Political but on-topic post
J. Christian Grymyr
Gorosaurus attack Paris makes me feel all soft and cuddly inside.
Reaper "Saddam's a Kilaak and the anti-war fringe kooks are under his control"
G
SIZOOBOB
True....true... !
Mr Director
"J. Christian Grymyr" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030207065658...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Agreed. I never get tired of telling people Godzilla destroys those
terrorist sympathizers over at the U.N.
Splinter
wrote:
Personally, it would have been kick-ass seeing Godzilla wading
through Bagdad. I would see Saddam crapping himself them having to
use his entire "forbidden" cache of WMDs on Godzilla. That would
disarm Saddam faster than those diplomats and inspectors...and make
Dubya a happy camper...or ticked that a mutated dinosaur beat the USA
to the punch.
But, the Godzilla to use this time would be the 155 meter tall
version, not the one that was sized closer to the 1954 one. Give the
Heisei Godzilla the radioactive breath of the later one(s) and imagine
how fast Saddam beats a path out of Iraq, especially after Godzilla
gets "pissed off" at the chem and bio attacks Saddam would try to
unleash.
Oh well, we can dream, right?
<<<Splinter>>>
Norman England
Seems to me, as it always has and I hope always will, going to war is a
dark day for the nation, not one to rejoice over. Going to war marks a
failure of the political system, who's job on the international front is to
keep the peace.
And making statements about Godzilla killing "terrorist sympathizers"
deserves a re-reading. Very weird priorities here.
Breetai
is already started......
The US should have withdrawn from the UN long ago and kicked it's
headquarters off of US soil to boot!! Those pansy-hearted "give them
another chance after you've already given them several thousand" liberals
make me sick. They are now worse than the League of Nations which they were
meant to be superior to - remember that they didn't face up to Hitler and
consequently became obsolete. And all these so called allies of the
US...with friends like them...we certainly don't need'em...to Heck with'em!
The US achieved it's status in this world all on it's own. All this
"coalition" talk...Bullbunkie!! We don't need anyone else to assist us in
doing what's right for us. Once again, the United States of America
achieved it's greatness with the help of no one other than God, and if our
country can get it's act together morally (big "IF" there), than God will
stand by us once again. Oh...I could go on for hours on this stuff but I've
said enough.....
"Mr Director" <mrdir...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8zU0a.5821$Mh3.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Norman England
news:MM21a.10887$u12.3...@news.alltel.net:
> Hate to get all political in this newsgroup and all but...since this
> thread is already started......
>
> The US should have withdrawn from the UN long ago and kicked it's
> headquarters off of US soil to boot!! Those pansy-hearted "give them
> another chance after you've already given them several thousand"
> liberals make me sick. They are now worse than the League of Nations
> which they were meant to be superior to - remember that they didn't
> face up to Hitler and consequently became obsolete. And all these so
> called allies of the US...with friends like them...we certainly don't
> need'em...to Heck with'em! The US achieved it's status in this world
> all on it's own. All this "coalition" talk...Bullbunkie!! We don't
> need anyone else to assist us in doing what's right for us. Once
> again, the United States of America achieved it's greatness with the
> help of no one other than God, and if our country can get it's act
> together morally (big "IF" there), than God will stand by us once
> again. Oh...I could go on for hours on this stuff but I've said
> enough.....
You've said enough for me to thank "God" I no longer live in the US
anymore. Creepy stuff you got going here. Though it would make for a good
pre-end of the world film scenario: Well-intentioned yet arrogant nation
believing it can dictate morality and economic policy manages to piss of
and then wipe out entire world. I'd pay ten bucks for a ticket to see that
flick!
Funny, you should say, "if our country can get it's act together morally
than God will stand by us once again." Isn't this the same platform that
the Islamic fundamentalists are standing on? Oh, no wait! Silly me! Our God
is the true god and theirs the false.
Hmmm... One last thing: Can I ask what part of Kansas you live in?
PS: "it's" is a contraction of "it is", "its" is used to indicate that
something belongs or relates to something.
J. Christian Grymyr
>Justified or not, why do you all sound so gleeful about going to war?
>Seems to me, as it always has and I hope always will, going to war is a
>dark day for the nation, not one to rejoice over. Going to war marks a
>failure of the political system, who's job on the international front is to
>keep the peace.
I don't think anyone here really wants war, but what we want and what we need
are two different things. I don't like getting up at 3:30 a.m. to go to work,
but I've got bills to pay and a trip to Japan to save up for. You can be damn
sure our boys at Normandy, Anzio, Guadalcanal, Gettysburg, et al. would've
wanted to be anywhere but there, but they knew what they had to do.
And I can understand and sympathize with your run-of-the-mill peacenik, I just
feel that this time peace won't work with this particular despot. What gets me
mad are the folks who say Dubya is somehow a greater terrorist than Saddam, and
I'm not a particularly a big fan of Bush.
Reaper "Hell no I won't go — because I want us to win" G
Jim Cleveland
"Why, that...."
Cleve
XIANPLANET
perfect world, we'd all respect one another. It's not like that.
We have enemies such as Al Quieda and Saddam's Iraq. Enemies who , like on 911,
would attack us is given the chance.
We don't want to give them that chance.
Do You ?
Do you want to wait until something happens to take action? We already know
that they do have intentions of hitting us. It could be in Penn Station with
nerve gas or bio weapons in our water supply.
Oh, the liberasl, the democrats, and the peace lovers all say it won't happen,
there's no evidence and it's all about oil.
It it was, why did we not act in Kuwaitt when we liberated it.
Open your fucking eyes. Did you even listen to Powell? Do you have any idea how
much info we have on them ? We know that Al Queida operatives are being
harbored and possibly funded by the Hussein regime. We already had a 9/11,
should we believe that the UN inspectors did the job and that the weapons will
all go away and Iraq will comply ??
Should we allow Saddam more time ? More time could mean production of Nuclear
Weapons.
France and Germany do not support us. Do you know why ?
We have info that both these countries have either oil or supply tie ins with
Iraq and many have been the source for weapon components. The curent leader of
Germany ran on an anti US/Bush platform to win the election. Of course Germany
opposes the war effort.
Maybe they are right. Maybe nothing will happen. Do you want to take that
chance ?
If you could go back before 9/11, no one thought the hi jack scenario would
happen. We were not prepared. Our country was softer.
But if you could stop it, would you go back and stop 9/11 ?
Then why are you opposing Bush now.
Believe me, the democrats definitely do not want a POPULAR campaign led by a
POPULAR President. They'd never win the next election . That's a big reason why
the outspoken democrats oppose Bush's plans. They know it will stir up
popularity for our current REPUBLICAN president.
How about al those Bleeding heart celebs like Susan Sarandon. Where was she
when Clinton sent in the troups ? Where were all the protesters then ? How come
they only appear when a REPUBLICAN talks of war ?
War , unfortunately, is necessary.
Norman England
like "fucking" "liberals" "bleeding heart celebs" and the like. This kind
of talk only serves to cloud the issues and make a person defensive of who
they share ideals with. It does not keep a person focused on the issue.
XIANPLANET
You're probably right.
I pay attention to current events and politics as much as possible.
Yet, so many people around me do not care and have the attitude that if it does
not affect them....
So many people I know don't even vote !! And many of the ones that do vote
based on charisma and GOOD looks !! I vote based on the particular candidate
and what campaign this person is running on, what he/she has to offer.
Most people vote based on what they hear in a news blurb or headline and do not
really read the entire article. Go around right now, grab the first 20 people
you see and ask their opinions, and who and why they vote for a particular
candidate.
In the circle of people I talk to often regarding politics, we are informed and
try to listen to both sides of the issues. MOST of the people I have these
conversations with for some odd reason are Republican !! That's odd. I have
friends from all walks of life, I only really know 3 strong Democratic
supporters and one voted for Hillary Clinton just to PO the rest of us. In
fact, one of my best friends helped out the Lazio Camapaign and even had Mr.
Lazio attend his deceast wife's fund raiser POST 9/11.
I'm not saying that Repulican is the only way. I just want people to read, to
listen and watch all relative information before making a choice.
In the case of the upcoming war with Iraq, I hope people can see between the
lines and understand why the Democrats oppose the war and why PRO Democrat
media push that stance and alter their viewpoints to make it pro democratic.
Watch the next time CNN interviews the " People" in the street. You'll begin to
notice that for some ODD reason MOST are anti war.
Personally, I was always a fighter. I was always the first to put my fists up.
I was knocked around a lot when I was younger and as I got older, I vowed never
to back down again.
I cannot understand the concept of someone attacking you or threatening you and
not reacting.
When people say Republicans are war mongers, they have it all wrong. Yes, some
are.
I don't want war. But, I don't want us being attacked either. I don't want
terrorism on our soil. I certainly don't want any innocents to die.
But that's what war is. And in this case, a war now is to prevent a BIGGER war
in the future.
Norman England
you are trying to express.
As for myself, I'm not into fighting of any kind. I think it just makes
for a temporary solution. Also, when cultures clash the ramifications
last for centuries. Especially when you deal with older, stuck-in-the-mud
cultures. For example, the Koreans are still pissed at the Japanese not
only over WWII, but for stuff that went on centuries earlier. With North
Korea gearing up to start A-bomb production it would not be farfetched to
imagine them handing out a little payback to the Japanese. So, while we
may be able to go to Iraq and put down Saddam, we may find that our
children's children will have to deal with the bad blood that may be
brewed today.
So, my point is not one of chasing down right or wrong and then handing
out justice. It's one of hoping that our "leaders" try to find solutions
to problems that don't leave a legacy that may burden the future.
I think this point may be the hardest thing for Americans to understand
since we have a rather short attention span and really just deal with the
here and now. For example, in the case of England, who today really feels
any bitterness towards them over the time before the Independence? Even
Nazi Germany seems like a nation that no longer exists. Who feels
animosity towards the Mexicans?
The point is not that it's wrong to be severe with Saddam, just do it in
a way that leaves the Iraqi people with their dignity intact. If this is
not handled right, there's going to be more crap like this happening for
the rest of our lives. This means it is probably important that other
nations support the invasion.
Sorry to go on about this. This really isn't the right forum for this
sort of thing. Anyway, that's my 2-yen. Take it for what it is.
SIZOOBOB
>Yet, so many people around me do not care and have the attitude that if it
>does
>not affect them....
>So many people I know don't even vote !! And many of the ones that do vote
>based on charisma and GOOD looks !! I vote based on the particular candidate
>and what campaign this person is running on, what he/she has to offer.
Well said ... I'm a registered independent and often split my vote, but what
pisses me off the most is I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils
almost all the time. I still can't believe that Clinton won a second term, and
that NY (and I'm a NYer) put Hillery in office. THAT IN ITSELF shows you just
how ignorant the voters are of what's going on in this country. As for the war,
take it from someone who has worked with animals for 30 yrs. ... you cannot
reason with a mad dog. It will attack at the first opportunity...PERIOD !
Bob
warbea...@webtv.net
<<Hate to get all political in this newsgroup and all but...since this
thread is already started......
The US should have withdrawn from the UN long ago and kicked it's
headquarters off of US soil to boot!! Those pansy-hearted "give them
another chance after you've already given them several thousand"
liberals make me sick. They are now worse than the League of Nations
which they were meant to be superior to - remember that they didn't face
up to Hitler and consequently became obsolete. And all these so called
allies of the US...with friends like them...we certainly don't
need'em...to Heck with'em! The US achieved it's status in this world all
on it's own. All this "coalition" talk...Bullbunkie!! We don't need
anyone else to assist us in doing what's right for us. Once again, the
United States of America achieved it's greatness with the help of no one
other than God, and if our country can get it's act together morally
(big "IF" there), than God will stand by us once again. Oh...I could go
on for hours on this stuff but I've said enough.....>>
RIGHT ON MAN!! That was very well said indeed!! I agree with you 1000%!
I sincerely wish more Americans thought like you do. Good job!
AMVaquer
from Saddam like the Afgan people when we liberated them from the Taliban.
Nobody "wants" war, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
Armand Vaquer
http://www.hometown.aol.com/amvaquer/myhomepageindex.html
warbea...@webtv.net
here is going to amount to diddly squat in the real scheme of things,
mine included) look at history & it will show you beyond a shadow of a
doubt that attempting to appease dictators or tyrants WILL NOT work-
EVER!! And "Peace-Niks" have never brought lasting "peace" to any
hostile/conflict situation. Btw Norman, I consider you a friend but, if
you think that just because you live in Japan that you're "safe", you're
mistaken. Japan is one of the main targets (next to Seoul) that North
Korea will launch her missiles against if things come to that. And I
respectfully remind you before you drop any more "innuendoes" of
American aggression or imperilism, just who THE most ruthless aggressors
were in ALL South East Asia for many years?-JAPAN (just ask China). As
far as France & Germany goes, they should kiss up & down our ass until
their lips become chapped & bloody! If it wasn't for us, France (who
hasn't won a war in well over 270 years & wanted to use a nuke on North
Vietnam) would still be flying the Nazi flag over Paris. Germany would
have remained in economic ruin & possible their entire country would be
under Russian rule. It was the economic defeat of the USSR which allowed
Germany to eventually become re-united. Now whether that's a good or bad
thing I'm not certain given Germany's past history of ruthless
aggression. And for the record, despite my email name, I don't want war
either but, I realize it's a necessary evil to prevent a greater evil
from gaining greater power. Besides, 12 years ago we kicked Saddam's ass
in a mere 100 HOURS. What makes anyone think things will be different
this time?
SIZOOBOB
>doubt that attempting to appease dictators or tyrants WILL NOT work-
>EVER!! And "Peace-Niks" have never brought lasting "peace" to any
>hostile/conflict situation.
VERY well stated Warbeast...
Bob
Mr Director
"AMVaquer" <amva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030208105120...@mb-mh.aol.com...
> Jeepers! I hope the Iraqui people won't get "pissed" at us for liberating
them
> from Saddam like the Afgan people when we liberated them from the Taliban.
>
> Nobody "wants" war, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I'm not a war mongerer myself, but I can promise you diplomatic solutions
weren;t getting Adolph Hitler ousted.
Brett Homenick
couldn't have gotten where he is without us, and you the old adage
about biting the hand that feeds you.
Despite that, Saddam Hussein is NOT that unpredictable madman who's
champing at the bit to nuke Israel the media is trying to make him out
to be. Saddam's a lot of things, but above all he's shrewd. He desires
power than he desires death to America or whatever Bush's talking
points are this week. If we force his hand, however, then there's a
good chance he'll turn suicidal and destroy whatever he can in the
Middle East so that there's nothing left for us to occupy.
Long story short: Saddam Hussein is NOT Osama bin Laden.
And yes, I do agree with Norman.
Eat it, Urkel.
jdlees
the guts, to take on jobs like this. The U.S. keeps the world safe (or
at least as safe as possible), even in the face of ridiculous
criticism from the very nations they are protecting. 9/11 legitimized
pre-emptive strikes by the U.S. in order to protect its own citizens.
As for comparisons between Bush/Saddam or the U.S./Iraq, I wonder what
our lives would be like if Saddam was running the world's only
superpower, and the U.S. was just another third rate nation. Actually,
I don't wonder. We'd either all be dead, or the men would be bowing to
Mecca three times a day and the women would all be wrapped in black
robes (when they weren't being raped and/or stoned for "allowing
themselves" to be raped). It's nations like France and Germany, whose
leaders are in desperate need of a spine transplant, that make war
more likely by giving Saddam cause to believe the west will lose its
resolve. You'd think France would look around and say, "Hmmm. Let's
see. The U.S. and Britain (plus eighteen other European nations) are
on one side, and we're united with.... those wonderful citizens of the
world, Russia and China. What's wrong with this picture?" And yes,
Canada has not supported the U.S. adequately in this. But that's to
our great shame. Our prime minister is a moron. - J.
Hitman of Las Vegas
On 07 Feb 2003 11:56:58 GMT, rea...@aol.com (J. Christian Grymyr)
wrote:
>Watching "Destroy All Monsters" and seeing Godzilla toast the U.N. building and
Mr Director
"jdlees" <john...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f77964be.03020...@posting.google.com...
In wrestling mode:
I mark for this post.
Wolf
building and
> > Gorosaurus attack Paris makes me feel all soft and cuddly inside.
> >
> > Reaper "Saddam's a Kilaak and the anti-war fringe kooks are under his
control"
> > G
>
> "Why, that...."
We should just ban earrings and get it over with...
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
Lenell B.
But these fools at the UN. still want to see the inspections work! IT
HAS NOT WORKED PERIOD! Saddam is making the inspecters look like fools
again!
No one wants war with Iraq but it is the last resort. This dictator
for 12 figgin years has deflied the world in not disarming. Should the
world wait unit it's too late to disarm him? No! This man is hiding
his WMD's for one purpose. TO USE THEM IN THE FUTURE!
If he does, It will make 9-11-01 look like nothing. Colin Powell
exposed Saddam at the UN with his proof but some of these fools don't
want war with Iraq (like France and Germany) We saved these two
counties in the past. Now when WE have a case that a tyrant is a
threat to the world (including them) They act like wimps.
I've lost my faith in the UN. (They are mainly to blame for dragging
this on for 12 years) They should have gone after Saddam the minute he
violated the First resolution.
It took the US the guts to say to the UN. "Do something about Iraq or
WE will!"
The UN was handled a 12.000 page of the same old crap by Saddam
(Lies!)
The man spits at the UN, but they fail to see that.
We should go get him! You don't wait for "Hitler" to Attack first!
That's the Main mistake which lead to 9-11. We should have went to war
after the terrorists when the WTC was attacked first in 93.
We paid a heavy price for not doing so.
If the UN won't join the US. We don't need them.
Saddam Hussein is a terrible threat to the world. If he stays in power
who knows what he may do.
As well as weapons of mass destruction, If he gets a nuclear bomb he
may start World War III.
I say we take him OUT! with or without the UN!
No more games, only war is the answer! Diplomicy has all but failed.
This remainds me a Godzilla, He only fights unless he has to in order
to survive.
Plus in Ultraman, Ultraman tries to reason with a monster or alien, if
that fails, then he fights
This is about survival: The world OR Saddam. It's us OR him!
Let's go get him!
Support our troops. They have a job to do. To keep us safe from
dictators like Saddam (who will stop it nothing to get his way.) He
hates America and Freedom.
It would be disasterous if he gives his weapons to Terrorists. He
supports Terrorists.
As for the UN. If they let this man get away with this, this time.
They are fools. They are useless! They won't enforce their own
resolution 1441.
The US should leave the UN.
Hope this helps.
Lenell B.
Lenell B.
> Justified or not, why do you all sound so gleeful about going to war?
> Seems to me, as it always has and I hope always will, going to war is a
> dark day for the nation, not one to rejoice over. Going to war marks a
> failure of the political system, who's job on the international front is to
> keep the peace.
Norman, the man (Saddam), has made a fool of the UN community for 12
years now.
Nobody wants war, but it's coming down to the wire where we have no
choice!
Some think Bush (and the US) is the bad guy here. But it's his job, to
protect this country and our interests.
The UN doesn't seem to be doing a good job of it because Saddam
Hussien continues to decieve them, and they are relucant to back up
the use of force against Saddam for NOT complying with resolution
1441.
Then there is North Korea, remember Norman, North Korea can hit Japan
with Nuclear missiles. That is why Japan got involved because Noth
Korea is right next door to them.
I think diplomacy can work with NK, but not with Saddam. (the man
continues to defly the UN!
I would rest easier with an ousted dictator (who has committed
terrible crimes against his own people and the world), rather then see
him use his WMD on his neiboring countries OR extortion OR sharing
them with Terrorists.
If it comes to war, let's give him war! We beat him once and we can do
it again! This time we will finish the job! WHICH SHOULD HAD BEEN DONE
LONG AGO!
Lenell B.
Lenell B.
> I'm not a war monger, but I do feel that the war is necessary. Look, in a
> perfect world, we'd all respect one another. It's not like that.
We live in a dangerous world now. It's sad, but we move forward
> We have enemies such as Al Quieda and Saddam's Iraq. Enemies who , like on 911,
> would attack us is given the chance.
People like these have NO regrad whatever, to the value of human life.
They will even kill women and children to please their twisted views
> We don't want to give them that chance.
> Do You ?
We MUST fight on! It's a matter of survival. there is an old saying
"Kill them before they kill us!"
> Do you want to wait until something happens to take action?
Seems like the silly UN wants too. We have a right to defend
ourselves. Look at Isreal, They have to cope with Terrorism all the
time. Only fighting back insures survival.
I was bullied when I was in high school all the time, My mother told
me to start kicking some ass and my father taught me how to fight.
Only by their wisdom and advice did the bullying stop and the bullies
start getting hurt.
We already know
> that they do have intentions of hitting us. It could be in Penn Station with
> nerve gas or bio weapons in our water supply.
They hit the Postal Service with Antrax, tried to blow up another
plane (Richard Reid), The London Raid uncovering Ricin and many
others.
> Oh, the liberasl, the democrats, and the peace lovers all say it won't happen,
> there's no evidence and it's all about oil.
It can happen, these terrorists will stop at nothing to take another
swipe at the US
>
> Open your fucking eyes. Did you even listen to Powell? Do you have any idea how
> much info we have on them ?
I have the whole Powell thingy on tape. The man SHOWED THE FACTS! This
is NO game! Powell kicked ass in my opinion.
We know that Al Queida operatives are being
> harbored and possibly funded by the Hussein regime. We already had a 9/11,
> should we believe that the UN inspectors did the job and that the weapons will
> all go away and Iraq will comply ??
Nope it won't go away, Iraq will NEVER comply with the UN. This whole
inspector casing Iraq is another game Saddam is playing with the UN.
> Should we allow Saddam more time ?
No, His time is up. Like Bush said.
More time could mean production of Nuclear
> Weapons.
Some Iraq scinetists. (who defected to the US) say he could be close
to at least one atomic bomb. In Saddam's hands, he could be
unstoppable
>
> France and Germany do not support us. Do you know why ?
> We have info that both these countries have either oil or supply tie ins with
> Iraq and many have been the source for weapon components. The curent leader of
> Germany ran on an anti US/Bush platform to win the election. Of course Germany
> opposes the war effort.
I say we go in without them!
>
> Maybe they are right. Maybe nothing will happen. Do you want to take that
> chance ?
> If you could go back before 9/11, no one thought the hi jack scenario would
> happen. We were not prepared.
...and WE paid the price for it. The result was the deaths of over
3000 people (in the Planes, the WTC. The Pentgon). The World was
changed forever,
>
> Believe me, the democrats definitely do not want a POPULAR campaign led by a
> POPULAR President. They'd never win the next election . That's a big reason why
> the outspoken democrats oppose Bush's plans. They know it will stir up
> popularity for our current REPUBLICAN president.
Sad when polictics get in the way. What will it take to get into their
heads, another 9-11? It'll be even worse if WMD are used.
>
> How about al those Bleeding heart celebs like Susan Sarandon. Where was she
> when Clinton sent in the troups ? Where were all the protesters then ? How come
> they only appear when a REPUBLICAN talks of war ?
Why is stars like Sean Penn, among others going to Iraq trying to talk
with a murding maniac? Where was he and these other complaining stars
after 9-11? They need to keep their damn mouths shut and leave well
enough alone. He should have ask Saddam to release that American pilot
(who was shot down in the gulf war) who Iraq has held prisoner.
>
> War , unfortunately, is necessary.
Yes, War is needed to let this tyrant know. "We're though with your
bullshit!"
"The biggest problem with Peace is, is sometimes you have to fight to
keep it" This except is from a farmer named "Thunder" who had to
return to going to war as a solider again to rescue his family from
Hordak. She-ra said to him. "As a farmer you lived a life of
peace...It's a shame you have to go to war again."
Bokman7757
Splinter
wrote:
>
>If it comes to war, let's give him war! We beat him once and we can do
>it again! This time we will finish the job! WHICH SHOULD HAD BEEN DONE
>LONG AGO!
>
>Lenell B.
Hell, yeah, brother! I've always felt that Bush I screwed up
by not taking Saddam all the way out (or at least out of office). He
caved to international political pressure to stop the way when the
Iraqi Army surrendered Kuwait.
Conventional military wisdem said that if we'd just gone in,
severed the supply lines, siezed Baghdad, we would have had to wait
for the Iraqi's to pile up their weapons while we spirited Saddam out
of the country for War Crimes.
Clinton had more than enough reason to go after Saddam as
well...remember the slap on the wrist Clinton gave Saddam for a
verified plot to assassinate George Bush?
Now, it falls on Dubya to finish the job that his father
didn't have the balls to do and, Saddam's had a four year grace period
in which to stockpile WMDs.
Also, the only reason they never came into play in Persian
Gulf War I is that we told Saddam that if even one was used, we would
sidestep Kuwait and take him out of power. He listened then, because
his hold on power was directed threatened by the United States and
allies.
There is no such restriction this time as our goals are
two-fold. Disarm Iraq of all WMDs and remove Saddam from power.
Our mistake...and it is our mistake, make no bones about it,
we did screw up...was leaving Saddam in power when we had the chance
to overthrow him, not just contain him.
I, personally, don't like the prospect of an all out war where
our boys can and will be killed in the process.
I'm not sure if we'll see a repeat of the last war there,
where thousands of "smart Iraqis" decided that Saddam could go to hell
because their lives were more important. Saddam will probably make it
clear that as long as he's in power, anyone who surrendars forfeits
not only their life, but, the lives of his entire family and dies a
coward's death, doomed to spend eternity in hell with overly screwed
whores who are so loose that they'd fall in while the heroes of Iraq
get the dozen perfect virgins in Paradise.
<<<Splinter>>>
M Merced
I hear ya, you might like this...
http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html
SIZOOBOB
>by not taking Saddam all the way out (or at least out of office). He
>caved to international political pressure to stop the way when the
>Iraqi Army surrendered Kuwait.
>Conventional military wisdem said that if we'd just gone in,
>severed the supply lines, siezed Baghdad, we would have had to wait
>for the Iraqi's to pile up their weapons while we spirited Saddam out
>of the country for War Crimes.
EXACTLY .. and that INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL PRESSURE was again from the UN ....
thank God Bush II is telling the UN to stick it ! ... even though I think
he's already given them WAY too much say in this matter.
Bob
Hitman of Las Vegas
On 09 Feb 2003 05:12:30 GMT, bokma...@aol.comSPAM (Bokman7757)
wrote:
David Chapple
"Bokman7757" <bokma...@aol.comSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030209001230...@mb-bh.aol.com...
?
Who are you and how long have you been here? I don't recognize your name.
Dave
John Schuermann
> anymore.
Hi Norman - glad you like the DAM disc - but - that's a poorly constructed
sentence from a writer ; )
And I hope you don't honestly feel that way.
> Creepy stuff you got going here. Though it would make for a good
> pre-end of the world film scenario: Well-intentioned yet arrogant nation
> believing it can dictate morality and economic policy manages to piss of
> and then wipe out entire world.
Are you just aping the "over-the-top" tone of the post you are responding
to, or do you seriously see the U.S. in this light?
> Funny, you should say, "if our country can get it's act together morally
> than God will stand by us once again." Isn't this the same platform that
> the Islamic fundamentalists are standing on? Oh, no wait! Silly me! Our
God
> is the true god and theirs the false.
I understand your point, however -
Whose to say that your above comment (obviously made in sarcasm) isn't the
literal truth?
Hey, I'm not a religious man, but whose to say that God ISN'T on our side?
JOHN
John Schuermann
> champing at the bit to nuke Israel the media is trying to make him out
> to be. Saddam's a lot of things, but above all he's shrewd. He desires
> power
To what aim? Isn't that the point? And since when is the mass media in a
Republican president's corner?
JOHN
John Schuermann
> for a temporary solution. Also, when cultures clash the ramifications
> last for centuries. Especially when you deal with older, stuck-in-the-mud
> cultures. For example, the Koreans are still pissed at the Japanese not
> only over WWII, but for stuff that went on centuries earlier. With North
> Korea gearing up to start A-bomb production it would not be farfetched to
> imagine them handing out a little payback to the Japanese. So, while we
> may be able to go to Iraq and put down Saddam, we may find that our
> children's children will have to deal with the bad blood that may be
> brewed today.
Norman, you could be right, and this is a reasonable arguement. However, I
strongly believe we will be liberating the people of Iraq and they will be
thankful. Certainly the world is well aware of how Saddam treats his own
people.
Time will tell which one of us is right.
> The point is not that it's wrong to be severe with Saddam, just do it in
> a way that leaves the Iraqi people with their dignity intact.
I think this is precisely the point. Right now the Iraqis live under an
insane dictator not above torturing and gassing his own people. What
dignity is there in that? With Saddam controlling the military, it's not
like the Iraqi people have any choice in the matter - their only chance is
from without, rather than from within.
JOHN
Joseph Goodman
> I'm unsubscribing from this newsgroup.
>
> Bye.
Yeah right, you'll pop up again the next time someone bashes GINO.
Jim Cleveland
Bokman's been around forever on this group. He was already a regular
when I first subscribed to AMM over 5 years ago.
Cleve
John Schuermann
JOHN
"Joseph Goodman" <grreas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b26nmo$2s1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
M Merced
"J. Christian Grymyr" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030207065658...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> Watching "Destroy All Monsters" and seeing Godzilla toast the U.N.
building and
> Gorosaurus attack Paris makes me feel all soft and cuddly inside.
>
That sort of thinking is shared by others...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/12/okc.final/#visit
Jim Cleveland
"Right!!"
Cleve
David Chapple
> >
> > Bye.
>
>
>
> Yeah right, you'll pop up again the next time someone bashes GINO.
>
>
Would be nice and ironic at the same time if all the prints of GINO were
stored inside the U.N. building when the real Godzilla destroys it?
Just (a)musing.
; )
Dave
Brett Homenick
> To what aim? Isn't that the point?
If it is, it isn't a very good one. If you have access to information
that evidently not even Colin Powell has in relation to Saddam's
ambition to expand his sphere of influence in the Middle East, then by
all means share what you've got. When you realize that you can't
produce a shred of evidence to support your wild conspiracy theory,
you might want to consider toning down your use of slippery-slope
fallacies. They don't do your case much good.
> And since when is the mass media in a Republican president's corner?
Ah, the myth of the Liberal Media. It was just a matter of time before
someone brought it up. Hooboy. Where to begin?
Are you talking about the Liberal Media that constantly derided Al
Gore as "stiff," "unelectable," "wooden," "robotic," and that
incessantly repeated RNC spin points about the Love Canal and farm
chores non-stories? Or how about the Liberal Media that, instead of
focusing on Bush's overstated policy initiatives during the debates,
zeroed in on Gore's sighing? No? Well, is it the Liberal Media that
couldn't get enough of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Travelgate,
Filegate, Whitewater, and haircuts at LAX? Hmmmmmmm. Then surely it's
the Liberal Media that heralded Bush's 2001 tax advances as tax
"rebates," in accordance with White House spin, right? I've got it!
It's the Liberal Media that's been praising Bush as a "changed man"
who's "grown up" since 9/11!
Right?
Well, no.
But hey. Don't take my word for it. Check out www.dailyhowler.com,
www.mediawhoresonline.com, www.fair.org, or Eric Alterman's
instructive tome "What Liberal Media?" if you'd like some background.
I'll leave you with this quote by then-RNC Chairman Rich Bond: "There
is some strategy to it (bashing the 'Liberal Media') ... If you watch
any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs. Maybe the ref
will cut you some slack on the next one."
Seriously. How Newsweek's Howard Fineman can get away with waxing
orgasmic at the very thought of Dubya in cowboy duds can be construed
as a liberal bias is way beyond me.
John Schuermann
> > To what aim? Isn't that the point?
>
> If it is, it isn't a very good one. If you have access to information
> that evidently not even Colin Powell has in relation to Saddam's
> ambition to expand his sphere of influence in the Middle East, then by
> all means share what you've got. When you realize that you can't
> produce a shred of evidence to support your wild conspiracy theory,
> you might want to consider toning down your use of slippery-slope
> fallacies. They don't do your case much good.
You didn't answer my question at all - you just dismissed my point as not
being "very good." I think it IS very good. I find the evidence quite
convincing, you don't.
The snotty tone is not appreciated, especially in what you wrote below. I'd
love to have a civil debate, but it seems, honestly, that much of the other
side (I'm afraid to say "liberal" side, since it may result in another
onslaught of literary eye rolling) just dismisses all of this evidence out
of hand and employs a holier than thou, smarter than thou attitude. It's
that kind of condescending, dismissive attitude that actually ENDS any
debate and creates more hostility on BOTH sides.
> > And since when is the mass media in a Republican president's corner?
>
> Ah, the myth of the Liberal Media. It was just a matter of time before
> someone brought it up. Hooboy. Where to begin?
I hardly would consider it a myth, but this is exactly the kind of
dismissive tactic that I mentioned above. Even the "liberal media" itself,
in its own self-poll, found that over 70% of the correspondents,
commentators, reporters, and anchor persons considered themselves "liberals"
or democrats. Believe me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist - far from it - but
for you to automatically assume that I buy into the whole "liberal media"
conspiracy only because I mentioned that the media would not tend to rally
behind a Republican president, strikes me as just the kind of knee jerk
reaction that you accuse me of.
For the record, I think the media consists of primarily liberal commentators
and reporters who try to be fair and balanced, with a sometimes conscious,
sometimes unconscious shift to the liberal side. It's human nature, not a
vast conspiracy. I think that it's obvious just by the choice of stories
and even the tone and words they use. I find this to be true of CNN, NBC,
CBS, and ABC. Fox News, on the other hand, does the exact same thing,
though obviously slanted to the conservative side. I don't pretend that Fox
News is truly fair and balanced, only that it seems to balance the liberal
bias of the other news organizations.
> Are you talking about the Liberal Media that constantly derided Al
> Gore as "stiff," "unelectable," "wooden," "robotic,"
Hmmmm...didn't see this CONSTANT derision and I DO watch and read the news.
Yes, I definitely did hear those terms thrown about in reference to Gore,
but it sure didn't seem like it was more than the amount of fun poked at
George W. If I wanted to, I could make the case that those were LAMENTS
from the media, rather than derision.
Look, you are bunching me in with the more fanatical posters to this board -
knock it off.
> and that
> incessantly repeated RNC spin points about the Love Canal and farm
> chores non-stories?
Must have missed all of that. Seriously.
> Or how about the Liberal Media that, instead of
> focusing on Bush's overstated policy initiatives during the debates,
> zeroed in on Gore's sighing?
You almost have a point there, but that also involves what is strictly YOUR
opinion that Bush's policy initiatives were overstated. The commentaries
that I saw were evaluations of how the two candidates came off in the
debates, and it would be impossible to discuss their opinions of whose
arguements they agreed with WITHOUT giving away a bias (as I stated above, I
never subscribed to the "obvious and blatant" liberal bias of the media).
Instead, the commentaries focused on how the two individuals came across on
a more personal basis - this is, unfortunately, how most people make their
voting decisions.
> No? Well, is it the Liberal Media that
> couldn't get enough of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Travelgate,
> Filegate, Whitewater, and haircuts at LAX?
Of course! These were legitimate stories! But! You kind of make my point
when you bring up Monica and Paula. The degree of outrage expressed by the
media did not come even CLOSE to the moral indignation that was expressed
over the alleged comments made by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill.
I am so tempted to write more on that whole double standard, but this is bad
enough that we are hashing out our personal differences here on a.m.m.
> Hmmmmmmm. Then surely it's
> the Liberal Media that heralded Bush's 2001 tax advances as tax
> "rebates," in accordance with White House spin, right?
You are making ALOT of assumptions here (that they were going along with
spin, that they consciously were trying to advance Bush's cause, that the
terminology was incorrect to begin with).
> I've got it!
> It's the Liberal Media that's been praising Bush as a "changed man"
> who's "grown up" since 9/11!
>
> Right?
Are you done with the snide comments now?
> Well, no.
Thought so (just kidding). Maybe it's because they honestly feel that way,
despite their Democratic leanings. You seem to be responding to comments I
did not make.
My point is that it's possible that the reason why the media does seem to be
IN PART behind our president is because they agree with him. And, being
that I am one of those that feels the media has a liberal slant, I think
that means something. I did NOT state that the media was against him. I
NEVER said that all of the media was in lock-step agreement with the
Democrats, only that they have a liberal bias.
Still, to compare the CNN and FOX NEWS reaction to Bush's recent SOTU
address, you'd think they were on different planets and watched two
different speeches. CNN's coverage was almost ENTIRELY negative, where
Fox's was almost entirely positive.
> But hey. Don't take my word for it. Check out www.dailyhowler.com,
> www.mediawhoresonline.com, www.fair.org,
From mediawhoresonline's splash page:
Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the vast myriad of
whores who call themselves "journalists." MWO casts a garish spotlight on
the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of
squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media "journalists."
This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, the attitude I
mentioned in my initial comments in this post. Just dismiss the other side
as "whores," "babbling paranoids," and "crayon scribblers." It couldn't
POSSIBLY be that these people they dismiss so readily actually believe in
what they say and might even have the courage of their convictions.
In other words, don't debate the other side, just make fun of it. Talk
about SPIN.
I found this attitude all over all the sites you mentioned. And I could
just as easily post a whole bunch of conservative rebuttal links and claim
it as the final word.
> I'll leave you with this quote by then-RNC Chairman Rich Bond: "There
> is some strategy to it (bashing the 'Liberal Media') ... If you watch
> any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs. Maybe the ref
> will cut you some slack on the next one."
Where are you quoting from? And how about the paraphrasing? Even if
totally accurate, it's hardly some kind of smoking gun.
> Seriously. How Newsweek's Howard Fineman can get away with waxing
> orgasmic at the very thought of Dubya in cowboy duds can be construed
> as a liberal bias is way beyond me.
"Waxing orgasmic." See previous points above.
I would have rather engaged in a fun and stimulating debate.
JOHN
SIZOOBOB
>couldn't get enough of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones,
Yeah .. it was ... cause it was a smoke screen for the real treason Clinton was
pulling ... CHINA GATE !!!!!! oooo their joining the space race ... HUMMMM
how'd they get THAT technology ... ????
I've said it before , and I'll say it again ... in 5 yrs or so when the teflon
wears off ... the Clinton's will be hated for the anti American sell out THEY
were.
John Schuermann
>
> If it is, it isn't a very good one. If you have access to information
> that evidently not even Colin Powell has in relation to Saddam's
> ambition to expand his sphere of influence in the Middle East, then by
> all means share what you've got. When you realize that you can't
> produce a shred of evidence to support your wild conspiracy theory,
> you might want to consider toning down your use of slippery-slope
> fallacies. They don't do your case much good.
You didn't answer my question at all - you just dismissed my point as not
being "very good." I think it IS very good. I find the evidence quite
convincing, you don't.
The snotty tone is not appreciated, especially in what you wrote below. I'd
love to have a civil debate, but it seems, honestly, that much of the other
side (I'm afraid to say "liberal" side, since it may result in another
onslaught of literary eye rolling) just dismisses all of this evidence out
of hand and employs a holier than thou, smarter than thou attitude. It's
that kind of condescending, dismissive attitude that actually ENDS any
debate and creates more hostility on BOTH sides.
> > And since when is the mass media in a Republican president's corner?
>
> Ah, the myth of the Liberal Media. It was just a matter of time before
> someone brought it up. Hooboy. Where to begin?
I hardly would consider it a myth, but this is exactly the kind of
dismissive tactic that I mentioned above. Even the "liberal media" itself,
in its own self-poll, found that over 70% of the correspondents,
commentators, reporters, and anchor persons considered themselves "liberals"
or democrats. Believe me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist - far from it - but
for you to automatically assume that I buy into the whole "liberal media"
conspiracy only because I mentioned that the media would not tend to rally
behind a Republican president, strikes me as just the kind of knee jerk
reaction that you accuse me of.
For the record, I think the media consists of primarily liberal commentators
and reporters who try to be fair and balanced, with a sometimes conscious,
sometimes unconscious shift to the liberal side. It's human nature, not a
vast conspiracy. I think that it's obvious just by the choice of stories
and even the tone and words they use. I find this to be true of CNN, NBC,
CBS, and ABC. Fox News, on the other hand, does the exact same thing,
though obviously slanted to the conservative side. I don't pretend that Fox
News is truly fair and balanced, only that it seems to balance the liberal
bias of the other news organizations.
> Are you talking about the Liberal Media that constantly derided Al
> Gore as "stiff," "unelectable," "wooden," "robotic,"
Hmmmm...didn't see this CONSTANT derision and I DO watch and read the news.
Yes, I definitely did hear those terms thrown about in reference to Gore,
but it sure didn't seem like it was more than the amount of fun poked at
George W. If I wanted to, I could make the case that those were LAMENTS
from the media, rather than derision.
Look, you are bunching me in with the more fanatical posters to this board -
knock it off.
> and that
> incessantly repeated RNC spin points about the Love Canal and farm
> chores non-stories?
Must have missed all of that. Seriously.
> Or how about the Liberal Media that, instead of
> focusing on Bush's overstated policy initiatives during the debates,
> zeroed in on Gore's sighing?
You almost have a point there, but that also involves what is strictly YOUR
opinion that Bush's policy initiatives were overstated. The commentaries
that I saw were evaluations of how the two candidates came off in the
debates, and it would be impossible to discuss their opinions of whose
arguements they agreed with WITHOUT giving away a bias (as I stated above, I
never subscribed to the "obvious and blatant" liberal bias of the media).
Instead, the commentaries focused on how the two individuals came across on
a more personal basis - this is, unfortunately, how most people make their
voting decisions.
> No? Well, is it the Liberal Media that
> couldn't get enough of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Travelgate,
> Filegate, Whitewater, and haircuts at LAX?
Of course! These were legitimate stories! But! You kind of make my point
when you bring up Monica and Paula. The degree of outrage expressed by the
media did not come even CLOSE to the moral indignation that was expressed
over the alleged comments made by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill.
I am so tempted to write more on that whole double standard, but this is bad
enough that we are hashing out our personal differences here on a.m.m.
> Hmmmmmmm. Then surely it's
> the Liberal Media that heralded Bush's 2001 tax advances as tax
> "rebates," in accordance with White House spin, right?
You are making ALOT of assumptions here (that they were going along with
spin, that they consciously were trying to advance Bush's cause, that the
terminology was incorrect to begin with).
> I've got it!
> It's the Liberal Media that's been praising Bush as a "changed man"
> who's "grown up" since 9/11!
>
> Right?
Are you done with the snide comments now?
> Well, no.
Thought so (just kidding). Maybe it's because they honestly feel that way,
despite their Democratic leanings. You seem to be responding to comments I
did not make.
My point is that it's possible that the reason why the media does seem to be
IN PART behind our president is because they agree with him. And, being
that I am one of those that feels the media has a liberal slant, I think
that means something. I did NOT state that the media was against him. I
NEVER said that all of the media was in lock-step agreement with the
Democrats, only that they have a liberal bias.
Still, to compare the CNN and FOX NEWS reaction to Bush's recent SOTU
address, you'd think they were on different planets and watched two
different speeches. CNN's coverage was almost ENTIRELY negative, where
Fox's was almost entirely positive.
> But hey. Don't take my word for it. Check out www.dailyhowler.com,
> www.mediawhoresonline.com, www.fair.org,
From mediawhoresonline's splash page:
Quote:
"Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the vast myriad of
whores who call themselves "journalists." MWO casts a garish spotlight on
the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of
squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media "journalists."
End quote.
This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, the attitude I
mentioned in my initial comments in this post. Just dismiss the other side
as "whores," "babbling paranoids," and "crayon scribblers." It couldn't
POSSIBLY be that these people they dismiss so readily actually believe in
what they say and might even have the courage of their convictions.
In other words, don't debate the other side, just make fun of it. Talk
about SPIN.
I found this attitude all over all the sites you mentioned. And I could
just as easily post a whole bunch of conservative rebuttal links and claim
it as the final word.
> I'll leave you with this quote by then-RNC Chairman Rich Bond: "There
> is some strategy to it (bashing the 'Liberal Media') ... If you watch
> any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs. Maybe the ref
> will cut you some slack on the next one."
Where are you quoting from? And how about the paraphrasing? Even if
totally accurate, it's hardly some kind of smoking gun.
> Seriously. How Newsweek's Howard Fineman can get away with waxing
> orgasmic at the very thought of Dubya in cowboy duds can be construed
> as a liberal bias is way beyond me.
"Waxing orgasmic." See previous points above.
OtiGoji
and then went out to eat. At the table next to mine, a party sat down,
including a young man in a new Marine uniform. The Marine looked like a kid,
with his head shaved and a dreamy look on his face. I think I know that dreamy
look because when I was 19 years old in 1968, I sat in a restaurant with my
parents after I got out of Army basic training. I had a new full-dress uniform,
no hair and dreamy look on my face because I was one day out of boot camp.
Besides happiness (for little things like having no drill instructor screaming
at me and being able to hear rock 'n' roll on the car radio) the dreamy look
was also due to obliviousness of what was going to happen to me next. I didn't
know I was headed for Vietnam.
Anyway, thirty five years later, seeing that young Marine probably not knowing
what's going to happen to him next while I'm waiting for bombs to start raining
on Iraq has made me reflective.
I am not convinced this impending attack on Iraq is necessary or prudent.
Saddam needs to go, but this will be another wrong war at the wrong time. The
case has not been made at this time for an attack on Iraq. I don't think this
attack is worth the loss of American lives, the loss of Iraqi lives, the cost
or the opinion of everyone else in the whole wide world.
All those who think going into Iraq will be as much fun as watching a Godzilla
movie; I ask if YOU want to be in the first group of American soldiers to enter
Baghdad. To those of you that enjoy the image of the UN building being
destroyed, I ask if your priorities might be screwed up in light of the events
of September 11, 2001.
I know a little about war. I was in Vietnam for two years and I have seen the
dead and the injured. I have seen the civilian population displaced and
subjected to forced migration, disease, starvation and of course the
"collateral damage" of children being blown to pieces. (I didn't actually see
any bombed children, but I got the "Big Picture" of civilian casualties)
Before you make silly statements about how much you'd like to see Godzilla kill
Saddam, think about the real costs of the attack. Remember the scenes of the
horrors of war in Godzilla '54. You must be able to see the movie's depiction
of war's cost to civilians. It isn't funny.
Then I read that the current administration wants to put tactical nuclear
weapons in the inventory of conventional weapons. That's a very simplified
description of the newspaper article I read. At first I thought it was
propaganda to frighten Iraq, but the article made the studies on reclassifying
tactical nuclear weapons look scary to me. If the government really wants the
capability to start using little Big Ones to do some landscaping in small
countries, it's depressing and alarming. The only decent, humane reason for
having nuclear weapons is deterrence. The only just use of nuclear weapons can
be to deter nuclear weapons. The idea of using nuclear weapons as a cheap way
to clear land is horrible.
I could get more controversial about this, but let me just say it's also an
insult to the Japanese people who suffered through atomic warfare and then
worked so hard to rebuild their society, economy and entire nation afterward.
I bring this up here because the whimsical Japanese monster movies, of our
shared interest, were spawned by the horrors of nuclear war. We should all be
outraged by even the suggestion that nuclear weapons can be used for something
as trivial as "bunker-busting" in a pitiful, under-developed country.
Otius Gojius
"Suspicion breeds confidence."
XIANPLANET
bad for anyone who had to go through what you had to. Now, I can only go by
what I have heard, but I can tell you that it had to be a horrible experience.
I asked several Vietnam Vets about their experiences and many of them did not
come back the same and will never be the same. I'm surprised, because you
always have a good sense of humour and are a humble friendly guy. I'd never
think that you had to deal with the horrors of war. I now have a greater
appreciation for you as a person.
Although I respect your viewpoints, I still feel strongly that the US MUST take
action against Saddam. As another poster pointed out in an earlier post, Saddam
is NOT Bin Laden !! However, Saddam has more resources and I have no doubts
that given the chance he would build up an arsenal full of Nuclear weapons and
Biological weapons. Given the opportunity, he would wipe us off the face of the
Earth.
Why allow him the time ?
Doctor TOC
<a whole lot of interesting stuff>
Thanks for those thoughts, Oti. Having been lucky enough to avoid
military service, I've been interested to hear the opinions of veterans
in the face of current events. I really appreciate you taking to time to
let us know how you feel.
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris"
Secret Elf, Jive Talkin' Choirboy, God of Cowboy Spurs
ICQ # 4814586
Daleks! 3D - http://users.rcn.com/otherchris/
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
alt.tv.sevendays FAQ - http://welcome.to/7-Days
The TOC Files - http://members.fortunecity.com/toc
SIZOOBOB
>> Filegate, Whitewater, and haircuts at LAX?
>
>Of course! These were legitimate stories! But! You kind of make my point
>when you bring up Monica and
Paula. The degree of outrage expressed by the
>media did not come even CLOSE to the moral indignation that was expressed
>over the alleged comments made by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill.
BULLSEYE.... Game, Set, MATCH !!!
and what about Brodrick .... ONE question from the media !!!!
Bob
Norman England
> However, I strongly believe we will be liberating the people of Iraq
> and they will be thankful. Certainly the world is well aware of how
> Saddam treats his own people.
>
> Time will tell which one of us is right.
I didn't say I was right. I just said that I'm against fighting and that
there are many things to consider before going to war. And if it does come
to war, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Norman England
>> Creepy stuff you got going here. Though it would make for a good
>> pre-end of the world film scenario: Well-intentioned yet arrogant
>> nation believing it can dictate morality and economic policy manages
>> to piss of and then wipe out entire world.
>
> Are you just aping the "over-the-top" tone of the post you are
> responding to, or do you seriously see the U.S. in this light?
I was just trying to be as one-dimensional as some of the other posts here.
But at least I tried to keep it relevant to film, which is what this
message board is supposed to be about.
I was also giving, though didn't state it, an idea of how the US is
perceived by many common folk in Japan. I have yet to meet a Japanese that
thinks the US should go into Iraq. But my point is not whether it's right
or wrong to war now, but if you are, to make sure that people around the
world understand why one nation with obviously superior firepower is going
to invade another. As it stands, the case hasn't been stated well enough.
I also take great offense--not to mention being plain disturbed--when I
read people here state that blowing up or seeing the UN destroyed is a good
thing. Need I remind everyone that there are human beings living and
working in the UN building, just as there were human beings in the Trade
Centers when they went down. It's when I hear talk like this that's what
makes me glad not to be living in the US. You never hear Japanese say
things like, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" or any of those
muscle flexing phrases people in the US say just because they can.
> Hey, I'm not a religious man, but whose to say that God ISN'T on our
> side?
And who's to say that God isn't on the side of Osama bin Laden or Saddam?
It wasn't as if Laden didn't get away with his 9/11 plot; it wasn't like
"god" intervened and stopped those jets. His supporters could look at that
as a sign that god is on their side.
Given the history of "god" and his/her/its laid back involvment with the
affairs of man, it's better not to rely on "Him". By doing so, you end up
making this all sound like some new age version of a religious crusade. How
last millimnium.
Mr Director
Don't make Japan out to be some golden lamb. The've had a history of
imperialism themselves, and need I remind you how they flexed their muscle
at Pearl Harbr in 1941.
>
> > Hey, I'm not a religious man, but whose to say that God ISN'T on our
> > side?
>
> And who's to say that God isn't on the side of Osama bin Laden or Saddam?
> It wasn't as if Laden didn't get away with his 9/11 plot; it wasn't like
> "god" intervened and stopped those jets. His supporters could look at that
> as a sign that god is on their side.
>
Both sidesof this argument show how clueless people are in reference to God.
God gave man free will, and in this world man lives and dies by their free
will. That is why their actions are judged accordingly, because those doing
good willfully are rewarded, while those who do wicked freely are punished.
It's pretty clear Osama murdering innocent people, and those cheering it
weren't doing God's will.
> Given the history of "god" and his/her/its laid back involvment with the
> affairs of man, it's better not to rely on "Him". By doing so, you end up
> making this all sound like some new age version of a religious crusade.
How
> last millimnium.
Did Jesus ever pick up a sword?
Lenell B.
solution to disarm a dictator who agreed to disarm back in 1991 and
has broken every intention of doing so.
I have family members in the Gulf reigon right now. I really hope and
pray they come back home, however, they are sworn to do the job they
are trained to do.
To defend our country, and our allies.
There are some in my Family who oppose this upcoming war, However,I
support it and our troops who are about to face this danger.
The danger of inaction against Saddam is even greater.
Do we dare take that chance? I do not want to see another 9-11,
Now he's even pitting nations against each other now at the UN.
and he still makes fools out of the inspecters. Handing over just 28
pages of "new" infor.
It's too little, too late. Iraq had their chance and they blew it.
The UN's monment of truth is here. Will they inforce resloution 1441
or will the UN let Saddam get away with it again.
I praise the US and it's allies for taking a stand. The BS is over.
I want Saddam to go, the world would rest easier.
However, we must be on alert, for fear of reprisals.
Like I said before, We live in a dangerous world. Only taking a stand
insures survival.
Later
Lenell B.
Brett Homenick
> You didn't answer my question at all - you just dismissed my point as not
> being "very good." I think it IS very good. I find the evidence quite
> convincing, you don't.
Let's backtrack. When I averred that Saddam is concerned with power
more than attacking the U.S., you asked, "To what aim?" is he devoted
to power. The answer is that maintaining the power he has now. Not
even the Bush Administration is trying to make the case that he wants
to expand his power beyond Iraq. CIA chief George Tenet told the New
York Times last October that Saddam poses no immediate threat to the
U.S., which he reaffirmed just recently. Still, you believe what you
want to believe.
> The snotty tone is not appreciated, especially in what you wrote below. I'd
> love to have a civil debate, but it seems, honestly, that much of the other
> side (I'm afraid to say "liberal" side, since it may result in another
> onslaught of literary eye rolling) just dismisses all of this evidence out
> of hand and employs a holier than thou, smarter than thou attitude. It's
> that kind of condescending, dismissive attitude that actually ENDS any
> debate and creates more hostility on BOTH sides.
I'm glad to hear that you want to have a debate at all, which I'm
sorry to say is of no interest to me. I have neither the time nor the
inclination to be spending the amount of time required for looking up
facts and checking myself in a futile attempt to convince someone I've
never met that his preconceived worldview is deeply flawed. And how
wonderfully ironic it is that you toss the old "LIBRULS JUST NAME CALL
AND CONSERVATIVES JUST TELL FACTS" line when you spend the remainder
of your post dismissing these well-documented facts because you "don't
seem to recall them" when you were watching the news. Moreover, if you
want to talk about vitriolic namecalling, look no further than Rush
Limbaugh, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson,
Sean Hannity, and other members of the right. Your side has no
shortage on baseless namecalling.
> I hardly would consider it a myth, but this is exactly the kind of
> dismissive tactic that I mentioned above. Even the "liberal media" itself,
> in its own self-poll, found that over 70% of the correspondents,
> commentators, reporters, and anchor persons considered themselves "liberals"
> or democrats. Believe me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist - far from it - but
> for you to automatically assume that I buy into the whole "liberal media"
> conspiracy only because I mentioned that the media would not tend to rally
> behind a Republican president, strikes me as just the kind of knee jerk
> reaction that you accuse me of.
How is it a dismissive tactic when I went on to support it, and all
you can muster below is to deny the truth-value of my claims? The only
poll I'm familiar with that came up with results like that was
conducted in 1984. More recently (this time only about 10 years ago),
another poll was conducted that revealed a majority of the reporters
survey admitted that they had voted for Clinton in 1992. Let's look at
these two instances.
First of all, the Clinton poll only received 139 responses from 323
questionnaires sent out. Moreover, fewer than 20% of the
questionnaires were sent to "elite media" outlets, while most went to
smaller news sources, such as the Denver Post. Not only that, but
equating a vote for Clinton as a badge of liberalism is beyond
ridiculous. Clinton ran as a centrist New Democrat who was pro-death
penalty, pro-welfare reform, and pro-NAFTA.
Even if the poll you referenced were conducted yesterday, that the
majority of reporters call themselves "liberal" or "Democrats" doesn't
automatically entail that your local news is nothing more than DNC
spin. Let's assume that the majority of all reporters are flaming
liberals. You seem to think that reporting happens in a vacuum, that
reporters don't submit their stories to editors, that editors don't
have to answer to upper management, and so on. When news organizations
are trying to please their on-the-whole-conservative advertisers, that
doesn't leave much room for liberal activism.
> For the record, I think the media consists of primarily liberal commentators
> and reporters who try to be fair and balanced, with a sometimes conscious,
> sometimes unconscious shift to the liberal side. It's human nature, not a
> vast conspiracy. I think that it's obvious just by the choice of stories
> and even the tone and words they use. I find this to be true of CNN, NBC,
> CBS, and ABC. Fox News, on the other hand, does the exact same thing,
> though obviously slanted to the conservative side. I don't pretend that Fox
> News is truly fair and balanced, only that it seems to balance the liberal
> bias of the other news organizations.
This operates under the assumption that reporters get free rein in
choosing what they report and how they report it. It also leaves out
such factors as how the press is treated by certain politicians. For
example, one reason Bush received favorable press in 2000 was because
he was overtly friendly with reporters, as any viewing of the HBO
documentary "Journeys with George" will demonstrate. Another example:
Dana Milbank played the White House game for a long time. He wrote
extremely favorable columns for Bush in the Washington Post and, as a
result, got that all-important access to the President that makes his
columns worth reading. However, Dana offered up evidence that
questioned the Bush regime's policy on Iraq. What happened? Milbank
lost his access. Not only that, but the administration publicly
insulted him and tried to discredit him by name. If you think
reporters are going to risk their jobs to bias the news, think again.
Yet another example. Margaret Carlson is a self-described liberal
commentator for supposedly-liberal CNN. Know what she deemed to be the
outrage of 2002? The Wellstone funeral. That's right: Even with the
worst corporate scandals since the Great Depression, a liberal
reporter on a "liberal" news source named an RNC spin point over much
more deserving candidates.
> Hmmmm...didn't see this CONSTANT derision and I DO watch and read the news.
> Yes, I definitely did hear those terms thrown about in reference to Gore,
> but it sure didn't seem like it was more than the amount of fun poked at
> George W. If I wanted to, I could make the case that those were LAMENTS
> from the media, rather than derision.
Okay. So you only heard the "inventing the Internet" stories in
passing? You never heard any reporter or pundit lament Gore's
"reinventing himself?" You're not all that familiar with the
ballyhooed "earthtones" flap? Okay. Well, did you hear much about how
Bush went AWOL during his Texas Air National Guard service? Or about
how his dad got his 1972 cocaine conviction expunged from public
record in exchange for community service? You didn't? So much for the
liberal bias.
> Look, you are bunching me in with the more fanatical posters to this board -
> knock it off.
So sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.
> > and that
> > incessantly repeated RNC spin points about the Love Canal and farm
> > chores non-stories?
>
> Must have missed all of that. Seriously.
Liberal CNN gave plenty of air time to these stories directly lifted
from the RNC. Bruce Morton, ironically, loved the "Love Story"
non-story about Gore and talked it up on CNN's "Inside Politics." The
Daily Howler is replete with such examples.
> You almost have a point there, but that also involves what is strictly YOUR
> opinion that Bush's policy initiatives were overstated. The commentaries
> that I saw were evaluations of how the two candidates came off in the
> debates, and it would be impossible to discuss their opinions of whose
> arguements they agreed with WITHOUT giving away a bias (as I stated above, I
> never subscribed to the "obvious and blatant" liberal bias of the media).
> Instead, the commentaries focused on how the two individuals came across on
> a more personal basis - this is, unfortunately, how most people make their
> voting decisions.
My opinion, huh? Okay, let's see. On "Good Morning America," Bush
finally admitted when asked by Charlie Gibson that Gore was 100% about
Bush's tax plan that promises to give 40% of the surplus (back when we
had a surplus) to the top 1% of Americans during the debates, which
Bush artfully denied in real time. Even when Bush admitted he LIED on
national television, the media was strangely silent. During the
debates, Bush also lied that Gore would "grow the size of government"
and used a sham Republican-produced "study" as evidence of his claim.
Not only were the contents of the so-called study wrong, but Bush lied
about who performed the study. Again, no media outrage. Bush also lied
that Gore had outspent him during the campaign. He also lied that his
health care plan would cover all seniors. And on and on. It doesn't
take a biased media to uncover these truths. Why did the media make a
big stink about Gore's sighing or the James Lee Witt story (Gore
simply got the name of the bureaucrat he visited the disaster site in
Texas wrong; Gore visited many such sites with Witt) while giving Bush
a free pass? This doesn't speak well for the case of the liberal
media.
> Of course! These were legitimate stories! But! You kind of make my point
> when you bring up Monica and Paula. The degree of outrage expressed by the
> media did not come even CLOSE to the moral indignation that was expressed
> over the alleged comments made by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill.
You've successfully undercutted your own credibility. Whitewater,
Travelgate, and Filegate were the biggest non-scandals in recent
American history. It didn't matter that they had no basis in fact and
that absolutely nothing resulted from them, the media couldn't get
enough of them. You consider the "haircut" incident at LAX to be a
"legitimate story?" It's amazing how much air time that story got, but
you hear nary a peep nowadays about how, just a few years ago as CEO
of Halliburton, Dick Cheney was happy to do business with evil
incarnate himself, Saddam Hussein. I guess that's not a "legitimate
story" for the liberal media.
In terms of the Paula Jones scandal, Clinton allegedly told her to
kiss his penis while governor of Arkansas. Wow. Now THAT'S a
legitimate story. If the Harken insider-trading scandal dealt with
kissing penises, I guess then the liberal media would count it as a
legitimate story.
The Monica Lewinsky scandal was a ratings win for the media. In fact,
such liberal oases as ABC and NBC interrupted regularly scheduled
programming to report unsubstantiated rumors about how Clinton had
been "caught in the act." Of course, these rumors were proven false.
The scandal also legitimized gossip-monger Matt Drudge who regularly
appeared on broadcast news shows to discuss the scandal. Man, where's
the liberal bias when you need it?
> You are making ALOT of assumptions here (that they were going along with
> spin, that they consciously were trying to advance Bush's cause, that the
> terminology was incorrect to begin with).
The truth of the matter is that any liberally-inclinded reporter could
have reported what the tax "rebates" actually were. They were
advances. That many people had to send their checks back to the
government demonstrates that they weren't rebates. But because the
White House called them rebates, the press dutifully went along with
it.
> My point is that it's possible that the reason why the media does seem to be
> IN PART behind our president is because they agree with him. And, being
> that I am one of those that feels the media has a liberal slant, I think
> that means something. I did NOT state that the media was against him. I
> NEVER said that all of the media was in lock-step agreement with the
> Democrats, only that they have a liberal bias.
Simply put: This makes no sense. Why a liberal press would, in your
own words, agree with a president who's more conservative in practice
(though it's not reflected in his "compassionate" speeches) than
Ronald Reagan is, at best, a doubtful claim. If the news has a liberal
tilt to it, that should be reflected in Bush's media coverage. Truth
is, Bush has a supportive press. A lefty press that loves a right-wing
president more than liberal Democrats. I get it. It's so stupid it
makes sense, right? Is that the idea?
> Still, to compare the CNN and FOX NEWS reaction to Bush's recent SOTU
> address, you'd think they were on different planets and watched two
> different speeches. CNN's coverage was almost ENTIRELY negative, where
> Fox's was almost entirely positive.
I don't buy this at all, considering that new CNN chief Walter
Isaacson is extremely mindful of the charges leveled against CNN's
fairness. So mindful, in fact, that he recently met with congressional
Republicans to get their thoughts on what he could do to attract
conservative viewers away from ratings-juggernaut Fox News. Isaacson
also courted Rush Limbaugh to do a talk show on CNN. Hardly the most
liberal of voices. As Eric Alterman so eloquently put it, you're only
as liberal as the guy who owns you.
> This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, the attitude I
> mentioned in my initial comments in this post. Just dismiss the other side
> as "whores," "babbling paranoids," and "crayon scribblers." It couldn't
> POSSIBLY be that these people they dismiss so readily actually believe in
> what they say and might even have the courage of their convictions.
Sorry. Forgot you were an insensitive pantywaist. You know, it's
evident that you didn't even bother to read carefully MWO's splash
page. MWO calls the so-called unbiased JOURNALISTS names, not
Republicans. When reporters trade their journalistic integrity for
White House access, that's what I'd call whoredom.
> In other words, don't debate the other side, just make fun of it. Talk
> about SPIN.
And you're willing to make this hasty generalization from simply
browsing MWO's main page? Sounds like you're engaging in what you're
berating others for supposedly doing. There's nothing wrong with
having a satirical edge in polemics. MWO always provides links (where
applicable) to the full stories they're arguing, which is in contrast
to, say, Rush Limbaugh who gives his opinion of what a Democrat said
and then proceeds to beat up the straw man he himself created.
> I found this attitude all over all the sites you mentioned. And I could
> just as easily post a whole bunch of conservative rebuttal links and claim
> it as the final word.
Now I know you didn't even bother to look over the other sites.
www.fair.org barely has a sense of humor at all. www.dailyhowler.com
is run by a political satirist, but he doesn't call Republicans names.
He does call Bill Frist the "saintly sawbones" because of the
disgustingly positive press the conservative-as-Trent-Lott Senate
majority leader has garnered, but that's the extent of it.
> Where are you quoting from? And how about the paraphrasing? Even if
> totally accurate, it's hardly some kind of smoking gun.
It's taken from Eric Alterman by way of the August 20, 1992, edition
of the Washington Post. You're right. It's no smoking gun. It's just
an admission by the highest-ranking Republican Party official that
they intentionally decry the "liberal media" in an attempt to get more
favorable coverage for themselves.
> I would have rather engaged in a fun and stimulating debate.
I would have rather engaged in no debate at all. Perhaps you have an
endless supply of time to debate politics on the Internet, but some of
us don't have that luxury. In fact, I've wasted enough of my time
looking up facts and double-checking myself for a post on a Godzilla
message board just because some contrarian whom I've never met
believes in the myth of the liberal media and doesn't seem to remember
that which doesn't fit into his schema. I'm sorry, but if it's a
pissing contest you seek, find it elsewhere. Me, I'm just going to cut
my losses and move on to more constructive endeavors.
Norman England
news:vHS1a.11162$Mh3.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com:
> Don't make Japan out to be some golden lamb. The've had a history of
> imperialism themselves, and need I remind you how they flexed their
> muscle at Pearl Harbr in 1941.
I didn't make them out to be some golden lamb; I just said that they
remain unconvinced, as does much of the world. But then I guess what we
should do is pick every country against going to Iraq, find some spot in
their past, and dismiss them because of this. How convenient.
> Both sidesof this argument show how clueless people are in reference
> to God. God gave man free will, and in this world man lives and dies
> by their free will. That is why their actions are judged accordingly,
> because those doing good willfully are rewarded, while those who do
> wicked freely are punished. It's pretty clear Osama murdering innocent
> people, and those cheering it weren't doing God's will.
It'll be a dark day in hell when I side with Laden, but in his eyes those
people in the Trade Centers weren't innocent. Better to keep God out of
this.
> Did Jesus ever pick up a sword?
No. But it seems like everyone and their mother has in his name.
Norman England
> Another example:
> Dana Milbank played the White House game for a long time. He wrote
> extremely favorable columns for Bush in the Washington Post and, as a
> result, got that all-important access to the President that makes his
> columns worth reading. However, Dana offered up evidence that
> questioned the Bush regime's policy on Iraq. What happened? Milbank
> lost his access. Not only that, but the administration publicly
> insulted him and tried to discredit him by name.
Hey! This sounds like what happened with me and G-Fan/Lees. Ha! Ha! Didn't
know it was an old Republican tactic!
Mr Director
> "Mr Director" <mrdir...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:vHS1a.11162$Mh3.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com:
>
> > Don't make Japan out to be some golden lamb. The've had a history of
> > imperialism themselves, and need I remind you how they flexed their
> > muscle at Pearl Harbr in 1941.
>
> I didn't make them out to be some golden lamb; I just said that they
> remain unconvinced, as does much of the world. But then I guess what we
> should do is pick every country against going to Iraq, find some spot in
> their past, and dismiss them because of this. How convenient.
And how convenient that you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you by stating
we feel every country should pick on every country who is against going to
war with Iraq. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who remain
unconvinced.
>
> > Both sidesof this argument show how clueless people are in reference
> > to God. God gave man free will, and in this world man lives and dies
> > by their free will. That is why their actions are judged accordingly,
> > because those doing good willfully are rewarded, while those who do
> > wicked freely are punished. It's pretty clear Osama murdering innocent
> > people, and those cheering it weren't doing God's will.
>
> It'll be a dark day in hell when I side with Laden, but in his eyes those
> people in the Trade Centers weren't innocent.
He's wrong. End of story.
Better to keep God out of
> this.
>
> > Did Jesus ever pick up a sword?
>
> No. But it seems like everyone and their mother has in his name.
And they are WRONG for doing so, and they WILL be judged accordingly. Anyone
who picks a sword or sheds innocent blood (or human blood of any kind for
that matter) in God's name will be judged accordingly, and woe is them.
>
Breetai
comments in between)......
"Mr Director" <mrdir...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vHS1a.11162$Mh3.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Norman England" <tor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns931EEF5D5...@203.216.7.70...
> > "John Schuermann" <jsmusi...@adelphia.net> wrote
> >
> > >> Creepy stuff you got going here. Though it would make for a good
> > >> pre-end of the world film scenario: Well-intentioned yet arrogant
> > >> nation believing it can dictate morality and economic policy manages
> > >> to piss of and then wipe out entire world.
> > >
> > > Are you just aping the "over-the-top" tone of the post you are
> > > responding to, or do you seriously see the U.S. in this light?
> >
> > I was just trying to be as one-dimensional as some of the other posts
> here.
> > But at least I tried to keep it relevant to film, which is what this
> > message board is supposed to be about.
True. This isn't the forum for this sort of thing, but there appears to be
enough interest in the material here to support the posts. Has anybody
considered that maybe we Gojira fans do have interests aside from Gojira and
would like to discuss them with other G-fans?
> > I was also giving, though didn't state it, an idea of how the US is
> > perceived by many common folk in Japan. I have yet to meet a Japanese
that
> > thinks the US should go into Iraq. But my point is not whether it's
right
> > or wrong to war now, but if you are, to make sure that people around the
> > world understand why one nation with obviously superior firepower is
going
> > to invade another. As it stands, the case hasn't been stated well
enough.
> >
> > I also take great offense--not to mention being plain disturbed--when I
> > read people here state that blowing up or seeing the UN destroyed is a
> good
> > thing. Need I remind everyone that there are human beings living and
> > working in the UN building, just as there were human beings in the Trade
> > Centers when they went down. It's when I hear talk like this that's what
> > makes me glad not to be living in the US. You never hear Japanese say
> > things like, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" or any of those
> > muscle flexing phrases people in the US say just because they can.
Going back to my original post, I would like to see the US withdraw from the
UN and boot it off of American soil.
> Don't make Japan out to be some golden lamb. The've had a history of
> imperialism themselves, and need I remind you how they flexed their muscle
> at Pearl Harbr in 1941.
>
Every established civilization has subjugated others at one time or
another...for all practical purposes, it results in a collective "wash".
That doesn't make it right, but it does make it ludicrous to redress now.
> >
> > > Hey, I'm not a religious man, but whose to say that God ISN'T on our
> > > side?
...but I am (a religious man - that is).
> > And who's to say that God isn't on the side of Osama bin Laden or
Saddam?
> > It wasn't as if Laden didn't get away with his 9/11 plot; it wasn't like
> > "god" intervened and stopped those jets. His supporters could look at
that
> > as a sign that god is on their side.
Read the book of Isaiah in the Bible, it fully documents how God allowed
invading armies of infidels to overrun HIS people to punish them for their
folly. And do you doubt for two seconds that our society isn't full of
"folly" right now?
Yeah - I know what you're probably thinking - another Bible-thumping
Christian. Used to avoid them like the plague myself...what can I
say...call me spooky if you like or just plain weird, but Salvation is just
a little too important for me since I'm not gonna be on this mudball
forever. (Kinda like trying to realize that there's life after High School
or College...you know you can't accomplish what you want without a little
preparation but it appears too far away for now to worry about it right
now.)
> Both sidesof this argument show how clueless people are in reference to
God.
> God gave man free will, and in this world man lives and dies by their free
> will. That is why their actions are judged accordingly, because those
doing
> good willfully are rewarded, while those who do wicked freely are
punished.
> It's pretty clear Osama murdering innocent people, and those cheering it
> weren't doing God's will.
Mr Director, please accept my apologies if I offend you by posting this
correction/addendum to your point, but your excerpt above implies the
misunderstanding that alot of people (even denominationalist Christians)
have that one can achieve salvation through good works...this could not be
further from the truth...good works is a symptom of salvation and not a
means toward it.
Here is what is absolutely required for Salvation (this can all be confirmed
in the Bible):
1) What must one do to be saved? (Acts 2:37-38)
2) Hear and believe the Gospel. (Mark 16:15-16 & Romans 10:17)
3) Repent of your sins. (Acts 3:19)
4) Confess Christ. (Acts 8:37)
5) Be baptized (completely immersed) in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins into the church of Christ. (Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians
12:12-13, & Galatians 6:1-6)
6) Remain faithful. (Revelations 2:10)
also regarding other religions like Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism:
7) Do not add or take away from the scriptures. (Revelations 22:18-19)
Under this last point, you would ultimately also come to the correct
conclusion (and there are other passages to support this) that denominations
as well as non-believers will fail to receive Grace when their time comes.
Spooky? Yes, but also very serious stuff.
To anybody reading this, please understand that it is my Duty as a Christian
to bring these points to light no matter who it bothers. (Also please note
that I don't ask for you to agree with me...I'm just pointing out what the
Bible says...and no, I'm not some "high and mighty" expert in this
either...I'm just trying to spread the knowledge so that all of you may
benefit...I wouldn't mind spending eternity with other G-fans...kinda like
those Snickers commercials: "Gonna be a while...?")
> > Given the history of "god" and his/her/its laid back involvment with the
> > affairs of man, it's better not to rely on "Him". By doing so, you end
up
> > making this all sound like some new age version of a religious crusade.
> How
> > last millimnium.
Passe or not. God can never trully be omitted. Omniscient, omnipresent,
omnipotent. We're not talking about some fictional character here...we're
talking about the guy we all have to answer to when our time is up.
>
>
> Did Jesus ever pick up a sword?
No. But he also had no tolerance for those that were full of themselves.
And do you really need to pick up a sword when you can reduce the world to
ashes and will do so one day?
I'm done here (I hope)...now can we get back to some G-talk for a while...I
really enjoy reading those posts.
Thanks a ton for each of your time,
-Breetai
Mr Director
"Breetai" <zoa...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JJ%1a.11754$u12.3...@news.alltel.net...
Never apologize for your honest opinions....
but your excerpt above implies the
> misunderstanding that alot of people (even denominationalist Christians)
> have that one can achieve salvation through good works...this could not be
> further from the truth...good works is a symptom of salvation and not a
> means toward it.
Agreed. I wasn't saying it was the be all, end all. But those who are good
in their hearts, and do good in their hearts per God's laws have a better
chance at salvation, and one shouldn't do good because they want salvation,
but should do good because they want good.
You might offend some, but don't worry. i take all this to heart.
>
> > > Given the history of "god" and his/her/its laid back involvment with
the
> > > affairs of man, it's better not to rely on "Him". By doing so, you end
> up
> > > making this all sound like some new age version of a religious
crusade.
> > How
> > > last millimnium.
>
> Passe or not. God can never trully be omitted. Omniscient, omnipresent,
> omnipotent. We're not talking about some fictional character here...we're
> talking about the guy we all have to answer to when our time is up.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Did Jesus ever pick up a sword?
>
> No. But he also had no tolerance for those that were full of themselves.
> And do you really need to pick up a sword when you can reduce the world to
> ashes and will do so one day?
>
> I'm done here (I hope)...now can we get back to some G-talk for a
while...I
> really enjoy reading those posts.
>
> Thanks a ton for each of your time,
> -Breetai
>
Thanks for your time as well.
Bob Johnson
debate as I don't think this isn't the forum for it.
However, I do have to ask. Is anyone here signing up to go over and
fight? Does anyone here have any brothers or sons or friends in the
reserves that have been called up to deploy?
Screaming for Sadam's head is one thing when you're sitting safely at
home behind a computer, but how many are willing to make a personal
sacrafice for it? When I see you guys standing in line at the army
recruiting office, then you've made a point!
Bob Johnson
xianp...@aol.com (XIANPLANET) wrote in message news:<20030208082024...@mb-mo.aol.com>...
> I'm not a war monger, but I do feel that the war is necessary. Look, in a
> perfect world, we'd all respect one another. It's not like that.
> We have enemies such as Al Quieda and Saddam's Iraq. Enemies who , like on 911,
> would attack us is given the chance.
> We don't want to give them that chance.
> Do You ?
> Do you want to wait until something happens to take action? We already know
> that they do have intentions of hitting us. It could be in Penn Station with
> nerve gas or bio weapons in our water supply.
> Oh, the liberasl, the democrats, and the peace lovers all say it won't happen,
> there's no evidence and it's all about oil.
> It it was, why did we not act in Kuwaitt when we liberated it.
>
> Open your fucking eyes. Did you even listen to Powell? Do you have any idea how
> much info we have on them ? We know that Al Queida operatives are being
> harbored and possibly funded by the Hussein regime. We already had a 9/11,
> should we believe that the UN inspectors did the job and that the weapons will
> all go away and Iraq will comply ??
> Should we allow Saddam more time ? More time could mean production of Nuclear
> Weapons.
>
> France and Germany do not support us. Do you know why ?
> We have info that both these countries have either oil or supply tie ins with
> Iraq and many have been the source for weapon components. The curent leader of
> Germany ran on an anti US/Bush platform to win the election. Of course Germany
> opposes the war effort.
>
> Maybe they are right. Maybe nothing will happen. Do you want to take that
> chance ?
> If you could go back before 9/11, no one thought the hi jack scenario would
> happen. We were not prepared. Our country was softer.
> But if you could stop it, would you go back and stop 9/11 ?
> Then why are you opposing Bush now.
>
> Believe me, the democrats definitely do not want a POPULAR campaign led by a
> POPULAR President. They'd never win the next election . That's a big reason why
> the outspoken democrats oppose Bush's plans. They know it will stir up
> popularity for our current REPUBLICAN president.
>
> How about al those Bleeding heart celebs like Susan Sarandon. Where was she
> when Clinton sent in the troups ? Where were all the protesters then ? How come
> they only appear when a REPUBLICAN talks of war ?
>
> War , unfortunately, is necessary.
OtiGoji
>Vietnam...>it had to be a horrible experience.
Actually, I had it pretty good. I was in a non-combat job that was pretty
cushy. I was only there when the rockets came in. I did get into some insecure,
nerve-wracking close support situations in the field, but I was never in
combat. I was in a helicopter that made a very rough emergency landing in the
middle of nowhere one time, but I was not injured.
I was in the Army, but assigned to the Navy, which was nice for me. Grunts who
occasionally stayed with us were stunned by our well-stocked refrigerator,
luxurious built-in shower (we had our own water heater) TV and other benefits.
It's kinda hard to explain, just think McHale's Navy.
>US MUST take
>action against Saddam.
Yes, but I don't think now or like this.
>Saddam
>is NOT Bin Laden !!
Oh, yeah! By the way, where is Osama Bin Laden? If we cannnot find him, what
makes you think we are going to find Saddam at the end of this cluster fiesta?
>Given the opportunity, he would wipe us off the face of the
>Earth.
I don't think we are in any imminent danger from Iraq. I'd rather get Osama Bin
Laden in the bag, then sweat Saddam.
Oh, well... whatever will be, will be. I still think this attack on Iraq is not
necessary or prudent.
J. Christian Grymyr
> I also take great offense--not to mention being plain disturbed--when I
> read people here state that blowing up or seeing the UN destroyed is a
good
> thing. Need I remind everyone that there are human beings living and
> working in the UN building, just as there were human beings in the Trade
> Centers when they went down. It's when I hear talk like this that's what
> makes me glad not to be living in the US.
Can we at least agree that Gorosaurus/Baragon attacking those Saddam-sucking
snail eaters was pretty sweet?
Reaper "Gee, I sure hope the Ivory Coast doesn't rough them up too bad" G
SIZOOBOB
shot.
Pull ALL our foriegn troops home to seal our borders (let them fend for
themselves for a change) and curtail any financial support with the exception
of our CLEAR CUT allies. Within months France & Germany will be on their knees
begging us to come back... and the rest will be begging us to protect the oil
feilds that WE ALL NEED BTW ... !
Bob
Brett Homenick
Norman, please don't start.
Seriously.
Brett Homenick
> As another poster pointed out in an earlier post, Saddam is NOT Bin Laden !!
That poster was me.
I demand my due props.
Hitman of Las Vegas
Jonathan Mock
(SIZOOBOB) wrote:
How did the world ever exist before 1776..?
Mr Director
"Bob Johnson" <big...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b04a3553.03021...@posting.google.com...
> I'm not going to state an opinion one way or another on the Iraq war
> debate as I don't think this isn't the forum for it.
>
> However, I do have to ask. Is anyone here signing up to go over and
> fight? Does anyone here have any brothers or sons or friends in the
> reserves that have been called up to deploy?
I have a brother who already did time in Afghanistan, and had his hand
severly cut during a fight, which got him a purple medal. He'll be going to
Iraq under very personal circumstances at this moment, so it's hard for us,
but if there was something I could do to contribute, I would.
>
> Screaming for Sadam's head is one thing when you're sitting safely at
> home behind a computer, but how many are willing to make a personal
> sacrafice for it? When I see you guys standing in line at the army
> recruiting office, then you've made a point!
>
> Bob Johnson
Because of my medical condition, I can't join the military, but on 9-11, the
first thing I thought when I saw the buildings collapse, and those in the
arab world celebrate was hesitating not ONE BIT if the gov't knocked on the
door and requested my services in the marines.
Mr Director
Jonathan Mock
>and curtail any financial support with the exception of our CLEAR CUT allies.
> Within months France & Germany will be on their knees begging us to come
back...
But not before all those BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes drivers in the USA
start a rebellion!
John Schuermann
Me too.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
JOHN
John Schuermann
> "John Schuermann" <jsmusi...@adelphia.net> wrote
>
> >> Creepy stuff you got going here. Though it would make for a good
> >> pre-end of the world film scenario: Well-intentioned yet arrogant
> >> nation believing it can dictate morality and economic policy manages
> >> to piss of and then wipe out entire world.
> >
> > Are you just aping the "over-the-top" tone of the post you are
> > responding to, or do you seriously see the U.S. in this light?
>
> I was just trying to be as one-dimensional as some of the other posts
here.
Thought so!
I'd love to debate all of the rest of your points here, but this subject
line is getting long and hostile (not by you, but by others on BOTH sides of
this issue). I love a good fun debate, but when it degenerates into name
calling (or outrageous, intentionally provocative statements) it's time to
call it quits.
JOHN
John Schuermann
I'm still trying to figure out when I made all kinds of claims of an
outrageously liberal media that was fully funded and run by the Democrats,
and when I claimed that only liberals distort and ridicule the views of the
other side. I'd have taken all this personally, but most of Brett's
response seemed directed at someone other than me.
Oh, and Brett - I didn't realize it was that long ago (1984) that the
"liberal" vs "conservative" media poll was taken. You know, I'm not so
close minded that I won't concede a point. And, come to think of it, the
problem did seem to me to be much worse back in the 70's and 80's
(especially the whole homeless hoax) than it is now.
And, for the record, I admit to not extensively reading all of the sources
you cited - the splash page I quoted really did turn me off immediately, and
here is maybe why:
I used to use those very same kind of sarcasm and overstatement back in high
school.
Then I grew up.
I just read this on fair.org:
"As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone."
Sounds like good advice to me.
I am now reading more extensively the sites you mentioned; want some
conservative site addresses to counter all that you've been reading? Every
site you mentioned is, shall we say, more than a little liberally inclined.
I am just as suspicious of those sites as you are of the national media.
Both are claiming to be the defenders of the truth. It's more than
EXTREMELY obvious that www.fair.org is a liberal leaning site. Another
quote, regarding how to fight so called "hate radio" :
"10. Keep the pressure on. Even if the station doesn't balance the
hate-jock, or allow an on-air discussion of hate speech, just publicizing
bigoted statements changes the terms of debate. Hate flourishes when other
views are not heard. By challenging it as often as possible, you diminish
the ignorance that is necessary to racism, sexism and homophobia."
So that no one can accuse me of taking this out of context, here is the link
to the page and site:
http://www.fair.org/activism/hate-radio.html
This on their own "activism" page, and another example of what I was talking
about in my previous post. Label the opposition (I assume they are talking
about people like Rush Limbaugh here, but I could be wrong) as hateful,
racist, and homophobic. Maybe those they accuse if those things just don't
believe in affirmative action (the racists!) or gay rights (the
homophobes!). The whole hate speech thing strikes me as ridiculous and as
another dead-ended debate tactic. The quote I posted yesterday from Media
Whores strikes me as more hateful than anything I've heard on talk radio
lately.
Yes, I am aware that people like Rush do put down their own opposition with
labels, too. Never in any of my posts did I defend Rush or commentators
like him. I am totally against ANYONE who tries to end debate with a label.
Fact is, I agree with much of Rush's commentary but dislike his arrogance
and name-calling.
And, as for my statement above that all of the sites you mention are liberal
in attitude, here are the addresses again so that anyone who cares to can
confirm what I am saying:
www.dailyhowler.com, www.mediawhoresonline.com, www.fair.org
I guess I could just as easily put up the links to a bunch of conservative
sites and claim they had the monopoly on truth.
That's all for now.
JOHN
John Schuermann
Thanks for your e-mail. No hard feelings.
I retract anything in this post below that may in anyway be construed as
insulting.
JOHN
"John Schuermann" <jsmusi...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Ntg2a.6395$jR3.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Lenell B.
> > Although I respect your viewpoints, I still feel strongly that the US MUST take
> action against Saddam. As another poster pointed out in an earlier post, Saddam
> is NOT Bin Laden !! However, Saddam has more resources and I have no doubts
> that given the chance he would build up an arsenal full of Nuclear weapons and
> Biological weapons. Given the opportunity, he would wipe us off the face of the
> Earth.
> Why allow him the time ?
I couldn't agree with you more. The US (and the allies who are with
us) MUST take action to oust him.
This man has hatred of America and Freedom. If he gets the chance he
could kill us all. Didn't 9-11 serve as an example? People like him
and Osama Bin Laden cannot be reasoned with. Terrorists are killers of
many. Saddam supports terrorists and he is a killer.
Saddam has caused nothing but trouble and miserly, now he's causing
our own allies to be divided.
We didn't ask for this war to begin with. Saddam started it in 1991.
Later
Lenell B.
Norman England
>> Hey! This sounds like what happened with me and G-Fan/Lees. Ha! Ha!
>> Didn't know it was an old Republican tactic!
>
> Norman, please don't start.
>
> Seriously.
Is this a threat? I'm quaking!
But then I am still smarting from when ol' "cutey pie" "kicked my ass" on
MZ.
Oh, the pain... the pain...
s-er...@webtv.net
Who ? ( U know that helpful fella who conveniently resurfaces just in
time to help out that other fella who is in business with his family &
who's name escapes me at the moment, solidify his hold on your support )
& Where did most of the 911 highjackers come from ? Saudi Arabia.
& who is it that is a confirmed terrorist nation who actually has 'the
bomb" or as the so proudly put it, "The Islamic Bomb", right, right,
Pakistan.
Don't mind me folks
Just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention. Like the majority of
Americans, apparently not. Damned amazing how a group who seem take such
orgasmic delight in personal attacks upon eachother, R with the
exception of 2 or so enlightened persons, in such lock step unison. It
kinda brings a lump to my throat, no really, it does my heart good too
see everyone getting along so well. Why it almost makes one believe in
miracles.(LOL)
Well golly gee boys & girls, I wonder whatever happened to "the War on
Terrorism". Hey, maybe this is some new fangled way of doing things,
instead of taking care or the most evil force & biggest threat to human
freedom & civilization since the third reich, in that piece a crap Osama
& its cohorts of "murder inc.", we go after someone else. besides, I
guess the odious Osama is just too valuable a commodity to be
"terminated with extreme prejudice". I mean there is another election
coming up in less next year for goodness sakes.
I don't trust anyone in this little drama. I don't trust Chaney......
um.......I mean St. George, ( & U know if St. George says it U can
depend on it. Why, any who dare question his word should be burned at
the stake, or have their eyes torn out at the very lest "that they may
see no more evil dreams" ) any more than I do SadSam Insane.
Don't forget now all U true believers, "yours is not to reason why,
yours is to do or die". If St George ( blessings & peace be upon him )
say it, its so its not it could be. Woe unto all who doubt his word. To
question is blaspheme.
All of which means the propaganda dept. has done a good job because this
has to got be phoniest war in history & everyone buys it hook line &
sinker.
& while St. George has got everyone shaking in their boots, I wonder
what new "compassionate & altruistic laws & appointees the all mighty
infallible one" has up his sleeve for us on the homefront. But then
that's the idea isn't it.
( I paraphrase )
"Those willing to give up their freedoms for security deserve neither"
I kinda like that.
CB(countryboy)
"You Only Live Twice & Twice..........Is The Only Way To Live"
Brett Homenick
> Is this a threat? I'm quaking!
Sigh. It's not a threat, Norm. Life's done more to you than I could
ever hope of doing. It's just that whenever I gain a modicum of
respect for you, you always manage to fuck it up somehow. Why you
continually fuck things up is and probably will remain a mystery to
me. Long story short: Stop fucking up so much.
> But then I am still smarting from when ol' "cutey pie" "kicked my ass" on
> MZ.
>
> Oh, the pain... the pain...
Well, I gotta admit. It was fun verbally beating the snot out of you
when you could barely muster any sort of reply. Not bad for an
"optionless, wannabe writer."
SIZOOBOB
>All of which means the propaganda dept. has done a good job
Hey... me thinks I just spotted some propaganda ... oh well ... sometimes
freedom of speech is abusive... but better to have it than not ... I guess...
Bob
Ryuusei Productions
Norman, I respect you and everything, but my advice to you is to stop
beating the dead horse.
AFAIC, JD Lees is already destroyed. Nothing more really needs to be
said. In fact, we're already cutting John Roberto some slack in
comparison!
In short, let sleeping dogs lie.
-John Cassidy
Richmond, VA
"The monster a child knows best and is most concerned with is the
monster he feels or fears himself to be." -Bruno Bettelheim
M
get Bokman to split, then I would have pushed for stronger sanctions years
ago....
"Hitman of Las Vegas" <hitm...@goldust.com> wrote in message
news:7irc4v08d99of2sue...@4ax.com...
> ADIOS!!!!
>
> On 09 Feb 2003 05:12:30 GMT, bokma...@aol.comSPAM (Bokman7757)
> wrote:
>
> >>From: Hitman of Las Vegas hitm...@goldust.com
> >
> >>I always cheer out loud during that sequence!
> >>
> >>On 07 Feb 2003 11:56:58 GMT, rea...@aol.com (J. Christian Grymyr)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Watching "Destroy All Monsters" and seeing Godzilla toast the U.N.
building
> >>and
> >>>Gorosaurus attack Paris makes me feel all soft and cuddly inside.
> >
> >I'm unsubscribing from this newsgroup.
> >
> >Bye.
>
Twozbar
> Well said ... I'm a registered independent and often split my vote, but
> what
> pisses me off the most is I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils
> almost all the time. I still can't believe that Clinton won a second term, and
> that NY (and I'm a NYer) put Hillery in office. THAT IN ITSELF shows you just
> how ignorant the voters are of what's going on in this country.
And some would say that voting either Repulican or Democrat is
ignorant of what's going on in this country being that neither party
holds the interests of the voting public first and foremost.
Republicans vs. Democrats/conservatives vs. liberals/right wing vs.
left wing is a diversion, just like rooting for your favorite football
or baseball team, so it's no wonder that many hold party lines rather
than think about the issues for themselves. The results of the last
Presidental election (until it was stolen, that is) demostrate that
the voting public can't tell the difference between the two parties
any longer.
> As for the war, take it from someone who has worked with animals for 30 yrs. >... you cannot reason with a mad dog. It will attack at the first >opportunity... PERIOD !
Yet animals aren't involved, otherwise the solution would be simple:
we'd just treat them as horribly as we usually do. Saddam is human;
that's what scares me about him, you know. He won't attack the first
chance he gets; he'll simply sit back and let terrorists do it for
him. Saddam doesn't control all of Iraq (there's this group called
the Kurds, see?) so the only thing he might be able to attack is his
own people, but that's aboot it.
- Jim "Bill Clinton -- the best damn Republican President we've had in
years" C.
J. Christian Grymyr
>Saddam doesn't control all of Iraq (there's this group called
>the Kurds, see?) so the only thing he might be able to attack is his
>own people, but that's aboot it.
Which is exactly what he's done. Of course, the anti-war crowd won't address
this.
Reaper "Better to be killed by a foreign bomb than by your own government" G
M
now, is that it's almost impossible to back out of some type of action
without leaving the middle eastern countries who supported us, out to dry.
Turkey has the most to lose since Saddam will attack them for betrayal. It
might not be an all out affront, but he will make them pay for it.
The argument I don't understand is when people say this is about oil. My
father was corporate for a very large oil company, and he always said that
the corporations were financially better off during crisis periods, (like
now), because it was easier to raise costs. The production levels coming out
of Iraq today are paltry, (the amount reaching the US, that is), compared to
what was once exported. If Saddam was gone, the proverbial valves would be
opened and costs would drop stateside - but Saddam knows this, which is why
he'll burn the oil fields. When his people say "this is about oil", they
don't only mean control, but consumption. Whatever Hedorah oil company ends
up with a stake in Iraq would turn the barrels toward America, causing a
stateside price war and also halt the wildlife drilling that is about to
occur in Alaska, (that would be Bush's concession to environmentalism). It
would also make us less dependant on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who really
don't give a shit about America's well being. Plus there's this thing about
Iraqi mass murder and terrorist relations...
I also don't understand why Saddam, if he has no connection to Al-Qaeda,
doesn't prove it by ousting the camp in Northern Iraq? He claims he has no
control over that province, but how is that possible in a dictatorship? If
Saddam wants to be proven that he is no threat outside Iraq, then kill the
Al-Qaeda members in his country - that would stop any coalition action
instantly.
When you look at the big picture, realize this is about strategy, and the
goal is still terrorism. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Yemen - this list goes on, and none of them can allow American forces to
operate within their country to kill fellow countrymen. The governments are
too unstable and easy to topple over. Occupying Iraq allows us to have a
central HQ with 200,000 troops right next door to Iran - a hotbed of
terrorism. It also gives the Iranian westernized culture some confidence if
they want to try a coup. The Ayatollah and military will second guess
violent actions against their own people if we are next door. It also
creates a shoreline from the Persian Gulf through Russia, which will
stop/slow down the movement of really dangerous materials - chem, bio,
nuclear. And if that's American Colonialism, just consider the alternative.
It's not like the French are going to do anything to help these people.
And I decided to voice my opinion in this forum because the sites and groups
dedicated to "debate" are full of antagonists and soap boxes. Discussing it
here is actually quite American when you think about it.
Martin S
"J. Christian Grymyr" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030217105104...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Lenell B.
> Saddam is human;
> that's what scares me about him, you know. He won't attack the first
> chance he gets; he'll simply sit back and let terrorists do it for
> him.
That's why we have to get him NOW then later. This guy could sell his
WMD to these terrorists. They can make 9-11 look like nothing.
Saddam doesn't control all of Iraq (there's this group called
> the Kurds, see?)
Don't for the Sheites in the south of Iraq
so the only thing he might be able to attack is his
> own people, but that's aboot it.
This is proof this man has no respect for his own people, and they
support this dictator? when he threatens to strave, gas, burn their
oil, destroy their dams. He will do anything to stay in power and
create chaos for American troops.
The Sooner he's gone,the better his country would be better off.
>
> - Jim "Bill Clinton -- the best damn Republican President we've had in
> years" C.
No offense, but Clinton let Saddam stay in power. He should've took
him out.
Oh, another thingy. Didn't anyone knew that the French sold Saddam a
nuclear reactor? He was very close to getting Nuclear Weapons. I can
understand why they won't support a war with the US. They had business
dealings with Iraq (and still do). They are kissing Saddam to stay in
power.
Plus the anti-war protesters really disgust me. They should be
supportting our troops who about to go into harms way to oust a madman
who will perhaps later cause terrible damage to many in the future.
Remember what happened when Hilter was left unchecked.
I want Saddam out, if we have to do it alone with the allies who also
want him out we don't need the French, and the naysayers at the UN.
THE WEAPONS INSPECTIONS HAS NOT WORKED! SADDAM AND HIS COHORTS ARE
JUST MAKING A FOOL OF THE UN, by throwing some trinkets at them.
Later
Lenell "who drove past the nightclub which 21 people died today. Sad
:-(" B.
BTW: the fear of Terrorism is strong. the clubs customers thought it
was a terrorist gas attack. This was a wake up call. Now everyone is
pissed.
Mr Director
"Lenell B." <lene...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:257c4cb6.03021...@posting.google.com...
> Oh, another thingy. Didn't anyone knew that the French sold Saddam a
> nuclear reactor? He was very close to getting Nuclear Weapons. I can
> understand why they won't support a war with the US. They had business
> dealings with Iraq (and still do). They are kissing Saddam to stay in
> power.
>
> Plus the anti-war protesters really disgust me. They should be
> supportting our troops who about to go into harms way to oust a madman
> who will perhaps later cause terrible damage to many in the future.
I really do hope we avoid another war, I really hope so, but these anti-war
protesters are nothing more than American haters who secretly applaud the
deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. Why no protests when Al-Qaeda
struck on 9-11? Why no protests when the Taliban declared war on the U.S?
Why no protests urging Sadam to step down? Why no protests against North
Korea's sudden nuclear fanaticism? Why no protests for the recent
re-attempts of Salman Rushdie's fatwa? Why no protests when Hamas murders
jewish civilians? Why no protests when....I could go on, except the only
answer I can get is that the U.S?is trying to police the world with its "war
mongering."
Maybe it's time we removed ALL of our troops overseas, remove ALL foreign
aide, and just let the rest of the world be.
Mr "wonders what France' stance on war in Iraq would be if Al-Qaeda struck
down the Eiffel Tower" Director
J. Christian Grymyr
>Mr "wonders what France' stance on war in Iraq would be if Al-Qaeda struck
>down the Eiffel Tower" Director
They'd surrender. Hell, you just have to kick Jacques Chirac in the shin to get
them to surrender. Hey, forget G-TOUR, I'm investing in a plane ticket to
France and a pair of jackboots!
Reaper "My first edict would be to make everyone bathe" G
SIZOOBOB
>aide, and just let the rest of the world be.
EXAXTLY ...I've been saying that since the last time the UN told Bush not to
got into Bagdad... Pull ALL our troops home ... Protect OUR boarders... no more
forgien aid ... In 3 months the world will be begging us to come back ...
especially the Arabs ... I can hear it now " Please, Saddam is taking over all
OUR oil ... help us ... you can have it for $5 a barrel" !
Doctor TOC
>
> Plus the anti-war protesters really disgust me. They should be
> supportting our troops who about to go into harms way to oust a madman
> who will perhaps later cause terrible damage to many in the future.
The key word here is "perhaps". There used to be a country that had as
the basis of its legal system the concept of "innocent until proven
guilty". Place by the name of America. You might have heard of it.
Doesn't seem to exist anymore.
One of the best comments on this kind of "smite them before they maybe
smite us" mentality was written (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) by
a member of Monty Python. :)
Doctor TOC
========================
I'm Losing Patience with My Neighbors, Mr. Bush
By Terry Jones (of Monty Python notoriety)
Saturday January 25, 2003, The Guardian, UK
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing
Iraq: He's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed-off with Mr. Johnson,
who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and
Mr. Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr. Johnson is planning something
nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr. Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from
very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I
have leafletted the street telling them that if we don't act first,
he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbors say, if I've
got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous.
The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with
which to charge my neighbors. They'll come up with endless
red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a preemptive
strike and all the while Mr. Johnson will be finalizing his plans
to do terrible things to me, while Mr. Patel will be secretly
murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has
made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then
I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr. Bush's
carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring
about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop
Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK
is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnson's garage and kill his wife
and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave
us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr. Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing
Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons
of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've
just as much justification for killing Mr. Johnson's wife and children
as Mr. Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr. Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by
eliminating "rogue states" and "terrorism." It's such a clever long-term
aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr. Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When
every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist
once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists?
These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the
known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated
themselves. Perhaps Mr. Bush needs to wipe out everyone who
could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's
achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead.
But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism.
Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr. Bush to
eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Patel are just the
tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who
I don't like and who-quite frankly-look at me in odd ways. No one
will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might
be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the
President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr. Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give
the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws
and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them
over nicely and say thank you I'm going to bomb the entire street to
kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing -
and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one
street.
SIZOOBOB
>guilty".
That's in a court of law ... not the battle field ... the quote you might be
looking for ... "all is fair in love & war" Unfortunately, all the other
counties seem to live by that quote, and the U.S gets hammered cause we try to
play by the rules.
SIZOOBOB
>and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson.
uhh.. does TWIN TOWERS ring a bell ?
Mr Director
> >That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnson's garage and kill his wife
> >and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson.
>
> uhh.. does TWIN TOWERS ring a bell ?
Apparently to many people all over the world, and to many Americans NOT New
Yorkers, it's a distant memory.
J. Christian Grymyr
>Lenell B. wrote:
>
>> Plus the anti-war protesters really disgust me. They should be
>> supportting our troops who about to go into harms way to oust a madman
>> who will perhaps later cause terrible damage to many in the future.
>The key word here is "perhaps". There used to be a country that had as
>the basis of its legal system the concept of "innocent until proven
>guilty". Place by the name of America. You might have heard of it.
>Doesn't seem to exist anymore.
America... doesn't O.J. Simpson live there?
>One of the best comments on this kind of "smite them before they maybe
>smite us" mentality was written (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) by
>a member of Monty Python. :)
Damn shame that Terry Jones has to disgrace his great legacy like that.
Reaper "If Bush really is wrong, he can feed all the Iraqi surivors for a year
with the egg on his face" G
Cubicle Morlock
Uhh, and what all does that have to do with Iraq?
Oh yeah, that little "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game Powell
went through trying - again - to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. Which,
as before, the State Department has since admitted was flawed
and inconclusive.
Yet we're to believe that we have intelligence reports and
*routine* satellite surveillance revealing weapon development
facilities, yet somehow with a month's worth of opportunities
we just can't seem to pass that information to the U.N.
inspectors in time to allow them to catch Saddam red handed.
Easier for us, it seems, to take a "prove your innocence"
style stance that most western nations have considered
judicially and diplomatically archaic for several hundred years.
"Prove you don't have anything", with each empty coffer held
up as evidence that they must be hidden elsewhere. And after
our little "divert attention from the economy and huge budget
deficits" war, we'll either find a smoking gun ("see, I told
you so - just don't ask why we couldn't tell the U.N. where it
was with all of our solid intelligence info"), or we'll come
up empty ("see, we stopped him before he developed anything").
All to finish a job historians still wonder why was left
unfinished 12 years ago.
In over a hundred years of United States military actions,
I've never read or witnessed such a pathetic call to arms by a
U.S. President than the current "we're pretty sure he's working
on weapons of mass destruction, we just can't prove it". Even
the Spanish-American war, knowingly fueled by trumped up charges
by a sensationalist newspaper owner of a Spanish mine/torpedo
attack, did a better job of making its case before the American
people. Even with Panama we at least made a clear though minor
link to drug trafficking (while white washing the fact the CIA
was deeply involved in that Noriega drug connection). Informed
citizens have a duty to demand proof of necessary action, demand
candor in revealing of information from their President, before
supporting the risks and costs of war. When a solid case is made,
public support quickly follows - this lesson was learned in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Iraq, even in the initial stages of subsequently
questionable actions such as Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam. Yet the
U.S. government, knowing how much easier its task would be after
laying all of its supposed cards on the table, and in all
likelihood correct in its claims, refuses to do so. An intelligent,
informed person would have no choice but to ask "why?".
Meanwhile North Korea is almost certainly sitting on a couple
U-235 warheads, is developing long range missiles capable of hitting
the U.S. west coast (and has threatened to use them on those
targets), has test lobbed medium range missiles towards Japan (just
to match China's show), exports these weapons to the Middle East,
states they intend to scrap the 1953 U.N. brokered cease fire
agreement, has roughly 5% of its population politically imprisoned
in sadistic conditions, an equal amount in full time military
service, and over half subjected to severe malnutrition or
starvation despite massive international (including U.S.) food aid.
Our answer here, despite nearly *50* years of border incursions
and violations of articles of U.N. and international agreements
(making the claims of Saddam's 12 years as being "plenty of time"
laughable in comparison), is that diplomacy is the correct answer.
Anyone who has done *any* research on the issues will see the
call for war against Iraq as exactly what it is - an easy target of
opportunity, intended to deflect attention from the more serious
threats we can't easily deal with (North Korea, India vs Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia funded terrorist cells) and the fact that pushing 1
1/2 years after 9/11 we *still* haven't found the senior members
of Al Qaeda. So let's hand wave around the facts and nail Iraq
instead, just to restore our nation's uncertainty flagging
"manhood".
I supported the U.S. action in the Gulf the first time. I
considered our actions in Bosnia to be long overdue - we made a
post WWII promise of "never again" and we damn near turned our
moral backs on the death toll as we did with Rwanda, Cambodia, etc.
I felt it was our duty in Somalia to do even more to protect the
U.N. food distribution efforts, rather than turn tail and run the
first time our nose got bloodied (and then make movies about our
valor). I took all those stances after months, even years, of
following news sources both domestic and international. I took
those stances because I believe protecting lives - our citizens
or not - is a cause important enough to sometimes require the
risks of military action. And I took these stances knowing I had
close relatives in the military - in roles likely to see deployment
into those regions. But I don't support the current action - the
case hasn't been made, Bush *owes us* to do so and come back when
he has. All the poorly informed warhead masturbation by macho
posturing pin heads like yourself isn't going to change that (and
Franklin, Jefferson, Henry, and Madison would have plenty of words
to say about your brand of "patriotism"). Chalk me up as a "peacenik"
because I believe in fighting wars that clearly *need* to be fought,
not wars that clearly can be easily won.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Robert "I heard of you. I heard you were dead." Stetler, k...@rawbw.com -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Any trouble, boy ?" "No, old man. Thought I was having trouble with my -
- adding. Its all right now." -For A Few Dollars More- -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M Merced
critique of the "logic" commonly held within this newsgroup.
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,651594,00.html
Doctor TOC
Since I came very close to losing my wife on that day, sure it does. Got
any proof that has anything to do with Iraq? No, you don't. And judging
by their consistent failure to produce their so-called "compelling
evidence", neither has the US government.
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris"
Secret Elf, Jive Talkin' Choirboy, God of Cowboy Spurs
ICQ # 4814586
Daleks! 3D - http://users.rcn.com/otherchris/
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
alt.tv.sevendays FAQ - http://welcome.to/7-Days
The TOC Files - http://members.fortunecity.com/toc
SIZOOBOB
>any proof that has anything to do with Iraq? No, you don't. And judging
>by their consistent failure to produce their so-called "compelling
>evidence", neither has the US government.
Wrong ... the evidence is their SUPPORT ... $$$$$$$ ... if YOU were honest ...
you'd FOLLOW THE MONEY .... the axis of evil is not a catch phrse ... it's real
... unfortunately ... some have so much hatered for the Bush administration
that HE has to be at fault ... no matter how ruthless the real enemy might be
.... I am truly relived your wife is safe BUT thousands aren't. Not then, not
now ... one way or another, these terrorists must be stopped ... I thought I
proposed a PEACEFUL way to accomplish this ... but you didn't comment on that
did you ? NO you choose to attack the present addministration instead ... what
about the past addministration ??? are they innocent ???
J. Christian Grymyr
>SIZOOBOB wrote:
>>>That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnson's garage and kill his wife
>>>and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson.
>
>> uhh.. does TWIN TOWERS ring a bell ?
>Since I came very close to losing my wife on that day, sure it does. Got
>any proof that has anything to do with Iraq? No, you don't. And judging
>by their consistent failure to produce their so-called "compelling
>evidence", neither has the US government.
Assuming there is no Iraq-Al Qaeda link (never mind that there's an Al-Qaeda
camp in northern Iraq, even if it's in Kurdish territory), remember that when
Bush declared war in the first place, it was on *terrorism*. Saddam Hussein,
who has certainly funded other terrorist groups and compensated the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers, falls into that category.
If it makes you feel better, I wouldn't mind if Bush and Blair slapped around
the IRA if they start acting up, either.
Reaper "Evidence? A video of Saddam and OBL waving in front of an anthrax
warhead isn't enough for some people" G
SIZOOBOB
>warhead isn't enough for some people" G
BINGO ... unless of course we had a democrat as president .... then there would
be no questions asked ... how could we possibly question their intentions.