Vote for PEACE ! Vote DEMOCRAT !!!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

chris

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 9:04:44 AM11/3/02
to
For anyone who can't see beyond Bush' campaign slogans and political
maneuvering....

The majority of the WORLD wants us to leave Iraq alone, to give Iraq a
chance to abide by the UN inspection teams.

When Germany makes a statement publicly, stating there are alternatives to
war, a senior Bush official started speaking as though Germany was betraying
us. When our government won't even allow another's to make a simple
alternate suggestion to warfare,. we must show our government that it is
wrong.

We have a President who apparently doesn't want to have a plan. First it's
a War on Terror, now it's a War on Iraq he wants. He hasn't even finished
the previous task. We should show our President that we want him to finish
a task, not start one and move on. He'll tell you that the Iraqi threat is
more impending, more imminent, but look at the REAL news headlines.
Terrorists are blowing things up RIGHT NOW, Iraq has done NOTHING directly
yet, except tell the US not to attack. Terrorism is global, Iraq is one
country. Which do you think is more of a threat to our national security?

For those of us who are becoming stagnant in our voting opinions, believing
that he can only have "one more term" at most, there's alot that a person
with power can do in one term. It only takes Bush one mis-spoken dialogue,
one misplaced decision, to send this nation into horror, and that horror is
a war we do not need, and another potential horror is the diplomatic rift
which seems to be opening up between us and longtime overseas allies. An
administration that uses threats and excuses to explain it's point to
neighbors is not a good thing.

Some of us may be Republicans, no matter what. The basic impulse should be
self-preservation. If your President is moving toward a policy that puts
the nation at risk, then it can't be a good policy. We've "liberated"
Afghanistan, now we're after Iraq, when does it end? At what point do we
say "No more!" when yet another statement suggests we move in to a foreign
nation and replace it's officially recognized government?

The UN's job is to handle the issues with Iraq. It is not our place. We
were upset with 9/11, we demanded justice/revenge, and we went to war and
took Afghanistan over it. Our demands should have been met and fulfilled by
now. It is not our right, nor our place to go acting in place of the United
Nations. The Gulf War was a UN-sanctioned effort, not because we needed
help, but because it was the right thing to do, and now Bush has said
publicly that the UN must "prove it's relevance" to us by siding with our
opinions? Who wants a leader who speaks to bystanders that way? Supposing
I was mugged, and wanted to form a neighborhood watch, and approached you
"We must stand vigilant, prove your relevance by joining me.", would you
like hearing a statement like that? If Bush really felt the UN needed to
prove their relevance, why didn't he act on behalf of the US and withdraw
from the council? The answer seems obvious, he wanted to insult them rather
than state his genuine opinion. We need a President who is a diplomat as
well as a leader, someone who will not insult foreign leaders and
international councils to further his aggenda.

Republicans, if you can't betray your party by voting Democrat, I offer you
a mass write-in solution. Write "whichever candidate ends war" on the
ballot. No betrayal there.


Larry

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 12:35:08 PM11/3/02
to
Well, I don't like war, either. Nobody in their right mind does.

Seems your "religious fanatics" are Jewish. Are you trying to get the
usually overwhelming Democratic Jewish Voters to vote based on an anti
Semitic flier? Good thinking.

What are our options?

Are we to let the UN settle it? The UN hasn't settled Korea, yet! Iraq has
violated too many sanctions, and not been held responsible. So, it seems the
UN is not going to be helpful here.

Are we to sit back and wring our hands while terrorists infiltrate our
borders, or our foreign concerns, and kill Americans by the thousands? That
hasn't been showing any great promise to date.

Are we to withdraw all our overseas forces, and close down all our
commercial concerns outside our borders? If you think the economy is bad
now, just try doing that. Besides, that wouldn't stop the militant religious
fanatics from wanting to kill us.

I remember people like you during the Viet Nam days. They all said the war
was immoral, and they weren't cowards, that they would fight if we were
actually attacked. The ones I knew at the time were Democrats, one-and-all.
The ones that I talk to now, are also Democrats. Explain to me just what
kind of attack did you mean? I think all the cowards and anti-Americans have
shown their colors. I'm not calling anyone that doesn't want war
anti-American, but give valid alternatives. (Sitting back, waiting for more
mass casualties in the US is not a valid alternative). We have several
national enemies that want us all dead. Not for us to just change our
policies, but to have all American, unbelievers, dead, dead, dead. Just how
do we protect ourselves from them? Even the best defense can be penetrated
by a relentless enemy. To do nothing would be essentially committing
suicide.

A regime change in Iraq is necessary. Personally, I don't care who takes
over the country. I'd like it to be democratic, but as long as the schools
don't teach every generation a hatred for America, it'll be a step in the
right direction.

Maybe you should stop thinking about how to make the rest of the world feel
better temporarily, and begin thinking about how to keep you and all your
neighbors alive.

Just my opinion. I don't know why I bothered, because I think the lines are
already drawn, and nobody will change their mind.


> Republicans, if you can't betray your party by voting Democrat, I offer
you
> a mass write-in solution. Write "whichever candidate ends war" on the
> ballot. No betrayal there.

(Your neighbors weren't smart enough to punch the right tab. What makes you
think they could pull off a write-in campaign?)


chris

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 2:23:01 PM11/3/02
to
We were fighting a War on Terrorism already. I didn't suggest we stop
fighting terrorism.

If Iraq violates UN resolutions/sanctions, it is up to the UN to decide what
to do about it.

The thousands of Americans killed were being avenged by this War on
Terrorism, or so I thought. I am not objectionable to war, but how much war
is too much?

Do not compare me with anti-Nam protesters. I was actualy born in '72, and
had I been of age I would have actually fought in that war, proudly. I do
not go throwing the term "coward" around, it's a rather crass thing to do to
a stranger.

Like it or not, this is a planet, not a nation. We, as humans, will have to
live with the results of whatever our current leader does, sooner or later.
If that leader does good, not just good by us, but good by everyone, then it
will produce positive results. If that leader makes too many mistakes,
doesn't consider the consequences, or otherwise mucks the whole thing up,
negative results.

I am for making everyone feel better, not just us, not just the rest of the
world, but all people. War is good for the passions, but it must have its
limits.

If you believe that Iraq must be changed, tell me why, in concrete, real
terms. Not what has been going on in the past, but current issues.

If we do go to war, the citizens in the aftermath should be given full
choice of what government is put in place. Nobody else has that right.

I respect your opinion, as I respect anyone else's.


Larry

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 9:05:36 PM11/3/02
to

"chris" <rruf...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pIex9.108076$r7.21...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

> We were fighting a War on Terrorism already. I didn't suggest we stop
> fighting terrorism.
>
Keeping Iraq from developing and deploying weapons against us is a logical
extension of the war on terrorism. We don't have to be finished at one front
before taking action in another. Yes, I question the timing, but something
tells me that Iraq is much closer to making and using a nuclear device than
we all know. For that, I depend on our intelligence gathering services. I
know their credibility has been brought into question, but really, I'm sure
they are much better at it than you or I.

> If Iraq violates UN resolutions/sanctions, it is up to the UN to decide
what
> to do about it.
>

We have the right to protect ourselves from known enemies. As repellent as
the Soviets were, they were at least aware of the fact that any actions to
kill large numbers of Americans would be answered with overwhelming force.
We are fighting a new kind of foe. One that uses national resources to back
private killers, and then deny anything to do with it.

> The thousands of Americans killed were being avenged by this War on
> Terrorism, or so I thought. I am not objectionable to war, but how much
war
> is too much?
>

I have no objection to vengeance, but we must not lose sight of the real
fight. We must stamp out anyone with the means and desire to reach out and
kill thousands of Americans. It would be nice if we could just use reason
and logic, but I'm afraid our reason and logic is not the same in other
parts of the world. Some are jealous or envious of us, while others seem to
want to blame us for all their problems. We've shown the world what can be
done in a nation that promotes freedom of religion, speech, and trade. We've
shown what can be done with moderated capitalism. The people that hate us
would have us living in the 14th century. If others don't want to progress,
then that's OK, but don't try to kill me and my friends because I want
indoor plumbing.

> Do not compare me with anti-Nam protesters. I was actualy born in '72,
and
> had I been of age I would have actually fought in that war, proudly. I do
> not go throwing the term "coward" around, it's a rather crass thing to do
to
> a stranger.
>

Seems I hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I'm not calling anyone a coward.
Especially not a complete stranger. But, I stand by my words. I heard this
kind of talk before. Also, I doubt that you know what you would have done
then. It's something you would have to experience first-hand. Like now.

> Like it or not, this is a planet, not a nation. We, as humans, will have
to
> live with the results of whatever our current leader does, sooner or
later.
> If that leader does good, not just good by us, but good by everyone, then
it
> will produce positive results. If that leader makes too many mistakes,
> doesn't consider the consequences, or otherwise mucks the whole thing up,
> negative results.
>

Like it or not, you are living in the US, and we are now targets of a very
dedicated, militant, fanatically religious, highly motivated and well
financed group of individuals, sponsored by several governments that would
like nothing more than to see the anhilation of the US, and everyone in it.

> I am for making everyone feel better, not just us, not just the rest of
the
> world, but all people. War is good for the passions, but it must have its
> limits.
>

Nice to make everyone feel better, but a complete physical impossibility.
Take a stand.

> If you believe that Iraq must be changed, tell me why, in concrete, real
> terms. Not what has been going on in the past, but current issues.
>

How 'bout Iraq is being led by a group of thugs that think nothing of using
nerve gas on their own population. Think nothing of firing missiles into a
non-combatant nation (Israel) in an attempt at getting other Arab countries
to side with Iraq. Think nothing of ignoring UN resolutions while claiming
innocence. Have a means and motive to finance and equip organizations to
destroy US assets worldwide. Think getting 100% of the vote while being the
only one on the ballot is some kind of accomplishment.

> If we do go to war, the citizens in the aftermath should be given full
> choice of what government is put in place. Nobody else has that right.
>

Certainly. Just as Germany and Japan got to choose the kind of governments
they would get. Don't think so. Sounds nice on paper, but not practical.

> I respect your opinion, as I respect anyone else's.
>

That's the problem. I respect the rights of others to express their
opinions, but do not respect opinions that ignore facts, expressed by people
that seem to live in some sort of fantasy land, who are quick to totally
dismiss the US as an independent nation. We can't blink or eyes or twitch
our noses and make eveything OK. There will be people opposed to us, no
matter what decision is to be made, so pick the one that helps us the most,
and hurts others the least. Other countries have no problem with that
concept. Why should we?

Which brings us to the obvious question. Just why do you think voting
Democrat will change our path? Seems most Democrats (along with the majority
of Americans) are all in favor of protecting the US from any more attacks.

chris

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 12:55:10 AM11/4/02
to

"Larry" wrote in message ...

>
>> Do not compare me with anti-Nam protesters. I was actualy born in '72,
>and
>> had I been of age I would have actually fought in that war, proudly. I
do
>> not go throwing the term "coward" around, it's a rather crass thing to do
>to
>> a stranger.
>>
>Seems I hit a nerve. Sorry about that. I'm not calling anyone a coward.
>Especially not a complete stranger. But, I stand by my words. I heard this
>kind of talk before. Also, I doubt that you know what you would have done
>then. It's something you would have to experience first-hand. Like now.

You didn't hit a nerve, sorry, I just don't appreciate a term "coward",
being used in respect toward someone you don't know. If you called someone
else you didn't know a coward, I'd be just as opposed. It's a derrogatory
term commonly used to generate an emotional response. I merely didn't want
to disappoint you.

As to your doubts to what I would have done in the Vietnam era, I can
honestly say that I know full well what I would have done. Forgive my
bluntness, but we've already established you don't know me, so I find it
difficult to accept you could have any opinion on a decision I might ever
make.


>>
>Like it or not, you are living in the US, and we are now targets of a very
>dedicated, militant, fanatically religious, highly motivated and well
>financed group of individuals, sponsored by several governments that would
>like nothing more than to see the anhilation of the US, and everyone in it.
>

Living in the US, hmmmm, yes it all makes total sense now. Because I am
living in the US I must patriotically back a war I don't believe in, and
must side with the government.

Dedicated, militant, fanatically religious, highly motivated, well
financed.... Do you have any idea who else those criteria are met by?

People have been opposed to the US for decades if not centuries. We still
don't have the right to go beating down their doors just because they don't
like us. 9/11 happened, we responded, I have no problem whatsoever with
that. But I will not agree that we should respond to an attack that hasn't
even occurred yet. If Saddam launches an attack, so be it, but he hasn't
yet, unless you have access to reports nobody else here has.

Voting Democrat, as it were, is not a solution to the problem, it's an
alternative view if nothing else. I suggested a write-in solution that
would work for both parties. If enough people made that specific effort
things might actually change.

Of course, I know that it probably won't change. Sooner or later the
administration will sanction and go to war with someone, be it Iraq, or
whoever else. People will die. Lives will change.

All the open-mindedness I can muster won't stop someone from deciding to
disagree with me. We are a nation on the "defensive", and we're circling
the wagons. I just hope there's people left when it's all said and done.

I don't live in fantasy land. I don't think things will magically become all
roses and green grass. Simply because I live in the real world, does not
mean I shouldn't hope for a better situation. Showing the other nations how
big a phallus we have will not make us right. It will only make us a nation
with a big phallus.

Just a chance to know some of your issues, say we fight and win in Iraq.
Bush decided we need to invade another country, for whatever reason. Will
you back him then? How many times do we need to hear the same bedtime story
before we finally ask for a new book?

The War on Terror is a good idea. Terrorists are a problem for everyone.
Concentrating on such an effort could actually be of benefit, not just for
the next few years, but for decades to come. Wiping out Saddam Hussein will
not have the same impact, and is not as crucial a maneuver. He is a threat,
yes, but there are many threats.


I am a party-less voter, by the way. I find that each organization has its
little quirks and tricks. I've had my share of conflict, and would like it
if the nation concentrated on keeping its citizens safe, and its nose clean.
My view on war is one of direct necessity only. If I have to fight, it will
be for a reason, a tangible reason, and a necessary reason.

The reasons which are not viable are :

Religion
Acquisition
Politics
Diplomacy

Religion is an old reason. It is usually quite brutal, fanatical, and
bloody. It is often cited by people who cannot justify their reason for war
in any other way.

Acquisition is the oldest reason for war. To take things from someone else.
Be it land, wealth, technology, provisions, raw materials, they have it, we
want it. A war based on acquisition is a war faught by thieves.

Politics is a war of views and opinions. Political wars are often fought
for no reason at all other than to boost political support for the
government. It's a very patriotic initiative, and about as stupid as a
headless chicken.

Diplomacy. We all have arguments, some lead to harsh decisions, the worst
arguments can cause decades-long rifts in relationships, and hurt many
people's feelings. Diplomacy fails easily when patience is lacking. A
misspoken word, misread mood, or even a failed attempt at a kind gesture can
lead to pain.

Reasons for viable war :

Exhausting all other avenues
Response to attack

These are self explanatory. You should not enter into a war without
considering all other options, giving every opportunity for an alternate
solution. Retroactive war is the type we saw as a result of 9/11. Someone
attacked us, so we responded. It's very simple, and there's no room for
misinterpretation.


Larry

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 8:17:14 AM11/4/02
to
OK,

As I stated in my first post. I don't intend to change your mind, and you
aren't going to change mine.
I see our actions as those of self defense, and believe it is always better
to fight outside our borders than to keep taking hits at home. I'm not sure
how you interpret our actions, but obviously disagree. Maybe the comment
about living in fantasy land was a bit harsh, but from my perspective,
that's what seems to be coming out of school for quite a few years, now. You
are a product of a different educational system than I. I agree that it
would be nice to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world, but
the fact we don't isn't always our fault, and I am not amenable to hurting
fellow Americans just so some other country (any other country) can feel
better.
Let's end this argument here. We've gobbled up enough bandwidth on an off
topic subject. I apologize to all the others for this intrusion. I just saw
a heading that to me, made no sense, and felt qualified to answer.

Regards to all,

Larry

<snip>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages