posted on October 12, 2002 04:16:36 PM new
Rawbunzel, I don't know why you keep assuming I'm talking to you or about you. I am not. I am addressing the often-stated opinion that (1) our casualties will be too great, or (2) Saddam might do something terrible if we provoke him. That, to me, amounts to cowardice. Of course I am concerned with American casualties. That is why Saddam must be stopped now. Will that end the world's ills? No. But it will stop a very dangerous threat to America.
A coward goes in with guns blazing out of fear for ones own safety.It takes bravery for a person to stand up for what they... and this country stands for....
Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion. Though I doubt our troops feel they are cowardly when they are on the field of battle, defending your right to oppose the government.
We are rushing it and there is no reason for this great hurry.
Yes, there is a reason. We believe he is close to developing nuclear weapons. He should have nuclear weapons to defend himself? Sorry, I disagree. Saddam is paying families of suicide bombers. Do you really think he won't carry on a vendetta against the U.S. first chance he gets? Boy, you have some faith in human nature, but unfortunately the facts don't support your optimism.
Your rose-colored vision of the world is incorrect. Supporting democracy does not mean we support the rights of oppressive tyrants to own WOMD and use them against their neighbors. Or against us.
I admire anyone who could manage to violate [sanctions].
So, Helen, you admire Saddam? This is where your unfettered, illogical hatred of American government has led you? But apparently you love the American freedoms others defend with their lives, that allow you to publicly harangue our government. Try doing that in Iraq, and you will be taken out in the street and shot for a traitor. You love the American way, but you refuse to pay the price. Let others die defending your freedom. You can make all the excuses you need to.
posted on October 12, 2002 06:19:53 PM new
Twinsoft, I take it meant for me because I have said some of those things myself so am in the group that would be labeled thus.
"A coward goes in with guns blazing out of fear for ones own safety.It takes bravery for a person to stand up for what they... and this country stands for...."
and you...
"Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion. Though I doubt our troops feel they are cowardly when they are on the field of battle, defending your right to oppose the government."
I wasn't talking about the troops. No matter what I will always stand with our troops. I saw what happened to them during the VM years and it wasn't pretty. I would change my mind ,of course, if they were turning on the people of America like what has been done in Russia and China but luckily I don't see that happening....yet. It was a bad metaphor.
Do you think if we go in single handed and take out Saddam and put in a military goverment run by us that the whole of the Middle East won't have a vendetta against us? Saddam does not scare me one iota but the whole of Arabia and Islam dedicated to Jihad does.
I have no problem at all with going in if we have a real coalition of other countries and support from around the world. I can't help but wonder why Bush is the only leader [except for Blair] that believes this is urgent...they all have the same information and no one feels the urgency that Bush does. Maybe his urgency doesn't come from Saddam but from trying to get in there before the people of this country lose thier fear and are not so pliable as they are right now.
I have never had on rose colored glasses. Never. The world is an wild place full of those that would do us harm. I just do not live in fear of it. Hey, we all got to go sometime. As I said before..I don't want anyone to die for me if it isn't 100% necessary. It isn't at this time to me. My opinion. MINE.
posted on October 12, 2002 06:24:40 PM new"So, Helen, you admire Saddam? This is where your unfettered, illogical hatred of American government has led you? But apparently you love the American freedoms others defend with their lives, that allow you to publicly harangue our government. Try doing that in Iraq, and you will be taken out in the street and shot for a traitor. You love the American way, but you refuse to pay the price. Let others die defending your freedom. You can make all the excuses you need to.
Twinsoft.
You know very well that I don't admire Saddam.
Read what I said. Did I mention Saddam? I meant anyone who could manage to smuggle in hospital equipment and medicine for CHILDREN who are dying because of the sanctions.
I don't believe that sanctions should be enforced. Innocent children and people of Iraq should not have to pay for Saddam's mistakes.
posted on October 12, 2002 06:32:42 PM new
October 4, 1996: United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) releases report on Iraq. "Around 4,500 children under the age of five are dying here every month from hunger and disease," said Philippe Heffinck, UNICEF's representative for Iraq. gopher://gopher.unicef.org/00/.cefdata/.prgva96/prgva35
January 10, 1998: The Pope: "I insist on repeating clearly to all, once again, that no one may kill in God's name," recalling "our brothers and sisters in Iraq, living under a pitiless embargo... The weak and the innocent cannot pay for mistakes for which they are not responsible," the Pope said of the U.N. sanctions.
[ edited by Helenjw on Oct 12, 2002 07:12 PM ]
posted on October 12, 2002 10:29:50 PM newDo you think if we go in single handed and take out Saddam and put in a military goverment run by us that the whole of the Middle East won't have a vendetta against us? Saddam does not scare me one iota but the whole of Arabia and Islam dedicated to Jihad does.
No, because there is little or no unity among the Arab nations of the Middle East. Most civilized, educated Arabs could care less about Jihad. And all blustering aside, Arabs know how dangerous Saddam is to them also.
Helen, sanctions didn't work. Because we made the mistake once again of putting a human face on Saddam Hussein. We figured that if we allowed him to sell oil for food and medicine, that he would value the lives of his subjects and provide them with food and medicine. Instead, he sold oil, and used the profits to rebuild his war machine. He is starving his own people.
We should have taken Saddam out ten years ago. We marched up to his front door, and then turned around and walked away. We thought we could bluff him. It didn't work. We should have TAKEN HIM OUT. Our reluctance to take the necessary steps then, is now putting us at greater risk. If Hussein is developing nuclear weapons, we can't simply let it go.
posted on October 13, 2002 05:44:13 AM new
rawbunzel - I know you addressed your question to twinsoft, but I would like to share my opinion.
I can't help but wonder why Bush is the only leader [except for Blair] that believes this is urgent...they all have the same information and no one feels the urgency that Bush does.
From what I've been reading the number of threats to our country has grown in the last few weeks. Again...nothing that can be pinned down, but still threats against our country. Also part of the urgency could be that in recent weeks Saddam's military has stepped up their aggression on our military plane flying over the no-fly zone. I sure don't like knowing our military men/women are being shot at on a daily basis...and what's the UN doing about that? Nothing. We need to deal with it ourselves.
[Wonder why?] IMO it's because WE were the country that has been attacked by terrorists. Maybe to other countries it's like some here feel. Why should American's go off and protect/get involved in other countries problems? Maybe they too want to stay un-involved because they aren't/haven't been directly involved. WE are the country who has been promised more will come. This administration has decided to pursue all terrorists, and those that support them.
It's my belief that if terrorists where doing the same thing to other countries, they'd feel the same way. For example this week the French oil tanker was attacked near Yemen. The leader of France appears to believe it was terrorist related. Do you think maybe they might take a different stand [see how it feels now that they've been directly targeted]? Or Bali...a terrorist bombing. If the terrorists continue attacking other countries, I think you'll see more support for going after them.
Maybe his urgency doesn't come from Saddam but from trying to get in there before the people of this country lose thier fear and are not so pliable as they are right now.
Some may lose their fear, but I haven't felt fear. I've felt ANGER, not fear. I've personalized their violence against my country. I want them all hunted down and stopped.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 13, 2002 06:05 AM ]
posted on October 13, 2002 08:25:05 AM new
>From what I've been reading the number of threats to our country has grown in the last few weeks.
Just curious, Linda. What is the source of this claim? The White House? Ari Fletcher?
Persons with an interest in getting us to go to War with Saddam or those with an interest in maintaing diplomacy efforts?
posted on October 13, 2002 09:31:41 AM new
Borillar - You asking for links? LOL You, who when asked to provide links to support some of your outlandish statements won't do so? It works both ways, Borillar.
posted on October 13, 2002 09:58:46 AM new
Borillar, When you see a post peppered with words such as the following, it's clear that a link is not available.
It's similar to the Republicans use of "if's" and "maybe's and "could's " in an attempt to define the threat that Saddam poses.
nothing that can be pinned down
urgency 'could' be.........
'Maybe' to other countries
like some here 'feel'
'Maybe' they too want
It's my belief
they'd 'feel' the same way
The leader of France 'appears' to believe
I 'think' you'll see
Some 'may'
posted on October 13, 2002 11:42:33 AM new
LindaK, I too want to hunt down and kill all the terrorists too and those countries that have had terrorist activities aimed at them will likely come around to fight the war on terrorism. But please, tell me how does this relate to Saddam? Our own CIA has stated that he is not an urgent problem. So why are we not in hot pursuit of Osama and his buddies anymore? They are the threat and they have plenty of money and resources of their own. I doubt they need Saddam. Indeed they despise him.
I would not think that an attack on a French tanker in Yemen by someone that is not from Iraq would make the French want to go after Iraq. Where would be the sense in that?
makes the same kind of sense as going after Iraq when it was Saudi's that flew into the trade towers
Twinsoft, I really hope and pray that those with your viewpoint are right ~ since we are headed off to war ~ I do not want to see this war escalate.My gut is telling me different and my gut is seldom wrong.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Oct 13, 2002 11:47 AM ]
posted on October 13, 2002 01:28:53 PM new
I didn't ask for links! Please show me where I did! What's your problem in reading comprehension, Linda? I already knew where it came from. I asked you where the source of this claim comes from. If you can't even tell us where you heard or read that, Linda, there is no use in trying to show you that you have to factor in the motives of that source in order to rationally evaluate the data. Since you are simply repeating the announcement from those who have a direct and very specific interest in goading the USA into a War that it doesn't want with Saddam, it tells me (at least) that you never did stop to consider that it might be an exaggeration on the part of the Bush gang -- such exaggerations having come from Bush and his gangsters before. Your lack of insight into the announcement is coupled with your lack of reading comprehension of what I wrote. There is a distinctive problem that you have and it suggests why you maintain here in the RT that you blindly support our government.
posted on October 13, 2002 03:45:34 PM new
Borillar, if anyone has a locked-down mind it's you. It's obvious you mistrust anything from the government. I don't trust Bush either, but this situation is open and shut, IMNSHO.
Bunzie, I don't understand. You think Saddam has a right to arm himself, but when it comes to nuclear weapons, your response is, "oh well, we all gotta go sometime." I'm really surprised by your flippant attitude when millions of lives might be at stake.
Nobody is rushing off to war. We are sending in inspectors. We are building an international coalition. All Saddam has to do is allow unfettered access, and prove his claim that he is not developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
posted on October 13, 2002 04:35:07 PM new
>Borillar, if anyone has a locked-down mind it's you. It's obvious you mistrust anything from the government.
It's obvious that you have a good grasp of the obvious - at least from me, that is. That government and politicans attempt to manipulate us is a fact as old as the first politician to run for office. Just because our government is loosely based upon the concepts of Democracy does not exclude it from this univeral rule. Anyone who isn't aware of that fact is either ignorant of politics or just plain stupid.
Because our governement is based upon democractic principles, it is mnore important than ever for this government to seek the approval of its citizens, meaning me and you. To not acknowledge that they will do ANYTHING to manipulate us to further their own agendas and political careers is foolishness of the worst sort. The only real question is if their agenda is any good for us at all.
In the case of the Democrats, as a party, it is not too likely anymore that their agendas are any good for us. However, it has been clear since Eisenhower - and earlier in many instances, that the Republican Party has NOTHING good for you and me!
Now that Bush is so eagar to go beat up Saddam, only the politically ignorant or the horribly stupid jump on the bandwagon with him. Which is it for you, twinsoft?
posted on October 13, 2002 05:34:46 PM new
Twinsoft,
Not to say I think that Saddam has the "right" but it is his country still and he wants to protect it.Well, in his case not so much his country but himself. Why on earth would we think he would throw his arms in the air and just give up given his temperment? That is what I am saying that there should be no surprise that he is trying to arm himself when we continue to tell him we are after him and want him dead.
Curious though... Does any country have a reason to arm themselves against a well armed aggressor?Or just us?
I have never mentioned nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about those in this country yet.YET. Still too much at stake for too many.I am thinking more of virus or bacteria or tainted water supply.
Why would you take my statement of not being afraid since we do all have to die one day as flippant? I am not afraid to die, I've seen the other side and it is much nicer than here. Why would I fear that?We are all going to die someday. I could walk out my door and be hit by a car, I could go out to feed my fish and suffer a heart attack.We DO all gotta go sometime. I just don't want to be guilty of taking a whole bunch of others with me if there is no need to do so.
I am seeing that those that are the most afraid to die appear to be the ones most likely to get us into exactly that type of situation. Ironic.
Nobody is rushing off to war THIS week. Last week it certainly looked that way. I am happy that we have finally been convinced of the need to try the inspections first and to get a coalition together. That is all I ever wanted of this governemnt to do. Up until the administration was forced to they were ready to go with out any backing what so ever.Not that I think war is the answer, I do not, but at least I won't feel like part of a band of vigilanties.The idea of going it alone makes me ill.
Who has joined the coalition so far?
Twinsoft, I don't understand why you don't understand my posts but then I am not a great writer as stated before and my thoughts are sometimes jumbled.
posted on October 13, 2002 07:02:07 PM newLoL! Do you really think that this war is just under consideration? George is already planning the post war transition.
I would say that war is a foregone conclusion.
Now that Bush is so eagar to go beat up Saddam, only the politically ignorant or the horribly stupid jump on the bandwagon with him. Which is it for you, twinsoft?
Actually, my representatives all voted against Bush. Except Feinstein. I have respect for Daschle. It's important that Americans speak with one voice. 'Course Borillar, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You think you know better than the President, Congress and American people all lumped together.
Why would you take my statement of not being afraid since we do all have to die one day as flippant? I am not afraid to die, I've seen the other side and it is much nicer than here.
Bunzie, there's no arguing with a statement like that, which (I'm sorry to say) is totally disconnected from reality. Though I would point out that suicide bombers also believe the same.
I am seeing that those that are the most afraid to die appear to be the ones most likely to get us into exactly that type of situation. Ironic.
Too funny. Will you stand by while Saddam commits brutal murder, and call someone who wants to prevent that a coward? I think you've got your priorities ass-backwards. I'm not sure what you mean by bragging that you aren't afraid to die. But I'm having trouble taking you seriously.
Look Bunzie, we can agree to disagree. I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's. It's just talk, okay? Don't get so defensive. We're not keeping score here.
posted on October 13, 2002 07:18:59 PM new
I only wish I were out of touch with reality.
Just so you know, I only got a peek at the other side, and it really wasn't the place that was better just the feeling. Think what you want.
One clarification then I am done. I didn't say I wanted to die, just that I am not afraid. Big difference and not at all suicide bomber like. I would fight tooth and nail to not die,living is grand, I just believe in an afterlife of sorts [no heaven and hell scenario] so am not afraid. Sorry if it sounded like bragging. Wasn't meant that way.Doesn't mean I am not afraid of the method of dying like everyone else.Doesn't mean I look forward to dying.
posted on October 14, 2002 07:43:34 AM new
"So, Helen, you admire Saddam? This is where your unfettered, illogical hatred of American government has led you? But apparently you love the American freedoms others defend with their lives, that allow you to publicly harangue our government. Try doing that in Iraq, and you will be taken out in the street and shot for a traitor. You love the American way, but you refuse to pay the price. Let others die defending your freedom. You can make all the excuses you need to."
It's because I love the American way that I am trying to defend it. The shenanigans of George Bush and his administration does not define the American way in my opinion. As I suggested before, you should not assume to know who I admire. It's certainly not Saddam.
You're in good form, "twinsoft". You could almost give stusi a run for his money.
posted on October 14, 2002 08:25:27 AM new
So Iraq supports terrorist? So do the US, we supported Saddam when he was a terrorist. What so different now? We even have a school to train terrorists and dictators. At least A-Q kept theirs fairly secret, we flaunted ours. They did not learn those fine arts of torture and intimidation from A-Q. A-Q probably got all their techniques from us. There were a few middle eastern trainees in the Alumni of School of the Americas Offered to train dictators to overthrow ELECTED leaders so long as they remained friendly to us and allowed our rape and pillage of their country's resources. Hell, rape and kill a few American Nuns, no problem.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 14, 2002 08:26 AM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 14, 2002 08:29 AM ]
posted on October 14, 2002 11:43:18 AM new
The American Way has been based upon several things. First and foremost - a true Christian Nation, whereby our internal and external policies reflect the teachings of Jesus. It is based upon the old Celtic system of government, the Rule of Law; whereby NO ONE person or group is higher than the Law and ALL must obey the law! Then there is the established Roman and Greek systems of Republic and Democracy for the running of our government, so designed to be inefficient to keep any one branch or person from ever gathering too much power in one place. And then there is the British Judicial system of Torts and Reforms and the Precedence system of judges and courts, although we went further than the British and put an extra barrier to the excesses and abuses of the judicial system by making a person Innocent when charged, rather than Guilty when charged. Finally, the Enlightenment brought forth several key thinkers that saw with visionary brilliance how a government could be of actual benefit for the governed, not just for a few who held all the power and resources in the country. They then cleverly put this altogether into one package - the American Way!
It is the goal of the GOP and George Bush to DESTROY the American Way! That is what is the real reason for going into Iraq IMO. To attack another country first who has not attacked us is to break down another of the Old System of American Values that made our nation so great and so admired that most people in the world would want to live here instead of where they are at. That Bush & Co. want to turn this into the Fourth Reich and conquer the World is an Evil that deserves a capital E. So many Americans cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way, they can not see their way of life that they've always enjoyed being destroyed and replaced with a system of repressive, tyrannical government is a shame. That in the end, as I keep saying, is that it will take the blood of many Americans spilt in order to restore the American Way should not be understated nor misunderstood.
posted on October 14, 2002 12:01:24 PM new
You got to hand it to Bush, he's crafty. He has a secret plan to destroy the American way by becoming an elected official, carrying out the will of his counrymen and getting a bipartisan approval of both houses of Congress.
posted on October 14, 2002 01:24:14 PM new
Oh, as for bipartisan support of both houses....
A little known rule of order....
The only people allowed to call for the repeal of a previously passed law or resolution are members who previously voted FOR it. Those who voted against a bill are barred from calling for the repeal of legislation.
Makes you sort of understand why some of these representatives vote the way they do. Some are being sacrificial lambs to keep their options of their party open.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on October 14, 2002 01:32:18 PM new
I haven't read every post in this thread, so if someone has already said this, please excuse me.
Does no one think it odd how suddenly the focus of the anti terror effort changed from finding Osama Bin Laden (admittedly responsible for the bombings on 9/11) and regime change in Afghanistan to the Axis of Evil and targeting Iraq?
We have soldiers in Afghanistan, Georgia, Yemen, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, and the Phillipines in the first steps of this global war. Kuwaiti citizens are firing on the American Marines there. 3 attacks in one week.
Our own arms control policy is not about control, as shown by the Nuclear Posture Report released earlier this year, and the continued administration opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US signed in 96. The withdrawal from the ABM Treaty this year showed many that the present US government is not comitted to strategic stability.
The Middle East has throughout history been a fractious spot, and every outsider waging war there has ultimately been defeated.
What plans are there after Iraq has been conquered? A plan such as Afghanistan, with a quicky local government, or military occupation. Both options have numerous drawbacks.
To lead, one must show leadership and consturctive engagement. What have we shown? Unilateral thinking, as evidenced by the phrase,
You're with us or against us.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 14, 2002 02:32:02 PM new
Bush, with the millitary strength United States behind him, has been busy kicking over as many anthills as possible in order to start a world-wide conflageration in order to get global domination. Don't think for a second that this translates as Good for the American People. The benefits will be limited to just a few who will Rule . . .
posted on October 14, 2002 02:48:11 PM new
Sending the young to go off to war should only be done after much thought and consideration. I was curious as to who in our government has served their country in wartime:
Dick Cheney: "During the Vietnam War, when Cheney was draft-eligible, he received deferments as a student, and then as a registrant with a child.
“I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service,” Cheney told a reporter in 1989, according to the Washington Post."
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
Saddam kicked out the arms inspectors, bought off the loyalties of the United Nations Security Council, divided the international coalition, starved his population and fed more and more resources to his toxic weapons programs.
That's where we are now--and why regime change is seen as the final way to "contain" Iraq. Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and a member of the Clinton administration's National Security Council team, reluctantly reaches this conclusion after tracing the gradual breakdown of U.S. policy toward Iraq since the Gulf War. "The Threatening Storm" is both a primer on Iraq and a fascinating insider's view of American attempts to meet the threat it poses.
And remember, during the Clinton administration there was a law passed to oust Saddam, and calling for a regime change. Clinton just tried to work at containing Saddam, rather than confronting him. IMO, since containing doesn't appear to have worked, we need regime change.
rawbunzelBut please tell me how does this relate to Saddam? Because he has contributed approx. $1.5 million to the families of the suicide bombers. Because he has admitted to UN inspectors that they have made weapons from antrax and other germs. He also has admitted to the UN that his scientists are working on biological weapons with camel-pox. Do you believe he's spending all this money to keep his camels safe? I don't. It's a safe way to test and learn how the smallpox virus works in a much safer way than the scientists practing with smallpox. A top offical in the Soviet biological weapons program said he has no doubt Iraq has the smallpox virus. So now, Bush has ordered enough smallpox vaccine to inoculate the entire US population...just in case. [According to a smallpox expert and bioterrorism adviser to the Dept of Health & Human Services.]
We can only protect our citizens to a certain degree...but if we oust Saddam we can stop these horrors he is developing. Want to wait until he developes weapons with smallpox on them...uses it...and THEN react. IMO, it's much better to stop it BEFORE it happens.
But the biggest issue for me is his military shooting our forces over the no-fly zone. While speaking out of one corner of his mouth, he tells the UN he'll accept inspectors in. But what's he doing? Still shooting at the UN sanctioned Brit and American planes. Been going on for quite a while? Yes, but the number of times are increasing....we've waited way to long to deal with just that alone, IMO.
And we are still in hot pursuit of Osama's followers/terrorists. It's my belief that American can better seek out and find these terrorists if we can learn what surprises Saddam may have in store for our military when sent any where in the world to fight terrorism.
On the French oil tanker, Bali, etc - my point was that terrorists doing harm/damage to other countries will get those same countries moving to fight world-wide terrorism.
snowyegret I didn't see Clinton's name on the democratic list of those who served. Not quite sure if your point was to say that if the decision makers [on going to war] didn't serve then they shouldn't be allowed to send our troops to war???? [or if I took that the wrong way] If it was your point, then where's all the Clinton administration peoples names on that list who also made the decision to go to war and also to oust Saddam during their administration?
It was a bad metaphor.
You, who when asked to provide links to support some of your outlandish statements won't do so? It works both ways, Borillar.
