The difference between the U.S. today and the U.S. of yesterday is simple. HONESTY!!!!
Chris, honesty is not synonymous with intelligence. I would prefer a dishonest political genius to an honest idiot as my leader, how about you. Do you believe politics benefit us, or would it be better if we were totally blunt and honest. Maybe something like "We want your oil.....get out." BTW - I appreciate your statement regarding your STRONG support for the Republican party, but dishonesty isn't limited to the any one party. Was Bush Sr. honest when he said "No new taxes", or Reagan when he denied an Arms for hostages deal with Iran, or Nixon about bombing Cambodia, Westmoreland about kill counts, etc,etc,etc...... Hey, what about Cheney and Enron? Anyway, as I listen to the politically one-sided claim moral superiority as justification for their own views, I'll remind you that our country has multiple parties for a reason.
SemperFi - I agree we have to go, and good luck.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I'm with the President! I have always said that I would trust someone until they proved to me they couldn't be trusted. I hope that's not the case here.
I would hope that the President has more information on all these weapons that he hasn't been able to divulge. I served this country in a recent War and know that War's not pretty. If we take Iraq and don't find the evidence of these weapons of mass destruction, or biological weapons we will have lost our credibility. I hope the President know's what he's doing. I don't envy him his position.
<< <i>For some reason, every idiot in this world who protested this weekend is a complete dumbass for not knowing what they are protesting against. >>
I'm sure most of us appreciate the work you do SempFi but I would submit that the people who protested this weekend are every bit as intellegent and BRAVE as you are. Just because they don't hold your POV doesn't make them idiots.
Best of luck in your endevers overseas and may God be with you sir.
Thank you for the civil response! This is my veiw. I know that Russia and China are not the reasons for WWI and II in a sense. My point is because of crazy and powerful dictators thats what resulted in those wars! You asked if we should go oust every crazy dictator then my answer would be maybe! I think that Anyone who knowingly inflicts pain, suffering, disease, torture, ect.. on his own people or other people for that matter needs to be dealt with! This is nolonger a point of does Hussein have weapons of mass distruction, we know he does. Maybe you don't feel as strongly as I do but I've spoke to the Kurds in northern Iraq! Like I said in an eariler post I was deployed to that region in 1998. I've witnessed the message he gives to his own people about our country! If you still don't beleive that Saddam Hussein has the weapons that I spoke about or you think the U.S. hasn't proved that they exist then think about it this way. Everyday in Iraq Hussein and his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or Security Force you decide hold public executions, they steal food and rape women. Why are people that say they are worried about the Iraqi civilians more concerned with our economy and what the rest of the Islamic world is gonna think about us! Is it because of the backlash that may result from a war with Iraq. Well I'm sorry to tell you but the backlash has already begun! I may be wrong, but I am passionate about this because I've been there. I know what his people want and I'm promise you they will cheering us when he is gone!
Chris
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
I hate to bring this thread back to the top again, but I just can't agree in the least with what you said about:
but I would submit that the people who protested this weekend are every bit as intellegent and BRAVE as you are.
Did you actually look at most of those protesters? Many if not most of them only survive because they are in America and the government gives them things. Most of them have 2 skills: Protesting and begging. Certainly they aren't ambitious enough to actually consider working (you know to help their families, etc) on weekends now are they? Also, if the U.S. were ever attacked by a serious force, they would be the first ones to run to Canada or to someother country instead of staying to fight for what they have here. They would just as well go to another country that will give them welfare.
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
I'll admit your responce to me was absolutly correct! You are right! I don't however feel that President Bush is doing this for oil! I think the reason are much more justified! Please accept my Democrate BASHING for I will be forever Wrong! I just think that half our country is leaning toward the side of Iraq. It's insults me for people to think that Saddam Hussein is a better leader than our own President. If you don't think that is a true statement then attend the next Anti-War Rally and listen to the speakers!
I wish those people could live under his rule for one week! We wouldn't be having this debate!
Once again I'll agreewith you on a couple points. I do think it is more important to be political than to be honest. I was just trying to make a comparison between G.W. and Clinton and I guess it didn't read like the way I was thinking!
Chris
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
"Threat" is defined as "capability plus intent." Presently, the leader of Iraq has the intent to attack the US, but not the capability. Given time, he will have the capability and the threat equation will be complete. Thus, the fundamental question is "do you want to give him the opportunity?" The Bush administration has articulated a very clear "doctrine" of preempting such threats. My gut feeling is most Americans are willing to act in this manner if the "threat" is real. Now we get to the philosophical issue: how do you prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" something which has not yet happened? Simply stated, you can not prove it. The difference between intelligence assessments (focused on emerging and visible trends) and legal arguments is that intelligence assessments call for decision makers to act based upon "preponderence of the evidence," similar to civil court. An intelligence analyst will never have proof beyond a reasonable doubt until after the event occurs -- "oops," a bit too late should Tel Aviv be glowing a beautiful rainbow orange/red. I understand legitimate concerns about the limits of Presidential power, but if you think the administration is taking us to war on a lark, you are miserably ignorant of Iraq's leader. He would kill us all...if he could. Moreover, if you think the administration "wants" to act unilaterally, again you are ill-informed. Every senior decision maker in DC (from both parties) clearly recognize that a coalition is the way to go -- unfortunately, for their own domestic political reasons, some foreign nations (read Belgium, Germany, France) find it necessary to shirk their responsibilities to address an inevitable threat. We live in a world where threats are no longer local, but regional and global in nature. If you really want to educate yourself and not just pontificate about what you "think," read the January issue of Foreign Policy and learn about the five wars of globalization. Terrorism is a worldwide concern, linked inextricably to criminal trafficking, and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are players. It's easy for opposition politicians to buy time by burying their heads in the sand and not seeing a threat. As we can see with the open criticism of the Bush administration, it is exceedingly difficult to shatter past paradigms of foreign policy and adopt a doctrine of "preemption," which offers the beginnings of a worldwide effort to combat worldwide threats. Change is difficult...major change is "unnerving."
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
While I was watching the news I saw a copy of "The Socialist Worker" in the hands of one of the protesters.
From my Viet Nam days when I was protester, I know exactly where those people are coming from. They hate America; they hate the government; they hate capitalism; and they hate our democratic institutions. They would like nothing better than to cause a revolution in this country. Back in my protest days, the best I could do was to tolerate them. Now I despise them because they are no more peace loving than Stalin or Hitler.
Yes, there are many citizens who honestly have a difference of opinion with those of us who view Sodom as a grave threat. But there are others who are out there to tear this country a part if they possibly can.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I'm not sure what you mean by that (I'm no expert in that field), but my point is this.
I think we are really being unfair to people such as Chris there and other Marines and people in the U.S. military if we assume that "anybody would do that" when the nation needed fighters. I know there are alot of people out there that would run and go try build their lives elsewhere if the U.S. were in danger. People such as myself and I'm sure Chris would much rather fight to the end for the U.S. because we know what we have here and we love our country and it wouldn't be the same to just go somewhere else and live there and take whatever that country will give us. Alot of people come to the U.S. because they can get free help, welfare, etc. Also, alot of people who protest and who fight corporations, etc. would never make it on their own, but instead rely on the government to feed their often many childern and to give them housing, etc.
No, I wasn't in the military, I was always a small kid and into computers and stuff and never gave any real thought to going into the military, but I have ALWAYS respected those who do. Also, I have a ton of respect for the Police officers out there. I think you are far more likely to be a victim of a crime by a criminal that by a "bad" cop. I think police officers and our military personnel deserve our respect 100%.
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
You are a very intelligent and well spoken person! I couldn't agree more with your statement! I would just like to add and as I've said in an eariler post the intent and ability is there he does it everyday to his own people!
Chris
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
Chris, Thank you. You are a gentleman, and I appreciate your post. I support our current action. We always do best as a nation IMO when we argue the issues instead of our personal politics. I only wish the presentation to the American public and the world was a little more persuasive.
JJacks, The protests piss me off too, but their ability to protest is part of our strength as a nation. Disagreement is the hallmark of American politics. Try that in Iraq.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
OK, against my usually best judgement to debate politics, religion, sports ... my quick response is no, not yet.
However, three key items for me: 1. military folks are true heroes for what they are ordered to participate in, appreciate all of the great service/dedication (past, present and future !!!) 2. 3 folks that have taken a "bite" out of the U.S. include Ghaddafi, Bin Laden and Hussein (all 3 trained, financed and supported by the U.S.) and when minds/policy changes, they are disgarded 3. with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Phillipines, Indonesia and potentially Iraq and North Korea, how many more conflicts will we enter without clear objectives/timelines ?
(In my best Forrest Gump voice) ... that's all I have to say about that ...
I am so stongly for this and I keep repeating myself but I think our children and grandchildren are in a load of @$#% if we don't take action! This world has totally taken a new perspective in our lifetime and it's up to us to right the wrongs. I guess it's almost to the point, for all of us religious types, to begin prepairing, because this is just the beginning! The scary part is it's only the beginning! Iraq was not the first and will most definately not be the last! There's a few more in line!
So basicly in my opinion IT'S GONNA GET WORSE BEFORE IT WILL GET ANY BETTER!
Chris
Sometimes you just got to quit worrying about prescription drugs and unemployment to make this country a better place!
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
We are finite beings, limited in all our powers, and, hence, our conclusions are not only relative, but they should ever be held subject to correction. Positive assurance is unattainable. The dogmatist is the only one who claims to possess absolute certainty.
To DHeath, Part of the problem is the inarticulate way the threat has been presented to the American people. For example, "using duct tape and plastic."
If the terrorist threat had been presented as "a possible non-persistent agent (i.e. an aerosal version of cyanide or some nerve agent)" might be employed in urban areas (read NYC/DC), and that plastic/duct tape would offer significant short-term protection against such a threat (which dissipates very rapidly), then Americans would have embraced this as "good guidance" instead of ridiculing it.
From what I understand, people living near chemical plants, where such aerosal commercial threats have long existed, have duct tape and plastic on hand!!! Duh, if it works against an accident, why not against an intentional attack?? Bet the people of Bhopal, India wished they had similar protection years ago when the Union Carbide plant killed ten thousand!!!! rainbowroosie PS did I spell "dissipates" right?? Looks funny!
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>2. 3 folks that have taken a "bite" out of the U.S. include Ghaddafi, Bin Laden and Hussein (all 3 trained, financed and supported by the U.S.) and when minds/policy changes, they are disgarded 3. with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Phillipines, Indonesia and potentially Iraq and North Korea, how many more conflicts will we enter without clear objectives/timelines ? >>
Fantasiize,
I agree that past administrations have supported these Lunatics but done so in the fight for peace and democracy! Now that they have turned their backs to our gratitude do you not think we need to stop the madness! And to answer you 3rd statment I think we must continue this! No matter how long it takes and no matter how bad it gets we must!
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
"The last thing we want to see is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it's been fired…. If someone waits for a smoking gun, it's certain we will have waited too long."
- Saddam agreed at the end of the Gulf War in the Cease Fire to disarm in 90 days - he has not. Far from a pre-emptive attack, conflict would merely be a resumption of hostilities. - In twelve years the IRaqi regime has failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions and are already in material breach s the record clearly illustrates - Saddam has killed something like 1.5 million Iraqis (not quite matching Pol Pot but getting close) - Saddam's regime has demonstrated that they will use chemical/biological weapons (where did them 32,000 liters of botchalintoxin go? - Why not liberate the Iraqi people from their brutal dictator? WHy do so many want to keep them enslaved - The UN is already irrelevant and we should save our money and show them the door. They are nothing more than an America bashing club. - If this were all about oil then why didn't the US seize the Iraqi oilfield in 1991 after crushing the Iraqi army? - For all you freakin panty wastes whining about civilian casualties let me tell you this. The American armed forces go way out of their way to avoid civilian deaths. In my opinion too far because it sometimes puts American lives at risk unnecessarily. I know of what I speak. - Moral equivocators make me sick.
BillJones is exactly right when describing the so-called 'peace' protestors. I challenge anyone that agrees with them to get off their a$$ and go attend one of their anti-America rallies (whoops did I let the secret out). You will quickly learn what it's all about. We counter-protest them every chance we get and it's always the same. BTW, how come you never see signs critical of Saddam Hussein? Why no marches to the Iraqi mission to the UN in NYC?
A country that is morally superior to others A country that is THE major military might in the world A country that imposes it's will on others A country that frenzies it's citizens into national pride A country that sees foreigners and thier opinions as foolish A country whose leadership does not reflect the will of the people A country that terrorizes it's citizenship with imminent attack A country who will attack without provocation
It's interesting that many people and countries around the world want the decision to go to war or not to rest on the shoulders of TWO human beings...the inspectors. I would say that is quite a burden to lay on those two guys. I can understand why their latest report was put the way it was. They realize the war burden is solely on them too. Put yourselves in their place. Would you have given the scathing report we wanted them to give, which would have been the truth IMO, or would you have diplomatically tried to put it back in the UNs court like they did? Franc, Germany, Russia, etc. don't have the backbone to do and say what's right and they openly and cowardly put it on the inspecters, amazing!
Ask yourselves this. If you had gangrene in your foot, (SH), would you cut it off to save the rest of your leg and life or would you just let it go and hope the inevitable spread wouldn't occur?
As far as people saying that all we want to do is just go to war to control the oil, I say that's absurd. If we wanted the oil, all we would have to do is lift the sanctions and just buy it. Why would we spend Billions on troop buildup just to go in forcibly and take the oil fields? If we lifetd sanctions it would make us look good and we would get the oil. If you think this is the reason, you might want to think again. This isn't about oil it's about a ruthless, mindless, inhuman individual who IS Hitler incarnate, who without compunction or conscience, has mercilessly murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and will continue to do so if not stopped.
If Hitler were running a country today(and he is) and knowing what he did 60 years ago, would you just let him be and hope he would be a good little despot? Hopefully not, but if you would you would be incredibly naive. Nobody wants war, but sometimes it's necessary to cut a diseased part off to save the rest.
Nobody has even brought up the plight of the poor Iraqis who have been brutally murdered, tortured, raped, and starved. They are screaming and begging for someone, anyone to please help them rid their country of the worst plague in their history, and his name is Saddam Hussein and no, they cannot speak up right now about their plight because they know that they would just be killed. They are truly between a rock and a hard place.
Others would say, look at N. Korea. They have nukes and are waving them around. Why not go get them? Good question. We are already in and around Iraq and need to take care of this first. Then we could move forces over to S.E. Asia to take care of that situation. However, that situation is a little different. They already have 2-3 nukes and could have a few more within months. This guy seems to have no problem using them at the slightest provaction either. So we have to be much more careful. I thank God that SH apparently doesn't have nukes...yet. Do you want to really give him more time to develope them? I truly hope not. As I said before, you have to cut out the disease before it spreads or you run the inevitable risk of losing it all.
I could go on and on and on and on, but I don't type very fast and tend to lose my train of thought hunting for the keys, but I think you probably know where I stand on this.
One more thing. I would be lying if I said that I want war, however, I truly believe that if we don't take this opportunity right now it will only be more difficult and costly(not just monetarily but in human life) if we wait and allow him to proliferate. You can pay now or really pay later. It's your choice.
Hey asnooker, Saddam Hussein is the Hitler here, not us, he went in and tried to take Kuwait! North Korea should be next, dont wait until its too late!
You can fool man but you can't fool God! He knows why you do what you do!
Almost forgot. For those of you who want to wait for the UN to say ok, how many resolutions does it take for that ok? Apparently more than 16-17 over a 12 year period. It's kind of like asking, no demanding, that your kids clean their room hoping that they will do it sometime before they grow up and leave the house and telling them that if they don't serious consequences will follow, only to have them just laugh in your face and dare you. Maybe a simple analogy but an appropriate one I think. At what point would you "lay the law down"?
You're a good guy, and your heart is in the right place, but I disagree. We are not interested in the Iraqi people or their liberation. Ask yourself, if that had been our goal in 1991, would we have stopped short of removing Hussein?
Ask yourself this question. What would be the political consequence of Saudi falling into fundamentalist hands? Would Bin Laden followers be pro-western, and sell you all the oil you needed? What if our allies were all forced to compete with each other for non-MiddleEastern oil? Would Japan's economy survive? How about Europes. What if the fundamentalists could unify a radical, wealthy nation that controlled ½ the world's oil, and hated the west? We are witnessing a conjurer's trick. We are distracting the world with one hand, while palming the card with the other. Saudi is the card. IMO Won't they be much more stable when we have a presence in Iraq.I've been wondering what excuse the Royals will use to keep our troops in country once the Iraqi problem is solved.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
DHeath said, "You're a good guy, and your heart is in the right place, but I disagree. We are not interested in the Iraqi people or their liberation. Ask yourself, if that had been our goal in 1991, would we have stopped short of removing Hussein?"
We stopped on the advice of Mr. Powell Chief of the Joint Chiefs. The UN was also cited as a reason for not fifnishing the job. The UN resolution gave no mandate for the removal of Saddam and that whole operation was one big UN pow-wow. There had not been a 9/11 either.
Also, I find it disgusting and disingenuous when people like Truthteller compare America to Nazi Germany. They are either ignorant or they have an agenda to support by making that false comparison. Next we'll hear that 9/11 was our very own Kristallnacht.
Saddam is a Hitler Marcos was a Hitler Shah of Iran was a Hitler Samosa of Nicaragua was a Hilter Pinochet of Chile was a Hitler Generals of Argentina were Hitlers Thiue of Vietnam was a Hitler Pol Pot of Cambodia was a Hitler etc.
This is a mere fraction of the Hitlers the United States government has backed at one time or another in the course of recent history either militarily or financially. Sorry folks, if you don't know your history, you look foolish.
We should send Michael Jackson there & he should behave with Saddam like he has acted around young children. This may freak Saddam out and he might never be heard from again. No war, no casualties, etc.
Look at it this way, if someone behaved like that around me, I'd get the **** out of there. What would you do? I know, it's pretty scary stuff.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Actually, I'm not confused at all. I expect people to slam me, because I speak my mind. Those who don't like it, keep going past. But when you make personal attacks because an opinion, then YOU become part of the unAmerica, just like 1933, when the Nazi's quashed opposing opinions, and there are definitely Nazi's dressed up like Americans.
We stopped on the advice of Mr. Powell Chief of the Joint Chiefs. The UN was also cited as a reason for not fifnishing the job. The UN resolution gave no mandate for the removal of Saddam and that whole operation was one big UN pow-wow.
BSqr - you make my point. There was no mandate to liberate the people of Iraq, by us or the U.N. Why was that exactly?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
We supported Stalin during WWII also. So what! I bet there are people you used to be friends with but aren't presently. If they committed a crime today would you somehow be responsible?
This isn't about raw-raw flag waving, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, independance for Iraq, or their people.
This is about destablizing an area, filling the vacuum/void with another pro-US dictator. We don't like democracies, they are too hard to deal with. Give the US government/CIA/NSA/ Dept of Defense a loyal lap dog who will be loved by his country and we'll be fine. Saddam was once our lap dog, now he's gotta go. The Saudis are on the verge (5-10 yrs) from losing control over their fundmentalist minorities and we might lose that influence. Iraq gives us a prescence in the middle east for another 20 years, atleast.
And by the way, I support the war, our troops, the decision of the United States government completely. I get to live me life under a blanket of liberty & freedom, sewn stitch by stitch by the hands of others before me who died on the battle field, I am for one not about to question the motives of the those deciding to begin this campaign. If it will insure freedom and my way / our way of life so be it!
There's 2 things that we are asked as United States citizens, pay taxes and support your country in foreign wars. Not to hard on us is it?
The real problem that most don't see is the slow eroding of OUR Constitutional liberties and rights, due to the fight against terrorism -- but thats a whole different thread.
<< <i>Also, I find it disgusting and disingenuous when people like Truthteller compare America to Nazi Germany. They are either ignorant or they have an agenda to support by making that false comparison. >>
You can say it is "disingenuous" all you want but why don't you contradict what he said by using REASON? Why not try giving a counter to his post? Here, like this:
A country that is morally superior to others
Or thinks it is. Agree here.
A country that is THE major military might in the world
Hard to disagree
A country that imposes it's will on others
We try but not always successful
A country that frenzies it's citizens into national pride
Not quite that bad. Fortunately there are people who go for that kind of crap anymore.
A country that sees foreigners and thier opinions as foolish
Once again, correct.
A country whose leadership does not reflect the will of the people
It's about 60% against this war so you have a point.
A country that terrorizes it's citizenship with imminent attack
This I agree with 120%. This is pissing me off more and more every time they come out with one of those alerts. Our tax dollars being spent wisely once again.
A country who will attack without provocation
This is what this debate is about. I agree with some here about the questionable idea that sending more inspectors will help. It won't. They STILL haven't got ANY evidence Iraq has any WMD. Prove it and I'd be all for this "invasion".
It's not quite Nazi Germany but the Bush is trying real hard to cram his jingoism down our throats. Fortunately, many people aren't buying it.
DHeath, how relevant is a body when Libya chairs the Human Rights Committee and Iraq was supposed to chair the disarmament committee. If you are so gun-ho about the UN then don't you want them to enforce their 17 resolutions that the Iraqi's have breached?
Actually, you are not correct. Stalin was an 'ally' in name only. During Malta and Potsdam, Stalin was actually an instigator of resentment amoung the allies of the time. Stalin postured himself, against Allied interests in Europe before the end of WWII,as the allies very well knew that eastern europe would fall under communist domination. So under agreements, the allies carved up Europe after the war into sectors. In addition, the Soviet Union had it's eyes on Iranian oil fields after WWII, and only with the threat of a nuclear strike at the Soviet Union by the US, did Stalin relent and avoided confrontation in Iran. So you see, not knowing history makes one look foolish and the argument collapses.
jom, I get the feeling you think there is no real threat to the US and its citizens from terrorism?? Proving the threat is real to all Americans will be painful as it will require a repeat of the Twin Towers, or worse (nuclear).
As for raising the threat level and wasting tax dollars, that may be true...I mean, there was no attack, correct??..... But, maybe, just maybe, the raised threat level "dissuaded" the bad guys from attacking. One of the frustrations intelligence analysts feel is the "paradox of warning." You issue a warning, the bad guys are aware of the warning and DO NOT act, or the good guys interdict them before they can act, and nothing happens...Well, to some, the warning was clearly "bogus" because nothing happened??? Or, was it bogus????? Interesting paradox, somewhat like time travel....
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
BSqr - perhaps I didn't properly explain myself. I'm not pro-U.N. It is a political organization that achieves consensus by arm-twisting, bribery, and special favors. I was just saying the current business with Iraq is about regional stability and continued access to oil for our trading partners, and about keeping the fundamentalists at bay. It isn't about the Iraqi people. Liberating them is a fringe benefit. I hope they still feel liberated when the next leader takes over.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
If you believe that Iraq has complied with the UN resolutions, then I assume you are against war.
However, if you believe that Iraq has not complied with the resolutions AND you are against war, what is the solution?
If the UN (International community, NOT the US by itself) can pass resolutions that have no way or no one to enforce them then why pass them in the first place?
We have two choices: act now or react later and I guarantee the reaction won't be to a pleasant event. Whether by overt means or covert means SH MUST go. I'm just glad that Al (gee maybe we should find out why they don't like us) Gore aint callin the shots.
This should have been done 6 months ago beforet the French and the German Governments were given the world stage. I blame George W for that. He had the opportunity to get this over and done with and was swayed by opinions that, in my mind don't mean much.
Daschle and Kennedy ought to be tried for treason!
The things that make me more fearful than Saddam Hussein:
Walking down any major US city at night Driving through Idaho, Montana, Wyoming with a minority person in the car. The rednecks next door Having my children potentially molested at school Putting my money in the stock market Reading the morning paper to see another financial scandal The current US leadership The fact that GW BUSH has his finger on the nuke trigger The economy and lack of current leadership to deal with it. The BALLOONING military expenditures. The current ballooning of the deficit etc.
There is lots more that make ME more fearful than Saddam, and it's all US created. Sounds like our government is doing a better job terriorizing us than Saddam could ever do.
I'm not afraid of any of the items you listed, except maybe
<Walking down any major US city at night>
This problem however was mostly the creation of the liberals anyway.
BTW, If you think the stock market is so terrible, why don't you buy puts on the market and make a ton of money. I can give you some good links that tell you how to make money if the stock market drops.
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
<< <i> The difference between the U.S. today and the U.S. of yesterday is simple. HONESTY!!!!
Chris, honesty is not synonymous with intelligence. I would prefer a dishonest political genius to an honest idiot as my leader, how about you.
Not me.
Do you believe politics benefit us, or would it be better if we were totally blunt and honest. Maybe something like "We want your oil.....get out." >>
Honesty works for me.And besides,I probably will need a refill of my heating oil by spring,and I`m hoping that they kill Saddam and get the price back down by then.Hey, I`m being totally blunt and honest!
A dealer once asked me if I noticed any three-legged buffalos on the bourse,to which I replied,"...no,but I saw alot of two-legged jackasses..."
If it was about Oil, get Kennedy, Daschle and his tribe to agree to drill in the US and use our own oil.
This is about geopolitical strategy and oil plays a very minor role. It is also about the survival of Israel which we have agreed to provide support for since the nation was created in 1948-49. Perhaps our leaders along with the British and others should have thought this problem through a little bit before supporting is establihment, but they didn't, and here we are.
And Truth a lot of your fears are a result of Dubbya's predecesor spending more time playing with cigars and young interns rather than dealing with Enron, Global Crossing (from which his bag man made millions), wasted billions on government schools, an emasculated and withering military, North Korea, and one of his biggest financial supporters transferring sensitive technology to the ChiComs (Loral). Don't lay the blame on the man cleaning up the mess left behind by the zipper.
US troops are already in Venezuela, and in Colombia, they are called advisors. The Generals of the Armies of both countries were trained in the US,at the College of the Americas, I believe in Florida. The generals were trained how to overthrow elected officials, put down ruthlessly opposition, and quash democratic uprisings, thereby allowing the US free reign of those governments by puppets. Some notable graduates, Pinochet of Chile and Noreiga of Panama.
oh, Abe that's coming. GWB and his oil barrons have been pushing for increased drilling rights, they may now get them. Patriotic flavor style -- American needs independence from middle east gas harboring, hoarding terrorists. Let's pock mark Alaska with derricks.
As for the survival of Israel, it probably won't happen in it's present form. Thats a war of attrition and birth rates. Palenstinians are giving birth to far more children, it's probably only a matter of 2 generations till they completely outnumber Israel citizens.
Comments
Chris, honesty is not synonymous with intelligence. I would prefer a dishonest political genius to an honest idiot as my leader, how about you. Do you believe politics benefit us, or would it be better if we were totally blunt and honest. Maybe something like "We want your oil.....get out." BTW - I appreciate your statement regarding your STRONG support for the Republican party, but dishonesty isn't limited to the any one party. Was Bush Sr. honest when he said "No new taxes", or Reagan when he denied an Arms for hostages deal with Iran, or Nixon about bombing Cambodia, Westmoreland about kill counts, etc,etc,etc...... Hey, what about Cheney and Enron? Anyway, as I listen to the politically one-sided claim moral superiority as justification for their own views, I'll remind you that our country has multiple parties for a reason.
SemperFi - I agree we have to go, and good luck.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I would hope that the President has more information on all these weapons that he hasn't been able to divulge. I served this country in a recent War and know that War's not pretty. If we take Iraq and don't find the evidence of these weapons of mass destruction, or biological weapons we will have lost our credibility. I hope the President know's what he's doing. I don't envy him his position.
Ogden
<< <i>For some reason, every idiot in this world who protested this weekend is a complete dumbass for not knowing what they are protesting against. >>
I'm sure most of us appreciate the work you do SempFi but I would submit that the people who protested this weekend are every bit as intellegent and BRAVE as you are. Just because they don't hold your POV doesn't make them idiots.
Best of luck in your endevers overseas and may God be with you sir.
jom
Thank you for the civil response! This is my veiw. I know that Russia and China are not the reasons for WWI and II in a sense. My point is because of crazy and powerful dictators thats what resulted in those wars! You asked if we should go oust every crazy dictator then my answer would be maybe! I think that Anyone who knowingly inflicts pain, suffering, disease, torture, ect.. on his own people or other people for that matter needs to be dealt with! This is nolonger a point of does Hussein have weapons of mass distruction, we know he does. Maybe you don't feel as strongly as I do but I've spoke to the Kurds in northern Iraq! Like I said in an eariler post I was deployed to that region in 1998. I've witnessed the message he gives to his own people about our country! If you still don't beleive that Saddam Hussein has the weapons that I spoke about or you think the U.S. hasn't proved that they exist then think about it this way. Everyday in Iraq Hussein and his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or Security Force you decide hold public executions, they steal food and rape women. Why are people that say they are worried about the Iraqi civilians more concerned with our economy and what the rest of the Islamic world is gonna think about us! Is it because of the backlash that may result from a war with Iraq. Well I'm sorry to tell you but the backlash has already begun! I may be wrong, but I am passionate about this because I've been there. I know what his people want and I'm promise you they will cheering us when he is gone!
Chris
Jom,
I hate to bring this thread back to the top again, but I just can't agree in the least with what you said about:
but I would submit that the people who protested this weekend are every bit as intellegent and BRAVE as you are.
Did you actually look at most of those protesters? Many if not most of them only survive because they are in America and the government gives them things. Most of them have 2 skills: Protesting and begging. Certainly they aren't ambitious enough to actually consider working (you know to help their families, etc) on weekends now are they? Also, if the U.S. were ever attacked by a serious force, they would be the first ones to run to Canada or to someother country instead of staying to fight for what they have here. They would just as well go to another country that will give them welfare.
JJacks
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I'll admit your responce to me was absolutly correct! You are right! I don't however feel that President Bush is doing this for oil! I think the reason are much more justified! Please accept my Democrate BASHING for I will be forever Wrong! I just think that half our country is leaning toward the side of Iraq. It's insults me for people to think that Saddam Hussein is a better leader than our own President. If you don't think that is a true statement then attend the next Anti-War Rally and listen to the speakers!
I wish those people could live under his rule for one week! We wouldn't be having this debate!
Once again I'll agreewith you on a couple points. I do think it is more important to be political than to be honest. I was just trying to make a comparison between G.W. and Clinton and I guess it didn't read like the way I was thinking!
Chris
The Bush administration has articulated a very clear "doctrine" of preempting such threats. My gut feeling is most Americans are willing to act in this manner if the "threat" is real.
Now we get to the philosophical issue: how do you prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" something which has not yet happened? Simply stated, you can not prove it. The difference between intelligence assessments (focused on emerging and visible trends) and legal arguments is that intelligence assessments call for decision makers to act based upon "preponderence of the evidence," similar to civil court. An intelligence analyst will never have proof beyond a reasonable doubt until after the event occurs -- "oops," a bit too late should Tel Aviv be glowing a beautiful rainbow orange/red.
I understand legitimate concerns about the limits of Presidential power, but if you think the administration is taking us to war on a lark, you are miserably ignorant of Iraq's leader. He would kill us all...if he could. Moreover, if you think the administration "wants" to act unilaterally, again you are ill-informed. Every senior decision maker in DC (from both parties) clearly recognize that a coalition is the way to go -- unfortunately, for their own domestic political reasons, some foreign nations (read Belgium, Germany, France) find it necessary to shirk their responsibilities to address an inevitable threat.
We live in a world where threats are no longer local, but regional and global in nature. If you really want to educate yourself and not just pontificate about what you "think," read the January issue of Foreign Policy and learn about the five wars of globalization.
Terrorism is a worldwide concern, linked inextricably to criminal trafficking, and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are players. It's easy for opposition politicians to buy time by burying their heads in the sand and not seeing a threat. As we can see with the open criticism of the Bush administration, it is exceedingly difficult to shatter past paradigms of foreign policy and adopt a doctrine of "preemption," which offers the beginnings of a worldwide effort to combat worldwide threats. Change is difficult...major change is "unnerving."
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
From my Viet Nam days when I was protester, I know exactly where those people are coming from. They hate America; they hate the government; they hate capitalism; and they hate our democratic institutions. They would like nothing better than to cause a revolution in this country. Back in my protest days, the best I could do was to tolerate them. Now I despise them because they are no more peace loving than Stalin or Hitler.
Yes, there are many citizens who honestly have a difference of opinion with those of us who view Sodom as a grave threat. But there are others who are out there to tear this country a part if they possibly can.
DHeath,
I'm not sure what you mean by that (I'm no expert in that field), but my point is this.
I think we are really being unfair to people such as Chris there and other Marines and people in the U.S. military if we assume that "anybody would do that" when the nation needed fighters. I know there are alot of people out there that would run and go try build their lives elsewhere if the U.S. were in danger. People such as myself and I'm sure Chris would much rather fight to the end for the U.S. because we know what we have here and we love our country and it wouldn't be the same to just go somewhere else and live there and take whatever that country will give us. Alot of people come to the U.S. because they can get free help, welfare, etc. Also, alot of people who protest and who fight corporations, etc. would never make it on their own, but instead rely on the government to feed their often many childern and to give them housing, etc.
No, I wasn't in the military, I was always a small kid and into computers and stuff and never gave any real thought to going into the military, but I have ALWAYS respected those who do. Also, I have a ton of respect for the Police officers out there. I think you are far more likely to be a victim of a crime by a criminal that by a "bad" cop. I think police officers and our military personnel deserve our respect 100%.
JJacks
You are a very intelligent and well spoken person! I couldn't agree more with your statement! I would just like to add and as I've said in an eariler post the intent and ability is there he does it everyday to his own people!
Chris
JJacks, The protests piss me off too, but their ability to protest is part of our strength as a nation. Disagreement is the hallmark of American politics. Try that in Iraq.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
However, three key items for me:
1. military folks are true heroes for what they are ordered to participate in, appreciate all of the great service/dedication (past, present and future !!!)
2. 3 folks that have taken a "bite" out of the U.S. include Ghaddafi, Bin Laden and Hussein (all 3 trained, financed and supported by the U.S.) and when minds/policy changes, they are disgarded
3. with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Phillipines, Indonesia and potentially Iraq and North Korea, how many more conflicts will we enter without clear objectives/timelines ?
(In my best Forrest Gump voice) ... that's all I have to say about that ...
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
So basicly in my opinion IT'S GONNA GET WORSE BEFORE IT WILL GET ANY BETTER!
Chris
Sometimes you just got to quit worrying about prescription drugs and unemployment to make this country a better place!
Andy
First POTD 9/19/05!!
Part of the problem is the inarticulate way the threat has been presented to the American people. For example, "using duct tape and plastic."
If the terrorist threat had been presented as "a possible non-persistent agent (i.e. an aerosal version of cyanide or some nerve agent)" might be employed in urban areas (read NYC/DC), and that plastic/duct tape would offer significant short-term protection against such a threat (which dissipates very rapidly), then Americans would have embraced this as "good guidance" instead of ridiculing it.
From what I understand, people living near chemical plants, where such aerosal commercial threats have long existed, have duct tape and plastic on hand!!! Duh, if it works against an accident, why not against an intentional attack?? Bet the people of Bhopal, India wished they had similar protection years ago when the Union Carbide plant killed ten thousand!!!!
rainbowroosie
PS did I spell "dissipates" right?? Looks funny!
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>2. 3 folks that have taken a "bite" out of the U.S. include Ghaddafi, Bin Laden and Hussein (all 3 trained, financed and supported by the U.S.) and when minds/policy changes, they are disgarded
3. with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Phillipines, Indonesia and potentially Iraq and North Korea, how many more conflicts will we enter without clear objectives/timelines ? >>
Fantasiize,
I agree that past administrations have supported these Lunatics but done so in the fight for peace and democracy! Now that they have turned their backs to our gratitude do you not think we need to stop the madness! And to answer you 3rd statment I think we must continue this! No matter how long it takes and no matter how bad it gets we must!
- Saddam agreed at the end of the Gulf War in the Cease Fire to disarm in 90 days - he has not. Far from a pre-emptive attack, conflict would merely be a resumption of hostilities.
- In twelve years the IRaqi regime has failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions and are already in material breach s the record clearly illustrates
- Saddam has killed something like 1.5 million Iraqis (not quite matching Pol Pot but getting close)
- Saddam's regime has demonstrated that they will use chemical/biological weapons (where did them 32,000 liters of botchalintoxin go?
- Why not liberate the Iraqi people from their brutal dictator? WHy do so many want to keep them enslaved
- The UN is already irrelevant and we should save our money and show them the door. They are nothing more than an America bashing club.
- If this were all about oil then why didn't the US seize the Iraqi oilfield in 1991 after crushing the Iraqi army?
- For all you freakin panty wastes whining about civilian casualties let me tell you this. The American armed forces go way out of their way to avoid civilian deaths. In my opinion too far because it sometimes puts American lives at risk unnecessarily. I know of what I speak.
- Moral equivocators make me sick.
BillJones is exactly right when describing the so-called 'peace' protestors. I challenge anyone that agrees with them to get off their a$$ and go attend one of their anti-America rallies (whoops did I let the secret out). You will quickly learn what it's all about. We counter-protest them every chance we get and it's always the same. BTW, how come you never see signs critical of Saddam Hussein? Why no marches to the Iraqi mission to the UN in NYC?
edited for bullet points
A country that is THE major military might in the world
A country that imposes it's will on others
A country that frenzies it's citizens into national pride
A country that sees foreigners and thier opinions as foolish
A country whose leadership does not reflect the will of the people
A country that terrorizes it's citizenship with imminent attack
A country who will attack without provocation
United States of America, 2003?
Nazi Germany, 1939!
History repeats itself.
TRUTH
Ask yourselves this. If you had gangrene in your foot, (SH), would you cut it off to save the rest of your leg and life or would you just let it go and hope the inevitable spread wouldn't occur?
As far as people saying that all we want to do is just go to war to control the oil, I say that's absurd. If we wanted the oil, all we would have to do is lift the sanctions and just buy it. Why would we spend Billions on troop buildup just to go in forcibly and take the oil fields? If we lifetd sanctions it would make us look good and we would get the oil. If you think this is the reason, you might want to think again. This isn't about oil it's about a ruthless, mindless, inhuman individual who IS Hitler incarnate, who without compunction or conscience, has mercilessly murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and will continue to do so if not stopped.
If Hitler were running a country today(and he is) and knowing what he did 60 years ago, would you just let him be and hope he would be a good little despot? Hopefully not, but if you would you would be incredibly naive. Nobody wants war, but sometimes it's necessary to cut a diseased part off to save the rest.
Nobody has even brought up the plight of the poor Iraqis who have been brutally murdered, tortured, raped, and starved. They are screaming and begging for someone, anyone to please help them rid their country of the worst plague in their history, and his name is Saddam Hussein and no, they cannot speak up right now about their plight because they know that they would just be killed. They are truly between a rock and a hard place.
Others would say, look at N. Korea. They have nukes and are waving them around. Why not go get them? Good question. We are already in and around Iraq and need to take care of this first. Then we could move forces over to S.E. Asia to take care of that situation. However, that situation is a little different. They already have 2-3 nukes and could have a few more within months. This guy seems to have no problem using them at the slightest provaction either. So we have to be much more careful. I thank God that SH apparently doesn't have nukes...yet. Do you want to really give him more time to develope them? I truly hope not. As I said before, you have to cut out the disease before it spreads or you run the inevitable risk of losing it all.
I could go on and on and on and on, but I don't type very fast and tend to lose my train of thought hunting for the keys, but I think you probably know where I stand on this.
One more thing. I would be lying if I said that I want war, however, I truly believe that if we don't take this opportunity right now it will only be more difficult and costly(not just monetarily but in human life) if we wait and allow him to proliferate. You can pay now or really pay later. It's your choice.
You're a good guy, and your heart is in the right place, but I disagree. We are not interested in the Iraqi people or their liberation. Ask yourself, if that had been our goal in 1991, would we have stopped short of removing Hussein?
Ask yourself this question. What would be the political consequence of Saudi falling into fundamentalist hands? Would Bin Laden followers be pro-western, and sell you all the oil you needed? What if our allies were all forced to compete with each other for non-MiddleEastern oil? Would Japan's economy survive? How about Europes. What if the fundamentalists could unify a radical, wealthy nation that controlled ½ the world's oil, and hated the west? We are witnessing a conjurer's trick. We are distracting the world with one hand, while palming the card with the other. Saudi is the card. IMO Won't they be much more stable when we have a presence in Iraq.I've been wondering what excuse the Royals will use to keep our troops in country once the Iraqi problem is solved.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
We stopped on the advice of Mr. Powell Chief of the Joint Chiefs. The UN was also cited as a reason for not fifnishing the job. The UN resolution gave no mandate for the removal of Saddam and that whole operation was one big UN pow-wow. There had not been a 9/11 either.
Also, I find it disgusting and disingenuous when people like Truthteller compare America to Nazi Germany. They are either ignorant or they have an agenda to support by making that false comparison. Next we'll hear that 9/11 was our very own Kristallnacht.
Marcos was a Hitler
Shah of Iran was a Hitler
Samosa of Nicaragua was a Hilter
Pinochet of Chile was a Hitler
Generals of Argentina were Hitlers
Thiue of Vietnam was a Hitler
Pol Pot of Cambodia was a Hitler
etc.
This is a mere fraction of the Hitlers the United States government has backed at one time or another in the course of recent history either militarily or financially. Sorry folks, if you don't know your history, you look foolish.
TRUTH
Look at it this way, if someone behaved like that around me, I'd get the **** out of there. What would you do? I know, it's pretty scary stuff.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
TRUTH
BSqr - you make my point. There was no mandate to liberate the people of Iraq, by us or the U.N. Why was that exactly?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
We supported Stalin during WWII also. So what! I bet there are people you used to be friends with but aren't presently. If they committed a crime today would you somehow be responsible?
This isn't about raw-raw flag waving, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, independance for Iraq, or their people.
This is about destablizing an area, filling the vacuum/void with another pro-US dictator. We don't like democracies, they are too hard to deal with. Give the US government/CIA/NSA/ Dept of Defense a loyal lap dog who will be loved by his country and we'll be fine. Saddam was once our lap dog, now he's gotta go. The Saudis are on the verge (5-10 yrs) from losing control over their fundmentalist minorities and we might lose that influence. Iraq gives us a prescence in the middle east for another 20 years, atleast.
And by the way, I support the war, our troops, the decision of the United States government completely. I get to live me life under a blanket of liberty & freedom, sewn stitch by stitch by the hands of others before me who died on the battle field, I am for one not about to question the motives of the those deciding to begin this campaign. If it will insure freedom and my way / our way of life so be it!
There's 2 things that we are asked as United States citizens, pay taxes and support your country in foreign wars. Not to hard on us is it?
The real problem that most don't see is the slow eroding of OUR Constitutional liberties and rights, due to the fight against terrorism -- but thats a whole different thread.
Michael
<< <i>Also, I find it disgusting and disingenuous when people like Truthteller compare America to Nazi Germany. They are either ignorant or they have an agenda to support by making that false comparison. >>
You can say it is "disingenuous" all you want but why don't you contradict what he said by using REASON? Why not try giving a counter to his post? Here, like this:
A country that is morally superior to others
Or thinks it is. Agree here.
A country that is THE major military might in the world
Hard to disagree
A country that imposes it's will on others
We try but not always successful
A country that frenzies it's citizens into national pride
Not quite that bad. Fortunately there are people who go for that kind of crap anymore.
A country that sees foreigners and thier opinions as foolish
Once again, correct.
A country whose leadership does not reflect the will of the people
It's about 60% against this war so you have a point.
A country that terrorizes it's citizenship with imminent attack
This I agree with 120%. This is pissing me off more and more every time they come out with one of those alerts. Our tax dollars being spent wisely once again.
A country who will attack without provocation
This is what this debate is about. I agree with some here about the questionable idea that sending more inspectors will help. It won't. They STILL haven't got ANY evidence Iraq has any WMD. Prove it and I'd be all for this "invasion".
It's not quite Nazi Germany but the Bush is trying real hard to cram his jingoism down our throats. Fortunately, many people aren't buying it.
jom
Actually, you are not correct. Stalin was an 'ally' in name only. During Malta and Potsdam, Stalin was actually an instigator of resentment amoung the allies of the time. Stalin postured himself, against Allied interests in Europe before the end of WWII,as the allies very well knew that eastern europe would fall under communist domination. So under agreements, the allies carved up Europe after the war into sectors. In addition, the Soviet Union had it's eyes on Iranian oil fields after WWII, and only with the threat of a nuclear strike at the Soviet Union by the US, did Stalin relent and avoided confrontation in Iran. So you see, not knowing history makes one look foolish and the argument collapses.
TRUTH
I get the feeling you think there is no real threat to the US and its citizens from terrorism?? Proving the threat is real to all Americans will be painful as it will require a repeat of the Twin Towers, or worse (nuclear).
As for raising the threat level and wasting tax dollars, that may be true...I mean, there was no attack, correct??..... But, maybe, just maybe, the raised threat level "dissuaded" the bad guys from attacking. One of the frustrations intelligence analysts feel is the "paradox of warning." You issue a warning, the bad guys are aware of the warning and DO NOT act, or the good guys interdict them before they can act, and nothing happens...Well, to some, the warning was clearly "bogus" because nothing happened??? Or, was it bogus????? Interesting paradox, somewhat like time travel....
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
If you believe that Iraq has complied with the UN resolutions, then I assume you are against war.
However, if you believe that Iraq has not complied with the resolutions AND you are against war, what is the solution?
If the UN (International community, NOT the US by itself) can pass resolutions that have no way or no one to enforce them then why pass them in the first place?
Joe.
I'm just glad that Al (gee maybe we should find out why they don't like us) Gore aint callin the shots.
Daschle and Kennedy ought to be tried for treason!
The things that make me more fearful than Saddam Hussein:
Walking down any major US city at night
Driving through Idaho, Montana, Wyoming with a minority person in the car.
The rednecks next door
Having my children potentially molested at school
Putting my money in the stock market
Reading the morning paper to see another financial scandal
The current US leadership
The fact that GW BUSH has his finger on the nuke trigger
The economy and lack of current leadership to deal with it.
The BALLOONING military expenditures.
The current ballooning of the deficit
etc.
There is lots more that make ME more fearful than Saddam, and it's all US created. Sounds like our government is doing a better job terriorizing us than Saddam could ever do.
TRUTH
TT,
I'm not afraid of any of the items you listed, except maybe
<Walking down any major US city at night>
This problem however was mostly the creation of the liberals anyway.
BTW, If you think the stock market is so terrible, why don't you buy puts on the market and make a ton of money. I can give you some good links that tell you how to make money if the stock market drops.
JJacks
<< <i> The difference between the U.S. today and the U.S. of yesterday is simple. HONESTY!!!!
Chris, honesty is not synonymous with intelligence. I would prefer a dishonest political genius to an honest idiot as my leader, how about you.
Not me.
Do you believe politics benefit us, or would it be better if we were totally blunt and honest. Maybe something like "We want your oil.....get out." >>
Honesty works for me.And besides,I probably will need a refill of my heating oil by spring,and I`m hoping that they kill Saddam and get the price back down by then.Hey, I`m being totally blunt and honest!
Marc
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
This is about geopolitical strategy and oil plays a very minor role. It is also about the survival of Israel which we have agreed to provide support for since the nation was created in 1948-49. Perhaps our leaders along with the British and others should have thought this problem through a little bit before supporting is establihment, but they didn't, and here we are.
TRUTH
As for the survival of Israel, it probably won't happen in it's present form. Thats a war of attrition and birth rates. Palenstinians are giving birth to far more children, it's probably only a matter of 2 generations till they completely outnumber Israel citizens.
Michael