Our World Today...... - Page 2

najaboy · #21 (**permalink**) 02-20-2003, 06:50 AM

Holiday From History
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A31

The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin.

This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it.

You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road:

• Iraq: Saddam Hussein continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors.

• North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement -- surprise! -- was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout.

• Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI -- and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification.

That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell "teacup wars" in places such as Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with "states of concern." Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars.

Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction.

True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized.

There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes.

We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold.

There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939.

Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction?

This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children?

Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can -- and will -- the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
[addsig]

najaboy · #22 (**permalink**) 02-20-2003, 07:32 AM

[addsig]

Karen · #23 (**permalink**) 02-20-2003, 08:19 AM

Oh, I think I'm in love, Ken. A man with a brain. It's always refreshing to read your posts. Not an ounce of ignorance in your body. Will ya marry me? hahaha just kidding. Educated people do exist!!

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The intruder is entering the building master."

]

XzyluM · #24 (**permalink**) 02-20-2003, 08:22 AM

I see things differently. While no one wants war, it's pretty obvious that Bush isn't going to stop until he gets war. Let's face it, if Saddam bombed us, the first thing us Americans would be screaming was war. It's pretty obvious that Saddam is evil and is hiding some lies and I believe he is hiding nuclear and biochemical weapons somewhere and someplace. Honestly, I have my thoughts that one of the main reasons Bush wants a war is because he is out to get Saddam. When his father was in office and Saddam was after him, it comes to mind that Bush wants some revenge. But then again, when Clinton was in office, he was planning a war with Iraq also.
[addsig]

Domingo · #25 (**permalink**) 02-21-2003, 05:01 AM

Those preceding articles were very well done. And the Mirror and the Post are not exactly Bush suck-ups if you know what I mean. I liked the political cartoon, but actually many Americans did have similar attitudes in the 30s. "It's Europes problem" was the general idea. It wasn't until 1941 when we were bombed at Pearl Harbor, that we became fully involved in the war. Until then we were providing England with only minimal help. Blockades, money, etc. In fact, we were still talking with Japan while they were moving their carriers towards Hawaii.

The danger here is that waiting will once again lead to disaster. No one can predict what will happen. On Dec 6, 1941, nobody thought that America would be ever be attacked. The next day they were all proved quite wrong. The same goes for Sept 11. We can't wait around for the next big disaster.

I don't think Bush is just out for revenge for his Father's sake. It's Saddam that wants revenge against America. He has constantly violated the no-fly zone, attempted to assasinate Bush the Elder, and his own defected scientists admit that he has vast hidden stores mustard gas, anthrax, sarin, ricin, and a strong desire to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq's scientist are much smarter than we give them credit for. We are not dealing with a couple of Jihadists making poison in their basement. They have the will and the money to create vast stores of illegal weapons, the ability to keep them hidden, and and scariest of all the desire to use them. ON US.
[addsig]

ChrisRezendes · #26 (**permalink**) 02-21-2003, 10:04 PM

>>I see things differently. While no one wants war, it's pretty obvious that Bush isn't going to stop until he gets war. Let's face it, if Saddam bombed us, the first thing us Americans would be screaming was war. It's pretty obvious that Saddam is evil and is hiding some lies and I believe he is hiding nuclear and biochemical weapons somewhere and someplace. Honestly, I have my thoughts that one of the main reasons Bush wants a war is because he is out to get Saddam. When his father was in office and Saddam was after him, it comes to mind that Bush wants some revenge. But then again, when Clinton was in office, he was planning a war with Iraq also.

Actually, while Clinton was in office, we bombed the heck out of certain areas of Iraq several times. The difference then was that we had a legitimate reason. Saddam would send troops into areas that were supposed to be demilitarized, we would bomb said areas. Illegal weapons would be found, we would bomb the places they were... Now, there ARE no such reasons. People keep harping on the NBC weapons... What weapons? Huh? Why can't Bush find them? Clinton did. Now, all over the news, they are big "reports" of Bin Laden supposedly in or tied with Iraq. Now, remember how all the other tapes of Bin Laden in the past year and a half? Remember how the news went out of their way to let us know that they were probably fake? Why not now? It's simple. Because the government doesn't want to expose the plant they set. Let's be perfectly honest- much of the news if embellished, exaggerated, and even, in more extreme cases, fabricated. Do you honestly think the government has no control over that?

And as far as people saying that the anit-war protesters are being greedy and not thinking about the troops, that's not exactly true. In fact, it's complete rubbish. Who do you think we are thinking of? We are thinking of the people getting sent over there. The people who are destined to die simply because fair-weather patriots and a leader (whose IQ simply cannot be higher than 75) wants to get Saddam. Hey Bush, why do you want Saddam? Because he "tried to kill my dad". Good logic there.

Yet ANOTHER thing people won't get off of is terrorism. How is destroying Iraq going to stop terrorism? If anything, it's only going to make it worse. It will be further propaganda used by terrorist organization to recruit new, possibly formerly peaceful, terrorists.

People keep citing the reactions in the middle east by certain people after 9-11. They say it like every single person in the middle east jumped for joy after it happened. That's because our country decided to use that as propaganda when it happened to get us to jump up in arms. Let's be serious. The news only SHOWED the people who WERE happy about the tragedy. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because everybody over in the middle east WAS happy? Quite far from it. The showed it because that's what they wanted to show us. We have very intelligent people in the government. They know how to manipulate the minds of the American people to get the desired response. It's effictiveness in this case is so positive that, quite franky, I'm shocked a little bit scared. How many people in the middle east do you think really ARE terrorists?

Since I doubt that will sink in to most people, let's look at it from a different point of view. When we destroy Iraq (which will be inevitable if we go to war), how the heck do you think our country will be able to afford to take control of it? Our economy is already terrible. It will get much worse if we go to war. Do you know what's going to happen? The US will cut into state budgets to be able to pull it off. Expect to see many cuts from government jobs. Expect to see worse roads and much worse of an educational system. Expect to see a poor, weak country. Because that's what we are going to be in. Now, think about the Americans who are going to have to go over to Iraq to "ensure" order and peace. How well do you think they will fare against the inevitably countless NEW terrorists created by this war? We will lose more boys in Iraq AFTER the war than we would during it.

Look into the future. Don't just assume that bombing Iraq will make the whole world happy. Look into the facts. Open your mind to the inevitable truth.

I am extremely sad for this country. [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
[addsig]

SteveP · #27 (**permalink**) 02-21-2003, 11:36 PM

"History teaches us that mankind learns mothing from history" -Hegel

We are in an era that has many similarities to the 1930's, with political unrest, downward economies and threat of war. In that regard we can begin to understand the uncretainty our parents or grandparents felt in those days. People did protest our involvement in World War II, despite documented acts against humainty, until the attack on Pearl Harbor forced us to react. A scary fact is that had the Japanese attacked several years earlier we were so incredibly disarmed the U.S. wouldn't have been able to respond, and likely would have been invaded. But imagine how many millions of people wouldn't have died had Hitler's sabre rattling been challenged much earlier? Interesting how the U.S. was still realing from a depression before WWII but by the end of it was able to finance rebuilding the vanguished. The economics of war, perhaps something Bush is banking on?!

The primary difference in this era is the capability of greater destruction. Unfortunately the "bad guys" also have that capability and consider it honorable, even a religious duty, to use it. If the coming war evolves into a religious war, which Sadam will want to make it, the world should prepare for the worst. Faith is a funny thing. It can be as fragile as a flower or as strong as a rock, and coming between a man and his faith in the later sense can meet with deadly force.

Personally I don't want war, but that's neither here nor there. I think people get caught in a nationalistic fever and fail to fully comprehend the ultimate price of war. Actually what I resent is we have been given an excuse to even contemplate war (i.e., 9/11). The terrorists have dealt the hand, whether funded by Iraq and Afganistan or not, and now we're calling their bluff. The Europeans don't want war not because they are such peace lovers (look at the 20th century) but because their economies are tied to the fuels they depend on from the Middle East...and they don't want the flow to cease.

During the first World War mustard gas was an insane weapon. It kills everything, including the earth it comes in contact with, to the point plants wouldn't even grow back for decades. It became so bad that during the war both the Bristish and Germans agreed not to use it. So what does bubble-head Sadam choose amongst his weapons of mass destruction to produce...mustard gas. The man has no regard for anything living...and unfortunately has to be stopped...and just as unfortunate means we go to war. God have mercy on the souls who pay the price. [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
[addsig]

najaboy · #28 (**permalink**) 02-22-2003, 05:56 AM

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, while Clinton was in office, we bombed the heck out of certain areas of Iraq several times. The difference then was that we had a legitimate reason. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I would hardly call wagging the dog "legitimate." Klinton merely used the military as a tool to divert attention from his moral and ethical ineptitude.

I've served in fprward operating locations for Operations Desert Thunder, Desert Fox, Northern Watch, and Southern Watch. The only events that preceded our major offensive operations were Bubba's scandals. Get caught with a cigar where it shouldn't be?... not a problem- a few Tomahawks will divert everone's attention.

Interesting that, circa 1995, the Klinton adminisatration effectively saved Saddam from being overthrown. Then again, this is the same administration that turned down having Bin Laden turned over to us in 1996.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>People keep harping on the NBC weapons... What weapons? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Yep, I guess they're playing this shell game for the sheer joy of it. The holes in Iraq's declaration are meaningless (after all, what's a few tons of mustard gas, sarin, and VX between friends?). I guess Hans Blix is merely mistaken with the list of 35+ outstanding issues regarding Iraq's disarmament.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Now, all over the news, they are big "reports" of Bin Laden supposedly in or tied with Iraq. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
No. The reports are of certain Al Qaeda operatives being linked to Iraq. OBL, if you will remember, expressed disdain for Saddam.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Remember how the news went out of their way to let us know that they were probably fake? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
The intel available at the time indicated that OBL had been killed in Tora Bora. At the time, we did not realize the red herring that had been perpetrated by OBL and one of his bodyguards. We now know that OBL gave his sat phone, which we had been using to track him, to one of his bodyguards.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Why not now? It's simple. Because the government doesn't want to expose the plant they set. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
A plant??? Let me just don my tinfoil hat... [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> Let's be perfectly honest- much of the news if embellished, exaggerated, and even, in more extreme cases, fabricated. Do you honestly think the government has no control over that? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Since we're striving for "perfect" honesty, let's take it one step further. The media, in general, tends to lean to the left (ie liberalism). It should come as a bit of a surprise then, that the liberal media is embellishing, exaggerating, and fabricating in am amnner that is contrary to their political position.

As for the claim that the government has some control over the media, consider that it was the media that compromised the hunt for OBL more than once. The media, given the chance, also compromises the safety of our troops on a regular basis.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>We are thinking of the people getting sent over there. The people who are destined to die simply because fair-weather patriots and a leader (whose IQ simply cannot be higher than 75) wants to get Saddam. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Interesting...as for the first part of your statement, it is a bit of a paradox to claim that one supports the troops, but condemn the job we do in the same breath. As for the "fair-weather patriots"- by definition, that would be people who are patriotic only when things are going good. Who would be the "fair-weather patriot"- he who serves and loves his country through thick and thin; or the one who supports it only when the going is good and subverts it in the face of adversity?

Also,I'd be careful about making statements suggesting that the primary concern of ant-war protesters is the safety of our troops, because there's protesters who feel otherwise... I for one think it would be better if each of your precious US soldiers would DIE before carrying out their missions. That's right - better the aggressor should die if it would prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. That quote came from Democratic Underground, and I'm sorry to say that train of thought is not the exception over there.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>How many people in the middle east do you think really ARE terrorists? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
It depends entirely on the region and country. Gaza, West Bank, Syria have a relatively high percentage of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. In most areas, they're few and far between.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>How is destroying Iraq going to stop terrorism? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
No one ever said it's going to stop it. It will, however, eliminate Saddam's subsidizing Palestinian terrorists.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>If anything, it's only going to make it worse. It will be further propaganda used by terrorist organization to recruit new, possibly formerly peaceful, terrorists. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
So then, we should all just pull the covers over our heads, ignore the danger that Iraq poses to America and her allies, and hope the problem goes away? I tend to think of that as "do nothing defeatism."

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>When we destroy Iraq (which will be inevitable if we go to war), ...</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Okay. Substantiate that fallacious claim.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>It will get much worse if we go to war. Do you know what's going to happen? The US will cut into state budgets to be able to pull it off. Expect to see many cuts from government jobs. Expect to see worse roads and much worse of an educational system. Expect to see a poor, weak country. Because that's what we are going to be in. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Quite the opposite is true. Historically, war triggers unequaled economic and technological growth for both sides.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Now, think about the Americans who are going to have to go over to Iraq to "ensure" order and peace. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
As with any other peacekeeping force, Americans would only be part of the equation. Iraq is a relatively modern and civilized country, so a peacekeeping force would not be needed for an extended period of time.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> How well do you think they will fare against the inevitably countless NEW terrorists created by this war? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
What "creates" a terrorist is hatred and intolerence. I can not "make" anyone hate me. That evil paradigm already exists in them. They may use this as an excuse to act on their hatred, but that's all it is-a feeble excuse for the pardigm that already existed.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Look into the future. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I am. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action. The world made the mistake of sitting idly by once before.

Now, one thing I find interesting is that communist orhanizations were behind the major peace rallies worldwide. I suppose that would explain the singing of communist anthems and desecration of American flags.

Finally, I'd encourage folks to check out the following link. It's a rather lengthy .mov file, so it's best viewed by those with a broadband connection.

Protesters have all the answers

_________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

RevMojo · #29 (**permalink**) 02-22-2003, 06:57 AM

Ok...time for a few opinions from my inevetitably warped point of view

The liberal media:
1) if the media is so liberal, how come so many right wingers have got their own shows?
2) if you think the politics of the media are about anything besides making money, you're a fool. The more people watch, the higher the rates they can charge their advertisers. The only agenda of "the media" is making money. No ifs, ands, or buts. Whatever gets the idiots to turn on the box. And keep it turned on.

Klinton:
Spelling it that way just makes you look ignorant. No matter how poor a job he did, when you intentionally spell the man's name wrong, it just makes it look like you cut and paste your opinions from some radio show website

The democrats fault:
How many Democrats have led the country in the last, say...thirty years? This hatred for the US didn't exactly spring up overnight. That said, they didnt exactly pull off any great foreign policy coups

War:
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Sometimes you have to do bad things to bring about the good. "Did Judas Iscariot have God on his side?"-Bob Dylan

Saddam:
Clearly not the lesser of two evils.

The French Opposition to the war:
Bitte du

Wagging the Dog:
So this thing with Irag isn't just to make us forget that for over a year, they still haven't found Osama?
Bush:
Maybe he's just playing dumb to lure the "axis of evil" into his trap. For crying out loud, the word is "Nuclear" not "Nucular" Thank God we're gonna fight em with guns and missiles instead of challenging them to a spelling bee.

Now, all that aside, and getting back to the original post...yes, it is scary times we live in. We cannot be complacent in our supremacy. We should not revel in it either. If you're not happy with the way things are, do what you can to make it better. It's only an hour out of your day one tuesday in November, at the very least.

God bless the USA and those who defend it.

Ok..tear it up as you will. I've said my piece and feel no need to defend it.

_________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni

1sttimesnakeowner · #30 (**permalink**) 03-03-2003, 06:21 AM

Boy oh boy.... I have to reread all the postings and replay later this week. I am glad to see people are at least saying what they think....
[addsig]

JonnyB · #31 (**permalink**) 03-03-2003, 06:41 AM

OK LET me say one thing being active duty Coast Guard the war is scarry. And for those of you who think that the Coast Guard only deals with the migrants and drugs. THATS A BUNCH OF BULL I have several good friends who were on the 110' out of norfolk.
But my oppinion is that we should not go to war. I know that those [racial slur removed] really diserve it but like my dad says "war is not healthy" nothing good has ever come from it and with all the Biological wepons God help us cause if some one gets a hair up ther but and drops a nuke on us god will be the next person that you see. But have faith in old glory friends she will not fall [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]

Johnny, your free to express your opinion, but leave out the racially charged comments. I find them personally offensive and they violate the TOS. *edited by trinitywolf*
_________________
if it wasn't for idoits the population of this world would be considerable less...

Dragon · #32 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 12:48 AM

No Allies? Going it alone? It's no wonder so many cultures dislike America. As I recall, there are over 40,000 British soldiers that you took along for target practice. Remember?
[addsig]

trinitywolf · #33 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 03:51 AM

Don't let a few taint your idea of how the U.S. views the aid of our brothers in Britain. The majority of us think that the British are great allies and we appreciate the steadfastness of your PM Tony Blair and the good people of the U.K.!
[addsig]

Ed_r · #34 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 04:43 AM

I can't even come up with the proper words to describe Tony Blair. I love listening to him speak. Very intelligent , and a huge heart for truth and justice, and the guts to stand his ground even when his fellow countrymen are agaist him. We in the US should really be thankful to have such a passionate ally as The Brits. In troubled times is when you find out who your true friends are.
[addsig]

#35 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 04:46 AM

Dragon,

Not all American's think we should be in this war. In fact, quite a few of us are opposed to it. No, I don't think we should of went without UN backing. Our economy is just starting to revive from the 9/11 attack; I don't think, financially speaking, that we should be doing this now. And, no, I don't think that we should be the country that always has to "rescue" others from oppression. But......now for some facts.

FACT: Saddam is a madman.
FACT: He kills those that even think of opposing him.
FACT: He had been ORDERED by a U.N. resolution to STOP making weapons of mass destruction. He continued.
FACT: Even though it was sanctioned by the UN, he purposely hindered weapons inspectors from doing thier job.

He MUST be stopped. My only regret is that we didn't take him out 10 years ago.

You can say it's about oil, power, or whatever. Regardless of those petty reasons, that does not change the FACTS.

One thing that we, as Americans, do is stand behind our country and our servicemen. We don't always agree with the decisions that have been made, but we believe in our country and what it stands for. We have always been this way, but after you experience the largest terroristic attack in history, not to mention the loss of 3,000 people, it somehow brings you closer as a country.

We all here hope for a safe and speedy trip back home to our troops. And whether anyone wants this war or not, please remember that these soldiers did not ask for this. It was ordered to them, and as Americans, they fight for not only their country, but for those out there that cannot fight for themselves.

God Bless America!!

[addsig]

XzyluM · #36 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 07:27 AM

Here's my opinion on the war. It's best to go to war with 100% support from your country. To do this all Bush had to do was lay out the evidence to prove a reasonable doubt for war. We have went to war assuming that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, it is defiantely going to look bad if we don't find anything to prove Bush's theory. While Saddam can be referred to as evil, he is not the worst person in the world. I look at the war as of not supporting "it," but giving my full 100% support to all the troops fighting the war.
[addsig]

Ravnos · #37 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 08:50 AM

The cartoon was great fun... but really, lets look at our history:
The US stayed out of World War I until 1917. Woodrow Wilson got re-elected largely due to the campaign slogan "He kept us out of the war." and immediately upon getting re-elected, asked congress for a declaration of war on Germany.
The US stayed out of World War II until Hitler had already conquered 90% of Europe, by 1941 the mess had already been made. Again, many people, including those in power in the US held out for -years- before giving in to war. Stating largely that it was Europe's problem, not ours.
Then we look at more modern wars. Korea, umm, they've actually become more of a threat to the US, not much of a solution there. Vietnam? Not much of a threat now, but absolutely no resolution; the people still live in poverty and ruin. Panama? We went in with the intention of taking down a drug lord-dictator, thus freeing the people of Panama; and we ended up INCREASING the drug flow to the US - and the people still live in squalor. Not much success there either. Then comes along Saddam. We put him in power, sold him weapons of mass destruction, and then when he is no longer on our side (as an enemy of Iran) - he's suddenly 'evil'. There is no denying it, the man -is- evil, and since technically, we created the mess, I think its only fitting that we clean it up, but I'm sure you can at least try to understand my skepticism. I sure hope the job doesn't stop here. There are atrocities being committed in Myanmar, Tibet, Rwanda... the list goes on. It seems to me that it would be very unreasonable to continue to use the excuses we have been to justify attacking Iraq and ignore these people who need our help as well.

Rav

[addsig]

Dragon · #38 (**permalink**) 03-25-2003, 07:18 PM

I'm not saying the war is wrong or right, what I am saying is don't just assume that you are the only country affected by this war because it was your country that was targeted by terrorists on 9/11. There are a huge number of British (and other nations) troops right in the thick of it with your own armed forces, do not simply dismiss them because they are not American.

As for the French, well, as a nation they've never had the stomach for a fight. The greatest military leader they ever had was Italian. That just about says it all (no offence intended to any Italians out there! [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]).

_________________
Dragon
Corkys Cave!

#39 (**permalink**) 03-26-2003, 03:03 PM

Dragon,

After reading your post again, I admit that I mis-read it. I apologize if I gave the insinuation that we are doing this alone, or just because it is America. As I type this, British forces are working hard on Basra, which is proving to be a difficult city to seize. Currently, Tony Blair is our best ally, and England's assistance in this is greatly apreciated. Also, I did not mean to imply that any of this is "just because" of 9/11. The effects of 9/11 have affected the entire world--maybe its just a little harder to swallow because of the "in our backyard" thinking.

Putting everything else aside, the politics, the lies, etc., I just pray that ALL allied forces come home quickly and safely. Originally, it looked like this was going to be a quick war, with little to no resistance. That is proving to be not the case. As we move closer to Baghdad, the reality of this war becomes more and more apparent. As of the last count we have been told, 22 Americans have already died. We have not been given any figures, to my knowledge, as to other allied troops' death toll. But, I believe all Americans here are a little shocked right now. We are not used to seeing our troops die--we are supposed to be the strongest military out there. Part of us thought that this campaign could end without any casualties on our side. The whole thing just scares me.

Again, I pray that all troops come home soon to their families.

[addsig]

Sunn · #40 (**permalink**) 03-26-2003, 05:07 PM

Hey Fellow Reptile Folks,

I just spent a half hour posting to this and like magic it all disappeared before I hit submit.

I will just let you know this and then add what I cut and pasted. My father was in the Navy twice, his father fought in WWI and there are family members all over my family that have fought and died for each of you and your families so we all could be free. Believe me the pay doesn't intice them to join and fight and live and die as they do for.

I am simply a proud American that supports President Bush ...he IS our Commander And Chief. I am sure he has more information at hand than any of us. I elected him and I will support him.
To do less is a pitiful shame and treason in many countries ....yet we are free and have the right to speak up...my first post is this....This is long, you can relish each word or you can skim through and still get the point.

Who&#8217;s Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming
about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming
the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to
anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call
them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange
went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush
and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country?
Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic"
leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale
University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an
F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career
in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy
industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with
53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he
became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year
terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998
Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent
of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of
women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern
Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first
Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and
Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone
began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any
other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to
URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966,
both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political
Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice
President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members
of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen
our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on
Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice
President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators
and members of the House of Representatives to work on the
Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he
has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on
the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the
tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he
earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at
CCNY and received a commission as an Army second
lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic
achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree
from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of
numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary
Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of
Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal,
the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of
Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and
other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary
degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval
aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin
(R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to
the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director
of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to
NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to
the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House
Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to
Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year
at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where
he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze
Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned
his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant
District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He
was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the
U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.

National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science,
Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her
Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from
the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in
1981.
(Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15,
graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum
Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre
Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of
International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in
Political Science.)

She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has
been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the
University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for
International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the
Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the
Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe
Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with
Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and
the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on
Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed
audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's
Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000
Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the
period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet
Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then
Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National
Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the
Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the
Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the
Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the
Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron
Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the
International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco
Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the
Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in
East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of
the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her
past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica
Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the
National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula
Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born
November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned
her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta
Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the
University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate
School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She
is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been
awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in
1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre
Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their
experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will
defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that
if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we
should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we
should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed
daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our
security. They are privy to information gathered around the world
concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of
terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant
communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations,
our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot
simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats
because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as
informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding
groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our
country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things
Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood
elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts
the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the
Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of
Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He
bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and
not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in
Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from
Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked
on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating
terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold
rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest,
God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the
Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE,
FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government
to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons,
in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we
have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical,
biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no
cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave
him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even
though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used
against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that
since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also
determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable
decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing
of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being
a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I
know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy
himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from
war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him
the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a
maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it
the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average
American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him
clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a
shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous
marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper
tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire
nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country
will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a
certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate
ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to
enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever
to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of
terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation
remains strong. We must make certain that those who would
destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall
them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists
and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is
not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire
continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and
brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is
known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy
did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in
Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of
immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not
end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of
President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

My 2nd is this one....

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on war with Iraq:

1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this
in mind, they have Libya heading the committee on human rights and Iraq
heading the global disarmament committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google search and type in "French military victories," your reply will be
"did you mean French military defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "no war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the president. He plays one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "infidel!" and Bin Laden
wants you dead, too.

[img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the dell computer dude.

9) We are trying to liberate them. He is trying to kill us.

10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation. We are left behind here by choice normally and it is our duty to them to keep America the kind of place they would want to come home to and then welcome them home with honors!

Now on that final note I wish to let you know I am normally quite a peaceful, non violent person who hates wars and death and abuse. Perhaps it's those reasons that we have no choices for our children and their children ... when will we learn....history tells us over and over.
No sane person wants war...yet I am the first to say we are where we need to be right now and God Bless Our Military and their families.....it is really them that pay the price...and will continue to pay it when we move to the next target...

Relief will come from some of our taxes yes.....yet President Bush has billions that we did NOT put in foreign banks frozen and held by his father from the Gulf War that will be used to rebuild Iraq also. There is also legislation to continue to freeze Saddams funds around the world. He raped, murdered and killed his own people for some of this. It is rightful to be returned in building a better Iraq where freedom lives.

We can live in fear.....and do nothing as the peace activists would have it or we can show some guts and stand up for what has made us the most powerful.. even if most hated country in the world.....we are still FREE!

I could write for hours on this subject.....

God Bless Our Military and Our President....we need to be praying for them not ridiculing them.
If I am not privy to a lot of their information how is it that you are?

Sorry about the length but I felt it all to be worthy of reading.

Sandy

[img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]
[addsig]

Advertisement