posted on September 26, 2002 08:50:18 AM new
Yes, I agree. Many statements/accusations made, but when asked there is usually no response to the questions.
For me, what I have the most trouble understanding is why so many here seem to support those regimes who would like to see American destroyed. I just can't comprehend that concept. They say Bush is looking to rule the world, taking away our rights, etc. etc. etc. I see it as he's doing the best he can to protect our safety from those who would like to destroy our nation.....FROM THOSE WHO HAVE STATED THAT DOING SO IS THEIR GOAL...from those who financially support or agree with the moral position of the terrorists. Believe me when I say, that if it were a democratic president doing exactly what Bush is doing, I'd be supporting him/her too. It's our country, its people and our way of life that I support. It really saddens me to read few here seem to agree that we [democrats, republicans, independents, etc] need to ALL come together when our country is working to oust those who would like to see it destroyed.
Those who disagree continually [appear to me] to overlook what the terrorists have done/are doing/and plan to do.
In my heart, I believe that many who post here would be agreeing with a democratic president that was doing exactly the same thing. Those who are against any war, would still be against any war. Which is why I believe most of this is political grandstanding.
posted on September 26, 2002 09:34:53 AM newIn my heart, I believe that many who post here would be agreeing with a democratic president that was doing exactly the same thing.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:02:10 AM new
Antiquary - Maybe with a couple, but not with most.
For me, I too believe in the liberties you and others think are being taken away. My position is we have to be flexible.
For example: I'm struggling with the issue of the six American Yemani's who've been arrested [in NY] for suspected dealings/ties with the terrorists. The judge has yet to decide if they will be given bail or not. His stance? He's not sure the government has proven that they meant to do America harm. Oh...so every America citizen goes to train at terrorist training camps in other countries [etc.], huh? Just like John Walker Lind. This is normal behavior?
Where does one draw the line at trying to prevent terrorist attacks against our country and waiting until they do plant a bomb, or go shooting at LAX etc. I don't believe this country can afford to just sit around and wait for another 9-11.
As it is now, so many blame the CIA , the FBI, President Bush because they believe they knew and didn't do anything to prevent the 9-11 attact. But when they work at trying to PREVENT some internal suspected terrorist...when they have reason to believe some were going to then everyone's screaming their rights are being violated. Can't have it both ways. There has to be some flexibility there, IMO.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:20:10 AM new
Linda,your "let Bush do anything as long as we are safe" attitude scares me.
I want to be safe too but I do not want to give up everything that our country has stood for for all this time. Why is it that the people on the right, the people who profess to be christians are the ones that seem to need Bushs protection the most? Don't they believe that God will help them? I for one do not want Bush to protect me....his thought process are screwy and the things he proposes will do nothing more than antagonize the very people YOU are afraid of to do more against us.
America used to be a kind and benevolent nation. I do not want to see that change into a war loving ,rouge nation that the whole world hates and THAT is exactly where we are headed. If you think terrorists can ruin your day just wait till Russia and China and the whole of Europe decide we need to be "regime changed".
Why are the religious people of every ilk the ones that want war? Shouldn't they have more faith in God than in Bush? WWJD?
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 26, 2002 11:23 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 11:45:53 AM new
Operation Phoenix, Vietnam
School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Ga. USA
Some of the more infamous grads include, Manuel Noriega, Torrijos of Panama, and Galtieri and Viola of Argentina. Here are some others. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 26, 2002 11:47:20 AM new
As long as we are indulging in "why is its", let me add one.
Why is it that some people of the "open a dialog" or "turn the other cheek attitude" say stuff like "Hussein is practical, he won't...". When there is no dictator in HISTORY where this has ever been true. To me they are akin to those who said Hitler is just saying all that stuff about the jews to have a common enemy for the people. He would never.......
Some people have an uncanny ability to deny that evil can exist. Evil just to be evil. Evil without gain. The expatriate Iranian foreign minister relates a story in the Atlantic about congratulating Hussein on accepting an Iran peace proposal about sharing their common waterway. He was rebuked because Hussein told him it was a "sign of weakness" and then planned the attack on Iran. What "cheek" is there to turn? This guy is Hitler without the resources. If he could blow up half the world and be regarded as a God amongst arabs, he would do it in a second.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:54:31 AM new
" If he could blow up half the world and be regarded as a God amongst arabs, he would do it in a second. "
That's right...If he could he would. He can't so why is it urgent that we go after him now when terrorists are a much more clear and present danger to our way of life [if that is indeed what we are supposed to be worried about]
Actually, if you want to really get into it....the whole of western Europe is developing the same anti-Jewish attitude that Hitler displayed. Does that mean we are going to have to go wipe them out too? After all, that's what got Hitler to his position of power..the hatred of Jews.Where is this supposed to end?
posted on September 26, 2002 12:02:37 PM new
"America used to be a kind and benevolent nation. "
Yeah, back when the Native Americans ran it.
As to the oft-floated notion that Bush is merely "doing the best he can to protect our safety from those who would like to destroy our nation", I'd suggest that if he truly gave a damn he'd be after the auto industry to cease its production of gas-guzzling SUVs and demand that it give us viable electric (or hydrogen cell) cars. He'd mandate and fund shifting our energy (utility) supplies to the 100% renewable, non-polluting solar and wind sources as much as possible. And then he'd simply walk us away from the middle east. What no one seems to remember is that WE are the ones who made those countries rich; WE are the ones who've so tied our "lifestyle" in knots that we're now beholden to this cabal of barbarians. If WE weren't buying their one and only commodity -- OIL -- Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, all of them, would be effectively subdued, far more than they ever will be through war.
Ask yourself why Bush's "vision" for America doesn't include extricating us from these unholy alliances with countries who -- as has been stated here -- "would like to destroy our nation". No, he wouldn't be able to do so in a year, nor even in one term in office, but he could begin. To me, such a goal would be visionary in its attempt, and worthy of The Presidency.
posted on September 26, 2002 09:57:42 PM new"America used to be a kind and benevolent nation. "
Yeah, back when the Native Americans ran it.
Oh, please. At least try to be historically accurate. A) "Native Americans" aren't--they emigrated, too. B) The various tribes weren't all that peaceful, kind or benevolent in their dealings with each other--constant enmity, warfare, practice of slavery, and even cannibalism, amongst other things kinda tarnish that pure as the driven snow image we are treated to today. Did the incoming Europeans do bad things? You betcha. But the so-called "Native Americans" weren't saints themselves.
posted on September 26, 2002 10:39:04 PM new
HeHeHe... so I took a little poetic license and stretched the truth a bit. You caught me Pat!
The US was different in times past. We weren't like a hill of fire ants all ready to go out and destroy things..It is different now. We may not have been benevolent and kind but we weren't vicous either.
I absolutely agree with you about Bush and his visions. He really wants to keep corporations safe not us. We are expendable.Collateral damage isn't that it? We do need to get rid of gas guzzlers and we need to find alternate fuel sources. WE are the main customers thus the main income of the Middle East oil barons.Without us they fail. When it comes to money anyway. Maybe they'd be better off without it.The people probably would.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:51:37 PM new
Oh, Bunnicula. At least try to recognize a sarcastic one-liner when you see it and don't stray so far outside the context of the post that we'll need to start a separate thread just to accurately discuss the side-issue you've raised.
Hi, Robin,
You know, I do understand what you're saying about a "kinder, gentler America", and I agree with you insofar as the American people themselves are concerned. As individuals, we have been extraordinarily generous, heroic, self-sacrificing; good neighbors, upstanding community members, and so forth.
But as a country -- as an entity -- our track record has never been great, imo, and in the last century it worsened globally with every succeeding decade. My personal take on the veracity of that statement has nothing to do with what good people you, Bunni, Helen, et al, are, but it has everything to do with the corporate/military industrialists' stranglehold on our government.
Heh, I doubt anyone really wants me to go on in this vein, but I'm willing to cite several "incidents" in our recent past when we deployed our troops solely for corporate interests and/or withdrew our troops prematurely when the objective was something inconsequential (i.e.: unprofitable once the guns had been purchased) like peacekeeping.
posted on September 27, 2002 12:03:15 AM new
Sarcasm just happens to be one of my favorite sports.
So Pat I agree with you. Now what? In order to keep going I think I have to disagree. Shoot. Just a minute,let me switch hats.....
Can't find it...I just have to agree. Please don't let me stop you from going on about the "incidents of the recent past". I think I could even cite a few myself.
I don't have links though. I never have links.
Edited...spelling...what can I say ..it's late.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 27, 2002 12:04 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2002 01:43:06 PM new
Oh, please. Go ahead, Bunnicula, explain how the Europeans' systematic annihilation and/or displacement of the people who were living in America before they came even remotely equates to the tribal warfare of those people.
Or start a thread about it if you're inthe mood.
posted on September 27, 2002 07:47:43 PM new
Look at the history of the Iroquois Confederacy...
The Iroquois were second to no other Native Americans N of Mexico in political organization, statecraft, and military prowess. In the mid-17th cent. the Iroquois Confederacy, equipped with Dutch firearms, made its united force felt. It dispersed the Huron in 1649, the Tobacco and the Neutral Nation in 1650, the Erie in 1656, the Conestoga in 1675, and the Illinois c.1700. Depleted by continual warfare, they increased the population by the wholesale adoption of alien tribes, so that by the end of the 17th cent. they numbered some 16,000. At this time they controlled the territory bounded by the Kennebec River, the Ottawa River, the Illinois River, and the Tennessee River. Their conquests were checked in the west by the Ojibwa, in the south by the Cherokee and the Catawba, and in the north by the French.
And their effect on the Illini Tribe: The primary enemy was the Iroquois, who attacked them first in 1682 as the Iroquois sought new areas for hunting and trapping. Attacks from the Iroquois and conflicts with other tribes caused the Illini to move down the Illinois River Valley. By the middle of the eighteenth century, their population was a fraction of what it had been a century before
Try pre-European tribes:
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/harrell/cemetery.html Violence was clearly afoot in prehistoric Texas and neighboring regions some 1100 years ago and for centuries thereafter. We don't fully understand the nature of the conflicts, the triggering causes, or what carried the hostile impulse across the southern Plains and far south into central and coastal Texas. What we do know about this seemingly abrupt behavioral shift comes chiefly from graves. In small cemeteries of this time period, archeologists have found widespread evidence of killing and tell-tale evidence of the instrument of death—arrows tipped small stone arrow points—within the graves or even embedded in the skeletal remains. Some skeletons show more horrifying signs of violence—crushed skulls, decapitation, and missing limbs. Taken together, this evidence shows that during a three- or four-century span between about A.D. 900 and 1200-1300 killing and violence were widespread across prehistoric Texas, a pattern that is also seen in the Southwest in the A.D. 1200s and 1300s.
...Analyses of human remains found in other areas of Texas, especially in the central coastal plains, suggest that violence began to increase during Late Archaic times about 2000-3000 years ago. While we will never know what triggered individual episodes, increasing violence is generally thought to reflect increasing competition for resources brought about by population increase sometimes coupled with deteriorating climatic conditions that forced people to intrude into the territories of others.
The Catawba had a 100 year war going on with the Iroquois, while at th same time warring constantly with the Cherokee and the Shawnee, among other tribes.
Cherokees? One expert wroe: "on the east and southeast the Tuscarora and Catawba were their inveterate enemies, with hardly even a momentary truce within the historic period; and evidence goes to show that the Sara and Cheraw were fully as hostile. On the south there was hereditary war with the Creeks, who claimed nearly the whole of upper Georgia as theirs by original possession… by their defeat of the Creeks and expulsion of the shawano, the Cherokee made good the claim they asserted to all the lands from upper Georgia to the Ohio river."
1693 some Cherokee chiefs went to Charleston with presents for the governor and offers of friendship, to ask the protection of South Carolina against their enemies, the Esaw (Catawbas), Savanna (Shawano), and Congaree, all of that colony, who had made war upon them and sold a number of their tribesmen into slavery."
e war with the Tuscarora continued until the outbreak of the latter tribe against Carolina in 1711 gave the opportunity to the Cherokee to cooperate in striking the blow which drove the Tuscarora from their ancient homes to seek refuge in the north. The Cherokee then turned their attention to the Shawano on the Cumberland, and with the aid of the Chicasaw finally expelled them from the region about the year 1715… The former friendship with the Chicasaw was at last broken through the overbearing conduct of the Cherokee, and a war followed of which we find incidental notice in 1757, and which terminated in a decisive victory for the Chicasaw about 1768."
1718, we find notice of a large Cherokee war party moving against the Creek town of Coweta, on the lower Chattahoochee . . ."
The Comanche? Only after their arrival on the Southern Plains did the tribe come to be known as Comanches, a name derived from the Ute word Komántcia, meaning "enemy," or, literally, "anyone who wants to fight me all the time." ...By the early eighteenth century, Comanche bands had migrated into what is now North Texas. In 1706 Spanish officials in New Mexico documented the presence of numerous Comanches on the northeastern frontier of that province. As the Comanches moved south, they came into conflict with tribes already living on the South Plains, particularly the Apaches, who had dominated the region before the arrival of the Comanches. The Apaches were forced south by the Comanche onslaught and became their mortal enemies.http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/bmc72.html
Just the tip of the iceberg & not even going into widespread slavery and the occurences of cannibalism.
And what of those other "saintly" so-called Native Americans further south? Aztecs & Inces, etc. Tales of conquest & bloodthirst down there pre-European advent that curl your toes...
posted on September 27, 2002 09:28:39 PM new
So... I suppose they had it coming to them -- what the Europeans did? Following that train of logic, I guess you'll think it but right when 21st Century conquerors decimate us.
Ah, well... hundred years, all new people. All doing the same old sh!t. Wouldn't you think we'd tire of it (war) after a while? I mean, actually outgrow it as a species, like fur or fins.
Thank you for taking the time to find and italicize all of that information, Bunnicula. I'll undoubtedly incorporate some of it into my dreams tonight, more's the pity.
posted on September 28, 2002 08:14:02 AM new
IMO, we're fortunate to have a librarian in our midst. I'm glad she's here, even if she's having trouble staying on Fanny's back.
posted on September 29, 2002 05:59:18 AM new
I don't think that the question is who is absolutely right and who is absolutely wrong. When you're fighting for your way of life and perhaps your very survival, who wins is the only question that needs answered.
Are we living in a perfect democratic Republic ? Nope. But have any of you ever looked at the competing systems and made a rational decision about which should survive ?
While the argument is persuasive that we shouldn't have pre-emptive attacks, is it really pre-emptive after 9-11 and viewing the conditions in these countries with unbiased eyes ?
When our death and destruction is preached in the mosques, the schools, on TV, and in the streets, and then they kill several thousand of us, is it really pre-emptive ? Does anyone really think that Saddam will only use weapons for defensive purposes ? Who will guarantee that these weapons will not fall into the wrong hands and how will they guarantee it ? If terrorists get hold of these weapons from Iraq and use them against the US and kill tens of thousands of people, will you then feel better that we had to use nuclear weapons against Iraq ?
I think Saddam and Iraq have been chosen as the first to go because it will be the easiest, not necessarily because it is the worst, but there is sufficient reason. However, once a regime change has been accomplished in Iraq, it will be far easier and cost far fewer lives to defeat the radical murders in the region.
It will cost far more lives in the future if we don't clean the mess up now.
posted on September 29, 2002 06:08:13 AM new
Just announced today that they caught smugglers with 33 pounds of enriched uranium in Turkey, 150 miles from the Iraqi border.
posted on October 3, 2002 03:13:44 PM new
I have learned that the "worst" (if there is one) sin is to lie. (check out your Bible) And the only sin that is not forgivable is to blaspheme against the holy spirit (or so I've been taught).
So, targeting gays for hatred is kindred to biggotry and other transferrences of anger... not done in my church, at least not stated as part of our belief system... though I'm sure secretly some do.
Why would many churches choosee a certain sin to stand so firm on? Not sure. I know of a gay man that was beat to death in the military (many decades ago). I wonder why people aren't beat to death when they are dishonest.
I think all people have weakness in their minds, on different levels, and many pick one thing they can focus all their attention on. If this one thing turns out to be less "wrong" than they believed... then inwardly they would feel that their whole belief system is faulty. And that would be the end of them (in their small little minds).
