posted on November 20, 2004 11:04:14 PM new
This is long, and I appologise for that, but do read on to the end.
Some of us it seems have found meaning for the war in Iraq and on terrorism in general, while others are still searching for meaning and still others seem to believe that there is no meaning or that the meaning is hidden behind some such grandiose plan for world domination or power by just a few people.
I say, do not look at the present or the future for some sort of meaning. Instead maybe try looking at the past.
On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave this speech and for clarity I will put a PH in front of all that Patrick Henry said;
PH No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
To me this means that we should engage in debate over the war in Iraq. To do otherwise while having the ability to do so would be just plain wrong.
PH Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
This to me means that one should know the whole truth and be willing to view the ugly images of war and to hear the stories from all that report on it. Otherwise, you'd have a closed mind and would not be able to engage in serious debate.
PH I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.
I believe one could make a correlation between this and the time from the end of the first gulf war to the start of the war in Iraq. The correlation being that SH defied the UN and the USA from the end of the first gulf war.
PH Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.
Smiling, handshaking and more talking would have done no good.
PH Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?
Again the same correlation as the correlation above.
PH What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!
We tried all the we could to avert this war and at every turn we were ignored by the tyrannical SH and the Baath party until finally the UN wrote resolution 1441 and all members voted on it and it was approved. Numerous times SH's fighters in their aircraft violated the no fly zone as if to spurn us or to test our resolve.
PH In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
This war has been a long time coming, ever since the first terror attack and/or airplane hijacking. The terrorists picked this fight with us a long time ago and they want us all dead and/or destroyed. If we want to continue to be free, we must fight. Also, in the battle for our own freedom, if we can bring freedom to other countries as well then it is our duty to do so.
PH They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
We can't just sit on our hands while there are people in the world that want us destroyed and WILL attack us, as was evident on 911. And talking about 911, they caught us totally off guard. But it was a wakeup call and we are taking the fight to them, rather than waiting for them to bring the fight to us. They consider themselves to be a formidable adversary and have decided to take us on. Ok, fine but know this, we will not run and hide, we will not cower and we will win this fight, our very existance depends on it.
PH Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
Again, I say this war was a long time coming and was inevitable.
PH It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace.
These are the war objectionists crying to just make peace but what they fail to understand is that our enemy doesn't want peace and they (our enemy) will do all in their power to bring us something other than peace.
PH The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I agree, give me liberty or give me death. I only wish that I were younger and healthier to join up with our military in this fight. Since I am not, I will not denigrate the cause that is being fought for. Instead I will support it in any way that I possibly can.
Someone might ask me now to explain what was the conection between Iraq and 911. To be truthfull I am not sure there was an actual connection, however, no one can dispute the fact that SH supported acts of terrorism in Israel. It's been said that the enemy of my friend is also my enemy, so for SH to support acts of terrorism against our allies is something that we could not turn our backs on. So therefore, this fight was inevitable. Also, SH did use WMD on his own people and he did posess chemical weapons and was researching the making of nuclear weapons and he surely would have helped any and all of whom would have wanted to bring harm to his own enemies by supplying WMD to them to use on us and our allies. We had to counter this threat before it happened.
SH and his Baath party held the citizens of Iraq in bondage, not free and without human dignity. They too deserve to be free.
Besides, this war would have probably been held off for quite some time if SH had not invaded Kuwait. That was the match that lit the fuze for the start of all of this.
posted on November 21, 2004 12:35:56 AM new
Well presented, yellowstone, and I agree with your responses.
This wouldn't even have started had saddam lived up to what he agreed to in 1991 so that that war would stop. He didn't. No way around that no matter how many excuses some make for him.
No one wants war...but sometimes it is necessary. Peace at any cost would be the biggest mistake we cpi;d ever make.
One thing I have observed on this board though is that we're more divided on it than our Congress is. It's like when I'm reading here....I get the 'feeling' that every dem in the whole country thinks we were wrong....but when I read what some of the dems in Congress have to say...I see more agreement, between the two parties, on the necessity of winning this war, not withdrawing from it. It appear to me that most of our Congress believes we HAVE to win this war.
Anyway....great post using Patrick Henry to compare to what our Nation is going through right now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 21, 2004 05:16:07 AM newI will not denigrate the cause that is being fought for. Instead I will support it in any way that I possibly can.
Says it all right there... hope others of this board read that.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 21, 2004 09:04:53 AM new
Interesting read, yellowstone.
This to me means that one should know the whole truth and be willing to view the ugly images of war and to hear the stories from all that report on it.
If you go back and read the part about: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it...
I think that means I want to know the truth no matter how it hurts me to see it in all its uglyness and we should not close our eyes,ears,mind for a quick fix. (temporal)
jmo..
have to run out. bbl later to read more!
Actually on 2nd thought and checking temporal has several meanings, but I still think he meant we should conduct ourselves and not be dispositioned to jumping to conclusions without being worldly (temporal)
\
okie, really gotta go.
hi mags! You're going soft lately. LOL.
c'mon post a funny and crude picture to show me youre ok! lol.
[ edited by neroter12 on Nov 21, 2004 09:23 AM ]
posted on November 21, 2004 09:16:36 AM new
Thank you for your post, Yellow. I appreciate it when someone can present their views without having to step on the opinions of others. Some very good points made.
Maggie
posted on November 21, 2004 09:55:04 AM new
Classic.. I love my country...Always have..Always will...... Maggie
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Nov 21, 2004 09:57 AM ]
posted on November 21, 2004 05:46:44 PM newOne thing I have observed on this board though is that we're more divided on it than our Congress is.
I've noticed that too. In fact there was someone here, and I can't remember exactly who it was that said it or in what thread it was in, that said something to the effect of; that he/she actually thought of us Conservatives as the enemy. As for me, I can't hardly think of anyone on the left that I would actually refer to as being the enemy. We are all Americans, esentially the same but with different political views. So I don't get this enemy stuff. I don't believe it was said in jest either.
Also I believe that because we are all esentially the same that this war on terror is being fought for all of us, Democrats, Conservatives, etc.
posted on November 22, 2004 08:59:18 AM new
One of the reasons that I believe the huge division on this board exists is because it seems that the left here is more organised than the right is. They seem to be in touch with each other through email and thus they coach each other on different discusions or at least they talk, away from here about different discusions. I've seen subtle clues that lead me to believe this.
posted on November 22, 2004 12:27:21 PM new
I have too, yellowstone. And now that helen has made her announcement on who she believes are ALL friends...plus others she says she didn't mention I believe that's very likely. But imo, it has been for most of the time I've posted here.
But I'm starting with a new 'theory' now. I'm beginning to think crowfarm and helen use a lot of the same words and terms....and to me helen and crowfarm are very much alike in character...helen holding back as helen...but as crowfarm she can be herself.
I'm sure that won't insult her...since she's said crowfarm is her friend. [gag me]
And then kiara being kiara and also maggie. Again similar posting styles...Sara Burnhardt personalities, same sarcasim to those they don't like and close to the same posting style.
Doesn't really matter....and it's not going to change anything...but just another of my observations from their posts here. Someone else brought up they thought cf and maggie were one in the same....hey, that's possibile too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 22, 2004 12:48:05 PM new
Yellowstone, you think the left is more organized than the right because they email each other to get their stories straight before they post? Are you serious?
posted on November 22, 2004 12:57:05 PM newAnd then kiara being kiara and also maggie. Again similar posting styles...Sara Burnhardt personalities, same sarcasim to those they don't like and close to the same posting style.
You think I post like Maggie?? You've got to be kidding.
Trust me on this one, I use only one ID here and will never use more. What you see is what you get whether you like it or not.
posted on November 22, 2004 12:58:11 PM newyou think the left is more organized than the right because they email each other to get their stories straight before they post? Are you serious?
Kraft
I did not say that they email each other to get their stories straight before they post
What I said was, They seem to be in touch with each other through email and thus they coach each other on different discusions or at least they talk, away from here about different discusions. What I meant by this was that they discuss different threads while they are on-going and/or they also discuss tactics in posting styles and/or tactics on how to post to different people.
ed to add; in otherwords it is done to compare notes away from here so that all that post here can't see it being discussed.
[ edited by yellowstone on Nov 22, 2004 01:20 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2004 01:17:29 PM new
I don't think of you as being the enemy either and I think of you the same way Maggie, and I used to think about others the same way also.
It has been said several times in different threads that some DO talk to each other through email and it's been suggested by others that if certain things were to be posted here it would probably be better to send those messages personally through email so that all that post here wouldn't be able to see and read it.
As far as the mutiple id's goes, it is a fact that there are some here that do have them and we all have our suspicions about others, weather those suspicions have merit through actual hard evidence or not.
posted on November 22, 2004 01:20:15 PM new
No, Maggie. It's just that you are a lot more bold than I am. Hey, it's not a bad thing, in fact it makes me laugh.
I think some here just fail to believe that there are free-thinking individuals on this board that can say what we think without having to consult with others or copy and paste everything or butt-kiss someone else looking for approval each time we say something.
Most of us have a definite posting style and perhaps some of you just can't pick up on it. Or you can't believe that some of us can possibly be so intelligent? lol
posted on November 22, 2004 01:34:19 PM new
Yellowstone, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - that was just how I read your post. Who are you referring to on the left?
[ edited by kraftdinner on Nov 22, 2004 01:34 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2004 01:37:05 PM newYou know everybody loves you here, Yellow Next to me, you're the funniest poster here! LOL
I mentioned that I have emailed Crow before, when I got the boot.. but we don't correspond on a regular basis..she is a busy woman..with her auctions, her job and being a new bride.
As far as multiple ID's go.. it doesn't really mean diddle squat to me.. I too have suspicions about certain ones.. but who cares...
LOL.. Kiara.. I was just playing with ya!Actually, I kinda think Neroter and I share a flair!She will read this and turn pale..hee hee
posted on November 22, 2004 02:17:13 PM new
lol, maggie. no, not pale, just a smile. I agree. You and I share more creative writing ability than most who repeat the same thing over and over and just steal the words of another poster and then act like they are their own. It's degrading that crowfarm and others have to beg for it though, dont you think? (down doggie!)
I agree with Linda on this one, and think she/he is someone typing what they wouldnt want anyone to know how nasty they really are from their main ID. No could be that infantile and survive in the real world,imo. One of the reasons I like your posts (other than they are usually entertaining without being overtly cruel, though that is purely subjective, I'm sure)is it appears to me, you dont really give a sh* what anybody thinks..right wrong or indifferent, including "your friends", which btw, is it me - or do I have an entirely different concept of what friends are?
I also dont think Libra needs her glasses when she uses kiara instead of kaft. Oh sure, its denied, but that doesnt change my mind about it one bit.
posted on November 22, 2004 02:50:26 PM new"I also dont think Libra needs her glasses when she uses kiara instead of kaft. Oh sure, its denied, but that doesnt change my mind about it one bit."
Is it the "K's" in out names that confuses you Nero? I appreciate the compliment though if you think we're the same poster. I'm not sure Kiara will be as equally thrilled.
posted on November 22, 2004 03:05:20 PM new
no kraft it is the energy of the posts that are similar.
Youre both constantly telling others what they fail to do, or some sh* that always has somebody or something else's at fault.
..I think some here just fail to.. YOU [by your faulty thinking of course] misunderstand... and now youre going on in another thread about the right and left of the brain and that's just why you go after christians to right them and the world of course, of this pure fallacy of God and Church.
-
[ edited by neroter12 on Nov 22, 2004 03:08 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2004 03:20:33 PM new"Youre both constantly telling others what they fail to do, or some sh* that always has somebody or something else's at fault...I think some here just fail to.."
Nero, it's a figure of speech.
"YOU [by your faulty thinking of course] misunderstand... and now youre going on in another thread about the right and left of the brain and that's just why you go after christians to right them and the world of course, of this pure fallacy of God and Church."
Nero, It's difficult to spend much time discussing things with you because I feel I'm usually the only one doing the discussing. I don't go after Christians. I go after the falsehoods in religion that I feel give God a bad name. I don't feel God is a guy in the sky, so if you don't understand that, then I can't help you.
And Nero, a few of us are still waiting for you to tell us how Christians are happier and more successful than non-Christians, or are you just all talk?
posted on November 22, 2004 04:07:20 PM new
I'm honored, Kraft. Besides, one of them recently talked about occupation of brain space so I guess it's easier for them to think of us as one. It's okay with me if it makes them happy.
If it simplifies it for them, then you, me, Maggie, Crow and Helen can all be one poster to them for all I care.
posted on November 22, 2004 04:31:56 PM new
kraft, sorry, I dont feel you "discuss" anything. You just throw out one-liners and when you cant support what you say, you start attacking the poster in you're oh so cute but very base and banal way.
If you had some prior knowledge about the religion you're going after, you wouldnt need me to tell you about it.
Go do some reading, studying or go interview some christians or something.
THEY ARE HAPPIER BECAUSE THEIR CORE BELIEF IS THAT THIS LIFE IS NOT ALL THERE IS FOR THEM.
They believe they are going to meet God when they die and that is a joyful thought to them verses someone who just thinks they are just going in the ground to dry rot in a box.
Have you heard about this little thing called the ressurection, they beleive in??
THEY ARE HAPPIER, because even right here, right now, they BELIEVE in something GREATER than themselves and no matter what curves life throws them, they will come out ok. THEIR GOD has a plan for them.
These are the fundamental beliefs that the Christian religion is based on. Please dont talk to me about religion anymore, kraft. Your ignorance of the subject thoroughly annoys me - and I dont think you are an illiterate soul. But you wont stop playing your own righteous tune about why you think what you do about Christians, and your continual mockery of them because they are human.
I cant change your mind about what you think, but at least you should have some knowledge about what you're talking about.
posted on November 22, 2004 04:49:57 PM new
Gee, linda. I am flattered that you think that I am crowfarm. I admire her intelligence and her slam dunking skill especially when it is aimed at you. I know that crowfarm and I have one word in common and that word is linduh. Hahaha!
But I only have one ID and that is Helenjw.
And I write with no concern whatsoever what some self professed sneaky snitch like you will do. So stuff it, you old coot.
temporal has several meanings, but I still think he meant we should conduct ourselves and not be dispositioned to jumping to conclusions without being worldly (temporal)
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Nov 22, 2004 01:05 PM ]