posted on February 12, 2003 08:00:02 PM new
Actions, past or present, taken by a nation’s head does not imply that all it’s citizens supported or support such an action.
And so ARTROCITIES, which were committed by past inhibitions of a nation, may and too often seem to, continue: But. To support such a continuance you stand accused of these same crimes.
To name or blame others of any crime does not reduce this guilt.
You Colin, Linda, Twelvepole, and others, STAND CHARGED of the tacit or implied consent for the continuance of atrocities by the US Government Leadership.
This atrocity being the US Leadership’s, CONTINUOUSLY exerting it’s obvious economic and military superiority, to economically OR militarily; covertly OR overtly, FORCE foreign regions to yield to US advantage, even when the other nation is one barely out of stone age by your own economic standards.
You might think this better, and so be it. But for who? The US?.
You may think that, but who knows what this world will come too, even only over the next 50yrs.
You need NOT support Bush’s war to be a Patriot.
Must a patriot support a crime, which is committed by their leadership.
This crime HAS and IS being committed and it a pure exercise in greed.
You too colin, linda and twelvepole, display openly and defend this greed, and say it’s right, because it’s right for you. You believe in only what is good for USA (some citizens), regardless of the continuing effects of past atrocities.
Even if we were to describe US as a model ‘big brother’ and we even though we may see displays of animated affection, or generosity, we know that all to often, big brothers may beat on a sibling or take their prised possession or last sweet.
This may argue that this is the status quo, or it may be argued as survival, but we are not amoebae, we are humans and it is immoral.
posted on February 12, 2003 08:38:54 PM new
Who is next after those countries Reamond? China? How about Pakistan and India, after all they have nukes and they know how to use them.
posted on February 12, 2003 08:44:08 PM new
Austbounty:
Permission given;
use your freedom and leave the country,
No really go,No, now I insist go move to the place of choice.
Really, Go God Speed,pack your stuff and go.
Hurry before April you may have to pay Taxes.
No just Go have fun.
Really go,don't look back.
Your vote count's over there,really it dose.
Go
posted on February 12, 2003 08:47:08 PM new
If your criteria is possessing nukes then certainly they all must be dealt with. However, the policy for going after these countries is not based entirely on possession of WMDs.
Pakistan has already been dealt with. India is a democracy and is not a threat.
If you think that mere possession of WMDs is the reason for going after these terrorists nations then you have a naive view of international issues and haven't been following world events for several years.
posted on February 12, 2003 08:56:42 PM new
Oh, I keep up alright. No problem there. Pakistan is a problem, the government is less than stable and there are many terrorists in that country. Why wouldn't we go in and at least shore them up? Naive? I think not.
I am sad to see the way this country has gone. We are more divided than I can remember and I was an adult during the Vietnam war..I remember. There is more hate for one another now than I have ever seen ...or felt before in my life.
posted on February 12, 2003 09:26:48 PM new
Blame Terror for all the hate,not Bush.Thing's are not rosey in the world my friend.They started it,time to put a finish to it.That's all, Never kick a sleeping dog.And while many think Bush is a cowboy,he's not,Clinton was asleep at the wheel this country almost went off the road because of this,Bush just grab the wheel and is getting us back on track.
posted on February 12, 2003 10:54:05 PM new
America should keep it’s money and its WOMD too.
If you, as an individual, do not acknowledge past atrocities committed by inhabitants of your land, and make no mistake, they have been committed, and permit their effects to be sustained, then you too are guilty too.
Who appointed USA as sheriff.
Perhaps your leaders want to see thee UN abolished, they will NOT accept a senior sheriff.
USA is only ‘allied’ with any country only in as far as it suites their agenda.
Some of you people say greed is good, SHOW SOME INTEGRITY and admit your crime.
Greed is only good for the greedy.
Admit you believe it right that USA should be big brother and take his lollies as he wishes.
posted on February 13, 2003 08:54:06 AM new
austbounty - Is this where I'm supposed to feel guilty? Be clear...I DON'T!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 13, 2003 10:57 AM ]
posted on February 13, 2003 09:04:12 AM new
The US is not the world's sherriff by choice, but by default. The recent Balkan conflict is a prime example. Europe had a lot to lose if the Balkan conflict continued and escalated, but Europe refused to intervein. The US had to send in troops to stop the muslim population from extermination. Only after the US stepped in did Europe come on board.
As the wars of the last century proved, appeasment and isolationism will not work and only lead to far worse destruction at a later date.
The only thing I can find the US guilty of is being the brightest light in the history of human government, warts and all.
posted on February 13, 2003 01:17:00 PM new
>The only thing I can find the US guilty of is being the brightest light in the history of human government, warts and all.
Yes, yes! I whole-heartedly agree! It's too bad, though, that our unprovoked, unilateral millitary strike on Iraq will be our downfall from that glory. But that's the price we must pay to rid the world of Saddam Husein. It was nice to be Proud of our country, nice while it lasted, that is.
posted on February 13, 2003 02:58:26 PM new
President Bush may not be the smartest pup in the letter but he has a lot of good people behind him to make sure he doesn't make a mistake. Not to forget the Senate and Congress.
This is America after all.
Austbound, Thanks for putting me on the list. I just wish you hadn't left out the others. You've hurt their feelings. They to are proud to be American.
posted on February 13, 2003 03:00:30 PM newPresident Bush may not be the smartest pup in the letter but he has a lot of good people behind him to make sure he doesn't make a mistake.
you haven't listened to any of his speeches, have you? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 13, 2003 04:05:33 PM new
>President Bush may not be the smartest pup in the letter but he has a lot of good people behind him to make sure he doesn't make a mistake.
Colin, that's wrong. Absolute wrong. The reason being is that "good people behind him" were NOT voted for by the electorate! They are NOT APPROVED. We DO NOT do these things in America! If the man is too dim, then he should not be President. What are we to do? Hope like hell that "good people behind him" have OUR best interests at heart and not theirs? That's a piss-poor way to run a Free Democracy. Sounds more like a Stalinist state to me. Are you a Stalinist, Colin?
posted on February 13, 2003 04:15:43 PM new
It's his right to nominate his staff. He didn't nominate the congress or the senate. What president before him hasn't done the same thing. At least he didn't bring a bunch of Nixons people over.
I'm not saying I agree with all the he's brought with him but that's just a judgment call for me.
Yes, he's made the most bloopers in speeches since Ford. He seems to be choosing his words better of lately. Better speech writers.
posted on February 13, 2003 04:30:02 PM new
OK. The problem as I see it is that any President who is incompetant should be removed if for no other reason than he is a danger to the world. Fair enough? And if he requires "handlers", then it is NOT the President who is running this country nor is it the American People, the President being their spokesman. Instead, whoever IS making decisions that affect the nation and this world are NOT APPROVED by the people of the United States of America. Period. And if the President is so mentally incapacitated, then no judgement of his can possibly be sound. Right?
Furthermore, Senators and Representatives are elected and they are sent there in their capacities to represent you and me. Bush's Handlers are neither representative of us nor are they responsible to us. This is NOT OK in a Free Democracy! You can't cut it any other way than that. And the only other form of government that allows this is Stalinism. So, if you are all for Bush's Henchmen, then you must also be a Communist and a Stalinist. That too, doesn't cut any other way.
posted on February 13, 2003 04:30:52 PM new better speech writers??? Maybe they need to type in all caps.
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
posted on February 13, 2003 05:03:36 PM new
It seems many of you don't want a President, You want a Messiah.
All the past Presidents have brought along their Henchmen. I still get the feeling it's just because he's a republican.
If you can't find fault in one thing you'll find something else. Who should be president? I asked that before and got no real answers. There's no one in the Democratic party I can stand behind at the moment. Colin Powell and John McCain are both republicans. Any suggestions?
posted on February 13, 2003 05:09:44 PM new
no, I don't want a "Messiah."
I would be thrilled, though, to have a President who has knowledge of geography & world affairs, can speak coherently, and acts like an adult instead of resorting to name calling & put-downs. Not a whole lot to ask for, IMHO. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
Be clear...I DON'T!!!