than a debating society if they cannot enforce their own resolutions. If someone thinks we are trying to 'dominate' the world then they are not really in touch with who we are as a people. Our biggest problem seems to be we are the richest nation and the world and a military superpower That is not a popular position to be in with the rest of the world. We have faults but wanting to dominate the world is not one of them...
Re: Paulanancy s. on 2/20/03 at 11:44 (110033)
howdy, paula. are we well rested and ready to resume and learn from what passes for normal life these days? i am not well rested, truth be told. i was up most of the night thinking. i was also up because our wise old dearly beloved cat Moose is dying.
Re: Paulapala on 2/20/03 at 11:56 (110037)
i too spent some time thinking. i would be intereestd in what that thinking generated at your end.
i understand what it means to lose a feline member of the family. it is very difficult.
would you like to talk about moose here? would it help? either now or at a later time i would love to hear all about your good friend.
Re: WOWnancy s. on 2/20/03 at 12:00 (110039)
i really did think we agreed on at least one thing, sharon (here it is), and also suspected there is more -- maybe not politically, but certainly in other aspects of life. thanks for this reminder!
Re: Paulapala on 2/20/03 at 12:04 (110041)
well it is time for me to jump in my warm pool and float around and finsh reading 'hawaii' by michener. aloha
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/20/03 at 12:06 (110042)
Our coalition had quite a few countries at that time including many of the Arab states, even Syria. The thought was that we would be violating their trust if we made the decision to move on to Baghdad. In retrospect, we have to ask if we would have been better off doing it alone which would have allowed us to have finished the job back then.
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 12:08 (110043)
Our mere presence in the mid east with a large force is the one act that might avert war. Saddam understands power and with people like him talk and debate means nothing. The French and German positions have given Saddam reasons to continue to thwart the inspectors. My personal view is that if the U.N. lined up solidly against Irag and issued a deadline then war could be averted. Next week the U.S. and England will introduce a resolution to the U.N. Hans Blix is expected to request Saddam to destroy some of the missiles they have discovered. This will be interesting to see what Saddam does. When it comes to a vote by the Council with China,Russia,Germany, and France having veto power it is hard to imagine we could get any resolution passed..
Re: Paulanancy s. on 2/20/03 at 12:21 (110046)
i thank you, very much. the outcome isn't clear -- though almost clear -- and i'll wait for that. thank you again.
Re: WOWSharon W on 2/20/03 at 12:31 (110048)
I know and understand the pain of knowing you may lose a loved one, too, whether it is a beloved pet or a family member. I hope Moose will pull through.
Re: WOWnancy s. on 2/20/03 at 12:35 (110049)
thank you too, sharon.
Re: WOWSharon W on 2/20/03 at 12:37 (110050)
Actually, I thought we had also agreed that there are many 'shades of grey' between liberal and conservative, and that it would be very difficult to find two people on the street who defined these terms in the same way.
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/20/03 at 14:55 (110069)
Considering the history you have brought forth I really have a hard time with those who are questioning our motives in this conflict. Obviously, we are not pure and there will always be certain underlying economic motives but we have demonstrated over and over, our willingness to sacrifice our people and resources for the common good. I am all for free speech but have to wonder about what motivates certain individuals to take such a negative of our intentions.
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 15:42 (110081)
Dr. Ed it would seem clear that we should have gone on to Bagdad but at the time we really do not know how the rest of the Arab nations might have responded. I clearly remember the media being very critical of any move that might be made on Bagdad. Of all the major powers I think we are the only nation that has never had an empire or were governed nations beyond our borders. Our friends the French were very much a cononial power and the beginings of what become the Viet Nam war begin at Dien Bin Phu when the French were overrun by I think Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnamese people very much resented any foreign power in their country as a result of the French occupation. The English Empire was spread the world over. Germany hoped to conquer all of Europe and Russia including England which withstood the mass bombings over and over. As a people we have never been empire builders. It is not in our nature. The closest thing to empire building you might say would be in our westward expansion when the country was in its infancy. We fought with Mexico over land but once we reached the west coast our nation has been more than reluctant to expand. We at many times in our history have been isolationist and tried to avoid any entanglements in Europe of which there have been numerous. Modern technology with ICBM's and space machines have made it impossible not to be involved if you hope to survive. The Arab nations have an old quote they ofent use that goes something like this 'the enemy of my friend is my enemy'. As long as terriorism exist in the middle east there will be no peace with Islam and the Jews and we are friends with the Jews and bound to defend them. .
Re: EdBGCPed on 2/20/03 at 16:20 (110088)
Well said John. If I may ad we didnt 'take' oil rights after we chased Saddam out of Kuwait either. ANY other country would feast on the spoils of war. We rebuild, appologize to and feed them after we beat them.
Re: EdSharon W on 2/20/03 at 16:22 (110090)
Good point about the history of colonialism; we really do not have that background, as many of the other powerful nations do.
The subject of what will be done in Iraq AFTER we win the war has been brought up, recently, and I wondered what your take is on that? With your military background, I'm sure you understand better than I do what would be involved in helping them to establish a new, stable government after so long under the control of an iron-fist dictator like Saddam. Extreme dictatorships do tend to stifle initiative and independent thought, leaving a leadership vacuum in their wake once they are finally somehow deposed. I would imagine that, after all this time, most of the other people in Iraq with leadership potential have either been broken by that iron fist or have been driven from the country. Am I wrong?
Re: PaulaJulie on 2/20/03 at 17:02 (110097)
Good evening, Nancy (here). I don't hate it.
Actually, the acronym for Wise Old Woman of the Board is WOWOB, which, backwards, is BOWOW, which happens to be the first word I ever spoke, at the age of 9 months.
(In answer to the question 'what does the doggie say?' )
According to my mother, may she rest in peace.
Re: WOWnancy s. on 2/20/03 at 17:05 (110098)
you're right, sharon; we did agree on those things. forgive me, i'm a bit muddled today. i figured this out when i personally wrote an email to phil's sister this morning and signed it 'love from me and nancy.'
Re: EdCarole C in NOLA on 2/20/03 at 17:09 (110100)
Thanks, John, for saying what so many of us are thinking, in a way that hopefully won't fan the fires.
Re: JohnJulie on 2/20/03 at 17:13 (110103)
My reference to the 'appalled' citizenry was to the state of mind of people after 9/11, not, as you thought, to the state of mind now. I know a large percentage of Americans are behind the President. Most of the rest of the world is not, and it is not out of 'ingratitude', but out of deep dismay at the plans for war.
I didn't mention Saddam Hussein because I was not talking about Saddam Hussein and because I have made it quite clear what I feel about the butcher who kills his own people and invades his neighbours when he feels like it.
I'm not 'kicking America' (if that referred to me). And France and Germany aren't 'ungrateful'. The leaders of those nations disagre with George Bush's plans for reasons of their own. Chirac can't help being French (i.e. Gaullist), and remember that Schroder only narrowly kept his job by mounting an anti-war campaign. The people of those nations seem genuinely to detest the idea of war. That is not ingratitude. It's lots of things, but it's not ingratitude.
Re: Paulanancy s. on 2/20/03 at 17:37 (110111)
well all these acronyms fit you, then, julie! it was meant to be. i'll probably stick to WOW, if you don't mind.
Re: WOWSharon W on 2/20/03 at 17:37 (110112)
I actually think you and I are not so far apart on the political spectrumn as you think. You commented that you would vote for a candiate from the 'other' party if you liked their views, and so would I. I think both of us are probably 'shades of grey,' not completely devoted to either political extreme. My reticence to post my own political beliefs (or even to say whether I consider myself liberal, moderate, or conservative) has, I think, led a lot of people to make their own assumptions.
But politics should never be the measure of what a person is, at least not in a free society like ours. My dear sister who passed away recently was as close to being a 'dyed in the wool' liberal as they come -- she really was -- yet in other ways we were like two peas in a pod. And we were best friends. Occasionally we discussed (or argued, sometimes) politics but usually we didn't. (Politics is, after all, only ONE part of a person's life, and most of the time it was a very SMALL part of our lives, at that.)
But of course, these are NOT ordinary times, and it looks like the whole WORLD is all fired up right now about the (probably) upcoming war. Emotions are high, and it is easy to get a bit carried away while defending our positions. That is true WHATEVER political position you are trying to defend.
Re: PaulaJulie on 2/20/03 at 17:50 (110118)
OK then, Nancy. WOW it is. Wacky old Waffler, maybe.
I crashed just after making that post. I've just got back on line and want to say how sorry I am about Moose! I hope he will all right.
Oops - just got disconnected again. I hope I can reconnect and post this.
Here goes. Good night. I hope you'll sleep better tonight.
Re: WOWnancy s. on 2/20/03 at 18:09 (110123)
much food for thought here, sharon, and i agree with many things you wrote. my own main disappointment over the political discussions here during the past week is that the focus has been so exclusively, well, political. i think we have a human problem on our hands, a worldwide problem -- in fact a world-survival problem -- that goes far beyond who we tend to vote for or what country did something to or for another country in the past. i haven't seen much willingness here in the past week to look at a bigger picture -- i guess it's the 'forest/trees' thing. but as you say, emotions are high right now and a lot of us are, naturally, frightened by the direction we're taking, especially if it's a direction one thinks is wrong but can do next to nothing about.
even if you and your sister HAD differed greatly on politics, it's interesting how much more there is to bond two people, isn't it? my sister and i have almost always agreed politically, but we're extremely diffferent in many other ways -- yet we too are best friends, talk about anything and everything, and are each other's biggest fan and confidante. when you lost your sister, it inspired and reminded me to tell my sister again how very much she means to me. (she's still trying to pull herself together from it, bless her heart.)
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 18:42 (110126)
From all the early reporting of what might happen after a war it seems clear that probably an American General would probably be in charge for a short time.with swift movement towards control by the Iraqi people. That would be tricky because like in Afganistan there are various groups in Iraq that do not care much for each other and all need to be brought into a government. The structure for a government exist in Iraq which it did not in Afganistan. The U.S. in many of the reports I read would like for other countries to join in quickly to help restore some form of government. From all intelligence reports Saddam has already mined his oil fields with explosives to set them on fire which will present a problem for all Iraq. The U.S. plans do not include destroying the infrastucture such as bridges to only have to rebuild them again. As best as possible targets have been selected to minimize civilian casualities but it appears Saddam will place women and children in key installations using them as human shields. The main Iraqui army is expected to give up almost immediately. They have no Air Force and have already made their runways unusable. Their tanks are no match for the Abrahams tank which can stand off 20 miles and shoot them with radar and heat missisles. Apacahe helicopters can dispatch any tanks. It is expected that Saddam will retreat into a small area of Bagdad with the Republican Guard trying to force Americans into a house to house battle which will insure casualities. His thoughts are we will not accept casualities. The public may not have the stomach for casualities but let me assure you from someone who has been in combat our forces are willing to pay the price and will do what ever it takes. This is an all volunteer force and they have been training day to day in house to house battle. The wild card here is will Saddam use weapons of mass destruction? The top most Iraqui General defected some years ago to some country which may be the Netherlands. He has said he is in touch daily with sources in the military under Saddam and that there may be a coup rather quickly once the fighting starts. He does not think Saddam has any nuclear capability but more than likely would use biologial weapons such as Anthrax,Smallpox,etc. There is no doubt about the outcome of this war.
It is expected that some 10.000 precision missisles will be launched at key targets. They are accurate to within a few feet however you can expect about a 10% failure rate on the guidance systems so there will be collataral damage (civilian casualities). We posses weapons that will probably be used for the first time ever. One such weapon can knock out all communications,computers,telephones,etc by sending out high energy. This wll not hurt people but immediately Iraq will lose all command and control capability. Some of intelligence thinks many of the Iraq's commanding officers may not follow Saddams orders to blow up and set fire to his oil such as he did in Kuwait. There has beem a massive psychological campagine going on for months advising any Iraqui soldier who uses weapons of mass destruction will be tried for war crimes. Special Ops people are on the ground and have been on the ground for some time in Iraq. It is unkown if Saddam will run or fight to his death. Recently it has been reported that Iran will give him sancturary but Iran says no way. As you remember Saddam gassed the Iranians in their war. Iraq owes Russia billions of dollars as it does France so they have a dog in this fight. If fighting does occur I would not be supprised to see some countries change their position as they would be shut out after the war is over. The U.S. has no intention of using Iraqui oil for their personal use, It will become a resource of the Iraqui people. It will take American resources to help rebuild the fields if Saddam blows them up. Iraq is the second largest producer of oil behind Saudi Arabia so if tose resources are used for the good of the people with some sort of democratic system in place the quality of life of the people should be greatly improved over the long run. Remember that in that part of the world there is only one Democracy and that is Israel. Most of the oil wealth benefits only a few. The biggest problems I see is to bring the various factions in Iraq together to form a government as some are bitter enemys. Strange but it seems Dictatorships with their harsh cruel ways do not have to deal with this sort of problem. There are no Liberals,Conservatives,Democrats or Republicans in Iraq. Here is a supprise for you the well spoken rep to the U.N from Iraq (Tarik ?) is a catholic. Iraq unlike Iran is not run by the clergy. Bagdag has about 6 million people and is very widely spread out.
As I said it is expected Saddam would be expected to defend himself in only a small portion of the city and to try and inflict maximum casualities because he does not think we have the stomach for this kind of war. I would remind Saddam we took over a million casualities in Europe, 57,000 in Korea and 58,000 in Vietnam. When necessary people of all generations of Americans have stepped up when the bell rang and they did not run. We have some courageous young men and women sitting in the desert and ready to go. they will not fail us if called upon. War may still be avoided but it is up to Saddam. It is very simple just come clean and show the inspectors where what ever weapons he has are hidden or prove they were destroyed. We know they were there because we saw them when our last inspectors were kicked out. If he does not want war and he can stop it on a dime and everyone will be happy and no one more so than our military men and women. Our military men and women as have nearly all do stand solidly behind their Commander in Chief not because he is a Republican or Democrat but because he is the Commander in Chief and that is what military people do. Politics cannot be found on the battle field..
Re: Edjohn h on 2/20/03 at 19:01 (110129)
We really have the capability to cut back greatly on our use of oil Ed. The price of gas in Europe has always been several times higher than ours which discourages the use of gas. We are really bad about running gas guzzlers and always have been. $3 per gallon gas is probably not uncommon in Europe. Julie can probably tell us but when I was there small cars and diseles were the order of the day. The biggest selling vehicle in my state and I think Texas also is the pickup truck. Certainly farmers need these but a lot of my friends do not know what a farm looks like and drive 8 cylinder gas guzzler trucks and have a Lexus sitting in the driveway.. Our GM SUV's are as big as a small bus. I like the Presidents ideas on starting now with alternative fuels. It will take some years to develop but you have to start somewhere. Fossile fuel as we all know will eventually run out. I see gas prices have reached $2.00 a gallon at some places in CA. When you fill up that 35 gallon tank now a days the price makes you think. I remember buying gas in Wichita in the 60's for $.15 a gallon during the gas wars. In the 70's diesel could be bought for $.03 a gallon. A big rig tractor trailer typically carries either 300 gallons or 230 gallons and probably are getting on the order of 7 mpg. This now brings back the war years when gas was rationed. Seems like the typical family got about 20 gallons a month. Hey tires and butter were also rationed come to think of it. Can you imagine telling our public now they can only have 20 gallons per month per family. You would see some real demonstrations..
Re: WOWSharon W on 2/20/03 at 19:26 (110131)
I'm glad you did that, telling your own sister how much she means to you. It is never redundant to actually TELL those special people in your life how much they mean to you. The last time I actually got to speak to my sister, I didn't KNOW it would be the last time. She'd had liver surgery, half of it taken out, and there had been some problems the first 24 hours post-op but things had been going reasonably well since then. I called her up to say good night. She seemed kind of out of it, but I figured she had every reason to be tired, under the circumstances...
Anyway (sorry to ramble on like that) my point is, the last thing I said to her was, 'Looks like you really need some sleep. I love you, Kiddo.' I didn't know it would be the last time I ever got a chance to tell her that, but I sure am glad I said it to her anyway.
Re: Re:SorryTammie on 2/20/03 at 20:01 (110135)
A sad reminder it is to me who often am unsure wether I should hug my 6'3 son and tell him I love him , to risk his embarresment or to make me feel filled with happy moments.
I always want to hug and kiss my boys, but we seem to stand there and back up. I hope to remember this. I am so sorry Sharon for you loss! Sisters are verry special! Thank you for the wake up call to me/
Re: WOWnancy s. on 2/20/03 at 20:02 (110136)
i'm so glad you got to tell her that, sharon, as the last thing, even though unknowingly. probably the only thing harder than enduring the kind of grief you have right now would be wishing that you'd had the chance to say i love you again but not had that chance. i am glad for you and your sister that you had the chance and you said it.
i hope it helps you to know that the little bit you shared with us here really has inspired in my sister and me even more open appreciation for each other than we already had.
you're right: it's never redundant to remind people how much we love them.
Re: My wishesSharon W on 2/20/03 at 20:11 (110139)
I will always wish I'd had another chance to tell her again that I love her.
If I could make one wish right now it would be that EVERYONE who reads these posts would get up from the computer for a moment and hug the people they care about most and TELL them how much they love them. Especially with the uncertainty that we are all facing right now -- the impending war, the probability of more terrorist attacks in this country -- none of us ever REALLY know for sure when our last chance to do that will be.
Re: EdJudyS on 2/20/03 at 20:34 (110142)
Ah John, you've done it again. Bravo. I was under the impression we may be going to war to rid the world of WMD's under the control of a murderous despot. I've not, until now, heard that it was for world dominance.
I need more education my friends. I know one concern that those speaking out against a war have is that they feel there is an absence of desire, on the part of the US administration, to pursue other means of disarming Saddam. I know I must seem very ignorant on this but, what has the UN and the US been doing in terms of those alternatives for the last twelve years? A couple folks, Julie and Nancy, I think, have provided some very informative articles about this very thing but I thought the impending aggression was, according to everyone - including the US admin., the last resort. So I guess the US is ignoring alternatives? Or it feels the alternatives have all been played out? I don't think this decision came about overnight.
I can't even begin to imagine what kind of thinking and anguish has to go in to a decision to go to war. And I have absolutely no way of knowing what the US administration knows to bring it to such a decision.
But I suspect that our president is just as anguished as the rest of us are about this decision. I suspect he's not just playing 'war' like a small boy with the biggest toys. Like everyone else, he appears to be anguished about the 9/11 attacks and, knowing how easily terrorism could come to dominate our freedoms and how likely that is to happen, he wants to take the bull by the horns and begin to 'dominate' the demise of terrorism before it has to become a way of life for us. Maybe, to the administration, step two (Afghanistan was step one) is to prevent Saddam from selling his toys to the highest bidder (or using them himself)- so that those toys can't be used on the USA - ever, by anyone. I guess it's idealistic to hope that helping the Iraqi citizenry build a democracy is quite a nice bonus to getting rid of both Saddam AND his WMDs. Do you suppose the administration is saying to the extreme factions and murderous 'leaders' in the Middle East, the USA WILL NOT become habitual victims of YOUR kind of aggression? Or is the US the aggressor? I'm so confused!
Well, as I said, I can't begin to know what's going on at that level - This is all just speculation on my part based on what I continue to hear, read, see. I can't imagine anything worse than war. Unless it's a terrorist's nuclear weapon falling on/in San Diego Bay.
Re: PaulaJudyS on 2/20/03 at 20:36 (110143)
Oh no Nancy - not Moose! But he has served you well. I remember so much when our most beloved, and ancient, cat passed on ... my only thought was that it seemed that her sole purpose in life was to make us happy. She did such a good job.
Re: Ednancy s. on 2/21/03 at 07:49 (110156)
judy, i think you are correct to wonder if this administration is ignoring other possible alternatives to war and/or believes the alternatives have been played out. i don't think this is your position, but it is mine, with one qualification: the administration doesn't really believe the alternatives have been played out; i think it simply isn't interested in them and does not demonstrate enough vision to explore and dig for them. in fact, it basically comes right out and *says* it isn't interested. i think they had this whole current scenario in mind even while campaigning for office, were not thinking outside that box, still aren't, and are bullying those who *are* trying to do so. and there *is* time to do so.
it's easy to dismiss people who don't follow the leader and jump on the war bandwagon as idealistic and foolish (i'm not saying you actually said this, but i think it's the attitude behind many posts in the past week). i think such a dismissal is a very short-sighted approach to a global (and long-term, if we live that long) crisis. this short-sightedness has our administration looking at only the trees and not at the forest. yes, we do have to deal with each 'tree,' but if in doing so we lose sight of the whole 'forest,' then we are likely to become very lost in general -- and then what was the point?
i think our role in the world should be to lead in such a way that we don't become lost and that we take into account the entire world community, not only the madpersons who in turn are making us, well, mad. it is irresponsible, to say the least, to start a war in a vigilante fashion, to knowingly (and in my view unnecessarily) pit countries against each other who were communicating decently before, and to out and out declare that our country is not interested in war alternatives. our leaders are scoffing at alternatives, as are several people on this board. it's sad, but worse, it's placed us in the most dangerous situation since the cuban missile crisis.
Re: EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/21/03 at 14:36 (110187)
You have done a great job summing it all up.