posted on November 3, 2001 05:54:12 PM new
Thanks, snowy! It sure doesn't sound like he's interested in "negotiating".
By the way, I did a double take at the picture of Bin Laden linked to that article. At first glance it appeared he was giving the "finger". But of course we all know he is not.
posted on November 3, 2001 06:26:41 PM new
Sorry snowy and katy for interupting...
hjw, I did not mention your name or user ID, why would you think I was saying you are his parrot or shadow?????
(here's another cliche' everyone hates, I do anyway)
Its not always about you hjw okay done with a sappy smile-
See, stuff like that, 'I have no use for you' and more was said when there were moderaters here. I onced asked you, why are you being so 'mean' (not those exact words) and that I had always been civil to you before, so you edit your post. Whatever hjw, I have no use for you either, please!
put me on ignore. You have been, in my opinion only, I do not speak for anyone else; thee most intolerant poster I have encountered on any message board. I don't know why, but what I have seen, I hope (I guess) that this is not your real life personality, but maybe its your entertainment on the internet, god who knows?
and I am not a 'good freind of krs's'
he never returned the last email I sent him, so I'm through with him
edited cuz...
[email protected]
[ edited by NearTheSea on Nov 3, 2001 06:33 PM ]
posted on November 3, 2001 06:48:00 PM new
Why bring Hepburn into this? she is not here, even without moderators, why bring ones up that, if they wanted to, are not able to comment on that.
If I remember right, that phrase has been around here for quite awhile.
posted on November 3, 2001 07:05:59 PM newYou have been, in my opinion only, I do not speak for anyone else; thee most intolerant poster I have encountered on any message board. I don't know why, but what I have seen, I hope (I guess) that this is not your real life personality, but maybe its your entertainment on the internet, god who knows?
You say that to hjw? After your posts in this thread [including your FO to KRS]? Incredible!
posted on November 3, 2001 08:33:41 PM new
It seems that many postings have been based on fear, not common sense, since 9-11. I understand that, as I worry about what will happen, myself, and I don't begrudge hjw an opinion, however misinformed it may be. I also worry that our world will never be the same, that my sons will have to go to war.
Unlike Helen, my biggest worry is-what will happen if we DON'T stand up and say ENOUGH!! If Clinton had done that some time ago, maybe we wouldn't be where we are now. Instead, their atrocities against us have merely escalated.
Fighting back does take courage, on the part of the citizenry as well as the military. I for one, am willing to lay my fears aside, for the sake of our future. Any peace we might get by backing off from this challenge will be very short lived. I want peace and safety for myself, but more importantly, I want it for those grandchildren yet to be born. If that takes bombs, ground warfare, or gloves and a mask to open my mail, so be it.
posted on November 3, 2001 08:45:14 PM new
The bombing must be working. A reporter in Afghanistan escorted by Taliban to the phoney civilian casualty sites reported that as he was leaving Afghanistan to go back to the U.S., one of the Taliban escorts asked if he could go back with him !!!
Those B52's are doing their job quite well I think.
posted on November 3, 2001 08:47:49 PM new
Nah, Julesy. If the Republican Congress had been paying attention to world affairs instead of Clinton's, none of this would have happened.
posted on November 3, 2001 08:56:02 PM new
Well gosh, saabsister...who can blame them for spending $60 million and a year's worth of time? Clinton did get a blow-job...and that's far more important than anything involving pesky terrorists!
posted on November 3, 2001 10:21:36 PM newsnowyegret,
Thanks for the Eisenhower quote. Did you know that throughout his presidency each of his state of the union messages ends with the statement that the country is at peace? He felt that that was his greatest accomplishment in office.
posted on November 4, 2001 07:19:03 AM new
Yes, during Ike's time the party was primarily moderate. Had it stayed that way I might well be a Republican today.
posted on November 4, 2001 07:51:01 AM newSnowyegret
I also appreciated your Eisenhower quote! This story illustrates the position of Eisenhower. The country can easily be reduced to rubble but the victims and those who survive are "left without government, without its communications, just an area of starvation and disaster".
Excerpt...
What should make our society different from the lunatics who follow bin Laden is the ability to feel unease when confronted with the sight of wounded women and children. In the Second World War, one might have described it as the difference between a man such as Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke and Heinrich Himmler. The SS leader revelled in slaughter and had not one ounce of compassion for his victims; the Chief of the Imperial General Staff on the other hand suffered the anguish of one who was very good at making war but loathed its inherent inhumanity.
I have always believed that recording the stories of the smaller voices in war is a crucial responsibility. I learnt that nearly 20 years ago in a tent in the mountains of Eritrea watching a child writhe in agony from napalm dropped by Ethiopian MiG fighters. Such stories are an essential part of the history of our times. Those I interviewed on my trip to Pakistan included a family who described a bombing raid on their home village, an old man who had been shot by the Taliban, a man who described how the Taliban were forcibly recruiting men in the mosques, a doctor who had treated the dying son of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and many others who described simply how they were frightened and hungry and angry at having to leave their homes.
Much of what I and other correspondents have reported has to do with the shambolic situation that greeted refugees when they arrived at the border. Until a week ago there was nowhere for them to go. So those who had money bribed their way into Pakistan and the others sat in the dust and misery of no man's land or tried to cross by remote mountain tracks.
All of this is relevant to the war and – critically – to its aftermath. We will be part of an effort to put Afghanistan back together. It is well that we know what is involved and how the people of the country regard us. And if what we preach is a society based on human rights, then it is right to tell the stories of the refugees and, in doing so, recognise their humanity.
posted on November 4, 2001 10:02:44 AM new
We as a country have always been willing to engage in war to protect democracy and freedom. In the World Wars we went to other countries to protect their rights and because of the atrocities inflicted on people by the likes of Bin Laden.
This time the war has been brought to our own country, yet we seem to be afraid to use every means possible to fight it. Could it be because of Viet Nam? We made so many mistakes during that time, and we said never again! But, I don't think we should continue to be pacifists. I don't even think it's a matter of being patriotic. It's time for us to show the strength and willingness to fight like we have in the past. Yes, there will be casualties. We've already had 5000 right here!
Another thought, are we afraid because of our leadership? We have usually trusted our president to take the right steps. Bush went into the office with mistrust. Then he appointed a cabinet of warmongers. Would it be different if it was someone else in the leadership role? I don't mean if Gore were president. I mean just anyone else in general.
posted on November 4, 2001 10:18:15 AM newChococake: I don't think our leadership is responsible for this attitude--it has been around for many years & is the reason that we have been unsuccessful in such actions since Vietnam. We don't allow our military to be successful any more.
And I am becoming more and more disturbed about the negative attitude I see about ourselves. There is a dark side to the mulitculturalism movement in education, you know. On the one hand it does good in showing the contributions of non-caucasians both in US & world history. But it also insidiously promotes the idea that America and Americans are bad, evil. Judging by what I see here & elsewhere, that idea has taken firm root. Is there any other country in the world that teaches its children to hate it? I think it's time to start doing a bit of weeding in our education system...
posted on November 4, 2001 10:53:01 AM new
Chococake,
I don't think that it's a question of pacifism. The problem is the best way to get the job done.
Fighting a loose network of terrorists is not like fighting a country. For example, we have never fought suicide attacks.
So I believe that we should forget bombs and destroying countries and improve our intelligence. "As Condleezza Rice said, This is a war in which information may be the most important asset we have."
posted on November 4, 2001 12:01:43 PM new
Intelligence is what we should have used before this happened. I think Bush even had plans to derail that system even more, and mostly depend on the Stars Wars idea.
OK, so now we are to beef up the intelligence. What do we do when we get that information? I hate to say it, but we still do need to have military action, weather it be bombs or ground troops. No, we're not fighting a country. We're fighting lunatics that want to wipe us off the face of the earth. US as in the United States. This time we're fighting for our country, our homeland. We have never had to do this before.
I also think we should do more to stop the cash flow to BL. Where and how do they get their food? We should try to figure out a way for them to not get any supplies. We need to stop their ability to survive. If they have everything they need they don't even have to come out of the caves.
posted on November 4, 2001 12:03:18 PM newIs there any other country in the world that teaches its children to hate it? I think it's time to start doing a bit of weeding in our education system...
Bunnicula,
I remember that you've referenced what is called multi-cultural education before with the impression of it quoted above. I wondered what you meant but didn't follow up. Could you explain your definition of multi-cultural education and any specific instruction/assignments that led you to this conclusion.
The reason that I ask is because, while I was still teaching, the concept of multi-cultural education came into prominence nationally and was adopted as a state education goal here. As a result all teachers were required to participate in in-service training and attend workshops on multi-cultural education. As we studied the concept, its purpose was simply to make all students more knowledgeable about world cultures. In the secondary, in those subjects which lent themselves to the inclusion of information about another country/countries, teachers were expected to work in as much information as was possible without interfering with the principal focus of the course. Also to use the human resources within our community which included a rich mixture of ethnic groups and nationalities.
Especially in the elementary grades textbooks began to include units with multi-cultural information to a limited extent, and my son studied from some of those, but the material was similar to the type of material explained above. I always wondered how much knowledge students would retain from this sort of rather slapdash presentation, but it doesn't seem to be at all similar to what you are describing.
posted on November 4, 2001 04:49:14 PM newAntiquary: kids today get the message that white Europeans have done very little that is worthwhile.
They hear about slavery in the US--without hearing that this isn't the only place slavery has existed or indeed that Indians and blacks both practiced it here. They never hear about how it continued much longer in other places & in fact still exists in some.
They hear about how dastardly Europeans
"took away" the country from the Indians--without hearing that the Indians themselves did the same thing to each other. Or how other countries expanded through history.
US history is an almost unknown subject to most of our school kids, who are more familiar with Ancient Egypt than their own country. A minor figure like Crispus Attucks is very familiar while Samuel Addams or Paul Revere are barely known to them.
They hear all about the Bomb & how terrible we were to drop it & nothing about Japanese atrocities during the war (& no, not just Pearl Harbor--which is more & more blamed on Roosevelt)
They learn that it is a waste of time to read things written by white Europeans.
It goes on & on. And in some ways the new "multiculturalism" is destroying this country--instead of encouraging emigrants to become American, it is telling them to keep their old national identity.
posted on November 4, 2001 05:03:30 PM new
Eisenhower is an interesting figure. A professional soldier who believed in peace, an opponent of desegretion who sent troops into Arkansas to uphold a Supreme Court decision he was not in agreement with, and a master politician. He opposed the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, feeling it would tarnish the US in the eyes of the world. His farewell speech warns of the growing power of the military-industrial complex. Considering the crises during his administration, I'd say he was an underrated President. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on November 4, 2001 05:05:42 PM new
So bunnicula a guy who went on a horse ride is a major figure while the first casualty of the American Revolution is a minor figure?
You mean they here about the United States taking lands but don't hear about Ghengis Khan, Rome, Adolf Hitler or the USSR doing the same thing? That is an oversight!
posted on November 4, 2001 06:08:43 PM newbunnicula,
Maybe what you are describing is a state or local quirk. Have you seen the textbooks and the local written curriculum for social studies, or what I still call history? There is an expanded inclusion of minority contributions to American society in all textbooks today but the result that you describe was still not the case with my son's course in American history 3 years ago.
Pretty solid, basic, fundamental stuff.
Nor was that the case in the high school where I taught. We generally coordinated aspects of the history and literature courses, so I worked fairly closely with history teachers. I really can't imagine any school district in the U.S. being able to teach such a distorted curriculum. I would think that the parents would be up in arms. But then I have no knowledge of or experience with the California mandates.
posted on November 4, 2001 06:43:55 PM newBunnicula --
It's funny that you mentioned Ancient Egypt as my 8 yr. old recently had to do a report on just that subject. Last year, she had to learn the exact geography of Latin America, including mountain ranges, rivers, and capital cities (right down to the approx location of each capital within each country). I think that kind of exposure is refreshing compared to the "standardized" history I learned as a kid.
posted on November 4, 2001 07:18:52 PM new
As I stated before, the good part of multiculturalism is the inclusion of non-caucasians in the study of history. The bad part is what I said above.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
