Community Calendar
Community
Calendar
Tomahawk Leader Internet Edition - Newspaper in Tomahawk Wisconsin Photo Album
Photo
Album
Map
Map of
Tomahawk, WI
Grey Bar
The Tomahawk Leader is a state and national prize-winning weekly newspaper serving the scenic Northwoods area in and around Tomahawk, WI.

It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:58 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
CNBC TV poll results:

Did Secretary of State Powell make the case for war against Iraq?
Yes 65%
No 35%


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:03 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bobbie (I had to address you that way for Nellie):

If anyone around here is dancing it is most certainly you. Your efforts at deflection are certainly adept but you failed to make even an attempt at rebuttal given my previous case for a war mandate already being the staus quo. The plain fact is that the Congress has authorized unilateral military action against Iraq in their resolution of October 11, 2002. The House vote was 296 yeas to 133 nays and the Senate vote was 77 yeas to 23 nays. I would hasten to point out that this is a larger plurality for war than we had in 1991 before the Gulf War. An AOL poll conducted over the past few days with over 551,000 respondants shows 73% supporting war with Iraq while 76% are convinced that the case laid out by Secretary Powell is convincing and compeling. The arguements put forward for going to war with Iraq are matters of public record at this point since they represent the status quo positions of both the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government. What remains a big mystery is the case to support a change to that position. Not your unsupported opinions, Bob, (which are all we have seen you give so far) but some cogent premise followed by supporting facts and proofs. Thusfar the sum total of arguement we see from you consists of challenges for someone else to prove a case which has already been presented, supported, and accepted. I suspect that if anyone is a bit light in the stomach department it has to be you.

I should also take time out to recommend to forum members that they read Larry Tobin's "Ups-N-Downs" editorial column in the latest issue (Feb 4, 2003) of the Tomahawk Leader. Larry does an excellent job of expressing what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of Americans regarding war with Iraq. Bobbie isn't going to like it much, but it is a good read and makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:07 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I've come to the reluctant conclusion that expectations for any kind of intelligent exchange are at best problematical. I have invited an
exchange in a debate format that identifies assertions and examines closely the kind(s) of
evidence supporting those assertions. Responses have, in my view, ranged from the ridiculous to the insulting. (I am not "Bobby," and I refuse to
accept that poorly-disguised form of ridicule.) I've been called a "flaming liberal" because I believe major decisions like going to war are still matters to be decided by the people of this
country through their elected representatives. It
is evident that President Bush shares this belief otherwise his various efforts to make a case for war in this country and in the U.N. would be unnecessary. He understands that Congress has given him a qualified mandate predicated on demonstration of a serious threat to this country and the interests of this country abroad by Iraq.
And, as polls are now showing, Americans are seriously divided about whether or not such a case has been adequately made. The majority of Americans, if polls are to be believed, do not think such a case has been made. Last word: War is always a dangerous, deadly matter that rarely turns out the way we expect. Combatants and innocents are killed, maimed, scarred for life. War often leaves a legacy of hatred that
breeds other conflicts often in a variety of forms -- i.e. terrorism. Before we go to war we need to examine carefully our justifications for doing so and the options left to us that have yet to be fully examined and implemented. This may be tedious, it may take time and test our patience and perservance, and it may even prove ultimately
unsuccessful. But as the most powerful military and economic power on the plant, we have a serious responsibility to lead by example -- to show patience, persistence, forebearance, and a clear desire for peace with war being the last and most reluctantly-chosen option. God Be With You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:16 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 233
Location: Tomahawk, WI
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Resident 1980 - 1989, retired here 5/2012
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
[QB]Bobbie (I had to address you that way for Nellie):QB]
Gosh Dave, I left junior high school a long time ago. Sorry you are still stuck there.

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:42 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Well it appears that Bob has dropped out of the debate. ok, I guess that's Dave - 1 Bob - 0

hehehehehehe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 110
Location: Tomahawk WI
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: The Tomahawk Leader
OK, enough with name calling please.

Lets stick to the names people use on the boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:07 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 683
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Bob,

I thought I had made the case pretty clearly. I guess I can try to set it out even more clearly.

1. Iraq has used its weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) on more than one occasion. N. Korea has not used weapons of mass destruction.

2. Iraq has attacked its neighbors on numerous occasion. Iran, Kuwait and Israel during Desert Storm, a country that wasn't invovled. N. Korea has not directly attacked any country in some time (other than small border issues).

3. We just recently began negotiations with N. Korea on this issue. We have had times of relative quiet from N. Korea. On the other hand we have had constant military squirmishes with Iraq (the no fly zones).

4. Currently we have the opportunity to stop Iraq from becoming a greater threat than they already are. I'm scared of what Iraq can do now, I'd hate to see what happened to the stability of the Middle East if Iraq became any more powerful. N. Korea has already been allowed to become a potentially major threat. Now we can start trying to negotiate our way down to a safe level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:51 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
As to JFlosum post of February 05, 2003 01:57 PM
-------------------------------------------
"I guess it may be the amoral Immanuel Kant you are quoting above. He is the one that argued that decisions should be based on pleasure vs. pain and nothing else. As in if it feels good, do it, regardless of moral of other consequences. Yup, sounds like a super liberal to me. Never take responsibility for their actions but first to demand that everyone else does. "
* * *

Kant had a family pietist background and is considered among the most ethical of historical figures. Being somewhat of a Kantian I feel obligated to address your errors. I will not address all of them as they are too numerous.

First, you have confused the ethical theory of Kant with that of John Stewart Mill(or perhaps his mentor Jeremy Bentham)and secondly, you have misconstrued the philosophy of Mill.

In short, Kant is the deontologist and Mill the Utilitarian.

If your school did not offer a philsophy class you can enlighten yourself respectively with Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and Mill's Utilitarianism. The title of Kant's work may be different in english depending on who translated it.

Both provide a strong emphasis on responsibility.

You also misrepresent Mill's political leanings. See On Liberty for this and you will find them to be Libertarian.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:22 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I hate to admit it but I believe Abraham to be essentially correct. What Flosum has described is, for want of a better word, hedonism. Although that certainly exists in this world I don't believe that it is claimed by either liberals or conservatives and it certainly was not something that Kant would have approved of. Kant appeals to many because of his belief in (my words not his) a form of moral absolutism. I am probably over simplifying here, but he indicated that a system of morality must be able to give a solid moral path regardless of the specific situation, and must be accessible and rationaly acceptable to all. Many have interpreted this to be at odds with theories that morality is relative and changable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:33 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Ahhhh cool! I see now. Thanks for pointing that out! I did a search on Kant yesterday and got it worg, he actually argued against the idea of making decisions based purely on pain vs. pleasure.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/k/kantmeta.htm#Kant's%20Criticisms%20of%20Utilitarianism

Ok, Abraham surely no Kant!!

It has been 30 years since philosophy 101!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:23 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 683
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Bob,

I saw a small reply in another forum but I was kind of hoping to see a layed out response to my thoughts. Please explain exactly why you believe otherwise and maybe we can lead into an actual debate rather than useless bickering back and forth that this is turning into.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:10 am 
Offline
Occasional Poster
Occasional Poster

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 16
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
"maybe we can lead into an actual debate rather than useless bickering back and forth that this is turning into"
Bickering??? And I thought it was a few people "stating their opinions". Thought that was what this "board" was for....
I've rather enjoyed the difference of opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:12 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Actually Kant is pertinent to the diagreement with Iraq. He wrote a work called Perpetual Peace that applies his Categorical Imperative in the realm of international relations. In it nations work out their differences in councils and courts, sort of like the European Community. But for the time being, violence seems to be the method of choice for conflict resolution by the Bush crowd.

But back to business:

What is a "weapon of mass destruction"? Is it based on the number of people killed? The way they are killed? or How much it scares us?

Iraq has attacked no one outside its border for over 10 years. How many countries has the US meddled in in the last 10 years in an attempt to influence policy. Hint, it's easier to list the ones we did not interfere with.

The French, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, and probably some demented genius living in a secluded spot outside of Owyhee, Nevada all have "weapons of mass destruction" depending on how you end up defining them.

We befriended the Germans and Japanese and this has led to long term political stability. Historically, sanctions have not worked (e.g. Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.) Open trade, sell them Pepsi and (I hate to recommend it) a McDonalds and the battle is half won.

The political stability of the middle east does not hinge entirely on Iraq. Even if Iraq disappeared, the middle east instablity would continue and the general muslim discontent with the west would continue.

If you are not scared, you cannot be a victim of terrorism. Being subject to being killed and being subject to being a victim of terror are not the same thing. Americans need to stop being scared and taking away their own rights with things like the Patriot Act and the Security Enhancement Act. They are doing to themselves what the terrorists could not and dead or alive, Bin Laden is probably smiling about it. (****, I may put that in a letter to the editor).

<small>[ February 08, 2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Abraham ]</small>

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:30 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
"In it nations work out their differences in councils and courts." This is not a realistic method of problem solving despite the fact that the far left brings up world government as a solution at every turn. In order for councils and courts to work they must have authority and sovereign nation states are not going to give up their sovereignty any time soon.

"How many countries has the US meddled in in the last 10 years in an attempt to influence policy." Probably all of them as a matter of fact. Meddling to influence policy is a goal of almost every other nation state. Unfortunately for most, success is usualy in proportion to power. We are simply more successful than others. I suppose that life here would be simpler if we became an isolationist state but that is not realistic either.

"We befriended the Germans and Japanese and this has led to long term political stability." That is essentialy correct but one needs to take this fact in the context that we first brought these two nations to their knees through military force. It is much easier to accept the hand of friendship when you have no other choice. In fact it is almost certain that you will.

"Historically, sanctions have not worked (e.g. Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.) Open trade, sell them Pepsi and a McDonalds and the battle is half won." Tell that to the Russians who were brought to their knees through the longest continuous program of sanctions we have ever conducted. Also, if you examine the motivations of most Islamic terrorists you will see that one of the major motivators is the spread of American culture (Pepsi, McDonalds, etc).

"Even if Iraq disappeared, the middle east instablity would continue and the general muslim discontent with the west would continue." Probably true but this also means that doing nothing will not make the situation better either.

"If you are not scared, you cannot be a victim of terrorism." This is patently ridiculous. The 9-11 dead were probably not scared and they most certainly were victims. There are quite a long list of Israeli restaurant patrons over the years who were not afraid and still got blown to bits. Statements like this sound good but really take stupidity to a new level. The Congress and the President have recognized the clear and present danger that exists for every American even if Abraham has not. The Patriot Act and the Security Enhancement Act were and are considered necessary and are probably only the beginning. We will not win the war on terror by ignoring terror and carrying on business as usual. The plain fact is that after 9-11, business will never be the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 5:20 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
>If you are not scared, you cannot be a victim of terrorism.

SAY WHAT???????? Are you out of your flipping mind????

<small>[ February 09, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:54 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Good grief, look who has joined ranks with the war protesters…. Jerry Springer and former U.N. arms inspector and now accused sex offender, Scott Ritter.

….. Scott Ritter has completely vanished from the anti-war scene since news of his sex arrest broke. Three weeks ago, it was revealed that Ritter was caught soliciting sex from underage girls on the Internet in 2001. Until news of his arrest broke, The New York Times had been treating Ritter's reincarnation as a peacenik as the greatest act of patriotism since Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand. It's now Day 17 and counting of the Times' refusal to mention Ritter's arrest. Though the peace movement lost Ritter, it seems to have picked up Jerry Springer. Perhaps Springer is hoping he can get Scott Ritter's wife on the show to confront Ritter and the underage girl….

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030207/51/37qzo.html&e=1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:18 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 357
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times
I think that we`re all in aggreement that Saddam Hussein should not be leading any country. The people of Iraq and the rest of the world would be better off without him! BUT, Will they? Even if the United States kills him and wipes most of Iraq off the map, there are plenty of people just as dangerous scattered across the globe, ready and willing to take his place. So when will it really end? Did the U.N. really think that their inspectors were going to walk into factories in Iraq and find assembly lines of workers busy making weapons of mass destruction? ,or warehouses full of chemical warheads? Hussein has had 11 years to produce and hide everything he needs to destroy us. With the whole world as his hiding place. It would probably only take one truck load of anthrax to wipe out our entire country! We really have to think that after spending billions of dollars and countless of American lives, will it ever really be over. Whatever and whenever we do anything, I think it should be with rest of the world on our side. Especially with as many middle eastern countries as possible! Right now we don`t even have Germany or France!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:27 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
People apparently (including the bonehead stumbling around the whitehouse) miss the point that inflicting empirical damage and casualties is not the same thing as terrorism, which is a psychological state.

"The Patriot Act and the Security Enhancement Act were and are considered necessary and are probably only the beginning."

Now that is a scary statement. What is left to protect if we beat the enemy to the punch by doing the damage to ourselves. Bush is bring on the 1984 Orwellian world faster and more certainly than any bunch of terrorists.

Iraq is not a military threat to the United States and they are not a threat to western (or eastern) civilization. The same cannot be said for Bush.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:45 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Perhaps a more microcosmic example: Sometimes a woman in an abuse case can be terrorized for years without there being any threat of physical violence (or in some cases a man by his wife). Again, there is no necessary connection between the ability to attack someone and the threat of terrorism. Britain is known to have nuclear weapons that have a delivery system that could impact the US, yet we are not terrorized by this. The fact that Iraq may have certain weapons is not why they are said to have the potential to spread terrrorism. You can remove chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from a country and not eliminate it as a terrorist threat. Timothy McVeigh had none of these.

Even United States experts have not figured out a militarily serviceable delivery system for Anthrax and nuclear devices as well as chemical weapons have their own limited application and often end up costing more than the equivalent in conventional weaponry when it comes to "killing" effectiveness.

<small>[ February 09, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Abraham ]</small>

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:13 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 197
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Tomahawk
.


Last edited by Dopey Dwarf on Mon May 25, 2009 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:39 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Dopey: Although I don't agree with much of what you said I find your post significant. It is obvious that your feelings are from the heart and I respect your opinion. I too lament the movement to remove God from everything we are about in this country. We may not agree on many things but I share your feelings on this issue. A little less materialism and a bit more attention to God would be a good thing for all. Unfortunately, when so many people in the world feel that God is telling them to kill their fellow man for one reason or another it makes it difficult for all. What the answer is I do not know, but cheek turning just does not seem like a good choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 110
Location: Tomahawk WI
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: The Tomahawk Leader
Someone suggested that Larry Tobin's Ups-n-Downs column would be relevent to this discussion. I've received permission to post this column in this case and we will try to watch for relevent columns from Larry and others in the future.

Ups - n -Downs
2/4/03

Quote:
I am not exactly in favor of the United States going to war every time someone kicks sand in our collective faces or worse. But there are times when bullies must be dealt with. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless bully who has proven himself to be a threat in any direction he chooses to turn.

I've heard people claim that the whole Iraq issues is about oil. If it weren't, they argue, why don't we pursue a war with North Korea as well?

Well, for one thing, North Korea has not waged aggression against its neighbors or anyone else in half a century. It's an isolationist regime that likes to saber rattle once in awhile but not much more.

On the other hand, Saddam has been the most belligerent aggressor--both within his own country and against his neighbors-- since Adolf Hitler. Look at his record.

He waged a war against Iran.

He invaded Kuwait.

He has admitted using chemical weapons against both Iran and the Kurdish people in his own nation.

He is actively trying to wipe out all the Kurds in Iraq.

He is reportedly making payouts to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

And, according to our government, he has financially supported and provided training bases for al-Qaida.

Those things alone are enough for me to say to the Bush Administration, "Go get him."

And to those who say that we should rely on the UN and give inspectors the additional time that they have requested to seek out more evidence of Iraq's weapons violations, I say look at what the inspectors have already said. Hussein has not provided the documentation that was demanded, and there are all sorts of weapons unaccounted for. And look at how long the debate took before the inspectors were even sent to Iraq. Saddam had months to hide most of the evidence.

The fact is, no other tyrant in half a century has made such an aggressive effort to develop or obtain weapons of mass destruction, and demonstrated such an unabashed willingness to use them. Regardless of what the French and Germans say, the present Iraqi administration is a threat to peace and security worldwide. Does it take the destruction of the Eiffel Tower or a chemical bomb in Berlin to prove that?

I would suggest that Europe--and the French in particular--has a very short memory. It has always troubled me that the United States has hauled France's backside from the flame twice and still the French are arrogant and rude to us, even when a war is not the question. It makes me want to say, next time, let them burn. They twice waited until their own borders were breached before they determined that there was a world threat. Now their attitude is the same.

Well, I for one don't want to wait until we have more 9-11 events within our borders before we act. Saddam has repeatedly demonstrated that there is no action beneath him, no action too horrible and inhumane for him to consider. He needs to be removed from power with whatever force is necessary to render him non-threatening to anyone in the world.


<small>[ February 09, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Webmaster ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:49 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I was the one who suggested that Larry's column be made available....especialy for those on the forum who do not subscribe to the Leader (and you all should). Although I do not always agree with Larry's views I think that he has done an excellent job in this editorial of making the case for action, not just in Iraq but in any area that poses a threat. The last time this many Americans were killed in an attack we fought an all out war for the next 5 years. On a scale, we have not even begun the first month of resolute action that our parents and grandparents undertook in 1941. Perhaps they were not bothered by the scruples we have developed. Perhaps life choices were simpler then. But somehow I think the response must be the same however hard it is for all of us to accept it. I only hope that it does not take six million casualties before we say the same thing that Jews all over the world said at the close of WWII.......never again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:50 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Dopey, I respect not only your opinion but also the manner in which you present it. I may or may not agree with some, most or all of it but it is obvious that you are sincere.

However I do disagree with the assertion that Bob or Abraham has presented any factual data from any credible source to support their position. They have merely posted or quoted sources that are of the same opinion and as equally biased against the Bush administration no matter what the issue.

I just resent the heck out of the fact that so many people are so willing to criticize and defame the nation’s policy purely on a partisan bases or other such nonsense; Bush was in the National Guard, his daughters won’t enlist, I’m still mad because Gore did not win, etc, etc.

<small>[ February 09, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:16 am 
Offline
General User
General User

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 46
Location: Mt. Olympus
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
The Bush administration is still riding the tide of emotionalism of 9/11. I have yet to see any convincing factual data from any credible source to support a position for a war with Iraq, unless you cite the economic benefits of promoting the arms dealers and military industrial complex. And of course they already made Hussein what he is.

The war protest movement is well in advance of the Vietnam era. By the time the protests had grown to this level then, the war was well underway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr