posted on March 9, 2003 09:22:23 AM new
Former U.S. president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter on Sunday condemned preparations for a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq (news - web sites), saying it would be an unjust war "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations."
Irene, I thought you and some others here might be interested in this tribute to the unity and concern of Canadians after the 9/11 terrorism.
Its best summed up in a quote from an article by Canada's beloved radio host and columnist Peter Gzowski: "Come off it. I am an American. I don't mean just Ich bin ein New Yorker, as a short but eloquent letter to the editor on Thursday put it or even in the sense of standing shoulder to shoulder with our best friends, but of literal fact."
donny - [occupied Japan, SK, all our 'allies' - having nothing to put up.] They do. A vote of support is what the US has asked for in the Iraq situation, and whatever help can be given. [Financial, military, borrowing a piece of land we paid for and help build. A vote of support that freedom for all is better than a dictatorship who has a proven track record of being quite capable to use his weapons to destroy others, and who thumbs his nose at the world not just the US in producing weapons.
A vote that says a democracy is better than a dictatorship.
On the 'cards on the table'. I do see this differently than some here. When Bush uses this, to me it means make your choice. The oh so hated 'you're either with us or against us' or 'good vs evil' train of thought. I don't see it as saying a vote for us means you agree with each and everything we do. But rather in this situation do you stand on the side of a person like Saddam and what he represents, or do you stand on the side of what American [basically] stands for....freedom.
On our food anology, I'm taking this to a whole new level [guess I won't be taking you to dinner - but had thought of inviting you out for breakfast since we were up so late last night ] I don't control all the food. I have a lot of it and I'm not ashamed of that. Because I've spent a lot of my taxpayers hard earn dollars and lives to grow or buy it. I've offered to share what I want. I won't be forced to share more than I wish [socialism]. I've worked hard to be in that position. I've been successful and I'm offering to share some of my food [ability to purchase it] with you. If it suits me to invite you, you have the option of turning me down. Wouldn't be a very friendly gesture, and I sure would question why you have, especially when we've had years of a rather good friendship.
But I also have the option of not re-extending that offer again. I've learned my lesson. You weren't grateful for all the times I have taken you out. I don't know why, because I've asked so little of you. But your new stance surprises me. And yes, it would be your 'gift' back to me to let me know you appreciate that I've valued your friendship enough to offer to treat you.]
But now when I'm a little low on support on something I feel is VERY important, our past friendship appears to mean nothing to you. You side with someone who not only has never taken you to dinner, but has stated they'd like to poison your food and that of your other friends.
posted on March 9, 2003 09:48:22 AM new
Koto - we were the victors Yes, and I do wonder what would have happen, how the situation would have been different, if we had not used NW in Japan. I do know we would have lost a lot more lives than we did. I'm just not understanding how our presense there makes them weaker. They are not weak, and they also have the support of our military stationed there.
Present time - [their military only for their own protection] Yes, but that agreement could be modified at any time. I don't see how we could object to that.
And on donny's premise that we still occupy Japan, that's recently being revisited too. I don't see it as occupation, we're not there to make them conform to our way of doing things, thinking like-minded any longer, haven't been for what 30 years? Same way our military presense is in a lot of countries. But if those same countries what us to stay, then that's different too. That's not us staying by force, but by agreement with their governments.
I don't think we'd disagree to Canada and similar nations having NWs, if they so choose. I do see a BIG difference between nations like Canada and those like the NK or Iraq's of the world. I would like to see a de-escalation of WOMD though.
posted on March 9, 2003 09:56:53 AM new
Colin - really hate the US It sure appears to me that way too.
some pacifists When bombing any country is okay under one administration and not under another party then to me that's not being a pacifist. It's being hypocritical. If one is a pacifist, then one always opposes war...violence. Not just when their party's not in office.
fear it may be too late...agreed. I think that's the point we now find ourselves in.
France & Germany - had they supported in the beginning I agree.
But the strongest statement you made that I 100% agree with is but most of all it's time to blame the bad guys.
-----------------------
Irene - On your joke about American soldiers. That was a perfect example of what I mean when I say we can't win. We are faulted by some for entering both wars too late. But when we then 'take the lead' we are criticized for acting too quickly. A lose, lose situation. So, we do as I believe we should do. What's right for us at the time.
posted on March 9, 2003 10:05:52 AM new
Irene and Helen - Here's the view from 'the other side' in regards to Clinton and Carter speaking out about this administration. And a woman who's view I agree with.
Previous ex-presidents showed restraint. This is from a woman who was a democrat and changed party's. So she knows both sides.
Two of our former presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have been talking a lot about their views and feelings on Iraq. It would be nice if they took to speaking less and thinking more. They could start with an event in the latter years of Dwight David Eisenhower, a former president who knew how to do the job.
posted on March 9, 2003 10:21:51 AM new
Irene, Irene... you know well and good that Canada was following England into war in 1914 and 1939...
You are good people up there just need someone to show you the way...
Oh and I do believe that the US was first on the scene in Korea...
If Carter is against this, I am now even more for this... that was the worst 4 years in this nation's history...
posted on March 9, 2003 11:56:44 AM new
Carter wasn't 'Presdential' material, he didn't even want the job... the other aspects of him are very great. (though I don't think ex prez's should be commenting on what current Prez's are doing)
Of course Canada would follow Britain, the almost HAVE to. Meaning WWII.
Hey! if any of that fallout hits the PNW, yeah! no kidding, Canada is going to get some of it.... and it won't be OUR fault.
(hey I like Canadians )
now going to the dump to do our regular dump run.... we don't have the luxury of having it picked up oh in a RENTED truck with our utility trailer
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 10, 2003 03:36:53 AM new
I figure Ford and Carter are why we are on the boarders of Iraq today. they did more to disable the CIA and our information networks then anyone.
Here's some links to Ford and Carter bumbles:
According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
posted on March 10, 2003 04:30:04 AM new
Forget about Carter, Clinton and Peggy Noonan. Any time Kissinger shows up, it should make your blood run cold.
[guess I won't be taking you to dinner - but had thought of inviting you out for breakfast since we were up so late last night 
)